New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MR vs Lord

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Hi,

i'm in the market for a second pair of skis (first being 165 cm SL). I'm 6'0'', 185 pounds, east coast, skiing since i'm 5 (now 22), still progressing (as it should for everyone) but i'd say level 8 (a good notch above resort average).

I've visited my local shop last weekend and I got interested by either 09 Dynastar Mythic Rider or 09 Salomon Lord. I've read the reviews on the net (a million about the MRs and about 2 for the Lords) I'm looking for a ski that would do good in typical east coast powder days (untracked for a few runs, then tracked, soft bumps, treeskiing) and spring conditions. My criterias are nimbleness (kinda scary to go that ''wide'' after being exclusively on Sls for years, i should get over it), performance in chopped snow and untracked if findable. Both are about the same price. Also, I wasn't sure if I should get either 178 or 184 for the MRs and 177 or 185 for the Lords. My guess was that the slight rocker and the semi-twin on the Lord should get them an advantage in agility, and the MRs might have the edge on carving. I'm also open to other choices, but I'd prefer to be abvle to get them at the shop, not on the internet.

By the way, I'll need clamps for those, my choice was between Axial 140/SAS 140 or STH 14 drivers. I think both of 'em are about equivalent, any opinions.

Tx, Hellevhisse
post #2 of 27
You are spot on about the lords. I probably won't buy anything in my lifetime again that is not twin tipped.

The rocker will deff out preform the dynastar as far as the rocker is concerned. Also you are buying this as your powder ski. I like my pow skis to be a little more specific to pow. You will probably ski this more than you think. You really think that an 88mm waist will be sufficient as your pow ski? I ride my head mojos as my everyday ski and they are bomb in the powder. I also own a pair of 107waste scotts.

Lord>dynastar mythic
post #3 of 27
dude, you are in Quebec, there is no need for rocker in the conditions you describe...for east coast stuff (and most canadian rockies for that matter)

Mythic Rider>Lord
post #4 of 27
Thread Starter 
Well, it's a tie now. I should have precised that these skis will be hitting Jay, Sutton, the loaf, maybe MRG if i'm lucky enough and other places of that kind. No tremblant (hate that place) or any groomer mountains. I'm still concerned about on-piste performance though, but I don't think that such a little rocker will be such a setback on piste. But thanks for the input guys.
post #5 of 27
i stand by my original post, even though you are smart enough to cross the border...
post #6 of 27
One thing you should take into consideration is the amount of rocker that the lord has. Now Salomon claims that the rocker is 210mm but from what I can see when I am holding them there is almost nothing there rocker wise.

When I tested the Lord I found that you had to be well positioned on the ski but once you figured that out it skied very well for a twin. IMO if I were to look at something in this waist width range that is a twin it would be the Extreme(Public Enemy) by K2. The Extreme feels much more stable and energetic at higher speeds.

The reviews for the MR should speak for themselves that is an all around great ski.
post #7 of 27
To amplify on SC's comments....

The Lord has marketing department rocker. (meaning practically none) The Lord is a nice easy and nimble ski but it is not in the same league as the MR for stability or crud blasting confidence.

SJ
post #8 of 27
What about Atomic's Snoop Daddy?

It's slightly wider (95mm?), with a reputation as a solid crud-buster with decent hard snow grip.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
Alright, I'll take a look at those 2 skis, I'll check if they have them where I usually go. But say you were going for either the MR or the Lord what lenght would you go (and for the 2 new suggestions as a matter of fact) ? But I think performance in the woods and nimbleness is more important to me than performance in rough snow. Also, I don't NEED a twin, think I never even went in a park but I don't mind if it has one. But thanks for the advices guys.
post #10 of 27
Here's my take on the Salomon Lord. It is basically the Foil with a wood core. It has a very lively feel that works well on the groomers. In crud, it gets knocked around. There are several better options out there in twin tips that share the same dimensions.
I like the mythic rider. It is more comparable to the Salomon Fury, which is an excellent ski that gets overlooked by many.
As far as twins go, I like the Extreme (PE), Head Mojo, or Line Prophet 90 or 100. You should really check out the prophet 100 if you are wanting a more powder specific ski that can really rip on the groomers.
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
That comment about that MR kinda rang a bell in my head. Last winter, I demoed the Fury and except grip on groomers, that ski was totally not what I want. First, it has no energy/rebound on the groomers, it is too stiff in the woods and bumps, it's just not want I want. I don't think my local shop has many of the fatties you guys are talkin about (I'm out east), but I'll check on those. Anyway, I'll probably pull the trigger this weekend.
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellevhisse View Post
That comment about that MR kinda rang a bell in my head. Last winter, I demoed the Fury and except grip on groomers, that ski was totally not what I want. First, it has no energy/rebound on the groomers, it is too stiff in the woods and bumps, it's just not want I want. I don't think my local shop has many of the fatties you guys are talkin about (I'm out east), but I'll check on those. Anyway, I'll probably pull the trigger this weekend.
More info for you to digest:
Try to find some threads on the Atomic Nomad Crimson.
I too wanted to buy the Salomom Lord or the Fisher Watea which gets great reviews.
However for a 50 /50 east coast ski the Atomic Nomad Crimson gets the nod...PS if I lived in Utah ( rather than New Hampshire) none of what said would be true
post #13 of 27
I've been skiing Salomons and Dynastars for years. As much as I've loved some of my Salomons, none of them can keep up with the comparable Dynastar on heavy snow and crud. I haven't skied the Lord but my guess is that still holds true. I'd go with the Mystic Rider.
post #14 of 27
The MR's have good rebound energy; they are effectively a fat GS ski. They are designed for arcing large turns on any surface at high speeds. Stable and damp they are, but nimble they are not. Soft-snow performance is biased towards crud, not powder. They will do trees and they will do bumps, but their stiffness is definitely a liability in those places. IMO the MR is a very versatile ski, but the trade-offs are all biased towards speed and stability. If your default turn is GS arcs at 40 mph, you will like this ski a lot. If you don't tend to open it up much, then a softer ski is probably a better choice. BTW, I'm 6'0" and 155 lbs and I ski the MRs in a 178. I haven't found the top-end (and believe me I've tried).
post #15 of 27
BTW, I'm 6'0" and 155 lbs and I ski the MRs in a 178. I haven't found the top-end (and believe me I've tried).[/quote]


+1
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffda View Post
The MR's have good rebound energy; they are effectively a fat GS ski. They are designed for arcing large turns on any surface at high speeds. Stable and damp they are, but nimble they are not. Soft-snow performance is biased towards crud, not powder. They will do trees and they will do bumps, but their stiffness is definitely a liability in those places. IMO the MR is a very versatile ski, but the trade-offs are all biased towards speed and stability. If your default turn is GS arcs at 40 mph, you will like this ski a lot. If you don't tend to open it up much, then a softer ski is probably a better choice. BTW, I'm 6'0" and 155 lbs and I ski the MRs in a 178. I haven't found the top-end (and believe me I've tried).
FWIW, I love the MRs on bumps. I demoed a few midfats before buying them (snoop daddy, volkl bridge, volkl ac40, among others) and liked them as much on bumps as the softer ones like the bridge and snoop daddy. BUT I ski a much shorter version (165) at about your same weight. What really set them apart from the rest was their fantastic performance on crud, as others mentioned.
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
Kinda of a stupid question but compared to 165 SL skis, how much would those skis do in chopped snow ? I guess the longer the better but I just wanna have a comparison point with what I know best. Also, I guess I should look in the 180-185 cm range for my next pair ?
post #18 of 27
The MR is as good as any ski in it's width range in broken and choppy snow. It may in fact be the best at that condition within it's width range.

You probably won't need any more than a 178.

SJ
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
To amplify on SC's comments....

The Lord has marketing department rocker. (meaning practically none) The Lord is a nice easy and nimble ski but it is not in the same league as the MR for stability or crud blasting confidence.

SJ
+1 on that. The Lord was one of the more underwhelming skis I tried last year. It was overpowered at speed. Nice and easy, not a real performer though. And, even though the tip is only slightly rockered, it felt very odd when carving up groomers. The MR is solid at speed, a little more steady in crud at speed, and a more powerful carver, while still being easy to ski.
post #20 of 27
MR = well made, high end ski

Lord = a ski that is MARKETED as a well made, high end ski. So that skiers that THINK they are good can have a ski that looks good too.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntlion View Post
............Lord = a ski that is MARKETED as a well made, high end ski. So that skiers that THINK they are good can have a ski that looks good too.
Interesting marketing concept that might work....heck, it always has in the past.

SJ
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 
Looks like you guys finally convinced me of going with the MR. I SHOULD hit the trigger soon (my local mountain is opening up tomorrow and my other pair hasn't been prepped yet). I'll probably go with the 178 since tree skiing is something they will see, but then again, adding 6 cm wouldn't be much... Thoughts ?
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post
dude, you are in Quebec, there is no need for rocker in the conditions you describe...for east coast stuff (and most canadian rockies for that matter)

Mythic Rider>Lord
Just to quote you as saying not needing a rocker. Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUQqw...eature=related

Rockers are now on park skis. Moment had them last year and now Armada has them. I would say still go with the lord, and I will pry get hated for it. Both skis are nice but your first post was for something powder specific. Not to mention people are talking about how they like the MR on bumps...That's the last thing I do on my powder skis.

Do what you want but just fyi the rocker won't affect the lord negatively at all...
post #24 of 27
Thread Starter 
Good job Nebraski, bringing the doubt back in my noggin ! lol I'll get up at my shop tnite at see what they think too. Sucks cuz my bootfitter at this shop I trust her but the sales dudes... not too sure. I'll try to get a hold of her and see what she thinks.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiNebraski View Post
Just to quote you as saying not needing a rocker. Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUQqw...eature=related

Rockers are now on park skis. Moment had them last year and now Armada has them.
and that is the park not the mountain...
rocker has a place, it is NOT on an "all mountain" go anywhere ski...
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellevhisse View Post
Looks like you guys finally convinced me of going with the MR. I SHOULD hit the trigger soon (my local mountain is opening up tomorrow and my other pair hasn't been prepped yet). I'll probably go with the 178 since tree skiing is something they will see, but then again, adding 6 cm wouldn't be much... Thoughts ?
I'm about your size and a strong skier. I have the MR in a 178cm length and wouldn't recommend going any longer. The MR is a very robust ski that I think too many people buy too long.

I finally saw some Lords in a shop this past weekend. They appear to be a replacement for the Foils, one of the Salomons I liked the least. The Foil was a pure finesse ski that got unstable at speeds, especially in chopped crud.
post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 
Finally bought the MRs yesterday night. Got them in 178 cm for 649 cdn and last's years axial 140 for 170 cdn. Think i got a good deal. The only problem is that they will not be ready till next friday... sucks ... Anyway, thanks for all the help guys.

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