EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Dynastar Sultan 85 - 172 or 178?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Sultan 85 - 172 or 178?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Just demo'ed the 172 - it felt great, but I'm wondering if the 178 is a better length for me.

I'm 6', 165 lb, level 7+ and still improving, Tahoe 50/50 skier.

Thoughts?
post #2 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandicoot View Post

Just demo'ed the 172 - it felt great, but I'm wondering if the 178 is a better length for me.

I'm 6', 165 lb, level 7+ and still improving, Tahoe 50/50 skier.

Thoughts?

It's an all mountain free-ride ski, not a piste carver. Size it accordingly. You'll outgrow the 172 quickly.
post #3 of 17
Probably 178 is the better bet for a skier who will quickly be skiing level 8 type terrain, at your height.
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the advice. I suspect the 178s will be better as well - should I demo them too, or do you think they are similar enough to the 172s to not warrant the demo cost?

Another question - on the Dynastar website they show a Legend Sultan 85 and a Legend Sultan 85 Fluid. What's the difference?

And finally, any suggestions for bindings?
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
I just realized I posted this thread in the Member Gear Reviews forum and not the Ski Gear Discussion forum where I intended (and where it belongs). I don't know how to move the thread, so I'll start a new one in Ski Gear Discussion. Sorry - I'm a newbie.
post #6 of 17

Hello all, new member here - love the site and appreciate the great information and wealth of knowledge available.

I just got back into skiing this past season after a 10 year hiatus and was able to demo some skis with the intent of purchase.  I narrowed down my selection finally to the volkl ac50 and the dynastar legend sultan.  I was able to demo both in the 170/172cm length. I loved the stability of the volkl but found it one dimensional, great for ripping through crud and groomers, but thats about it.  On the other hand, the dynastar legend sultan was much more versatile and left a better impression on me.  I ran across a great deal on the 2011 dynastar's, and am here to ask your advice on length.  I am 6', 190lbs and am planning to really ramp up my skill this next season with the goal of skiing at least 50 days.  I got out about 10 times this season, and built up my confidence, and by the end of the season, I was very comfortable skiing black diamonds, glades, and a few bumps here in the east where I live.  I am planning to take quite a few lessons next year and go to ski camp out west to further refine and improve my abilities. 

So my question is, should I go with 172cm or 178cm in length?  I loved how easy the turns were on the 172s i demo'd, but since I didnt get a chance to get on the 178s I was hoping some of you could provide some insight.  From comments here on the site it seems like the consensus is to go with 178s, but i dont want to get skis that will feel too long from the get go.  Is the dynastar 178 more comparable to the volkl 170 or is the dynastar 172 more like the volkl 170?

 

Thanks in advance.

post #7 of 17

I'm 6'2" and skied the 178.  Loved the ski.

post #8 of 17

a buddy of mine is 5'8" or so and skis the 178cm, really rocking it. good ski. I am 6'0" skied it once and thought it was about right, although i could see it being nicer in a longer length but it doesnt come in any longer.

 

post #9 of 17

 

Nothing to talk about. Get the 178, you won't regret it.

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandicoot View Post

Another question - on the Dynastar website they show a Legend Sultan 85 and a Legend Sultan 85 Fluid. What's the difference?

And finally, any suggestions for bindings?


 

The Fluid include bindings as it is an intergrated binding system. I always buy the Fluid system, as it is easy for me to adjust the bindings to different bsl's.

post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoal007 View Post

a buddy of mine is 5'8" or so and skis the 178cm, really rocking it. good ski. I am 6'0" skied it once and thought it was about right, although i could see it being nicer in a longer length but it doesnt come in any longer.

 


Huh, try 184.

http://store.docsskihaus.com/dynastar-legend-sultan-85-skis-2011.html?&gdftrk=gdfV21831_a_7c198_a_7c501_a_7cA1340_d_184

post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdaffy View Post

So my question is, should I go with 172cm or 178cm in length?  I loved how easy the turns were on the 172s i demo'd, but since I didnt get a chance to get on the 178s I was hoping some of you could provide some insight.  From comments here on the site it seems like the consensus is to go with 178s, but i dont want to get skis that will feel too long from the get go.

 

Thanks in advance.

At your size, definitely buy the 178. If you were ripping it, you would likely want the 184.
 

 

post #13 of 17

Thanks for all the feedback. I really appreciate it.  178s on their way.  Now to figure out how I can get some runs in before next season...

post #14 of 17

Snowbird is still open and it snowed all week.

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdaffy View Post

Thanks for all the feedback. I really appreciate it.  178s on their way.  Now to figure out how I can get some runs in before next season...


Go to my home mountain, Mammoth CA. Snow is good the first 2-3 hours before it warms up to much.

 

post #16 of 17

they must've added the 184 for this year. last year it was only up to 178

 

post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post




Go to my home mountain, Mammoth CA. Snow is good the first 2-3 hours before it warms up to much.

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by AndesRider View Post

Snowbird is still open and it snowed all week.



I think heading west is a bit of a stretch for a few hours in the mornig...might head down to chile however...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Dynastar Sultan 85 - 172 or 178?