New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mantra - 177 or 184

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Skied the 184cm Mantra today in a foot of vail's finest and I'm in love.
The only question is size. The shop had their 177 stolen so I won't have a chance to demo it.

I'm 5'10"/165 and level 8/9. The past few years I've gone with mid 170 cm ski which makes me question the Mantra 177. I actually felt comfortable on the 184. The Mantra is actually a tad shorter than the 181 K2 Outlaw I skied yesterday.

Would I be sacrifing much powder & stability and gaining significant quickness by going with the 177?
My lean is towards the 184 because it felt so good. the only time I struggled a bit was in tight trees, but that's not the common Vail experience and I got them moving with a bit more muscle.

thanks.
post #2 of 26
I'm 5'11 and 225 and skiing the 184. I don't feel I miss on flotation, and the ski feels the "right" length for me (a level 8/9). I'd probably recommend the 177, but you can demo it and see what you think.
post #3 of 26
You have first-hand experience on the Mantra, I wouldn't waste my time asking here for confirmation. If the length doesn't bother you, get it. The only reason to go shorter for a pow ski is to get manuverabilty. Sounds like you found it.
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
You have first-hand experience on the Mantra, I wouldn't waste my time asking here for confirmation. If the length doesn't bother you, get it. The only reason to go shorter for a pow ski is to get manuverabilty. Sounds like you found it.
Analysis Paralysis, eh?

Prolly going 184. Just wanted to hear the opinion of the Borg.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
Analysis Paralysis, eh?

Prolly going 184. Just wanted to hear the opinion of the Borg.
ahem, that would be Bear, not Borg.
post #6 of 26
Squeak, if I were getting them I'd get the 177, mainly because I don't have huge bowls where I ski, and because I like to ski the trees.

if I skied Alta/Snowbird regularly, or some other big mountain, I would probably get the 184.
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
I hear ya' Gonz.
My quiver is undergoing a complete overhaul.
I placed an order today with Dawgcatching for a 176mm m666 which will replace my Recon and the Mantra will replace the Chief.
A much more betterer quiver
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
I hear ya' Gonz.
My quiver is undergoing a complete overhaul.
I placed an order today with Dawgcatching for a 176mm m666 which will replace my Recon and the Mantra will replace the Chief.
A much more betterer quiver
yeah it is. it sounds like what I would probably have fun on too. I"m hoping the iM 88s can cover both grounds well enough for my gaper arse.
post #9 of 26
Gonz, I agree that SW really belongs on a 177, my suggestions are always strongly tainted by success on a given length. The Mantra comes across the fall line very fast on demand, so, I don't expect he would have a problem on 184, and would have a LOT of stability on figure 11 decents. If I was lighter and wanted to include hop turns in a chute or tight trees, I would lean to the shorter length. As always, 2 3/4 inches is not the end of the world, but in truth the 177 is correct for 5'-10"; especially in this stiffer ski. While I tend to go long in the Mantra, I would go much shorter in the Allstar and similar carving skis.
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Gonz, I agree that SW really belongs on a 177 If I was lighter and wanted to include hop turns in a chute or tight trees, I would lean to the shorter length. As always, 2 3/4 inches is not the end of the world, but in truth the 177 is correct for 5'-10"; especially in this stiffer ski.
Cirque, I was almost 100% content going with the 184 until I read the above. That's exactly what's going through my mind. Should I sacrifice the stability for perhaps a bit of quickness? I'm aware that "conventional wisdom" would have me on the shorter length. I won't have a chance to demo the 178 because it was poached from the shop and there's only one shop I use because the price is right & the guys are my buds.
FWIW, the guys at the shop are roughly my size and are skiing the 184, but they spend more time in the backcountry than I.
post #11 of 26
How fast are you going to ski it? Unless you are regularly hitting 50+, I doubt it makes much difference. And if you are hitting such speeds, the Mantra is probably not the right ski.

My opinion.
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike
How fast are you going to ski it? Unless you are regularly hitting 50+, I doubt it makes much difference. And if you are hitting such speeds, the Mantra is probably not the right ski.

My opinion.
Good point.
No, I won't be maching it at 50+.
I'm thinking more in terms of crud stability than speed stability. Perhaps that doesn't matter as much when comparing across different lengths.

This is good stuff folks. Thanks & keep it going.
post #13 of 26
SW, here it is. I ski in the Tahoe mank or pow, depending on what the day throws down. I am 6-2, overweight and OLD. Damn, I wish I weren't old. Anyway, the 184 is great in pow. In breakable crust and truely filthy rained on crud, I would go 191. No question, I could have used the extra front end a few times this past week. Tomorrow will be sweetness once again. YOU liked the 184. What can I say, that should be your ski. If it didn't limit you on your demo day, it sure won't feel wrong when conditions get really crapped out. Keep in mind, I'm hiking on these with AT boots and bindings. Your control factor should be better with conventional binders and DH boots. Quit second guessing and making me feel guilty.
post #14 of 26
I skied my 184 Mantras yesterday at Copper in a fair amount of crud. I did not notice any problems with deflection until quite late in the day -- when I was pretty torqued and 7 inches had been pushed around quite a bit. I doubt that you would find the additional 7 cm to make much of a difference.

I notice that you live in Loveland. There is a shop in Silverthorne that has a 177 for $25. Small price to pay for to make sure you've got the right stuff when the ski is going to run you close to a grand mounted and paying the gov'ner.

Mike
post #15 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quick topic change....searching the archives I see lots of posts regarding mounting the bindings back a cm or so. I'll likely go with a Look/Rossi.

what's the current thought with binding mounting position?
post #16 of 26
on the line.
post #17 of 26
I'm almost exactly your size (5'10 & 160-165) and I'm really happy with my 184's. The Mantra really isn't some super stiff demanding ski at all, I'm not sure where that rumor started. They're one of the most forgiving big skis I've ever skied. Mantras actually feel soft compared to my 178 Nordica Top Fuels and take a LOT less effort to ski. That big 130 tip just feeds you into turns effortlessly.

If you have a pair of midfats coming you're probably better off going longer on the fats. Length helps a lot in powder unless you're doing the old school figure 8's. Another thing to keep in mind is extra length is handy on gnarly traverses like we have at Alta/Bird. My 184 Mantras are so much easier on the bumped out traverses than my 178 Top Fuels, and I nearly killed myself 3 years ago on some 168 Volkl 5 stars. So even if you aren't a straightline kind of guy, the length can come in handy in other places. And again, I'd stress its really a very forgiving easy turning ski. Its not an Explosiv or G4.

Mine are mounted on the marked mid point and feel great. I definitely would not want to be more forward or backward. I think mounting back would ruin the great round turns they like to automatically fire off.

Hope that helped some.
post #18 of 26
Go with the 184. You skied it, you liked it. You won't be dissappointed. I've been on mine the last half of last year and all of this year (5'9", 184 lbs.) and I felt there was a significant difference in stability between the 177 and the 184. After skiing the 177 for 1 run, I knew it was too short for me.

HB
post #19 of 26

mantra lenght?

I am 158lb and enjoy the 177cm. had 180 explosives before. Mantr is quicker abut not as stable at speed.
post #20 of 26
Hey Squeak,

I skied a 177 demo yesterday in 8" of midmountain pow, then on to the trees, and then to 18+ when they finally opened Jupiter (the top). My "not very technical assessment" is that it is a very good all mountain ski.

I found that the 177 dove as I transitioned snow depth at moderate speeds on moderate inclines...in other words it felt like the brakes came on at the tips. This might be due to the stiffness? and/or needing a little more tip? (I skied the demo binding position about a 3/4 cm back of center, another cm may have helped)

The ski carved surprisingly tighter turns than I expected for the radius of the ski on packed, and was very stable at speed (didn’t need the 184 for stability)

Worked well busting through tracked blown crud (the 184 would have been even better)

The ski worked great in knee + deep powder on both moderate and steep inclines. (I didn’t feel the need for more length here, but it would have only helped with float)

The ski did not work well for me at all in tight trees, and only ok in moderately tight trees (maybe I just stink in the trees HA)

I am 5’ 10" 175. I would pick the 184 and use it more as an open terrain ski because the 177 probably doesn’t give me what I want in tight trees anyway. If the 184 worked well for you in the trees go with it.
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matter
My 184 Mantras are so much easier on the bumped out traverses than my 178 Top Fuels, and I nearly killed myself 3 years ago on some 168 Volkl 5 stars.
Dude! Did you steal my quiver or something!?! I have those same three skis but the 5* is a 175. Took the thing into Honeycomb Canyon last year when it was nothing but slick bumpy traverses and uber-crud - suffered big time! Now I have the 184 Mantras and I'm taking them to Tahoe. I mounted them 1cm back from center with no lifter plate. How's that sound? Can't wait to ski these things. The 178 TF is my kind of ski for ripping. How do you compare the stability of the two in crud and on groomed?
post #22 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks all. so the consesus is that there is no consensus.

Or seen another way...
I can't really go wrong with either size. That's comforting.
Although I demo'd the 184, I'm beginning to hedge towards the 177 for a bit more versatility.
post #23 of 26
I have the 177's, mounted on the factory line, am roughly your size (6', 165). So far have tried them only on eastern slopes at decent speed - not their preferred terrain - cuz I won't be out west until next month. They're fine at speed. If I did big fast sweepers on clogged back bowls or out of bounds deep, I'd probably want the 184's. But I'd predict for the normal operations Mantra's are designed for - mix of turn shapes, speeds, soft bumps at the bottom of those big bowls, threading a few trees to get to that unskied chute, the 177 is far better. If you want a dedicated Big Snow Boomer, get a Gotama or a Big Daddy or a Supermojo. 94 mm ain't fat anymore.
post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
94 mm ain't fat anymore.
You got that right.
But Vail is where I do the vast majority of my skiing. Roughly 40 days yearly. And we don't get the huge dumps ala Jackson, Alta, Silverton, etc...

Mid 90s is perfect for Vail.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
SW, here it is. I ski in the Tahoe mank or pow, depending on what the day throws down. I am 6-2, overweight and OLD. Damn, I wish I weren't old. Anyway, the 184 is great in pow. In breakable crust and truely filthy rained on crud, I would go 191. No question, I could have used the extra front end a few times this past week. Tomorrow will be sweetness once again. YOU liked the 184. What can I say, that should be your ski. If it didn't limit you on your demo day, it sure won't feel wrong when conditions get really crapped out. Keep in mind, I'm hiking on these with AT boots and bindings. Your control factor should be better with conventional binders and DH boots. Quit second guessing and making me feel guilty.
Interesting observation. This past week i have been on a 188CM ski med flex. Great in pow and chalk, and also soft crud. But on several occasions I have been in some firm dense crusted snow. The only way to ski it well was with speed making big arcs. I was wishing I had a BIG Mountain ski Stiff ski about 195CM+ in length. I guess it just depends on where you are and what your attempting to do.
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by VASKI244
Dude! Did you steal my quiver or something!?! I have those same three skis but the 5* is a 175. Took the thing into Honeycomb Canyon last year when it was nothing but slick bumpy traverses and uber-crud - suffered big time! Now I have the 184 Mantras and I'm taking them to Tahoe. I mounted them 1cm back from center with no lifter plate. How's that sound? Can't wait to ski these things. The 178 TF is my kind of ski for ripping. How do you compare the stability of the two in crud and on groomed?

The 5 stars were just demos. I liked them on groomers, but it was an eye opener once I got them on traverses. Its the main reason I didn't go 170 in the Top Fuel, even though I probably should have. I wasn't worried about the 170 being "unstable" because I knew they'd be bomber once on edge, but we have so many traverses at Alta that real short skis become a pain. TF is 10x more fun than the Mantra on groomers, but in even light crud I think I prefer the Mantra. However, I still think the Nordica Hot Rods are the best one ski quiver you can find for most skiers - comparing them to a Mantra in off-piste conditions isn't really fair.

Its kind of funny, but in no way do I feel like the 184 Mantras are too big, but the 178 Top Fuels feel huge. No desire to ever ski 177 Mantras, but I think I'd be better off with 170 TFs (as pure on-piste groomer skis) or maybe 178 Nitrous' instead.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion