Printable View
I wouldnt think so
The 189 squad hand flexes a lot stiffer and has a much smaller shovel from what i remember. I also remember the squad feeling a bit more lively in comparison to the damp feel of the LP. Also, theres a smoothness to the ride quality of a legend pro of which ive never felt before. supple\stiff\damp\smooth
Id think the squad to ski more like the mojo103 without being as damp or as unruly (due to the heads rearward mount point and less sidecut)
True, I guess the squad doesn't feel very damp. You can definitely feel the "foaminess" of it.
Those Goliaths sound nasty. wish I could get them or stiffbros on proform. Anybody know how/if LP flex differs from that of XXL ?
3rded...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio
They are my everyday ski, and I love them very much, but they don´t excel in half a meter of fresh, unless it´s quite steep. If you want float at low speed, you need something wider and softer (maiden´s, gots, or maybe even hellbents/katanas/sumos (haven´t skied those though, but you get the idea.)) to round out your quiver.
The LP is definitely a great all round ski though. Good in chopped and variable, holds an edge on ice, real fun on groomers to if you go really fast. Lapping gapers with "extreme" carving skis on something they would define as a powder ski is seriously fun. :p
(Or you could just remove the first two skis from my quiver and keep the last two, it´s 177cm original 1080s (rocks, small mountains, dicking around), 191cm rossi gs skis, 186cm LP´s and 185 praxis)
My two ski quivers:
Tele: LP 186 and Praxis 185 (Not so happy with Praxis on tele though, so I will get LP XXL in stead and put a set of alpine binders on the Praxis)
Alpine: LP 186 and Spats (Spats to be sold and replaced with the Praxis)
Praxis/Spats for almost anything soft enought to sink the entire lenght of the edge into. LP for firm to hard snow contditions, or on days/descents with variable snow/icepatches and comps. Used to think the LPs were good in powder, not so much anymore after skiing a lot of more soft snow specific skis. Of course, they will manage but they will not excell.
I'm going to second (or third) the 138 / LP combo. Seems like these would cover almost everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamma
^^I like your style. For me it's 192 138s, 200 120s (and a couple others but these will get the most attention).
The Explosivs are similar to the LPs in that they are great all around skis but they certainly do not excel in powder. I would say they are best at skiing chopper powder and windblown.
Do LPs ski better on groomers than Explosivs???
In my experience, I enjoyed the explosivs a tad more on groomers despite the fact that the LPs have more sidecut. I think i liked the explosivs more because they were lighter and more lively, a bit shorter, and were a lot easier to slide the tails around in tight spots where I wanted to scrub speed or change dir quicker than the sidecut allows.
If i try any quick-hard-steep angle changes on my edges with the LPs, the bigger sidecut tries to hookup and I make them chatter.
On both reccomended mounting points, the 180 explosiv is more stable than the 186 LP in running straight on hardpack.
A 180 explosiv, in my size, sucks in powder\crud in comparison to the 186 LP. (partially b\c a 180 explosiv is really a 177)
I guess it really just boils down to peoples skiing style and boots and stuff, but I absolutely love how the LPs do in pure powder. Ski them centered and with a little speed and stay balanced and youll/ I have a blast.
edit, 5'10, 170, ski in "stiff" AT boots that I can flex with my ankles w\o using any body weight
You dont need the LP to ski powder that well anyways. Unless 97 is the widest wiast in your quiver, the job of the LP is "everything else" not pow
I thought the Karma at 87mm would be my non-pow ski but I never, ever ride it. It's too narrow on anything but a groomer, at least compared to what my lazy ass has become used to. I think 95-100 is a good all mountain non pow size, then 110+.
well, its my 12" or less ski, and what i most want to be on for any givenQuote:
Originally Posted by shasti
"pow" day.
for those bigger days, Im hoping the 192 big bros will step up where a lotus 120 might do the same.
Spats and Mantra 190.
Man I wish I had bought Legend Pros back in 2005 instead of 8800s. I really want that ski now, I wonder if I can find some closeout deals on previous year models.
The 192's are going to turn into an everyday ski. the really handle hardpack exceptionally well and kill it in pow/crud/slop. I ended up on them virtually everyday east/west coast (until the 138's arrived and it starting snowing everyday in N.E. :D )Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
192 Bro's and 138's make the rest of the quiver feel very lonely
if you find any, let me know :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gramboh
well the 192s I have do have a bit of tip rocker, so not really ideal on hardpack. Also Im not really big\strong\good enough, at least right now without having skied them to know, to think Ill be using them everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by teambigdave
Its really a lot of ski for CO at my size and its length\stiffness.
regardless, Im stoked to try something I designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
I think the hardpack performance will seriously surprise you. they track well going straight and i never felt that they required a huge amount of effort to ski aggressively on groomers. i may however have a larger beer gut that aids in bending them effectively :D
I'm stoked to ski on something you designed also ;)
Currently skiing 190 Explosivs and 190 Mantras. Looking to get something wider.
How would you compare the XXL with the Katana?
Stockli Stormrider XL for "regular" days
Fat ski of choice for powder days. Kingswood Mid Fats currently for me.
Katana's with dukes for pow days and touring.
4frnt msp's for icey days? ohh and spring park days.
http://www.endrehals.no/Flexcurves%202007.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by shasti
Open file, click "Layers" tab on left, check the boxes for Dynastar XXL and 186LP, see flex plot for each ski's running length, notice XXL is stiffer everywhere except the rear-most 6cm of running length.
Would be cool to see data for 194LP (not available).
.
^^^^^^^^
Very cool graph! Really informative to see this kind of info. According to the graph, ANT and LP in 186 have virtually the same flex which is good to know.
Thanks!
take everything from that graph with a grain of salt
having hand flexed both at the same time, the ANT definitely feels stiffer
the graph doesnt tell the whole story in my opinion because it removes camber from the equation and just focuses on the stiffness of the cross-section.
its the same thing with a spring on your mtn bike
if you dont preload it at all, its going to ride softer than if you preload it an inch. In this case, camber is the preload, and the more camber a ski has, which the ANT has a ton more than the LP, the stiffer its going to ski and flex.
Similar graphs have been posted before and I always wonder how some skis get bumps in their curves. I could see that happenning from bindings but I don't see ski manufacturers in their building processes able to cause these kinds of blips. Unless its from the testing for the graphs and I can't imagine they would test with bindings on. The builder would have to use different woods or other sudden material changes in that part of the ski for that to occur I would think and like I said, I don't imagine they do that.
Any thoughts?
You should put up that graph in it's own thread.
Good point on the camber Pechelman!
i know a lot of ski companies reinforce the mounting area with additional layers of glass\carbon etc.
maybe with less high tech manufacturing, they arent able to apply a consistent pressure\temperature so the final cured composite may have higher properties where its thicker and the press and squeeze it more? (high fiber volume fractions = higher performance composite up to about a Vf of 70% which is ridiculously hard to obtain and create a good product even with some prepreg)
random guesses^
^^^^^^
I could see bumps above the curve or a flatter slope with sharper drops occuring from the reinforced mid section. But a bump dropping below the curve would mean that small part of the ski suddenly has less material.
I'm sure these tests only test maybe one pair of skis and there may be some kind of minor defect in that set of skis. Any normal ski would have either a smooth curve or a curve with some type of plateau or rises, but never a sudden drop.
I'm just talking out of my ass here and speculating.
Either way, this thread sucks because I was set on getting ANTs (for the twin) to go with 138s and now I want LPs/XXLs/192 Bros.
Arrrggghh!!!
Nah, I still think that's a great plan.
My choice two ski alpine quiver if I had to have only two:
1) Gots/Districts/Sugars (99mm-105mm, half/full twin)
2) Lotus/Praxis (120mm-138mm, funshape)
The 192 Bro sounds a lot like the Katana, although it sounds like they made the Bro considerably lighter??? Other than weight are these skis similar?
From what I've read here about the Lotus (120) and the 192 Bro, I'd ride either one of those if the conditions are remotely soft. So I would want the second pair to be a little bit narrower (Explosive or LP) or even narrower to make sure I can rip groomers and even bumps when necessary and/or bored. I think my Explosivs do okay on hard snow but they are far from great, and I'd say the same and maybe a bit less for my Gotamas.
Me quiver this year will start out with a big round set of spatulas and be complimented by 184 Mantra's.... unless volkl is out of them.... then it will be a 185 bridge.
My quiver will be the same as last year... Explosivs and Gotamas. I got both of them dialed in and both are made bomber. Next pair will be either the Katana or the DP 120 but not this season. I'm torn between the 2 and need more data. Although I doubt any ski will beat the reviews on the Lotus.
Yes, they DO build with sudden material changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
About the XXL graph blip in its forebody: If you fondle an XXL, you'll see a "shallow channel" or you could equivalently call it "raised reinforced edges". The width of the reinforced edge material changes somewhat abruptly right where the graph displays the blip. I guess the intention is to add a stiffness and weight blip to dampen the ski midway up the forebody (similar idea as old salomon "prolink", and k2 "mod").
Similarly, the graph blips sharply down for the tips and tails of Salomon Guns and Foils. Fondle the skis to see how the material gets thinner and thinner with discrete steps like a U-shaped staircase.
.
Back to original topic...
Shasti, did you try Squads in various terrains/conditions and still like them? Do you like that stiffness in an "everyday" ski? If yes, then 138's and 189 Squads will be SICK for you at Squaw. The "short" 189 Squads sound burl enough for pursuing serious business, while still short enough to provide more agility for firm/tight/bumpy days.Quote:
Originally Posted by shasti
If you've never actually skied the Squads, then tell us which skis you HAVE skied which you think are close to what you might want for Squaw every day.
Last year, all I wanted was to ski Squaw on Spats and 1st-gen 193 BigDaddys the whole time. Would have been nearly perfect plan, but then...very bad snow year: a 35-day dry stretch in January, and a 25-day dry stretch in March. On the firmest/tightest-bumpiest/rockiest days, I wanted something with more grip, more ease of agility, and more fun in very turny terrain than 193 BD's. On those days, BD's lured me to try straighter/faster turns that were not very safe with blind rocks everywhere. So I was happier to switch to my 190 Explosivs for those days.
1st-gen 193 BigDaddies again, my favorite, they rule in average or better snow years.Quote:
Originally Posted by shasti
If 3rd pair allowed, I wish I had a ski like a 190 Explosive for 35-day dry stretches, but with a full twin for playing in the park.
If 4th pair allowed, something more serious than BD's, like 193 m103, 194 XXL, 194 Squad, but with bad snow year at Squaw, terrain was rarely smooth enough for taking these chargers up to their top speeds. BD's got the call most days.
.
Well yeah, I know about cutouts and spaceframes and all that. I'm talking about abrupt bumps that drop down below the majority of the curve of the ski where the ski is all of a sudden softer in a little section. Take a look at the curve for the Extrem Big Chief for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin I
That Big Chief looks funky. Yeah, I'd guess that stiffness blip is merely an unintended effect of binding inserts. I wonder if the blip disappears with boot and binding connected.Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
.
What does the tech talk crowd think about this quiver:
183 im103s
191 Scott P4
I've been stressing about this for two weeks, think I'm finnally ready to commit and put the pro order in:
xxls with 916 - every day
lp with naxos - front country
b94 respect with dynafits - backcountry
not to make matters worse, but...
aren't you in central BC, applying for that Rogers Pass thing?
Meaning, you're in a place where it snows a shit ton?
If I've got that right, why do you have two backcountry rigs that are 94mm and 97mm underfoot (if I got that right too)?
Those are really similar, and neither are particularly hudge?
Purely for the dynafit vs. naxo difference?
Why not just put the Dynafits on the LPs and have only two pair of boards total?
Too heavy? So, why not the XXL with 916 and B94 Respect with Dynafit?
Or is that you also want to be able to tour in alpine boots for frontcountry?
Anyway...just trying to help you think about it... :)
XXLs, LPs ,and B94s are definitely a nice combo, so long as you really think you're getting the coverage you want with both the b94 and the LP.
And not like I'm one to preach about actually only having limited pairs of skis - I am so far from a two ski quiver right now, it's not even funny.
EDIT: Oh wait, I'm an idiot - your pro deal is Rossi/Dynastar, right?
Check out this thread! http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=97229
One really good idea there for you - the Rossi Raven. It's the telemark version of the Steeze. 110mm underfoot.
Keep the XXL w/916s as inbounds.
Do the Raven w/Naxos as front country.
Then the B94 Respects w/Dynafits for backcountry.
It depends what kind of terrain the resorts I would be skiing had.
If its billygoatingish Bridger type stuff, then 190 DP120s and maybe 186 LPs.
If its lots of wide open steep stuff then probably 194 squads and either 200 DP120s, or 200 Iggy FFFs. In a perfect world, the squads would be just a touch softer than they are, but what can you do.
1. xxl
2. 186 LP
3. stockli stormrider xl 184
umkay