Comparison review: Dynastar LP105 vs Whitedot Ragnarok vs Faction Thirteen

About me:
26 years old, father of one, married, a bit too fat.
Skied since I was three, learnt on, and skied for the first 10 years, on old, straight, "too long" skis from the eighties. Never was part of the whole carving revolution that seemed to happen in the nineties, and I´m used to skis with minimal sidecut, never really skied anything below 25 metres.

The skis have gotten identical edge tunes, glider applied appropriately for the situations.
Conditions were anything from icy death cooky hard pack insanity, to heavier coastal pow, to the rarity that is true, light blower fluff.

Skis of old that I really like:
XXLs, OG Squads, OG LPs, etc.

Faction Thirteens
I´m going to start with these. Had them the longest, and skied them the most, but they will soon be given away to some worthy co-worker or something like that. Why? They are stiff, straight, longish (194), and beefy in general. What they lack is just a touch of camber, and they suck balls on anything hard. Granted, that´s not what they´re made for, and they work like hell in pow, but they lack something which this short review will uncover. Their bases are extruded, and don´t keep wax for any sensible amount of time.

Whitedot Ragnarok
Although these are wider than the Thirteens, are even stiffer, and give a fearsome first impression, these do everything the Thirteens cannot. They have a smidge of camber, which I honestly think is a good idea on traditionally shaped skis. They bite on hardpacked and ice, float more through than over anything hard that gets in the way, and have a tendency to submarine in serious fluff. The sidecut is right on, and I think my mounting position, which is 83.5cm from the tail, about 4 cm back from recommended, is also spot on. Sintered bases, fast as fuck, and give your legs a local anesthesia, as you won´t get much if any feedback from what´s underneath. Surprisingly nimble, whereas the Thirteens are not, even though the latter seem to have a longer tip rocker. Could be the minimal amount of early taper the Ragnaroks have.

I loved the original Squads in the 189 I got from TBC on the board. I really have to stop myself from calling the Ragnaroks "Squads" - they are that similar in feel, especially on hard packed. The Ragnaroks are even stiffer, though. Reasons could be a relatively similar sidecut, 35 vs 37m, the nose, which honestly feels very similar, and the flex, or lack there of. In short, I will forever think fondly of the Ragnaroks. Edit: I think these will be awesome come corn season.

Dynastar LP 105
I covered them in the LP105 thread, but main points here are as follows: Agile, speed friendly, stable and surprisingly floaty. I could live with these as my only pair of skis, save for long tours, as they are heavy for what they are. For those who´ve skied the old LP 186s, these are remarkably similar, but evolved with the rocker nose, and simply better.

The verdict of the comparison
If I had to choose only one ski to own, the LP105s would easily fill the bill, with some drawbacks; they could afford to be wider, but that would make them heavier. Wouldn´t change a thing with the construction. Crud busting charger skis. I can see why Reine and Ducroz likes these. If I could keep two of these, the Factions would go in the trash today. Both the Ragnaroks and the LPs ski hard snow better, the LPs excel in that area, and the Ragnaroks are way better soft snow skis.

For a powder ski, the Ragnaroks are almost painfully old fashioned. Granted, they are wide, and have a tip rise of approximately 300mm total, but they are stiff as shit, and I haven´t really enjoyed skiing trees with them. Probably won´t either. For that, the softer LPs are much better suited, and I can say as much as I think that they´re nimble. In wide open areas, where one can let go of the mental speed limiter and just go, the skis will do exactly what you want them to do. Don´t respect these skis, make them your bitches, and they will shine.

The Ragnaroks could be better, though. They could have 10cm more tip without it hurting, effectively making them 203s. They wouldn´t be any harder to ski, but they would float better, and probably even be more manageable at slower speeds. They could also be narrower (they´re 143/120/130) - I would shave them down to 134/116/123 or thereabouts, with the same effective edge length. Still floaty enough, but probably surfier, especially if they were to get laxer tail flex and a touch less camber.

I have started negotiations with Parris@Igneous to make something like this happen. When that´s done, I´ll have a three ski quiver that would take me everywhere, except on longer tours. I´m pretty set on Down skis´ CD4s (180 length) for that purpose.

So that´s it. One man´s opinion, but if anyone is still interested in more or less old fashioned skis, I hope you´ve enjoyed.

Nice!

I'd like to see a Countdown 3 in there, but I guess that'll be for next year? Still some snow in mid Norway if you have the chance after easter...

Snow season just started here, Simen- the lifts are even running! I´d love to demo a pair of CD3s for a few days and put them in the review.Can we talk about it next week?

I'll bring mine up there next week. How does your time schedule seems on next 3 weeks? Me and Veikko are probably coming for a visit at some point. Any wishes when? :)

My brother comes to visit next weekend, he doesn´t ski, and we have to watch the kid. Weekend after that, family birthday party for the kid, and weekend after that I´m working.

In the weekdays I usually have time, though, as I either have off-days or evening shifts starting at 15:00. We´ll work something out.

Didn´t realize you bought CD3s?

Nice review! I am a bit curious about it being camber on the Whitedot Ragnarok? It so small I would consider it flat, but now I think I must have another look at my skis down lying in the basement.
Otherwise I oppose the view of The Ragnaroks as powderskis. Most people would call them Big Mountainskis or charger skis meaning they are intended for speed on rough and changing snow conditions as one often encounter during a top to bottom run on a big mountain side. And even can take a beating when going off on some cliff on the way down the mountainside. This type of ski as a mere pow ski is old fashioned as you put it. This is what we said in the old days that a pow ski is long, stiff and difficult to ride in other conditions than powder (which is true in a oneway, but now there are better skis suited for soft snow midwinter soft snow conditions).
I think I have to try the new LP 105´s because I can't understand how a soft ski like this can be hard charing ski (going by the FF index measures)? Sounds tempting tough. How will you say the LP 105`s behave in a tracked out mountainside with refrozen snow aka rough conditions in comparison to the Ragnaroks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skime

Nice review! I am a bit curious about it being camber on the Whitedot Ragnarok? It so small I would consider it flat, but now I think I must have another look at my skis down lying in the basement.
Otherwise I oppose the view of The Ragnaroks as powderskis. Most people would call them Big Mountainskis or charger skis meaning they are intended for speed on rough and changing snow conditions as one often encounter during a top to bottom run on a big mountain side. And even can take a beating when going off on some cliff on the way down the mountainside. This type of ski as a mere pow ski is old fashioned as you put it. This is what we said in the old days that a pow ski is long, stiff and difficult to ride in other conditions than powder (which is true in a oneway, but now there are better skis suited for soft snow midwinter soft snow conditions).
I think I have to try the new LP 105´s because I can't understand how a soft ski like this can be hard charing ski (going by the FF index measures)? Sounds tempting tough. How will you say the LP 105`s behave in a tracked out mountainside with refrozen snow aka rough conditions in comparison to the Ragnaroks?

---

The lp105s seem to be made for that stuff,the ragnaroks are very good still. I'd take the lps out any day where id be unsure of the conditions encountered,mostly due to the width. The metal in the lps also make their case in conditions such as those you mention. They kill the chatter,and while having a pretty soft flexing shovel,it is amazingly little noticable in shit conditions.
Edit: Now that I read your question again, not on the phone, I might have to rephrase myself. The Ragnarok shovels inspire much and more confidence when maching through everything, but they could stand to be a bit softer. Thing is, the LP105 shovels mach through pretty much anything, but deflect or track over where the Ragnaroks just go straight through. They are two different skis, but really, really good in their own respects.

As you say, the Ragnarok as a powder ski would be old fashioned. It´s a hucker, charger, pure big mountain ski. It really works in powder, and if it was narrower, it would be better as a traditional charger, too. Like I said, make the skis your bitches, and they will shine.

As for the Fri Flyt SFI numbers with the LP105s, don´t put too much into them. The shovel is rather soft, yes, but the mid-aft parts of the ski are really not, and they track well. Like I said, really similar to the old 186s.

For norwegian,and possibly high alp skiing,there's no question; i'd grab the dynastars and not look back,were my options limited to one of either those or the Ragnaroks. The common denominator for both would be a requirement of huge quads, preferably largish calves as well. The Ragnaroks need more calories to keep them alive throughout a five hour ski day. If I went to the alps tomorrow, I´d bring both. BF inserts are nice.. :)

Norsk.