EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kuros 175 or 185?? Recommendations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kuros 175 or 185?? Recommendations

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm considering the Kuros just need recommendations as to:

1- Size 175 or 185

2- Conventional or Wide bindings?

Me = 200lbs, 6', okay skier

I currently ski the Mantra (white) in a 177 w/ Kneebindings. I also have a set of 184 Mantras (red) which feel much too long and cumbersome, especially in the woods. I don't use them and plan to sell. 177 with the added stiffness of last year is my sweet spot.....Which Kuro size do people enjoy?

Purchase Marker Griffons or use a 2 year old set of Marker M14 Comps w/brakes...in stock...that will fit Kuros..... (no Marker out issues w/ these in 2 seasons at Din set 8.5) Is the extra width of the Griffons worth the extra $$$$????

Thanks for any help.
post #2 of 27
At 200 pounds & 6', the answer to Q1 is easy: 185. These are very nimble skis.

WRT to Q2: You don't say anything about your sole length or what you think the odds are of shifting your DIN up over time. Or not. But "depending", I'd be inclined to mount that ski up with one of: Griffon, Jester, STH 12 or STH 14. All can be had with brakes that fit out of the box. I'm sure there are appropriate Rossi/Looks as well.

If you are a fan, I suspect the Comps would work. Although given how you are likely to end up skiing a Kuro, I'm not sure you want that upward releasable toe in play (but this could just be basic bias...).

The usual "worth what you paid for it" disclaimer applies...
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yo Momma View Post
I'm considering the Kuros just need recommendations as to:

1- Size 175 or 185

2- Conventional or Wide bindings?

Me = 200lbs, 6', okay skier

I currently ski the Mantra (white) in a 177 w/ Kneebindings. I also have a set of 184 Mantras (red) which feel much too long and cumbersome, especially in the woods. I don't use them and plan to sell. 177 with the added stiffness of last year is my sweet spot.....Which Kuro size do people enjoy?

Purchase Marker Griffons or use a 2 year old set of Marker M14 Comps w/brakes...in stock...that will fit Kuros..... (no Marker out issues w/ these in 2 seasons at Din set 8.5) Is the extra width of the Griffons worth the extra $$$$????

Thanks for any help.
Where the bindings are concerned, this info:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I am NOT a Marker hater......but.

Energy tranfer is all about the coupling strength of the binding. Ie: when a twist load is placed into the system, how much flex/twist is there?

The coupling strength is due to the flex within the toe mechanism, the downward pressure of the heel, and within the context of recreational bindings, the flex of the baseplates which is reliant upon the baseplate materials and more importantly, the width spread of the screw pattern.

Look bindings have wider screw patterns than Jester.
Look bindings have wider AFD platforms than Jester.
Look bindings have more downward heel pressure due to cam configuration.


The Sollie race bindings share some of this as well.

Does any of this mean that LOOKs are better bindings than the Jester?...no!!

What is does mean is that the supposed advantages of the Jester have turned the market bias from solidly anti-Marker to a more competitive situation. That is all good.

SJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
The width of the screw pattern is the same on the Jester as on the more std Marker bindings like the M-12.0 etc.

SJ
came from here, where more info about this whole wide binding phenomenon can be found. Seems like the general consensus is that it's pretty much all hype.

Hope that helps.

post #4 of 27
I'm gonna say if you found a 184cm Mantra 'cumbersome' then you might NOT like the 185cm Kuro... it isn't smaller or lighter than the Mantra. I'd say go 175cm based on not liking the 184 Mantra, but really liking the 177 mantra.

... just re-read the original post, where will you be skiing these? In the same terrain as the 184cm Mantra or different?
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
I'm gonna say if you found a 184cm Mantra 'cumbersome' then you might NOT like the 185cm Kuro... it isn't smaller or lighter than the Mantra....
The OP asked about 175 vs 185. For someone 6' and 200 pounds, the answer is 185. Even for many lighter people, the answer would be 185. And I'm absolutely not one of the "rocker means you should ski infinitely long skis" brigade.

The design premise behind the Kuro is on a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree than the Mantra. The Mantra is a medium width very conventional ski. The Kuro is a state of the art fat rockered ski with sidecut. They float differently. They turn differently. Any length, pop, radius, stiffness, weight, etc. comparison between the two is mostly meaningless in the context of where you'd really want to use a Kuro.

Presumably the OP has considered why they want a Kuro. And where they plan to use it. If this is the case and the only issue is length - 185 is it.
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
Thanks so much for your recommendations.

I ski just about anywhere but I primarily enjoy "big dump" days in northern VT and NH. I usually ski Wolf Creek when out west and have lived there and guided trips there on occasion. The Mantra 177 were much better in waist deep than the 184.....maybe it's the latter year extra width or stiffness but, much more fun. Point taken that this may not be an indication of how rockered skis may respond.

This will be a tough ski to demo here on the east coast. I wonder if the Kuros ski long or short? I didn't get an indication of that in the reviews I've read.
post #7 of 27
For your weight, I'd say 185's as well. The kuros ski long when you let them run (pintail design) and they ski short if you get on the tips (rocker design). I know it sounds like a weird contradiction, but it's a combination of all the features designed into the ski that make it work so well. You have rethink the way you ski to appreciate how well this ski can work for you.
post #8 of 27
I agree with the 185 suggestion. At your size, you'll needlessly sacrifice power and stability in a 175. Rockered skis are different animals, and can't be compared to conventional sizes. The design is inverse.

I'm lighter than you, and I'm scheming for way to slip a pair of 185 Kuro's past my wife (yeah....right).

We've had some seriously deep days here in CO over the past month. On thigh-deep chunk runs in the Bowls, guys on Hellbents, Czars and Kuros were planing while the rest of us had to muscle (Gotama's weren't enough). Every run was a quad-killer.

I now consider rockered skis an essential addition.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
You have rethink the way you ski to appreciate how well this ski can work for you.

Good posts guys and thanks. Can anyone explain the change in technique? I'll also check in the technique forums.
post #10 of 27
A reverse camber (aka rocker) skis differently.
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
Please explain how they ski differently. Thanks. Will I need to ski with a different technique.....more of a powder technique with my skis together as one stable platform, or more of a racing technique with a carve, or some combination, or neither with another component not mentioned?

Volkl Guru says probably the Kuros in a 175 especially for Jay Peak trees.....comments?

Before I installed the Kneebinding on my Mantra 177 I added a thin plexi plate under the toe of my M 14 Comps on that same ski. That decreased the ramp angle and made the 177 feel just a tad longer. I liked the effect. Not as much ramp on the Knee binding so the ski feels about the same. Based on JayPowHound's link (thanks dude!) I'm mounting the M14's on the Kuros and will play with the ramp angle to experiment with that same effect.
post #12 of 27
Double rocker = go longer.
post #13 of 27
Thread Starter 
Research consensus seems to favor longer rockers over shorter.....I wonder why Volkl Guru says to go shorter???
post #14 of 27
Having rocker means you can add pivot & slarve (slide-carve) to your skiing toolkit. No more need to sit back in pow, you can now keep forward & centered stance.
post #15 of 27
1) Consider this thread from TGR. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=131823 Note my comments & then the word (arguably "correction") from Volkl (Squaretail) regarding sizing for someone 185 pounds. Pretty unequivocal.

2) Regarding technique. In general, centered yes - forward maybe not so much. In deeper snow, the shovel lets you drive forward in a more typical charging approach if you want. But I find it & similar skis do much better when skied "from the middle". Go play with a pair on a groomer. You'll notice right away that the running length grows out from the middle as you tip it. Driving through the tips is a useless exercise with this class of ski on firmer or shallow snow - because the rocker causes the middle to engage first and foremost as the ski is tipped.

Also, you can drive the tails back (not get in the backseat, but use a weight shift) to either put on the brakes while going straight - or do a fast pivot off the tail in powder. Go find the McConkey Mental Floss piece which has been linked to a ton of times. The Kuro does a good job of living in both worlds. It will totally do the slarve/smear, pivot thing (although not quite to the level of a Spat or Praxis or even Pontoon). But it can also be turned readily on edge or made to arc on the bases. In short, it has a large bag of tricks. I suggest checking preconceived notions at the door and playing around. A lot. Especially with a very centered stance. And in deep snow playing with smeared and tail-pivoted turns...

3) Regarding ramp angle. Have fun . Unless things have changed since I snagged mine, the deck of the ski largely reflects the rocker - so your preconceived notions regarding ramp angle may not hold on such a ski... As I indicated earlier, if I were mounting up a set today, I'd do an STH or a Marker Jester/Griffon. I just like them. And they are relatively flat & low & light compared with some other choices. I'm not sure how the Comps will end up sitting on the Kuro, but I'm pretty sure I would not want a ton of ramp.

Also, I suspect Harkin Banks may have an opinion on some of this. No idea if he'd even agree with me. But he's a darn on the ball skier, planned to use the ski a bunch this year - and represents Volkl on the hill... Soooo, Harkin Banks to the white courtesy phone please...
post #16 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
1) Consider this thread from TGR. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=131823 Note my comments & then the word (arguably "correction") from Volkl (Squaretail) regarding sizing for someone 185 pounds. Pretty unequivocal.

2) Regarding technique. In general, centered yes - forward maybe not so much. In deeper snow, the shovel lets you drive forward in a more typical charging approach if you want. But I find it & similar skis do much better when skied "from the middle". Go play with a pair on a groomer. You'll notice right away that the running length grows out from the middle as you tip it. Driving through the tips is a useless exercise with this class of ski on firmer or shallow snow - because the rocker causes the middle to engage first and foremost as the ski is tipped.

Also, you can drive the tails back (not get in the backseat, but use a weight shift) to either put on the brakes while going straight - or do a fast pivot off the tail in powder. Go find the McConkey Mental Floss piece which has been linked to a ton of times. The Kuro does a good job of living in both worlds. It will totally do the slarve/smear, pivot thing (although not quite to the level of a Spat or Praxis or even Pontoon). But it can also be turned readily on edge or made to arc on the bases. In short, it has a large bag of tricks. I suggest checking preconceived notions at the door and playing around. A lot. Especially with a very centered stance. And in deep snow playing with smeared and tail-pivoted turns...

3) Regarding ramp angle. Have fun . Unless things have changed since I snagged mine, the deck of the ski largely reflects the rocker - so your preconceived notions regarding ramp angle may not hold on such a ski... As I indicated earlier, if I were mounting up a set today, I'd do an STH or a Marker Jester/Griffon. I just like them. And they are relatively flat & low & light compared with some other choices. I'm not sure how the Comps will end up sitting on the Kuro, but I'm pretty sure I would not want a ton of ramp.

Also, I suspect Harkin Banks may have an opinion on some of this. No idea if he'd even agree with me. But he's a darn on the ball skier, planned to use the ski a bunch this year - and represents Volkl on the hill... Soooo, Harkin Banks to the white courtesy phone please...

Good post! Thanks so much for the info.

The M14 Comps have a pretty intense ramp angle so the plexi piece I put in under the toe reduces it to almost flat. It seems a flat ramp is important with these skis. Thanks dude. I'll check the TGR thread too.
post #17 of 27

Have just bought a pair of Kuros (and not skied) I thought I'd chime in with my recent experiences..

I had to wait a couple of week before giving them a test.

 

There's been a few posts about Krypton Pros not interfacing well with Jester's .. given the Kuro isnt' supposed to be too heavier a ski -  I mounted with STH16 bindings on the mark. (for the record Im not small - 6'1 193kg) so figured alittle extra weight would be too noticeable.

 

I was wrong and given that I fairly frequently hike up a outbounds .. it was HEAVY. Total surprised. Luckily, I was able to exchange bindings for a fresh pair of Jesters. From that point of view it made a difference, but at the cost of remounting.

It's at 1cm behind the centre mark now on a 185, so Im hoping it'll be a good mount with a but more ski in front of me being no bad thing since im used to the bigger sticks ..

post #18 of 27
I'm definitely going to buy a set of volkl kuros in the future, and just wandering what length i should have. 
I normally ski a set of Rossi Sprayer BCs @ 168 or Scott Punishers @ 172. They are both fine, but I'm more comfortable with the sprayers, probably because of the shorter length and thinner waist. This is, however for when I'm piste bashing and resort-bound off piste-ing it. Wandering whether i should get the 175s or 185s?

I am:-
10 stone & 5 ounces
5 foot & 11 inches.

I'm thinking 175? But this will be my first rocker-based ski, so I'm a bit lost to be honest.
post #19 of 27
I am 5'11 and 180lbs and use 185cm's. My wife is 5"7 and 130lbs and uses 175cm's. The 185cm's give better stability at speed, the 175cm's are more nimble. The Kuros want to do big GS turns in the powder. This is when they are at their best. Get the 185cm's if you are a decent skier.
post #20 of 27
I have 15 days this year on Volkl Rockered Gotama (2010).  before buying I skied the 178 for 2 days, then switched to 186.  Similar stats to 'Yomama" - 6',  210#, level 7-8.    I have skied them in east coast powder (heavy), ice, crud, and both hard and soft moguls.   The 178 rockered (volkl ELP) skis shorter than my Volkl AC4 170s.   Th 186 skis longer.  There is NO control problem on the 186 even in tight trails like some of the older small trails at Stratton.  The primary advantage I found on the longer length is stability and control in crud.
If I was planning to spend most of the time in tight trees or moguls I would have gone for the 178 - it was better there, but for overall soft/crud/powder days the 186 was much better for me.  It is fine in the bumps, both large and small, much better than 170 ac4s.
I also went for the Griffon binding and bought the demo slider for $15-20 which lets you reposition the binding easlily.  These are great.

The rocker is simple and super in soft snow.  It is a little trickly on hard pack - the ski wants to be on edge.  it is fast, stable and fun on edge.  Skied flat and slow it hunts a bit since the tips are up.   If it chatters you just give it more edge.  I have had no problem even on the steepest hard slopes.    In soft snow or bumped up crud it is just a dream...  

I know this is narrower than the Kuro (106 under foot), but I understand the ELP is similar.  Hope this helps.
post #21 of 27
Don't be scared off by the width of the Kuro. I am skiing in Europe ( Chamonix and Verbier) and have skied the Kuros exclusively since December. The LP's haven't had an outing this year. They are better in crud but the Kuros cope ok and the moment you get some powder or wind pack the Kuros are in a completely different league. One of my ski buddies has this years Gotamas and I am sure I am having a lot more fun than him. The Kuros simply change the rules for having fun off piste. I cannot recommend them highly enough. I also have Lp's, mythic riders and movement yaka jams in the quiver.
post #22 of 27
Yo Momma, I have the 185 Kuro (last year), 191 Mantra (3 yr old), 183 Gotama (last year), and an older pair of K2 slalom skis. For comparison purposes I am 6' 2" 255# and live in the Tahoe area for the past few years, but have done the bulk of my skiing back in New England, when I lived in Boston.  Although I confess I haven't skiied Stowe or Jay, I have hit pretty much every other resort there from Whiteface to Sugarloaf and Wachusset to Sugarbush.  I got about 40 days in last season and hoping for the same or better again this year.

I liked the Mantra, but in deep powder I found that unless I was really on them I struggled between going over the tip or hooking the tail.  With the amount of powder we get out here I decided that I needed to try something different.  Based on the feedback on this board I decided to demo a few skis including the Kuros, which I thought would be way too big for me.  On a 3 ft deep day at Kirkwood I took the Kuro out first to give them a whirl and didn't bring them back until the end of the day and I was in love - immediately raised my game a few notches.  Two days later I was the proud owner of a new pair of 185's (they didn't make the 195's then).  I have skied about 20 days on them in 6" to 8ft of untracked snow at Kirkwood, Squaw, Alpine Meadows, and Mt Rose from wide open bowls to chutes and trees and am amazed at how nimble and easy to turn they are given the size and stability, even in chewed up crud. 

Last Friday was a perfect example - Kirkwood opened the back side for the first time since Sunday with 7ft of fresh.  I was able to go places that my 190# buddy couldn't on his Gotamas unless he rode in my tracks.  There just wasn't enough gravity (slope pitch) for the amount of snow.  People were getting stuck or taking diggers all over the place (even a lot of snow boarders - spectacular by the way, all you could see were their heads sticking out of the snow) while I was gliding through.  Only once have I gone over the nose, and that was because I screwed up a jump and landed on the tips.

Based on the above I think you'd be very happy with the 175's, but if you get a better deal on the 185's don't sweat it.  Mine are mounted with the Marker Dukes, but I have been thinking about swapping them with the Jesters on my Gotamas for some backcountry/side country skiing on the goats.  The only time I've come out of the bindings were exactly when I needed them to.  I do think the extra width of the binding will help when you're carving the soft groomers.  I broke a rib falling down a chute last year and had to stay on piste for a while so I played with them and was pleasantly surprised at how well they did, you can really crank them over.  Just don't straight line race against your friends; the tips will flap.

Whichever size you go with, the harder you ski them the better they will perform.  After a couple of runs you will find yourself charging on the front of the ski, and rarely falling into the back seat and even if you do you'll find them very forgiving.  They ski much shorter than their length (quickness wise) and are amazing in the trees although you'll quickly learn you need a bit wider gap to fit the 165mm tips through - one blow to the helmet should do it! 

The only change I would make with the Kuros is the paint job - something like last years K2 Obsethed would be cool.

The only other thing I think you should consider, because of where you ski and perhaps not getting as big dumps as we get in the west is the new 2010 Gotama.  I got my 2009 models at the end of the season for a steal, and I like to use them as my every day ski for crud, crusty, or just a few inches, but if it's a true powder day the big girls come out.  However, if I had to buy just one ski I'd go with the new goat and a pair of Jester Schizo's on them.  They have the rocker design like the Kuros, but will be easier to handle on the hard pack you are sure to find between powder stashes in the trees a couple of days after the storm.  The schizo would allow you to tune the ski for the conditions of the day in a couple of minutes.  The few folks I've talked to who have them absolutely love them - they just can't keep up with me on the ultra deep days  
Edited by crazymick - 1/25/10 at 11:05pm
post #23 of 27
 I am 165 5'6" and ride the 175 and love them.




post #24 of 27

1st post ever as a new member! glad to be here--I just bought a pair of 2012 Kuros and have the cloice of 175 or 185. I am 5'11 180 but only get about 7 or 8 days a year out West as I live back East- I ski decent but don't really do bumps and not as many trees, although some. What size? Thanks

post #25 of 27

everyone 185....

post #26 of 27

Ok I get  the 185s for stability and speed but will they wear me out? for reference I ski mantra 177's

post #27 of 27

anyone else care to comment? Thx

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 › Kuros 175 or 185?? Recommendations