or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Prophet 100 vs Salomon Shogun vs ???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line Prophet 100 vs Salomon Shogun vs ???

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 

I've done a lot of research and reading here, but first time to post.  I'm 27, 6'1" and 190.  Currently I'm skiing a pair of Head Monster 82's.  I live in TN, where there is not much opportunity to shop and demo, but we go ski out west a couple times a year.  We don't ski on the east.  We usually go out West in mixed company with wives and such so we ski a pretty wide variety of terrain.  Looking to move to a wider ski as I find myself spending more time searching out the powder on tougher terrain.  However, we still spend a significant amount of time of the groomers so I need something that handles well there as well.  If I'm in the open groomers I'm more of the big turning type but still need some mobility as I do like to play in the trees from time to time.  Not a total speed demon, like to move fast down the mountain but prefer to be in control.  Spend no time in the moguls unless I just have to pass through them and don't spend time in the park unless its just an occassional bump here or there to catch a little air.

 

With the amount of skiing we do I can't justify to pairs of ski so I'm looking for one ski that can do a little bit of everything.  From what I have read, the Salomon Shogun or Line Prophet seem to be really solid all mountain skis...  from those who have rode and are familiar with these skis, which one would seem to fit my profile or is there anything else I should look at it.  Thanks!

 

 

 

post #2 of 34

never skied the Prophet's so i can't comment, but the Salomon Shoguns for next season are the worst skis I tested all this season. I would recommend Attomic Snoop for your requirements as i feel my other suggestion of the Volkl Gotama may be a little large under foot? 106mm

post #3 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cunningham1143 View Post

However, we still spend a significant amount of time of the groomers so I need something that handles well there as well. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliot View Post

as i feel my other suggestion of the Volkl Gotama may be a little large under foot? 106mm

 

And the Gotama's rocker would sure suck on the "significant amount of time on the groomers"
 

post #4 of 34

Going to agree with Snofun here. I own a pair of the new gotamas and love them. However I think they would be a very poor investment as the only set of skis for someone such as cunningham. 

post #5 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post


 

 

 

And the Gotama's rocker would sure suck on the "significant amount of time on the groomers"
 

 

incorrect; the Gotama was the best mid-fat skis on the groomers i tested all season, also 'rocker'  gives the Gotama a bad rep, i'd call it a slight early rise (hardly noticable).
 

post #6 of 34

There's no change in the Shoguns from 09/10 to 10/11.  

 

I have the 09/10 and have no complaints, I prefer it over the same year Gotamas. Shogun tracks better on groomers. However, the Shogun top sheet chips very easily -- don't even knock those babies together on the lift..

post #7 of 34

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliot View Post



 

incorrect; the Gotama was the best mid-fat skis on the groomers i tested all season, also 'rocker'  gives the Gotama a bad rep, i'd call it a slight early rise (hardly noticable).
 

 


This has not been true for more than a year. The gotama has been redesigned and is now flat in the middle with rocker in the tip (volkl calls it "Elongated Low Profile") and tail. It is most definitely noticeable. Perhaps you refer to previous models (the gold or neon kanji top-sheets). These were a more traditional ski design and make much more sense as a ski for what cunningham wants. They have a huge cult following as every-day skis out here in Tahoe. 

post #8 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliot View Post



 

incorrect; the Gotama was the best mid-fat skis on the groomers i tested all season, also 'rocker'  gives the Gotama a bad rep, i'd call it a slight early rise (hardly noticable).
 


It's far more than hardly noticable, which has been confimed by MANY here. My testing led me not to buy an 09/10 Goat, whereas I loved the old one.

 

"Incorrect" . Keep testing. The latest Goat sucketh on groomers.

post #9 of 34
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the replies so far...

 

It is correct that I spend a fairly decent amount of time due to the varying ski levels of the people I ski with, so I do need something that is not going to suck big time on the groomers.  One day we may ski 80% groomers with everyone and then ski 10% the next day just to get from lift to lift.  It just depends.  I did check on the Gotama, but it seemed to get real mixed reviews on the groomers, which is consistent with what I see here.   Another ski I looked at is a 4FRNT VCT or the VCT Turbo, any thoughts on those???

 

I did look at the Snoop but it seems real similiar to what I'm skiing now with the 82 vs 88 width...

 

So I guess its still Line Prophet 100 vs Shogun vs VCT vs ????

 

Thanks again for any thoughts!

post #10 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkwoodBandit View Post

 

 


This has not been true for more than a year. The gotama has been redesigned and is now flat in the middle with rocker in the tip (volkl calls it "Elongated Low Profile") and tail. It is most definitely noticeable. Perhaps you refer to previous models (the gold or neon kanji top-sheets). These were a more traditional ski design and make much more sense as a ski for what cunningham wants. They have a huge cult following as every-day skis out here in Tahoe. 





Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post


 


It's far more than hardly noticable, which has been confimed by MANY here. My testing led me not to buy an 09/10 Goat, whereas I loved the old one.

 

"Incorrect" . Keep testing. The latest Goat sucketh on groomers.

 

Well the 2010/11 Gotama was the best ski i tested all season long that fell into the 'every day' ski box.
 

post #11 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cunningham1143 View Post

Thanks for the replies so far...

 

It is correct that I spend a fairly decent amount of time due to the varying ski levels of the people I ski with, so I do need something that is not going to suck big time on the groomers.  One day we may ski 80% groomers with everyone and then ski 10% the next day just to get from lift to lift.  It just depends.  I did check on the Gotama, but it seemed to get real mixed reviews on the groomers, which is consistent with what I see here.   Another ski I looked at is a 4FRNT VCT or the VCT Turbo, any thoughts on those???

 

I did look at the Snoop but it seems real similiar to what I'm skiing now with the 82 vs 88 width...

 

So I guess its still Line Prophet 100 vs Shogun vs VCT vs ????

 

Thanks again for any thoughts!


I have skied the VCT Turbo. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It wasn't very energetic in my opinion, but I dont necessarily demand that in a ski. However, I will say the same thing about it that I said about the Gotama. Its lack of camber makes it less than ideal for someone who will be using it 80% of the time on groomers. I found that it liked to be 'surfed' much more than carved. However, my understanding is that the Turbo is simply a VCT with the camber mostly removed. This leads me to believe that the VCT would be a decent ski for what you want (Disclaimer: I have never skied the standard VCT).

post #12 of 34

Owned a P-100 this year and skied the Shogun a fair bit. I also skied about 50 other skis in the last year with the majority of those being 90mm or over. FWIW....the Shogun is reasonably solid on pack when compared to other skis with tip rise or double rise however it does not compete well with the P-100 as an all around tool  The P-100 is a very versatile ski for its width range and has a wider range of usefulness than the Shogun. The Atomic Coax for 2009-10 is also quite good if somewhat under appreciated.

 

SJ

post #13 of 34

I'm having trouble with the assumption that a couple of trips out west (coast, rockies, ??) per year, probably non-correlated with weather, are going to justify a 100 mm ski with rocker. In fact, if I had a trip out west, pure roll of the dice what the snow would be like, skiing all over the mountain with other couples and varying abilities, a pair of iM82's would not be a bad choice. If I were doing this kind of trip, I'd probably go with my MX88's, but I can think of a lot of excellent skis in the high 80's to mid 90's that would do better in the context than a P100 or anything else of that genre. Including the Goat; if that's the best groomer ski Elliot's tried this year, he must have an unusual list of demos or not ski groomers much. 

 

OP: If you like the iM82's, think about these: Peak 88, Blizzard 8.7 or Atlas, Kastle MX88, Nordica Hellcat, Stockli XXXL. All smooth and strong, varying degrees of liveliness/dampness, varying dedication to smaller or larger turn radii, can handle any kind of terrain except perhaps tight bumps or trees, will cover the amount of soft snow you're statistically likely to encounter (<6"). Other than the MX88's, my second pick for pure versatility would be the Blizzard 8.7's or Peak 88's. Atlas's and XXXL's are more oriented toward the backside and higher speeds. Hellcats are superwide carvers that can deal with modest soft snow, but will rock on groomers. All excellent skis. 

post #14 of 34

I'll go along with SJ and actually comment on a ski you mentioned in your OP(People around here seem to have a problem doing that). The P100 is such a solid all around ski, there is practically no way you can go wrong with it. It performs well anywhere. it runs edge to edge very well, and is just stiff enough, but not too stiff.  I skied one all season and was never really dissatisfied with it in any other condition except for boilerplate ice.

 

If I wasn't going to a pure ON3P quiver, then P100 would still be my daily driver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #15 of 34

I agree with Beyond's line of thinking, but after reading the OP the first thing that came to mind is that he needs a pair of Mantras. 100mm is not a magic number, and the Mantras are close.  They are also an excellent groomer ski for their size, a fantastic crud ski, and as good a powder board as you can get for a one-ski quiver.  Look at the sidecut compared to most of the others being considered.  Once you go over 100mm waist skis generally start having longer turn radius which, based on his description, is not what the OP is looking for. 

 

I think we all (myself included) picture ourselves skiing lots of deep snow, but the reality is that if you have only one pair of skis it will see 90% of its use on groomed, crud and 8" or less of powder, which sounds like a job for the Mantra to me.

 

Getting a 100mm+ waisted ski on edge every time you turn is not that easy.  Fat rockers are great in deep snow, but your are setting yourself to become a skid meister if that is not where you are going to be using them most of the time.  If you hit a huge dump on a western trip you can always rent a pair of powder specific fat rockers for a few days.

post #16 of 34
Thread Starter 

Thanks again for the replies, I will check out some of the skis under 100MM.  I do like my 82's, but feel like a lot of the time I wish I just had a little more ski under foot.  Maybe I am going to wide with a 100 and something in between would be the way to go.  Thanks again, I'll keep looking.

post #17 of 34

Yeah I definately think 100mm is too big for an all-around do everything ski.  I'd investigate closer to the 90mm range.  The first two that come to mind, are the Volkl Bridge (94mm?) and the Dynastar 6th Sense Big/Big Trouble (92mm).  They both are available in a 186 which should suit you well.

 

I skied the Bridge on a Demo Day in late December last year, with about 4" new in California.  Skied them alongside a Gotama and a Kuro?  Interestingly enough, even with the new snow I liked the Bridge the best.  I'm sure that would only get better the harder the snow became. 

 

The Dynastar I haven't skied, but a coworker of mine has the Big Trouble 186 and loves them.  He was an ex skier, turned snowboarder, turned back skier.  First set of new skis in years, so it probably wouldnt have made a difference which skis he switched too he'd like them, but nonetheless, he doesn't have anything bad to say about them.  And he is a decent skier.  Hikes lake shoots and Breckenridge etc.

 

I think these skis with their fat enough for powder, but skinny enough with normal camber for groomers are your best bet for all mountain skis.  Plus you get a normal twin tip on both.

post #18 of 34

The bridge is definitely a different feel to the other skis mentioned in this thread. I thought it felt more like a slightly wider park ski than anything else. Really light, lots of tail, and kind of got bounced around on harder snow. It's a ski i would recommend trying before buying. 

 

I would recommend something like the Mantra, which is great in most conditions. 

post #19 of 34

Buddy of mine of raves about the shoguns and won't stop talking about them.   Might make sense to do a demo?

post #20 of 34

Cunningham,

From the description of where and how youski, I'd say that the iM82 would work just as well as many <100mm skis.

I would suggest trying the next longer length of iM82 if you feel you need more ski under you.

 

I agree that a ski >100mm and rockered would not be ideal for 80% of your skiing.

Other skis that make sense are:   Line P100 (as SJ said), Nordica Enforcer, Dynastar Legend Pro Rider, Volkl Mantra, Blizzard Atlas or Magnum 8.7, Fischer Watea 94, Scott Mission, Head Peak 88, Elan M888.

 

Demo some...good luck

post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jando5 View Post

Buddy of mine of raves about the shoguns and won't stop talking about them.   Might make sense to do a demo?



Is he a younger feller without many other skis in his quiver?  Seems to me every youngster rants and raves like their new fat rockered skis are the end-all of skis.  The Shogun seems like a perfect candidate for this type of attitude.  (never skied them but I think they look awesome)

post #22 of 34

Fujative OCR,

 

Coming from a guy who is from CA I am surpsrised to read your response...  If there is any new snow or you ski a mountain that gets regular dumpage I have no idea why someone would want a ski under 100 under-foot...  And I am 40 and a former ski racer and have a quiver of 4 (had more but got rid of all of the skinnies)...!

 

Buckeye

post #23 of 34

You have no idea why someone would want a ski under 100?  If you ski any resort anywhere, then you probably have a use for skis under 100.  I've never been to a mountain before that was all powder, all the time.  If you know where that mountain is, please let me know!  Until then, 85-95 seems to be the just the ticket for a 1 ski quiver.  Fat sucks on hard snow, skinny sucks in deep snow, so get something in the middle.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post

Fujative OCR,

 

Coming from a guy who is from CA I am surpsrised to read your response...  If there is any new snow or you ski a mountain that gets regular dumpage I have no idea why someone would want a ski under 100 under-foot...  And I am 40 and a former ski racer and have a quiver of 4 (had more but got rid of all of the skinnies)...!

 

Buckeye

post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

 Fat sucks on hard snow, skinny sucks in deep snow, so get something in the middle.

 


 


Yep, which by todays standards is about 100mm. Todays "fat" skis are surprisingly good on hardpack and groomers for what they are, yet excel off piste. 

post #25 of 34

I disagree.

post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

You have no idea why someone would want a ski under 100?  If you ski any resort anywhere, then you probably have a use for skis under 100.  I've never been to a mountain before that was all powder, all the time.  If you know where that mountain is, please let me know!  Until then, 85-95 seems to be the just the ticket for a 1 ski quiver.  Fat sucks on hard snow, skinny sucks in deep snow, so get something in the middle. 


Despite the move to fat and rocker, the crowd of good skiers I try to hang with in Colorado all use 85-95mm waisted skiers for their everyday drivers, and if it dumps more than 6-8" they grab some fatties.  Telluride is a good example of an area with everything including lots of bumps, carved up chalky snow, windblown, sunbaked and just about anything else you can imagine, often all in the same day. The combo of high altitude sun, with above treeline terrain creates varied conditions all season.  The tool of choice for someone that is going to be all over the mountain is generally something like a K2 Recon or a Mantra.  If you are going as fat as 95 waist, then you better have some sidecut, otherwise the 85mm boards will handle railing the hardpack, carving the steeps, endless bump lines and pushing crud and slush around just fine. 

 

Once you go fatter than 95mm you are not going to be carving your turns all day, so you better be in snow that is deep enough to let you turn with flex instead of sidecut. Sure you can slide your turrns, but not on a 1,000 ft. vert bump line.  That being said, I am going out on a limb and getting some 104 waisted cambered tip rockered ON3P Viciks this year to see if I can disprove my own theory. 

post #27 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

You have no idea why someone would want a ski under 100?  If you ski any resort anywhere, then you probably have a use for skis under 100.  I've never been to a mountain before that was all powder, all the time.  If you know where that mountain is, please let me know!  Until then, 85-95 seems to be the just the ticket for a 1 ski quiver.  Fat sucks on hard snow, skinny sucks in deep snow, so get something in the middle.

 


 


I ski at Kicking Horse.  My everyday skis for the last four years have all been over 100mm.  VCTs, Ninthward 187s, Nordica Blowers, Ninthward NGPs.  I see no reason to ski anything else.  They ski soft snow well, and run the groomers back to the lift as well as anything else.  I think 100-115 is a perfect ski width.

post #28 of 34

I highly doubt they run the groomers back to the lift as well as anything else.  A more correct statement would be..."They run the groomers back to the lift as well as I need them to...".  It's silly to argue that a 100mm ski will rail turns on hardpack like a 65-80mm ski.  But if you don't care how they work on groomers, then you probably dont notice the difference.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post


 


I ski at Kicking Horse.  My everyday skis for the last four years have all been over 100mm.  VCTs, Ninthward 187s, Nordica Blowers, Ninthward NGPs.  I see no reason to ski anything else.  They ski soft snow well, and run the groomers back to the lift as well as anything else.  I think 100-115 is a perfect ski width.

post #29 of 34

Same with my old crew up in Idaho.  I think the fattest boards anybody has there is a 95mm Kung Fujas or a 96mm Fischer Misfit. 

 

On the flipside, there is a new crew I ski with in California, and they are all about the newest fattest rockered skis they can find.  Volkl Gotama/Katana/Kuro and K2 Seth Incarnations and Hellbents.  These guys also don't ski very well, but they feel rad doing it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post




Despite the move to fat and rocker, the crowd of good skiers I try to hang with in Colorado all use 85-95mm waisted skiers for their everyday drivers, and if it dumps more than 6-8" they grab some fatties.  Telluride is a good example of an area with everything including lots of bumps, carved up chalky snow, windblown, sunbaked and just about anything else you can imagine, often all in the same day. The combo of high altitude sun, with above treeline terrain creates varied conditions all season.  The tool of choice for someone that is going to be all over the mountain is generally something like a K2 Recon or a Mantra.  If you are going as fat as 95 waist, then you better have some sidecut, otherwise the 85mm boards will handle railing the hardpack, carving the steeps, endless bump lines and pushing crud and slush around just fine. 

 

Once you go fatter than 95mm you are not going to be carving your turns all day, so you better be in snow that is deep enough to let you turn with flex instead of sidecut. Sure you can slide your turrns, but not on a 1,000 ft. vert bump line.  That being said, I am going out on a limb and getting some 104 waisted cambered tip rockered ON3P Viciks this year to see if I can disprove my own theory. 

post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

I highly doubt they run the groomers back to the lift as well as anything else.  A more correct statement would be..."They run the groomers back to the lift as well as I need them to...".  It's silly to argue that a 100mm ski will rail turns on hardpack like a 65-80mm ski.  But if you don't care how they work on groomers, then you probably dont notice the difference.
 


 


You could be correct.  I have skinnier skis.  These run back to the lift just as well as my "skinny" skis. 

 

Watch closely.  At 4:08 I get passed by a guy.  On Hellbents.

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 › Line Prophet 100 vs Salomon Shogun vs ???