New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Legend 8K length?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi All,

 

I'm trying decide between the 172 and 178.

 

Me:

 

5'11, 165-170lbs, solid level 7, looking to 30 days min. next season, want to get more serious about improving (directed practice, lessons). I ski out West.

 

Many seem to recommend this ski on the long side. Is 178 the way to go? Great deals can be had, just concerned that length might be too much... 

 

Thanks for any advice!

 

post #2 of 13

It seems the fashion these days is to go longer. When this ski first came out the common wisdom was to go a shorter if you were in between on the 8k. I know some changes have been made since the first models and I haven't skied them. I had the 178 and have 25 lbs on you. It was plenty of ski for me.

post #3 of 13

I have the ski in both lengths.  Both are equally easy to ski.  The only meaningful difference I've found is that the 172 is a little quicker and better at shorter turns.  I think it all depends on your aggressiveness and the speed you ski.  I weigh 170 pounds, height is irrelevant.

 

post #4 of 13

I would go 178.  I am 185 lbs.  I had the 78 and sold it to buy the 184.  I think you will lose almost no turning quickness with the 178 and gain substantial stability.  Its a very easygoing ski and you will like the extra length.

post #5 of 13

on Tram right now for 398 w/12's

post #6 of 13

I've seen 349.00 w/bindings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

on Tram right now for 398 w/12's

 

post #7 of 13

Dynastar Legend 8000 w/ PX12 Fluid Skis, 178 cm.  $349.65 w/free shipping from one of our sponsors, Sierraskis.com

 

http://www.sierraskis.com/2009-Dynsstar-Legend-8000-Skis-w-PX12-42694.asp

 

One more vote for the 178 cm length for the OP.  I ride 172 cm @ 5'8", 158 lbs, lvl 7-8, and I really like them at this length.

post #8 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post

 

One more vote for the 178 cm length for the OP.  I ride 172 cm @ 5'8", 158 lbs, lvl 7-8, and I really like them at this length.

I'm 175, level 7/8.  I tried these for a day at Vail.  I only had one day on these skis, but thought 172 was just right for me if I had liked the ski.  I'm not quite sure why you would want to go longer myself; I found them to be plenty stable at fairly good mach schnell. 

But, everyone has an opinion.
 

post #9 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

 

I'm 175, level 7/8.  I tried these for a day at Vail.  I only had one day on these skis, but thought 172 was just right for me if I had liked the ski.  I'm not quite sure why you would want to go longer myself; I found them to be plenty stable at fairly good mach schnell. 

But, everyone has an opinion.
 


That might be the difference. :)

 

To be completely truthful, I was a little ho-hum about them in the first few days of my ownership.  They seemed to be competent but a bit boring, stable enough for mach schnell, but why?

 

It wasn't until more days that I started appreciating their strengths and started exploiting them.  Like being able to do mach schnell (or at least carry good speed) in conditions that would otherwise be challenging for me at those speeds, like high angulation GS turns over soft bumps.  Flying bulldozer.  Sometimes I'd lose a bit of balance and do a carve-limbo knuckle-drag.  Nothing to the skis.  Sometimes I'd bounce a downhill ski off of a harder bump in the midst of a deep carve...  and nothing to the skis.  They just came back and resumed whatever they were doing.  Very difficult to perturb.

 

And it's not like the 172cm was cumbersome or hard to turn at slower speeds.  Maybe at a beginner crawl, but I wouldn't care about that anyways.

 

All this was on a demo day, so this was not fawning in a vaccum.  That was when I realized the brilliance of these skis at their recommended length (a very well-known and reputable pro Bear who skis the same places I do recommended them).  A shorter length would have had many of the same characteristics, but would have decreased the skis' brilliance in their strengths.

 

I mean, this is an 18 m radius (for 172 cm) ski.  That's a cheater GS sidecut.  Why does anyone presume that they would work better in the sizing of a mid-to-short radius AM or slalom carver?

 

 

post #10 of 13

DtEW: I'm confused.  You ski the 172 at 158 lbs but recommend the 178 for the OP at 165-170 lbs?  Wouldn't you recommend same size as you ski?  Or are you saying that, given the two choices, go 178?

 

BTW, it might well be that what you say about these skis is correct.  I did get the sense of competence expempified.  But I was searching for more "Wow" for my money.  

...of course that's how you get into trouble sometimes.  But that's another thread.

post #11 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

DtEW: I'm confused.  You ski the 172 at 158 lbs but recommend the 178 for the OP at 165-170 lbs?  Wouldn't you recommend same size as you ski?  Or are you saying that, given the two choices, go 178?

 

BTW, it might well be that what you say about these skis is correct.  I did get the sense of competence expempified.  But I was searching for more "Wow" for my money.  

...of course that's how you get into trouble sometimes.  But that's another thread.

 

Aside from the ~10 lbs. difference, the OP has 3" of height on me.  I'm a firm believer in both weight and height as important factors in ski length.  Weight is obvious.  Height has to do with with the amount of weight shift he gets when he leans forward.  If the OP was 5'7" and 165-170 lbs, I'd say 172.  And if the OP was 5'9" and 145-150 lbs, I'd also say 172.  Do I have a formula?  No.  But the OP, being 10 lbs. heavier and 3" taller does say "next size up" relative to me.

 

It is very true that these skis do not "wow" you.  I guess it's what they don't do that's truly impressive (without stooping down to the level of gutless intermediate skis).

post #12 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsound View Post

Hi All,

 

I'm trying decide between the 172 and 178.

I ski out West.

 

 

 'nuf said.  Go long. 

 

I haven't skied that particular ski, but I have skied lengths ranging from 154 cm  to 208cm  on lots of different skis in recent years.  172cm  is a good length for eastern trails where you want to make a lot of shorter turns to keep it interesting, but don't want to make short turns exclusively.  BTW I weigh about 165 to 170 lbs, and 5'9".

 

post #13 of 13

I agree, the 8Ks are not real exciting, but competent is a great way to describe them.  Very dependable ski.

 

I agree, the 178cm size is more appropriate for the OP.  At 6'1" 195lb, I like the 184cm myself.

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