or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Dynastar legend pro vs. mythic riders vs. ????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar legend pro vs. mythic riders vs. ???? - Page 2

post #31 of 44

I am like Alex (6'2", 185 lbs naked), and I ski the 07/08 Legend 8000s in a 178cm here in the Pacific Northwest. There are VERY few times I would think I would like the longer length (184 cm), and that is only for REALLY high speed bombing or really deep snow. For everything else, the 178 cm is the best compromise. I also have to agree with the other replies wrt you going with the 8000s. The MRs are a great ski which I have also demoed extensively and you could also go with those, but they won't shine as well as the 8000s in the conditions that you are more likely to ski in. Resist the temptation to go with the MRs just because it will do a bit better on the big mountains. The 8000s will be alot more fun for you in moguls too.

 

Nick

post #32 of 44

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowbody View Post

I've got 2 years on a pair of 172cm MRs, mostly in Tahoe, and have quite liked them, and am looking for something that skis similarly but is floatier in the deep and a little burlier in the crud. Would the new Pro Riders fit that bill? I'm 5'11'' and 145 on a fat day, so I still need something i can make turn without ridiculous amounts of muscle.

 

 

 



 

you'd have to go to some pretty long lengths to get a NEW LP that is noticeably stiffer than the mythic. the old LP in a 176 sounds like the ticket if you are looking to REPLACE your mythics. if you are going to add a second pair of skis to the quiver, then you might want to go even wider.

post #33 of 44

Not had the pleasure of skiing either ski, but wonder if it's that much difference in soft snow performance to increase width by roughly a cm. If I had a 88 something I liked a lot, I'd look to add a 110 + for big days and serious crud. Or get yourself a 187 XXL...

post #34 of 44

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Not had the pleasure of skiing either ski, but wonder if it's that much difference in soft snow performance to increase width by roughly a cm. If I had a 88 something I liked a lot, I'd look to add a 110 + for big days and serious crud. Or get yourself a 187 XXL...



 

agreed 100%

 

the waist differences in my 4 ski quiver are 18mm, 24mm, and 10mm moving from the fattest to the skinniest (for a total difference of 52mm between the two extremes). and the only reason i have a 10mm difference in there is because those two skis are DRASTICALLY different in construction and design (burly frontside skis vs. all-mountain twin tips). i just don't get it when people have quivers full of skis that are like 10% different here and there...

post #35 of 44

Yeah, I'm actually thinking more about replacing the MRs than supplementing them, so as to keep things simple while adding some high-end range. If I were to hold on to the MRs, I probably would want to complement them with something 110 or bigger, maybe with some rocker. I feel like the 187 XXLs might be too much of a handful, though.

post #36 of 44

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeppman View Post
Hey guys,

I am trying to decide on either the 8000 or the mythic rider. I live in the midwest so most of my skiing is done there, but I also want something that can do colorado, utah where I mostly ski the ungroomed off-piste. I'd go with the MR, but I'm not sure that it would be a smart choice for skiing wisconsin and michigan (hard packed, groomed and icey). I'm 6'1'', 160lbs and would say I'm a 7/10 skier. I'm going nuts trying to figure out what I should get.


With WS and MI as your normal areas, go with the 8k. It's OK in powder, whereas the MR is only fair on boilerplate which you'll have more often.

post #37 of 44

Not to hijack the thread, but one ski that I really liked when I demoed this season was Head Mojo 94, it is a twin tip ski, but it skis like an all-mountain "fattish" mid-fat.  Compared to Mythic it was even more damp and the feeling was like that ski had some kind of suspension.  I have not taken it to real heavy crud, but whatever I tried felt quite good.  Supposedly, Mojo94 has a Monster-type construction, so it should be burly enough.  One word of caution: Mythic's crud-busting abilities are superb, so you may be disappointed in that department going to another ski.  A true big-mountain ski (XXL, Squad, etc.)  will be a better crud-buster, but you may need to ski it at 30mph+ all the time.

 

I also forgot to mention Nordica Enforcers- it is a fairly substantial ski, it is a bit wider than MRs and I believe they make it in shorter lengths.  It does have more sidecut than MRs and that may somewhat more an issue in crud. Again, MR's crud performance is stellar for the ski of its dimensions.


Edited by alexzn - 4/16/2009 at 02:52 pm GMT
post #38 of 44

The Mojo is decent in crud, but not the best due to it's shallow, low-rise tip.  Mojos differ in construction from the Monsters mainly in the absence of Liquidmetal (Monsters have it, Mojo doesn't), but other aspects of the ski are similar, including metal layer(s), wood core, and rubber inserts in the tip and tail.  I will say this -- the Mojo 94 is considerably easier to ski and more forgiving than the Monster 88.  Both are a little more powerful and interesting to ski than the Mythics.

post #39 of 44

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

The Mojo is decent in crud, but not the best due to it's shallow, low-rise tip.  

I don't actually know how it correlates to crud-busting.  Low-rise tip was a feature on the Bandit XXX (and subsequent derivatives), which was relatively good in crud, and the claim was that such shape does not deflect that much.  My feeling, based only on very limited statistics, is that the stiffness of the front portion of the ski has a much more direct relationship to the crud performance.  Mythic has a tip that is relatively abrupt by today's standards, Squads have the classic low-slung Rossi tip. PLR is in-between all three are good in crud (and all three are stiffer skis). 

 

 

post #40 of 44

Stockli VXL - there's a great ski. 88mm underfoot. Heavy though.  Great for crud and all around.

post #41 of 44

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 

I don't actually know how it correlates to crud-busting. 

 


It is one of many factors, as you suggest.  Some skis have a low rise height, some have a low rise angle, some have both (like the Mojo).  Stiffness definitely factors in too.

 

My PEs are an example of a ski with a high but slow rise in the tip.  They have a medium stiffness, but are among the worst crud skis in my quiver of recent years.  Here's a shot of the PE (foreground) compared to the Karma (background) with both skis aligned at their forward contact points:

 

 

In addition to having a steeper rise angle to the tip, the Karmas were a bit stiffer than the PEs.  I found the Karmas to be a lot better in crud.  PEs were a lot better in untracked powder though.  

 

Now, as for the Mojo, it would fit into the picture as follows: cut off and round off the PEs about where the middle of the bullseye is.  That would roughly approximate the rise of the Mojo, giving the low angle *and* low rise.  Mojo has a similar flex to the PE on my scale.  That combination of a low, slow rise and medium stiffness is what limits the Mojos in crud in my opinion.  It's offset a bit by the width, and the fact that I can ski them in a 187cm to get the tips further out in front (PE was limited to 179cm).

 

Here's one more picture, showing the Mojos in ski-closet storage next to my Watea 94s (both skis are standing vertically against the wall, but I rotated the picture sideways):

 

 

 The forward contact points are not lined up here, but you get an idea how shallow the Mojo's tips are in comparison to the Wateas (which have an almost toboggan-like curl to them).  The Watea tips are roughly twice as high, maybe a bit more.

 

In an absolute sense, I think the rise angle correlates to crud-busting as follows: low angles want to ride over the crud, while steep angles want to plow/poke through the crud.  That angle, when combined with the rise height and stiffness, determines the ultimate behavior.  The combination designed into the Watea's tips (steep angle, high-rise, medium stiffness) really works well in crud for me.  The skis ride over small stuff, and bust/plow the rest.

 

 

post #42 of 44

whoa! nice work skier219!

post #43 of 44

Going with the discussion of tip design effectiveness in crud as I ski some of the skis mentioned above. The B-Squad has a long, early-low rise, tapered point (shark nose-and that is the shape in a way) tip. Day one on these skis was season powder start in heavy powder. The tip drove through crud and heavy powder so effectively that I was able to change the  way I skied: I totally quit looking at the irregular features in the snow because I realized the tips would handle it, no matter what if I faced forward, driving through and floating a little below the surface. I could look way ahead (smiling instead of grimacing at chunks) and inflict my rhythm and line on the snow instead of turning to avoid chunks and tracks. My speculation is that the shark nose was designed to this exactly by being stiff and pointed to cut/drive through. I have heard the tip has extra metal and rubber to this specific purpose.

 

I think tip design is a critical component to ski performance in soft snow and Rossi has developed something unique and highly effective.

 

The Dynastar LP has a stiff tip that is  rounded and steeply upturned. I have them (07 orange and black) but have not skied them much yet. They ski crud well because the whole ski is smooth, damp, stiff, and straight. I don't know how the tip is working yet, but the ski definitely skis in the snow, like the Squad, not on top of the snow. The XXL has what is probably the largest tip ever made, rounded and steeply upturned, huge, and is clearly designed to ride up and ski on the snow (and not dive as much as the LP)..

post #44 of 44

I have heard exactly those kinds of favorable comments about the shark nose shape, so that brings another variable -- profile shape -- into the picture as well. 

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 › Dynastar legend pro vs. mythic riders vs. ????