New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What length for 8800?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I'm currently on Inuitive 71s at 167cm. I tried the Dynastar Legend 8800s in 168 at Alta mostly on off-piste runs.

I'm 5'9'' 180lb and, maybe, a level 8 skier. I tend to ski bumps (not zipper lines). Working on trees. I mostly ski in the east (VT). I really liked the bumps (like Thunder) in Jackson (I didn't try any double diamonds there).

Is 168cm too short for this ski for me? Might the 8000s be more "versatile" in the east?

I liked the performance of the 8800 on groomed runs in Alta. It seemed I was able to make shorter turns in the 8800 than on the In71s. I tried the Fischer Rangi in 168 (90mm underfoot) in Jackson and was not impressed with their performance on groomed runs as I think was reasonable to expect (not a criticism of the skis since it's not what they are designed for).
post #2 of 18
For you size ability in the conditions you were in? YES way to short! You should have tried that ski @ 184. It you found it unruly you could have dropped to the 178 but would have given up stability in deeper chop.

Nevermind, My statment applies to (WEST) But I still stand by it. I don't ski in Vermont so what the hell do I know? The snow is cold and white just like it is here right?
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
Note that I had (maybe) 8 inches of fresh snow at Alta. How would the 184cm length work in bumps? I also don't ski very fast.

It's interesting that I was directed to the 168 lengths in two demos even when I asked whether that might be too short. It's suspect that the "bump" thing made the demo shops "go short".

While it's a very different ski, I liked the Metron B5 in 162cm (nice and sharp) on ice (but I'm not sure if I want to be going that fast).

The snow out here (in the east) sometimes is more like ice. Nothing like the "ice" that some "locals" at Solitude "complained" about!
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Note that I had (maybe) 8 inches of fresh snow at Alta. How would the 184cm length work in bumps? I also don't ski very fast.
It depends on how you ski bumps. Firm snow bumps you slide the ski's allot to kind of slosh around them, Bumps covered with 8" of snow, on the 184's you would have pretended that the bumps are not there and ski the POW. On the 168's you would have been dropping into the troughs and getting launched and kicked around. The 184;s or even a 188 would have flattened it out and allowed you to ignore the fact that there were moguls under the POW
post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Well, the 8'' at Alta got cut up fairly fast (not very many fresh lines). It wasn't that bumpy.

The bumps in Jackson (on my In71s) were definitely bumps, nice soft snow, but still bumps. I don't think they would have disappeared under a longer ski.

I tend to work myself around the bumps (though not with long traverses).

I typically am not doing nice, wide powder runs (usually, there are some trees involved).
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Well, the 8'' at Alta got cut up fairly fast (not very many fresh lines). It wasn't that bumpy.

The bumps in Jackson (on my In71s) were definitely bumps, nice soft snow, but still bumps. I don't think they would have disappeared under a longer ski.

I tend to work myself around the bumps (though not with long traverses).

I typically am not doing nice, wide powder runs (usually, there are some trees involved).
OK well there ya go then. So next time your on some terrian that you have trouble with but would like to ski well. Watch for someone who just really rip's it the way you would like to. Then go look @ what they are sking.

Good luck on your quest for that magic ski
post #7 of 18
njkayaker, I'm a little taller and heaver than you and have the 178's. For me they're fine for all deeper snow and especially crud conditions. They were a blast in Utah earlier this year.

But I've also had them on my feet on poor snow days in Europe; thin, hard, icy snow - that isn't much fun to be honest. I've never skiied in the Eastern US, but from what I read about the average conditions there on this board, I'd be suprised if it's the best ski for where you do most of you're skiing.
post #8 of 18
The 168 is too short. I ski the 178 as an everday off-piste Tahoe ski and weigh 180. Skied it yesterday in unbelievable 12-24" light powder - too bad its saturday or Id be skiing today... Anyway, as mentioned earlier - wouldnt recommend it as an east coast everyday ski - 8000 be better.
post #9 of 18
The 8800 is essentially a soft snow ski. It's wide under foot and has a huge turning radius (24m plus). It will never be quick edge to edge on eastern hardpack, so if that is where you mostly ski you will likely not be as happy with these as with the 8000. It's somewhat surprising to me that people are buying the 8800's and then are not happy with the hard snow performance. The skis reward new school technique with a centered stance and sliding from edge to edge (kind of like water skiing). While you can carve the ski on hard snow it's not really what it's designed to do. For more detail on this see my posts on the thread at:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=37361

The ski was orginally designed as an all mountain directional twin tip ski called the Little Big Fat in a youth market graphic to compete in the same slot as the Pocket Rocket. While popular in France it didn't catch on worldwide so Dynastar remarketed the ski as the Legend 8800 with stripes instead of a dragon and pushed it in the all mountain powder context. Of course it took off like crazy. Surprisingly, the ski has been selling better in longer lengths than it was originally intended to be skied in (see eg "Little" in Little Big Fat). This is probably because it is now attracting lots of traditional skiers due to the rep for off piste performance (and maybe the more conservative graphics), many of whom grew up with "longer is better" and are then disappointed because it is not a real carving ski.

I have a pair of the Little Big Fats in a 168, I'm 6'3" 225lbs and they are a great off piste and soft snow ski, I use them mostly for back country chutes and trees and they work well for me in that length. Because it's so soft in the tips and tail and has a long straight edge it also works really well in the bumps in shorter lengths. If I had it to do over again I would go with the 178 but not longer. So the guys at Alta sized you right for this ski. Unless you were 6'5" and 250lbs you don't need the 188, and getting the 188 is not going to substantially improve hard snow performance. Because of the huge turning radius (24 in 168, 25 in 178, and 26 in 188) and side cut (116-88-103 in a 168) these are never going to be very turny skis on hard pack. If you do 75% hard pack and 25% powder you will be a lot happier with the 8000's, again in nothing over 180 cm.
post #10 of 18
Hey viking, I was under the impression the 8800 = Inspired by Nobis (up to 188cm, not SuperNobis 194cm) = Inspired Big (dragon graphic) all are basically identical skis with different top sheets? So the Little Big Fat is the same? Interesting.

FWIW I ski the 8800 in 188cm as an everyday ski (5'10, 205#, skiing Banff/LL/Fernie). As said above, it is not a good hard snow ski especially for ice as the edgehold is a bit questionable. You can carve them on ice but its hard and a bit scary at speed. That said, I love them on soft groomers, you can rail GS turns at high speed and it feels rock solid (just not on ice). Great soft snow ski, I like them in the trees, the mount is fairly far forward so you have a lot of tail and its easy to toss them around, not too heavy either (using P12's). I'd get 178cm, 168 would seem too short for your height/weight especially in cruddy snow on trips out west. 8000 is probably a better one ski do it all for you especially in the east, but if you are keeping the 71's you might want the 8800 for soft snow/west trips.

Good luck.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by gramboh
Hey viking, I was under the impression the 8800 = Inspired by Nobis (up to 188cm, not SuperNobis 194cm) = Inspired Big (dragon graphic) all are basically identical skis with different top sheets? So the Little Big Fat is the same? Interesting.
Don't know about the Nobis connection, but given his switch from GS to freestyle it wouldn't surprise me if he was intially involved in the development of the ski. If you check carefully you will see that the stats on the LBF are exactly the same as the 8800, right down to the titanal layer and the "autodrive" technology. I also have talked to a couple of people who work in Dynastar shops who have confirmed this. It is amazing to me how much difference a top sheet and different positioning makes, just goes to show you that marketing does count.

BTW, I initially bought the LBF's because my local shop was going out of business and I was looking for a deal on a pocket rocket-like ski. I liked the flex and thought for $ 350 mounted I couldn't go wrong. I only found out afterward that they were basically the 8800 with a few graphic changes. I liked them so well that I went out and bought a pair for my daughter in a 158 for powder (5'11, 125 lbs.), and she loves them too. And we are both mounted in Look Pivot Jibs, just like you. I'm surprised with all the other skis I have that I reach for these so often, they are just a lot of fun if you ski them right and in the right conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gramboh
FWIW I ski the 8800 in 188cm as an everyday ski (5'10, 205#, skiing Banff/LL/Fernie). As said above, it is not a good hard snow ski especially for ice as the edgehold is a bit questionable. You can carve them on ice but its hard and a bit scary at speed. That said, I love them on soft groomers, you can rail GS turns at high speed and it feels rock solid (just not on ice). Great soft snow ski, I like them in the trees, the mount is fairly far forward so you have a lot of tail and its easy to toss them around, not too heavy either (using P12's). I'd get 178cm, 168 would seem too short for your height/weight especially in cruddy snow on trips out west. 8000 is probably a better one ski do it all for you especially in the east, but if you are keeping the 71's you might want the 8800 for soft snow/west trips.
This reflects my experience too, just getting a longer 8800 will not improve crud, hard snow or boilerplate performance substantially. The only reason to go longer is if you are planning to use these as a 100% powder ski and/or are bigger, heavier, and/or want the extra float. And these skis do rock on softer groomers in big GS or medium radius turns, even in a shorter length you can really bomb as long as you don't try to carve.
post #12 of 18
Just did a little search and found a posting that indicted that the 2003 Inspired was the same ski as the LBF but with a different top sheet. Apparently the "Inspired influenced by Jeremy Nobis" was an entirely different ski and only manufactured in a 194 cm. The web site indicated that the LBF was only made in 2002-03 and 03-04, while the Legend 8800 made its first appearance in 04-05, and that both skis owe a lot to the Intuitive line, further confirming the heritage of the 8800.
post #13 of 18
8000 would be a better all around ski for the east. You really should be able to handle the 184. 178 at the very shortest.

Don't use a shorter length as a crutch

Its an ALL Mountain ski. Its not overly stiff nor designed to be skied short, unlike a carving ski.

Longer lengths in the 8800 will improve stability and crud performance, for sure.
But its a powder ski, not an iceskate
post #14 of 18
get 8000's for your skiing and either 184 or next size shorter.

The 8000 will handle boot-cuff deep powder quite well and is much better in tight conditions.

I recently bought 8800 in 188 and actually skied them a day in North Carolina! Certainly not a ice ski and certainly not a short carver but both the 8000 and 8800 are relatively easy in all bumps because of a relatively forgiving flex in tip
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the replies.

I don't expect the 8800 to be very appropriate for icy conditions in the east. While I mostly ski in the east, this year I managed to ski 11 days out west where a ski like the 8800 (even the 8000) would be very appropriate. (I'm certainly not looking for a "magic ski"). I'm looking for a ski that will work on western bumps, cut up snow and "typical" powder depths.

From my limited understanding, 168cm seemed short but people in Jackson and Alta directed me towards skis of this length. My original question was to see what people on epic ski thought about the length stuff.
post #16 of 18
Go for the 8000 instead of the 8800 - it will be more versatile in the east and west, only really losing out to the 8800 in deep snow. I would recommend the 178 length - at 180#, I'd put you at the second longest ski in this model...
post #17 of 18
I've read this thread and you seem to really want a bump ski.

while I am no bump expert the 8800 is alot of work in this area. I ride the 178 and am 5'10" and 140 # using stiff Lange 130 boots. so perhaps my input here is invalid. I can get through, have fun and probably look better than I felt it was, the ski does flex great and forgives mistakes but it's no zippy ski here. It takes work and skill.

I haven't ridden the 8000 but I would say your ski is the 8000 for bumps, eastern and the odd pow and chop.

8800 is a great ski but it likes to be worked, NOT a lazy man or lack of skill ski (in my opinion as a light weight). Think of it as a High Maintenance woman.

When I go bumping I put on my Rossi Axiums. 177 cm 70 waist and 110 tip I think. More flex and way more fun for bumps. Very similar in size and flex as the 8000 but no where near as good as the 8000.

I've done a bunch of review on the 8800 in the SKI REVIEW SECTION they shouldn't be hard to find. perhaps these will help in your choice as well.

Length, go 178 for sure. Shorter will be better in bumps but the loss in all the other area's I don't think are worth it. Buy a bump ski and some trashed powder board for cheap. or go 8000
post #18 of 18
Thread Starter 
I either need a bump ski or different friends!

Thanks for the replies.

I've read the reviews on the 8000 and 8800. That's one reason I'm focusing on them. They have a very good reputation for the skiing I like to do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion