EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Legend Pro Rider advice needed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Legend Pro Rider advice needed

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Hey, I am looking to buy a pair of 176 Legend Pro Riders ('08 model). I really don't need them at this point, being that I live in Ohio and don't get to the real mountains enough. I get to ski in Colorado/Utah maybe 2 weeks per season. I thought I had gotten them out of my system, but keep coming back to them and want to buy them more than ever.

I am 17 and definitely a level 9 skier. This would be a second ski, as my current only ski is a Dynastar Speed Omeglass 64 in a 157, which as the name suggests, is only 64 under foot. This past season my love for the deep stuff has grown immensely, as has my strength and overall ability on the back side.

Problem (possibly) is that I am 5' 10" and only 150 lbs. Now, I know the Legend Pros are are pretty burly ski (especially compared to my 64s) but I think they would really help me skiing in the steep and deep.

The other thing I have heard, is the 176 is softer than the 186. If this is true, is it significantly softer (to the point of too soft)? On the other hand, I have heard that it is a very stiff burly ski, and requires a lot to be flexed. Well, I am pretty strong and like I said a level 9 skier, but I am only 150 lbs. Based on the fact that I can rip on the 64s (a stiff SL ski) and am 150 lbs, will I be able to handle this ski?

Thanks,
--Brad
post #2 of 18
Wow - you must be getting a great deal on em - not going to use them? I admire your attitude though . Sounds kind of a lot of ski for you but ... dunno about specifics as far as flex. You're aware of the HUGE turning radius - this is a big mountain ski!

I've been eyeing these since some cute skier salesgirl claimed they were "bomber" last year at the expo (and they looked it, but so did she). I'm such a sucker . But I couldn't justify such a fast big mountain ski given the amount I would actually use it ... darned practical side of me.
post #3 of 18
I wouldn't worry about it being too "burly" for your weight, but at two weeks per year how long will you need to keep them to make it a better choice than rentals (which will always be the latest and greatest technology to boot)?

What have you skied on during your two weeks in the past?
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
in the past it has always been the 64s. I take them everywhere on the mountain and they perform, but I am sure once I try some fat skis I'll never want to go in the pow again on the 64s.

They also require lots of work and don't allow for long sweeping turns in powder, because they sink. I have to really use my agility and work to keep them from sinking under
post #5 of 18
Almost anything will seem better that 157 cm 64 width slalom skis in powder. I would think you would need to keep your speed up with longer sweeping turns to stay afloat in powder.

Get the LPs and learn how to ski them.
post #6 of 18
Since you are definitely a level 9 skier you should not be aware of such things as stiffness/burliness of the ski.
post #7 of 18
they are awesome - who am I to stand in the way of your bliss?! Do it!
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderracer393 View Post
Hey, I am looking to buy a pair of 176 Legend Pro Riders ('08 model). I really don't need them at this point, being that I live in Ohio and don't get to the real mountains enough. I get to ski in Colorado/Utah maybe 2 weeks per season. I thought I had gotten them out of my system, but keep coming back to them and want to buy them more than ever.

I am 17 and definitely a level 9 skier. This would be a second ski, as my current only ski is a Dynastar Speed Omeglass 64 in a 157, which as the name suggests, is only 64 under foot. This past season my love for the deep stuff has grown immensely, as has my strength and overall ability on the back side.

Problem (possibly) is that I am 5' 10" and only 150 lbs. Now, I know the Legend Pros are are pretty burly ski (especially compared to my 64s) but I think they would really help me skiing in the steep and deep.

The other thing I have heard, is the 176 is softer than the 186. If this is true, is it significantly softer (to the point of too soft)? On the other hand, I have heard that it is a very stiff burly ski, and requires a lot to be flexed. Well, I am pretty strong and like I said a level 9 skier, but I am only 150 lbs. Based on the fact that I can rip on the 64s (a stiff SL ski) and am 150 lbs, will I be able to handle this ski?

Thanks,
--Brad
08 176 LP's are nothing like 05/06/07 186 and 194 LP's. You have nothing to worry about. If you think you are buying the hard charging big mountain ski that evryone talked about in past years? This aint it
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
08 176 LP's are nothing like 05/06/07 186 and 194 LP's. You have nothing to worry about. If you think you are buying the hard charging big mountain ski that evryone talked about in past years? This aint it
He also live in ohio, I couldnt think of a worst ski for ohio than a LP, well i could(pontoon, big bro, XXL) but yes LP would be quite useless in ohio.

IF you can ski as good as you say then you should be able to handle any ski and I would be looking slightly longer and bit softer for a western ski.

Also buy a ski that will be only used out west.

I would suggest Something 90-105 under foot and 180-187 in lenght. A softer ski will ski powder better and most fatter ski that are soft still have enough beef to tackle western groomers.(mojo 90, Mojo 105, Gotama, Bridge, LP elect.)

I am 5'11 175 and my big skis are 192 and I wish they were 10cm longer, and I really like to ski trees and the added lenght would mean they would be much more nimble in powder.

and in case your were wondering I really dont go below a 85mm 179cm ski for freeskiing in Utah. and that what i use when stuff is skied out and bumpy. I heart bumpy steep trees. and again I wish that ski was longer as well but that the longest lenght they make in a PE.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
08 176 LP's are nothing like 05/06/07 186 and 194 LP's. You have nothing to worry about. If you think you are buying the hard charging big mountain ski that evryone talked about in past years? This aint it
Somewhat true, but it's still a very worthy ski. I have the 176 and 194 LP's and XXL's. Sometimes when it's hard and bumped out the 194's are just too much work. The 176 still rails pretty dam well and I can ski the zipper on them if I have too.

I actually think it would be a good fit for a two ski quiver. You should be able to pick them up in the $400 range new.
post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
yes, $400 is exactly what I am looking at.

So is the 176 too soft and tame? I just haven't considered the 186, because it seems like it would be too long for me.

Yes. this would strictly be a big mountain only ski. I would rock the 64s at home and bring both to the real mountains.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderracer393 View Post
So is the 176 too soft and tame?
No, it's not too soft. It's a very nice, well made ski. They will probably last until you get out of college and move to the mountains full time!
post #13 of 18
The price sounds good and it seems as though you will be kicking yourself if you don't at least give them a try. I used to suggest demoing skis, but if you find a deal on a recommended ski, it may be worth buying rather than demoing. I've read many reviews and purchased skis at great prices - some I've liked and some I've hated. When demoing, you can never be sure about the tune. Sometimes a slight adjustment in edge or base angle or the grind can make a huge difference (I know that we are talking about powder skis here, so in this case the base grind can make a huge difference). In cases where I've purchased skis at a great price and haven't liked them, the money I've lost has been little more than a day's rental.
It sounds like you have your heart set on these so I would take the chance if you can afford it. JMHO
post #14 of 18
I'm shorter, lighter and older than you and the 176s ('07/'08) are just right: Not too soft, not too stiff. Great everyday ski out West, and easily found for $400.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderracer393 View Post
I am 17 and definitely a level 9 skier. This would be a second ski, as my current only ski is a Dynastar Speed Omeglass 64 in a 157, which as the name suggests, is only 64 under foot. This past season my love for the deep stuff has grown immensely, as has my strength and overall ability on the back side.

Problem (possibly) is that I am 5' 10" and only 150 lbs. Now, I know the Legend Pros are are pretty burly ski (especially compared to my 64s) but I think they would really help me skiing in the steep and deep.

The other thing I have heard, is the 176 is softer than the 186. If this is true, is it significantly softer (to the point of too soft)? On the other hand, I have heard that it is a very stiff burly ski, and requires a lot to be flexed. Well, I am pretty strong and like I said a level 9 skier, but I am only 150 lbs. Based on the fact that I can rip on the 64s (a stiff SL ski) and am 150 lbs, will I be able to handle this ski?

Thanks,
--Brad



You should definitely go ask this on tgr they know much more about this ski.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post


You should definitely go ask this on tgr they know much more about this ski.
On second thought, maybe not. You could be treated like Phil there.
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
On second thought, maybe not. You could be treated like Phil there.
Or not. TGR has dozens of threads on this ski and it is used by a great many mags.
post #18 of 18
Thread Starter 
I am part time at both forums and have read up and searched both here and at TGR. Thanks
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 Pro Rider advice needed