or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Lhasa Pow: debating on the length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lhasa Pow: debating on the length

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

Hey, there! I'm a long time lurker here and know there are quite a few knowledgeable peeps here who are ready to help.

 

I plan to order some Lhasa's but I am not sure which length to choose - 186 or 191.

 

A little about me  - 5'10'' 185 lbs. Level 8 skier who lives for skiing off-piste snow, preferably deep powder. I like wide open powder-filled bowls and well-spaced trees. Dislike tight trees (because I suck). I prefer medium to longer turns but do not really huck my meat or straightline.

 

Which way should I go?

 

Thanks in advance.

post #2 of 15


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justskier View Post

Hey, there! I'm a long time lurker here and know there are quite a few knowledgeable peeps here who are ready to help.

 

I plan to order some Lhasa's but I am not sure which length to choose - 186 or 191.

 

A little about me  - 5'10'' 185 lbs. Level 8 skier who lives for skiing off-piste snow, preferably deep powder. I like wide open powder-filled bowls and well-spaced trees. Dislike tight trees (because I suck). I prefer medium to longer turns but do not really huck my meat or straightline.

 

Which way should I go?

 

Thanks in advance.


eh

 

186 if you want to get better

191 if you want to rest on your laurels

post #3 of 15

186 will be enough ski and more manuverable for learnign to ski cleaner in the trees.

post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 

BWiPA Going shorter in order to get better? Hmm, that's really very interesting, could you elaborate please?

 

tromano, do you think it is stable at medium speed (up to 40 mph) in this length?

post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by justskier View Post

BWiPA Going shorter in order to get better? Hmm, that's really very interesting, could you elaborate please?

 

tromano, do you think it is stable at medium speed (up to 40 mph) in this length?


for most people this is not the case, the thing is you said you dont like tight tree and suck at them meaning there is probably something glaringly wrong with how you ski. The 186 will encourage turning and being more centered. its easier to balance on longer skis but generally harder to turn.

 

and by now means do I think the shorter one would  ever really be unstable unless your a freeride world tour type.


Edited by BushwackerinPA - 8/19/10 at 2:28pm
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 

Who I am clearly not! 

 

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, guys!

post #7 of 15

Agreed, 186 will help you get better and may be maneuverable enough to get give you more confidence in tighter trees.

post #8 of 15

I only skied the 196. My impression: Way more ski that I would want for most of my skiing which involves medium sized turns down 30-35ish degree slopes  of around  1500 vertical both glades and open.  Its an incredibly stable ski. IMO, the 186 is the call unless you want to huck your meat or ski big AK style lines.

post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 

Thanks, I'll go with the 186s. Should be fine! -)

 

Oops, just realized I posted it in the wrong part of the forum.... Pretty dumb on my side.-))


Edited by justskier - 8/19/10 at 9:48pm
post #10 of 15

Yup, I'd say 186.  With the tip rocker, it will have a very manageable running length on hard surfaces, an ability to carve clean turns and in pow give you awesome float and slarveability of turns.  If I lived out west with more open space, I'd already have a pair.  Such sexy planks!

 

BWPA pretty much nailed it.  Iron out your technique before you go bigger.  You'll thank yourself for it.  All tank and no turn is bad.         

post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by justskier View Post

BWiPA Going shorter in order to get better? Hmm, that's really very interesting, could you elaborate please?

 

tromano, do you think it is stable at medium speed (up to 40 mph) in this length?



Dude, you think skiing at 40 mph is medium speed?  Maybe you are better than you think you are.  I think any size of Lhasas are going to be as stable at higher speeds as any rockered ski.  They flex pretty stiff with the carbon layup, and feel like they would be really damp for a ski of this weight.  I am sure that someone who has actually ridden them will confirm this.

post #12 of 15

I ski the 186 -- incredible skis btw -- and 186 will be plenty of ski for you. Also, the 186 has a shape that's a tad more pow-friendly than the 191 anyway. It has a bit more tip rocker and a 2mm narrower tail -- Pat and team designed the 191 to have somewhat enhanced hardpack performance. So, since it sounds like you're looking for a soft snow ski, that's another reason to go with the 186.

post #13 of 15

The newer Lhasa's have the same sidecut for 186, 191 or 196. (140-112-120) 

post #14 of 15

To the OP you chose well.  Especially if you live for off-piste.


I got a pair of 196 Lhasa Pow primarily as a powder and day after ski.   The Lhasa were quickly my go to ski and by the end of the season I realized I had a 1 ski quiver with a bunch of rock skis / backups.    The traditional camber & sidecut with rocker really worked well for me.  The Lhasa skis groomer and hard snow surprisingly well.  Enough so, really do not think about using my other skis.


Time to simplify, once we get some decent coverage I only plan on skiing my Lhasa.   (If we get super hard snow I might break out my stocklis)

 

Anyways, take the Lhasa Pow out in more than just new snow.  I think you will be happy.


For anyone else making the 186 vs 191 decision(or 196/191).  I think there are strong arguments for going longer or shorter.  The Lhasa is very maneuverable for its size (rockered, pintailed and light weight).  So going a little long should be OK.  The Lhasa tip has a great float and the pintail helps with the effect.  So you should not be too worried about going short in powder.    So only if you are really concerned about float or stability at high speed over rough snow, would I say no to the shorter length. If you like short turns go short.  If you like to going fast go long.   

 

That said, I would buy a 203 or 205 Lhasa Pow if they made it.   That would be a fun deep snow fast ski.

ps - Make sure to have the shop measure the mounting point.  (Don't trust the line on the skis...)

post #15 of 15

StormDay,

 

Good to hear good words about Lhasa.  I ordered a pair of 191s a couple weeks ago for my Christmas present. ( Had wife ok it ??) 

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 › Lhasa Pow: debating on the length