EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Legend 8000-178 or 172cm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Legend 8000-178 or 172cm?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
The writing on the wall says I need to get an all-mountain alpine rig to go with my 'quiver' of nordic, tele & AT rigs. I just got some Rossi Axial2 120 Ti bindings and will get either some Garmont Adrenalines or Endorphines or Scarpa Tornados. I'm pretty convinced that the Dynastar Legend 8000 is a good ski for me. At 5' 10", 170-175 lbs, and a 'old school', longer board mentality (currently on 183 Havocs & 184 Rossi Big Bangs), I'm having trouble getting my head around the idea of skiing on a 172 Legend vs the 178.

Any reason to NOT err a little longer with the Legends? Any other recommendations for skis of similar capabilities?
post #2 of 16
Im 5'11" @ 160 lbs and ski have 172s. I wish they were longer
post #3 of 16
I don't think a 178 is erring at all, IMO that's the perfect size for that ski unless you have a mogul fetish or something.

SJ
post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks. Back 'in the day', I did have a mogul fetish.....on 204s. Order comin' your way Jim.

Any special issues (or lifters) mounting the Rossi Axial2 120 Ti's on these skis?
post #5 of 16
I am 6 ft, 180lb and I ski the Legend in 178. it is agreat ski. I also looked at the next longer size and the only advantage was more stability in chopped-up snow. 178 on the other hand was much more lively and fun for me, so I went shorter. Everyone who i talked to loves 178s though, so you may have good luck with them too.

Alex


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
The writing on the wall says I need to get an all-mountain alpine rig to go with my 'quiver' of nordic, tele & AT rigs. I just got some Rossi Axial2 120 Ti bindings and will get either some Garmont Adrenalines or Endorphines or Scarpa Tornados. I'm pretty convinced that the Dynastar Legend 8000 is a good ski for me. At 5' 10", 170-175 lbs, and a 'old school', longer board mentality (currently on 183 Havocs & 184 Rossi Big Bangs), I'm having trouble getting my head around the idea of skiing on a 172 Legend vs the 178.

Any reason to NOT err a little longer with the Legends? Any other recommendations for skis of similar capabilities?
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Any special issues (or lifters) mounting the Rossi Axial2 120 Ti's on these skis?
Nope, those bindings have a moderate lift which is pretty good for skis in this category.

Thanks........

SJ
post #7 of 16
I was also looking at the Legends 8000's. The guy at my local shop was going to give me a deal on the skis. But I'm looking for an AT set up.

Unless, of course the Legends would work as AT skis?
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
Here are some opinions on Legends as AT skis. from Couloir.

Legend weight stated 3.5kg/7.79 lbs each. (116-79-104)
BD Havocs 'an AT ski' weighs in at 3.4kg/7.5 lbs (173cm)
Similar dimensioned BD Ethics weigh 3.12kg/6.9lbs. (176cm-112-79-102mm)
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
Ooops....weight should have been weight per pair on the Legends, not each.

BTW, thanks all for the feedback.
post #10 of 16
I'll chime in and recommend the 178's for sure. I ski the East mostly so i'm rarely straightlining it through heavy crud. I'm a tiny bit bigger than you at 6'1, 180 lbs., and find the 178's perfect. I wouldn't go shorter as the ski is already very maneauverable given it's dimensions.
post #11 of 16
I am 5 foot 9 and 155lbs, and ski the 172. The 178 felt longish to me: a bit unresponsive, like a long GS ski. At your height, the 178 may be a better choice.

Other somewhat similiar skis: Monster 78 (tighter turn radius, a bit stiffer, more stable at speed, more powerful); Volkl AC3 (stiffer, a bit more stable, not as nimble), Elan 666 (see AC3, except that it is perhaps a bit more energetic in the tail); Salomon X-Wave Fury (carvier, a little lighter underfoot, not as damp, similiar stability); K2 Apache Recon (more damp and quiet, not quite as stable); Monster 77 (more of a bulldozer feel, vs. the damp, snow-hugging feel of the 8000); Fischer Cool Heat (most stable, a little stiffer and more powerful)

I hope this helps. Good luck with your decision!
post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
Well, the 'horse is out of the barn'. The 178's are ordered and I'm awaiting shipment, with new Tornados fitted yesterday. Axial2s in a box and snow flying, hopefully I'll get a few chances in the near future to make some turns on my first 'heavy metal' alpine rig since the early '80s : .

Thanks all for the feedback.

Dawgcatching, I did read your review on the '08s which helped with the process. Also, I did try to find an obvious link to your store (I should have PM'd you). It might behoove you to post a link in your signature or profile.
post #13 of 16
You won't be sorry with your decision. I'm 6'-0", 160 lbs and tried the 172s, but bought the 178s from dawgcatching, and couldn't be happier. I don't think the 172s are substantially quicker and felt I could overpower them. The 178s proved to be more stable at speed, plenty quick and manouverable in the tight spots, and friendly with my old school style. You made the right choice. BTW, dawg's recent review of these skis really nailed it.
post #14 of 16

1-quiver ski for tahoe

[quote=dawgcatching;686659]I am 5 foot 9 and 155lbs, and ski the 172. The 178 felt longish to me: a bit unresponsive, like a long GS ski. At your height, the 178 may be a better choice.

Other somewhat similiar skis: Monster 78 (tighter turn radius, a bit stiffer, more stable at speed, more powerful); Volkl AC3 (stiffer, a bit more stable, not as nimble), Elan 666 (see AC3, except that it is perhaps a bit more energetic in the tail); Salomon X-Wave Fury (carvier, a little lighter underfoot, not as damp, similiar stability); K2 Apache Recon (more damp and quiet, not quite as stable); Monster 77 (more of a bulldozer feel, vs. the damp, snow-hugging feel of the 8000); Fischer Cool Heat (most stable, a little stiffer and more powerful)

I hope this helps. Good luck with your decision![/quote
dawg,
i read all your well-written reviews, and lately the one on the im78 head, the ultimate all-mtn ski....
do you think that the fischer rx9 would make it as the only ski for tahoe skiing....me 155#, 5'-7", level 8, 70/30, aggressive gs skier, or would the m:ex be a better choice....
these i can afford, relative to the new im78....
or any other choices that won't break my piggybank....
thanks......nfp158
post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 
Yeah baby, they're here and sweet!

What's the recommended tune on these bad boys?

Thanks Jim and everyone.
post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 
nfp158, after an excellent day putting the Legend thoroughly through the paces today, I'd suggest putting them on you 'A list'.
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 › Legend 8000-178 or 172cm?