or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Legend 4800

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi there. I got some Dynastar Legend 4800s, 165 cm, but they're not 165cm. After looking at them for a while after I got them home they looked a little short, so I measured them. Only 162 cm! Is this commom?

Also, I haven't skied on these yet, so can anyone tell me something good about them so that I'm not too sad that they're too short.

-Sam
post #2 of 12
Sam, what level skier are you and what kind of skiing do you plan to do. Your weight and height could affect answers as well.

The skis should have the size printed on the sidewall or topskin somewhere. Take a look. For 2008 I think those skis (4800 Fluid) come in a 160, 168, 172, 178 and 184 length. The older 2007 blue model came in 158, 165, 172, 178 and 184
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
I guess I would consider myself advanced, but not expert. I ski blacks usually, and will do a double black if the conditions are right. I'm 5'8", 145 lbs. The ski says 165 on it. The only other info on it is this: DA4KV01 (on the side wall), and they're not brand new, so not an '08.

-Sam
post #4 of 12
A 3-cm discrepancy in how a ski is measured is not much to be worried about IMO. The ski is stamped 165 and it could be the manufacturer measures along the ski rather than the chord. These skis probably reach to your nose which seems appropriate for your height, although if you ski fast, a longer ski would seem more stable especially in soft snow conditions, but in answer to your original question, I think you bought a 165 length ski.

Lots of members have skied this model and have generally reported it is a forgiving but capable ski. The 3-centimeters is just over one-inch, so not much is going to change for you there.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Ok, thanks.
post #6 of 12
It's a good ski, and a good ski for your weight. Sounds a bit short but that shouldn't matter.
post #7 of 12
Sam -- you're probably measuring the length against a flat surface. Dynastar (and most manufacturers other than K2) measure by placing a tape along the surface of the ski, following the camber and curve of the tip and tail.
post #8 of 12
I tried a pair at Steamboat one year in a foot of fresh, and what a absolute ball that ski was. Turny little snake.

165 will be fine - you'll enjoy them. If you want something stiffer, then it's a quick step up to the 8k.
post #9 of 12
I'm taller and heavier than you and ski the 4800 in the next size longer. They are stable at speed and good in fresh snow up to my boot tops. I think you'll be fine with the 165 length. The 4800 and it's predecessor have been very popular because of their versatility and appeal to a broad cross section of skiers. It sounds to me like they will be just right for the runs you like.
post #10 of 12
3cm is not a big deal. I bet most people can't tell the difference between 165 & 163cm. I feel the 4800 skis a little long, so you should be fine...
post #11 of 12
This ski was a game changer for me a few years ago. Sort of took me from intermediate to advanced. The shocking thing was how good they were in a foot of powder, given their width. I moved on because no ski does it all. They're still hanging on my wall, just in case.
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Alright, good. Thanks for the input, now I can't wait to go

-Sam
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion