EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › I'm probably gonna buy some Mantras...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm probably gonna buy some Mantras... - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Given that the Karma runs short does make it difficult to settleon a good length without trying them out...I already own a set of ski's that I would consider 'too long for me' (Volkl 724 EXP in 177) but they do the job front-mountain with a bit of hard work...being only 170lbs and 5'9" and wary of another 'too long' ski, I had my hopes up on being able to buy Karma's in 170ish and rely on them as all-mountain but still capable in powder...

any thoughts?
post #32 of 45
Perhaps I should explain the generally conservative recommendations that I make in most cases regarding ski flex and length choices.

I have made my living selling skis for most of the last 37 years. During that time, I have listened to many many questions like this one, heard the skiers describe themselves, and then in several cases, seen them ski.............:

People usually, overstate..........their need for speed, agressiveness, depth of powder they ski, and average days on the hill. They usually understate...........very little.

So when I consider a size suggstion, I try to evaluate how well a skier skis and how agressive they are from incomplete and possibly imperfect information. In the case of this thread, we have a skier on the shorter, lighter side of average who has been accustomed to a light, (some might say wimpy) ski in a very short size. It is best for that skier to understand what the tradeoffs are between two length choices. This is especially true when one is making a major jump in size, width, and agressiveness.

It is axiomatic that a longer size will be more stable and provide more lift in truly deep snow. This usually sounds good.

OTH......it is often forgotten that the longer ski is also often a stiffer ski. These factors means that it will usually require more speed or more muscle power to turn it.

So, while a longer ski may be better in 10,20, or 30% of the conditions, it will generally be more work in the other 90,80 or 70%. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but merely emphasizing that ski length, like width and stiffness is no free lunch and there are always compromises.

Everybody has to accept those compromises one way or another.

SJ
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Everybody has to accept those compromises one way or another.
This is best accepted by having a 3-4 ski quiver.
post #34 of 45

Rule of Thumb

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm27 View Post
Here we go.. I'm 5 foot 9, 165 pounds. I live up in Vail and get out around 50 days a year. Last year I skiied on very short skis. I had a pair of Rosi B2's that were 160. This year I am looking at buying a new set of Volkl Mantras. I spend a fair amount of time on pretty much every type of snow on the mountain... backcountryish, groomed runs with friends from out of town, playing around in the trees, etc... and these seem like a great ski to fit that kind of bill. The only problem I am having is determining length. My gut says to go with a 177, however, my brain says that a 17 cm jump is absolutely huge and just might be too much. I don't have any reservations on 170, but I thought I would come here to get advice from the experts. Any thoughts?
My new rule of thumb after having bought more than a few "new school" skis over the last few years is that I never buy a ski that is longer than I am unless I primarly intend to use the ski at high speed on hard snow. The new skis are so much better (torsionally rigid) at shorter lengths due to all the new technology that most of the time you do not need to go longer unless you really want to work harder.

At 5'9" you are 175 cm tall. So my rule of thumb would dictate that you go with the 170. The Mantras are pretty wide under foot at 94mm and you are light, so you won't sacrifice a lot of float in the deep. I find that it is generally width under foot, and not length, that is the key determinant in float these days in all but the deepest snow.

The Mantras also have a pretty big sidecut at 21 meters plus, so they are not going to be tight radius carvers no matter what you do (don't plan to trade turn for turn with your buddies on Metron b:5's). Wood core Volkls tend to be pretty stiff skis, and these have two layers of titanal so they are going to be even stiffer. As a result they should give you pretty good edge hold on hard stuff even in the shorter length. Finally, the shorter length will translate to less work in the bumps and make the skis feel "turnier", especially with the bigger sidecut.

I notice these are twin tips, but are marketed as an all mountain free ski. My guess is that they don't have much of an ollieband (progressive flex zone from the back of the ski used to land air), if they do then this could change the analysis in favor of something longer. Maybe someone who has more personal experience with the ski could comment here.

So without spending a whole lot of time reviewing the other posts, I find that I would generally agree with Sierra Jim. If this is the only ski you will be on this year, then I would be thinking shorter, ie. 170. Of course if you have the opportunity to try both lengths you should do this, but for 90% of the conditions you are going to find yourself in my guess is that you will be happier and your legs less tired at the end of the day with the 170.
post #35 of 45
As a skier about your weight but slightly taller, I ski the Head Monster 88 in a 175. Not to compare the skis but just to let you know that I have to be skiing pretty fast to get those Heads to respond and I don't think they are a ton stiffer than the Mantra. Without the weight to bend them, I have to make that up by speed and energy.

So, at 177 you better be buying it specifically for skiing really fast if you want it to come alive for you. If your crud, powder, and all-around skiing skills haven't developed enough that you feel comfortable skiing those conditions at high speeds you probably want to stay smaller while you improve. If they have, and this sounds like it fits the bill, then the 177 is the right size. If you want it to be more of a versatile ski I'd steer you towards the 170.
post #36 of 45
Thread Starter 
Gentlemen (and any lurking ladies):

I finally got to check out the Mantras in person this weekend, and I am still impressed with how nice a ski it is. I must have been misinforming you slighly about my height, I apologize, it was not intentional. When I put a 170 next to me, it hits me in the eupper-mid forehead, a 177 goes overhead a bit. So, after reading all your very well written responses and reccomendations, I think I am going to go along the line of Sierra Jim's advice and take the 170's this year. I was almost sold on the 177, but sizing them up in person helped me understand which would be better. Honestly, thank you so much for your help. Now all I've got to do is get them, mount some LOOK bindings on there and wait for a good powder day to hit the mountains!

Also, if anyone has any ideas on where I can get a good replacement liner for my Salomon Ellipse 8 boots ( size 27/27.5) please let me know.

Again, thank you.. I'm lookign forward to being a part fo this wonderful community.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm27 View Post

any ideas on where I can get a good replacement liner for my Salomon Ellipse 8 boots ( size 27/27.5) please let me know.
I'd strongly suggest that you consider new boots. A new liner (if available) will probably set you back close to $150. I am also pretty suspicious that you might have the wrong boot, and possibly originally bought it a size too big.

Don't take offense at this this b/c it is not intended as such. Given recent, more complete data (roomy boots, you are a bit shorter than stated, very short skis, etc) this reconfirms your conclusion that a more conservative ski choice is the better way to go.

SJ
post #38 of 45
Thread Starter 
SierraJim:

No offense taken at all. It is people like you who are helping me make the correct decisions. I'll admit when I'm wrong, and it looks like I was worng on my height. It's not something that I really keep track of, and I certianly wasn't trying to mislead anyone here. Not the case at all.

I would love to get some new boots, however, those may have to wait. I have already set aside the funds for the skis and must wait for more to come available for anything else : (

You may be correct on the sizing, however i did buy them from a person I trust. They fit rather well before the liners began to pack out. However, this may all be based on assumptions that were wrong to begin with.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Perhaps I should explain the generally conservative recommendations that I make in most cases regarding ski flex and length choices.

I have made my living selling skis for most of the last 37 years. During that time, I have listened to many many questions like this one, heard the skiers describe themselves, and then in several cases, seen them ski.............:

People usually, overstate..........their need for speed, agressiveness, depth of powder they ski, and average days on the hill. They usually understate...........very little.

So when I consider a size suggstion, I try to evaluate how well a skier skis and how agressive they are from incomplete and possibly imperfect information. In the case of this thread, we have a skier on the shorter, lighter side of average who has been accustomed to a light, (some might say wimpy) ski in a very short size. It is best for that skier to understand what the tradeoffs are between two length choices. This is especially true when one is making a major jump in size, width, and agressiveness.

It is axiomatic that a longer size will be more stable and provide more lift in truly deep snow. This usually sounds good.

OTH......it is often forgotten that the longer ski is also often a stiffer ski. These factors means that it will usually require more speed or more muscle power to turn it.

So, while a longer ski may be better in 10,20, or 30% of the conditions, it will generally be more work in the other 90,80 or 70%. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but merely emphasizing that ski length, like width and stiffness is no free lunch and there are always compromises.

Everybody has to accept those compromises one way or another.

SJ
It appears your experience with people proved right in this case. But that is why my advice is always to demo. If I listened to salesmen, I'd be skiing 161's or something and they'd have been way too small.


I think somone mentioned this ski being a twin tip, it sort of is, has a slight roll up at the tail, what is this sort of tail intended for?
post #40 of 45
"I think somone mentioned this ski being a twin tip, it sort of is, has a slight roll up at the tail, what is this sort of tail intended for?"

I have the 191 mantra and haven't noticed any pros with the upturned tail. It might help somewhat in the pow but its hard to judge (to occupied smiling).

Its too small to ski switch on anything but groomers and I would think its to small to land switch on.

It mainly sprays snow on anyone behind me. Wich i find kind of annoying.

/Anders
post #41 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndersMalmberg View Post
"I think somone mentioned this ski being a twin tip, it sort of is, has a slight roll up at the tail, what is this sort of tail intended for?"

I have the 191 mantra and haven't noticed any pros with the upturned tail. It might help somewhat in the pow but its hard to judge (to occupied smiling).

Its too small to ski switch on anything but groomers and I would think its to small to land switch on.

It mainly sprays snow on anyone behind me. Wich i find kind of annoying.

/Anders
I have Mantra and other skis with slightly up turned tails.

The thing I like about the slightly up turned tail is it allows me to easily slide backwards for a short distance. I find this is nice in tighter chutes and in tighter tree. Sometimes, moving backward just bit helps me line up better for the 1st turn.

I have read marketing literature that says the slight up turned tail helps the ski release for the turn easier and skid/smear easier. Since I have never been on a flat tail and a slightly up turned tail version of the same ski, I don’t really know if that is true.

But, both the Mantra and the LPs are very good (easy to do) at smearing/skidding to dump speed in tight spots. XXX (black/white) were ok at it.
post #42 of 45
I am 5'4", 140lbs and I ski the 177 Mantra.
post #43 of 45
Thread Starter 
So, as I'm trying to get together everything I need, please pardon the new-guy question. However, will this ski require a binding with a wide break? I really like Look bindings.. so could anyone please reccoment a suitable binding for this ski? Thanks!
post #44 of 45
The LOOK PX12 wide will work great.

Salomon Elipse with packed out liner...you need new boots.
post #45 of 45
The Rossi Axial 2 Ti Pro WB is the same as the Look mentioned above.

Plus you could score a pair for $103!!!!! new!!!

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...234#post587234
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › I'm probably gonna buy some Mantras...