EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Dynastar Legend 4800 184cm too long?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Legend 4800 184cm too long?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Hi everybody

I've been on the same pair of old straight edge skis for the last ten years (salomon F9 ~196cm).  Finally, I bought some brand new skis (Dynastar Legend 4800 184cm 2006 model still in the original packaging!).  Since I haven't look into gear in so long 186 seemed like a decent size for me.  Now I'm starting to wonder if the skis are too long.  Of course, I should have done more research first but I got these for very little at the Calgary ski sale which only runs on one weekend of the year.  The stock tends to sell out real quickly.  Besides, I'm used to junkers - these will probably be an improvement.

150 lbs 5'11"
level 8 skier (level 9 when I get out more than 15 times / season)
prefer steep technical agressive skiing / some bumps
Ski mostly in off-piste in Alberta => lots of tracked crud / can be icy
I put Rossignol axiom 100 bindings on the skis


I've been reading alot, and it looks like the 4800s "skis short".
I know I still haven't got my head wrapped around the new (okay, new ten years ago) "carving skis", but stepping down 12cm seems like a big change already.

Any thoughts?  I'll know better myself when I try them in a week or so.

Thanks in advance.
post #2 of 13

Enjoy. I don't know much about that ski, but in its day was supposed to be pretty versatile for hard and soft snow. Believe it's rather narrow waisted by today's standards. I only switched off long skinny skis around 2002 myself. I'm about your size, but not as aggressive. I'm old. I went from 190something skinny ski to a used pair of 183cm shaped Fischer Carve skis. I enjoyed them for 3 or 4 years, then got Fischer RX8s at 175cms with more agility on hard snow. Going down from skinny 196 to shaped 184 is going to feel real good to you. Since you got a good deal on them, you can always upgrade in a few years now that you've finally joined the shaped revolution when you know more and find another ski that you are really crazy about.  Welcome to epic, should your user name be Jeremy4800??

 

random info plucked off web:

Dynastar Legend 4800

Lengths: 158, 165, 172, 178, 184cm

Type: Freeride

Reference Data

Length: 172 cm

Side cut: 114/74/102 mm

Sidecut Radius: 16 m

For good to excellent skiers looking for a high-performance ski both in the powder and on hardpack, who ski all types of terrain with the same agility.

Old thread on legend 4800

 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/48642/is-the-legend-4800-enough-for-me
post #3 of 13
No harm in skiing them but they may be longer than necessary for you and less agile and enjoyable than the 178 or even 172.

My rule of thumb in ski sizing is to look at the range of lengths in which a ski is offered and pick the length that matches where I fall in the size range of skiers.  I.e., I weigh around 170 lbs, so I'm mid-weight to light heavyweight in the range of adult skiers; I'd choose the 172 or 178cm 4800, and leave the 184 cm for the big guys. 

YMMV though. And considering you're planning to ski off-piste out West, the extra length would be less of a hindrance than in icy tight spots back east. 
post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the advice.  I've been trolling this website (this is the worst internet work distraction I've ever come across) and have found lots of useful info on sizing carving skis (I guess they'd just be called skis now!).  The last time i looked into gear you'd still get the longest thing you could handle based on ability and terrain.    For the most part I understand why one can get away with a short ski when skiing at an advanced level.  However, There is one thing that I don't get.  When skiing on steep variable terrain I put pressure on the front of my boots.  When doing this on short skis you can put your centre of gravity ahead the ski's sweet spot - or worse.  I understand that skis now require some technique adjustments from the five of us still on straight edges.  I understand all of the other short ski rationale but I don't get the whole steep, fore/aft balance thing - especially on variable cruddy terrain.  I'm even more unsure about this when applying the reasoning to relatively soft skis like the 4800s ( someone will probably tell me they're rock hard by today's standards ;-).  I did read one post on this site sort of adressing this issue. The poster adivised that on short skis you don't want to pressure the front of your boots.  This sounds plausible for non-agressive skiing but how can it apply to driving your skis aggressively - especially to busting through crud?
post #5 of 13
Of the issues you just raised the one I can best speak to is wasting time on the internet. 

You might want to look at the technique and instruction forums on adapting to modern equipment.  I never skied straight skis so am not the best source for this.   However, my sense of modern gear / technique is that pressuring the front of the boots and skis is counterproductive and a fairly balanced stance fore/aft will aid in most effectively using your edges, even in steeps and crud.  My mental process in skiing crud is to not even think about "busting through" it, which puts focus on the tips, but rather, "balancing through" on feet.  If I get my feet where I want them to be, the tips take care of themselves.  Also a great book on modern equipment is R. Mark Elling, "The All Mountain Skier", well worth reading. 

And I think you're right that the 4800's are fairly soft and versatile skis.
post #6 of 13
I'd say it's quite a bit too large for your size and weight (on the bright side, it's a great ski).

As has been said already a 178 (or 172) would be a lot better. I was on some 165's a couple of years ago in a couple of feet of pow at Steamboat that I borrowed from a buddy and didn't want to give them back. In powder they're a blast.
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
Lake Louise is set to open on the 6th and I can't wait to see how these skis work.  I might even go night skiing at COP (local in-city green / blue hill) because the suspense is driving me nuts!.  Anyways, I appreciate all the advice; I have one more question.  Does anyone know what the current equivalent to the 4800 in Dynastar's lineup is?
post #8 of 13
 Hey ts01: I would respectfully disagree with your balance technique. To get so called shaped skis to perform you need to have pressure on the tips so to speak, and the best que to know you are doing this is to feel your shin push into your boot or to push your toes down. In steep terrain you especially need to be in the front seat and not anywhere near the back seat or you of course loose all control. So I would say to Jeremy go with the pressure you won't be disappointed.
post #9 of 13
I'd agree with peatmoss.  Last year I took a lot of lessons (college course. 1 credit ftw!) and my instructor still stressed forward pressure as being an important consideration.  However, another important consideration is your mounting point.  If you're further back, you'll have to maintain lots of forward pressure to be in the "sweet spot" and forward mounts will allow a more neutral stance.  

As has been suggested, though, it's best to talk to the experts on this.  There's a training section on these forums and you can take a lesson or two (or three or however many you want) to get used to your new skis. 
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post

 Hey ts01: I would respectfully disagree with your balance technique. To get so called shaped skis to perform you need to have pressure on the tips so to speak, and the best que to know you are doing this is to feel your shin push into your boot or to push your toes down. In steep terrain you especially need to be in the front seat and not anywhere near the back seat or you of course loose all control. So I would say to Jeremy go with the pressure you won't be disappointed.

I don't think I recommended a stance "anywhere near the back seat." 

How any one of us translates words (from internet forums, books, or live instruction) into motions is highly subjective so I don't think there's a single "best cue."  I was just agreeing that there may be something to what the OP was told and asked about in post #4, and suggesting he read up and get more input on adapting to new gear.

For me the best cue is balance which takes foot position, speed, momentum, slope angle, surface conditions, and everything else  into account, with "balance" in all directions, not just L/R but fore/aft. For me simply pressuring the boot tongues is not the be-all and end-all; keeping my upper body forward and square to the fall line, proper pole plants, and using my feet are all part of the equation.  I never used straight skis though.  For everyone else, it may be different ... but I notice peatmoss that you mention "pushing your toes down" which is part of "balance" and part of what I meant in "getting my feet where I want them" and goes to the same tips-guided-by-feet concept.
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post

 Hey ts01: I would respectfully disagree with your balance technique. To get so called shaped skis to perform you need to have pressure on the tips so to speak, and the best way to know you are doing this is to feel your shin push into your boot or to push your toes down. In steep terrain you especially need to be in the front seat and not anywhere near the back seat or you of course loose all control. So I would say to Jeremy go with the pressure you won't be disappointed.

+1, as I totally agree. I am 5"10" working on getting back to 180lbs for the start of the season and I ski 184 Dynastar MR's. I like long skis as they feel much more stable at speed and you get a little bit better float in the soft stuff. Just ski them. Your going to love them after switching from your old gear.
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy6000 View Post

Lake Louise is set to open on the 6th and I can't wait to see how these skis work.  I might even go night skiing at COP (local in-city green / blue hill) because the suspense is driving me nuts!.  Anyways, I appreciate all the advice; I have one more question.  Does anyone know what the current equivalent to the 4800 in Dynastar's lineup is?
 

I think the last version of the 4800 shot up to an 80 waist size, and then the name has changed to the Sultan 80.  This ski will be different from what you have.

I have the 2005 or 2006 4800s in a 172 size; I'm your height but 30 pounds heavier and I've always loved those skis.  I don't ski them much anymore.  I think I would have gone shorter in your case but, now that you own them, I say embrace it.  At your level, you should be able to make these skis sing.  I enjoy the hell out of these in a foot of powder despite the skinny waist.  The flex is sweet; the extra length should be fun on powder days.
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Tried out the skis last night at COP.  Will probably go to Lake Louise next weekend.
Here's what happened.
Conditions:
temp 8 C, night skiing on semi-frozen man made slush (sounds dreamy doesn't it), some ice patches

Results:
nice carving on all except for steeper ice at high speed
quick edge transitions
good shot radius turns
great bigger carved turns
quite a forgiving ski
minimal (if any) "squirreliness"
holds up reasonably well for fast groomer skiing for a soft all mountain ski, but definitely not at home.

Obviously the test conditions were prety limited; can't wait to try them on some big mountain terrain.

Only negative, as already mentioned, is ice.  Chattering on ice probably due to ski's softness.  Of course, my old-school thinking wouldn't attribute the chattering to short length, but the length might have been a factor here.  If I really put pressure on the front of my skis the chattering stopped.  That indicates to me from what I've read that the chattering might be due to the length.  On the other hand, I never had problems keeping the tails from washing out.  That said, although I wanted an all-around ski, I mostly ski off-piste so  these will be great.  
FYI to anyone in Calgary, the Max Bell Ski Sale people told me that for the last two years some guy has brought in about five pairs of brand new 4800s, and they wouldn't be surprised if more showed up next year... go figure.
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 4800 184cm too long?