or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Mantra Length

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Lots has been written about these skis here, most referring to the longest length. Here's something to consider as well. Try skiing them shorter. A full size (184-177, 177-170). I'm 165 lbs., typically ski a fat ski in about 175-180 length. You couldn't put me on a shorter ski, particularly a fat dude, until I tried the mantra at 170. Different animal. Not squirrely at all--a real ripping, all mountain monster--hardpack, 20 inches of Sierra pow, crust, three days in Utah backcountry--all of it. Maybe it's me, but the ski seems to be a lot more versatile shorter, particularly in trees and tight steeps, without losing any of its stability or float. Anyone else have that experience?
post #2 of 8
Interesting.

In 2003/2004 when I began demoing, I tried the Volkl Supersport 6-Star. I skied it in a 175 and while I enjoyed it on hard pack/ice, it was also a bit meaty/unwieldy for my then 177 lb frame. The guy at the show I demoed it from, who as 6'2" and well over 250 suggested I drop down to the 168. I balked. Mostly because I had already dropped from skiing 198s to 177's, so dropping another size seemed unreasonable.

I am currently on the Mantras in a 177 and they've been pretty solid so far. No real complaints other than I probably should have gone for a lighter binding (I'm riding Marker Titanium 13 Pistons).
post #3 of 8
This runs counter to nearly all suggestions I saw for the Mantra. I ski it in a 184 and find that it has so much shape and flex that turning is not a problem. I appreciate the extra length when speed builds and I'm looking for more stability and to not feel every bump in the slope.
post #4 of 8
i love mine in the 177. Im 5'10' and 170. Keeps me afloat and it lets me carve when i want to, Not my choice for broiler plate, but ive only had it skid out on me a few times
post #5 of 8
I'm with CR here.

I'm 5'8", 184lbs. and ski the 184 Mantra.

The 177 felt way too short for me, and well, I'd be scared to take out a 170.

HB
post #6 of 8
long time...

As much as I respect CR and HB I have to pipe in that my 177's for me...

A 5' 4" muscular athletic 180 lbs.... I've been skiing for 35 years. Level 9.

Were absolutely stable, floating, and charging in all kinds of soft snow conditions. (That's all I skied last year.) Granted its my AT set up.. And shorter is better for AT with the lighter gear. Even did fine in the pre corn to corn of spring conditions.

I also own a pair of 183 Gotamas..... With look bindings and Tecnica Icon boots.
post #7 of 8
While my 177's are set up Alpine style with Marker Titanium 13 Piston bindings (a bit on the heavy side), I will echo that they did great in the corn of summer (I skied them closing 4th of July weekend at Mammoth). They also got me through my inaugural visit to Alta in Feb. and some knee deep Sierra powder at Homewood (yeah, it's a dinky resort by Tahoe standards, but when all the others are closed due to wind, it's a safe, uncrowded haven for old school Tahoe heads).

I would suggest that you demo both sizes and see what works for you since there's about an equal amount of us giving the thumbs up to the 177 as there are the 184. (Pretty much all of my skis are in the 175 - 180 range as I've found anything shorter too squirrely and anything longer too unmanageable in the trees and thick Sierra cement for my taste).
post #8 of 8
I'm 165, athletic, own the 177's. Can't imagine wanting more quickness in a ski this fat (I ski fairly tight trees, soft bumps, happily on them), but they hit their own wall this past season above 25 mph in heavy chop. Since otherwise regard them as GSE (greatest ski ever), might actually be attracted to a slightly stiffer version. No way I'd look at a 170, but shallow enough to agree the grey topsheet is way cooler than the new one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion