176 Legend Pros, Too Short?

**MassLiberal** · 12-28-2007, 01:20 PM

I just ordered a pair of 186 Dynastar Legend Pros off of pro form, and the factory sent me a pair of 176, I talked to the rep, and he insists that the 176 is the length I want if I spend most of my time skiing EC trees and only spend a couple weeks or so out west skiing. While I'm inclined to believe him, I still have a nagging feeling that the ski will be a bit small for what it is. Maybe I'll just mount em tele and be done with it, I'm not too interested in paying to ship them back and then waiting for replacements, unless someone here changes my mind.

Me:

180 lbs
5' 10"

**MTT** · 12-28-2007, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

I just ordered a pair of 186 Dynastar Legend Pros off of pro form, and the factory sent me a pair of 176, I talked to the rep, and he insists that the 176 is the length I want if I spend most of my time skiing EC trees and only spend a couple weeks or so out west skiing. While I'm inclined to believe him, I still have a nagging feeling that the ski will be a bit small for what it is. Maybe I'll just mount em tele and be done with it, I'm not too interested in paying to ship them back and then waiting for replacements, unless someone here changes my mind.

Me:

180 lbs
5' 10"

I have not skied the 176, I owned the 186 now ski the 194. (Awsome skis)

Everything I have read indicates that the 176 LP is not really an LP.

Completely different animal that the 186.

If you want to ski The Legend Pro Rider. You need the 186 or 194.

**trainnvain** · 12-28-2007, 01:36 PM

176 is a whole different animal. Send it back.
I tried the whole short skis in the trees deal and found that it just wasnt worth the shortcomings all the other times (ie anytime I wasn't in the trees).

**schuss** · 12-28-2007, 02:16 PM

Get the 186. He just doesn't want to deal with it. You're good enough to handle the 186 in the trees and you'll love it alot more everywhere else.

**GBB** · 12-28-2007, 02:42 PM

186 hands down.

**Danno** · 12-28-2007, 02:51 PM

it really depends on what you ski now and what you like.

**comish** · 12-28-2007, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

it really depends on what you ski now and what you like.

This is the best advice in this thread.

The 176 does seem a lot shorter than the 186's and probably too short for me, but that said, I wouldn't want a pair of 186 LP's in the East Coast with tight trees, but thats me.

What do you like now? What length are they?

I'm 5'9" and 165lbs and find the 186 LP race room version was just a touch more ski than I wanted for everyday and I'm in the west. Hoping last years version is a little softer. Review to come as they haven't been skied yet.

**raj** · 12-28-2007, 06:29 PM

I skied them back to back on a demo day a couple of weeks back on Hood. At 5'8, 140-145, the 186 were good in open places but a bit much for me in tight trees. The 176 were very easy to ski and seemed built for my weight. They bent easily at slow speeds while 186 didn't. In fact I liked the 176 a lot and may end up buying them. For perspective, the 176 were easier to ski than my Head im88 adn probably comparable to my 179 Prophet 100s (which are very easy to ski).

Given that you have ~40 pounds on me, the 176 would be too short and more importantly too soft for you. If you are a skilled skier, definitely the 186 or 194.

**soul_skier** · 12-28-2007, 07:00 PM

this is like you ordering a 180 explosive and them sending you a 165.

You want the 186s, they are fun as hell in the trees and you will love them out west

**Ottime** · 12-28-2007, 07:03 PM

Why do you need to pay return shipping if they screwed up your order???

If you ordered the 186, they should have sent the 186.

**comish** · 12-28-2007, 07:40 PM

what size Head 88's?

Originally Posted by raj

I skied them back to back on a demo day a couple of weeks back on Hood. At 5'8, 140-145, the 186 were good in open places but a bit much for me in tight trees. The 176 were very easy to ski and seemed built for my weight. They bent easily at slow speeds while 186 didn't. In fact I liked the 176 a lot and may end up buying them. For perspective, the 176 were easier to ski than my Head im88 adn probably comparable to my 179 Prophet 100s (which are very easy to ski).

Given that you have ~40 pounds on me, the 176 would be too short and more importantly too soft for you. If you are a skilled skier, definitely the 186 or 194.

**MassLiberal** · 12-28-2007, 10:51 PM

My current skis are:

Head im88 175, fun everyday ski for the east, definitely lacking when I head west
Kingswood mid fat extra stiff - 185 ski these about 40% of the time i'm on alpine gear, love em, but they have some limits.
Teledaddies 183 - like them, but they are going downhill, need to replace my fat tele setup.

Various racing skis, sometimes its fun to let er rip.

If they are easier to ski than the heads at 176, then I probably have no interest in them, I love the im88s skis for what they are, but I am definitely looking for ski that is a bit more aggresive to complement the ski, rather than replace it (head just replaced my old pair swiftly and with extremely good customer service at the end of last season). Looks like they are going back.

**Amphibious1** · 12-29-2007, 12:21 AM

You wanted LP's? Get the 86 or the 94's. You didn't order Lp's for trees. These things own big mountains. If they are going to make 'em that short, they shouldn't be able to call 'em Lp's!

**Aenigma** · 12-29-2007, 11:36 AM

My .02

At 6' 160lbs, I find the 186's to be super maneuverable in the trees for what they are. I don't know what it is about them, but for some reason they're surprisingly easy to make quick turns on--I'd take them over my 189 SP's for trees any day (running length is pretty close). In my opinion, it'd be worth your time to send them back for the 186's.

**surftb15** · 12-29-2007, 12:06 PM

get the 186's. nuff said.

**amatog** · 12-29-2007, 01:12 PM

You can use this opportunity to request that since you have to wait for what you actually ordered that the Dynastar rep step up and put you in the queue for the new LP's ( 100mm waist) which are due out sometime in January.

**mr_gyptian** · 12-29-2007, 01:24 PM

Do those skis come with a purse?

**surftb15** · 12-29-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by amatog

You can use this opportunity to request that since you have to wait for what you actually ordered that the Dynastar rep step up and put you in the queue for the new LP's ( 100mm waist) which are due out sometime in January.

thats an 08/09 ski - will be available to athletes only in January.

**MassLiberal** · 12-29-2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by surftb15

thats an 08/09 ski - will be available to athletes only in January.

And I'm definitely not one of them.

Looks like they're going back.

**raj** · 12-30-2007, 06:59 PM

Comish and Mass Liberal
The Head im88 I have are the 175 cm one. The LP 176 are as easy to ski (or my view easier) than these. The Head are the correct size for me at 140 pounds but obviously not for someone 40 pounds heavier. You shouldn't even be questioning the 186, that is a no brainer, the real question you should have at 180 pounds is 186 or 194.

BTW the LP 176 are actually a very good ski for light guys like me or aggressive women, just not for a big guy like you.

**Smails** · 01-03-2008, 10:15 PM

This thread has been dead a few days but when I saw it I could help but add how many 176 Lp's I saw at Sugarbush this weekend. The 'Bush seems to disproportionately full of people with LP's. I don't know why you would want to ski places like Castlerock with them, but what the hell do I know. Having owned 186 LP's I can't see how people love them in anywhere tight so I guess the 176 made sense to me. I don't think the 176 would be so bad for east coast use. But that said, I would by a 194 LP for what they are made for doing, and buy something else for skiing in the east. Just my opinion

**ulty_guy** · 01-04-2008, 03:37 AM

what you want my friend is a 180 explosiv.

**GapersGoHome** · 01-04-2008, 04:03 AM

Just to jump in on the tail of the bandwagon, I would go with the 186's. It's just hard to coax any stability at speed out of anything less than 180. If you ski slow, tight trees, go with the 176's. If you like speed, need to bash some crud, and have some decent leg strength, go for the 186. From what I remember, the 176's are to the 186-194 LP's as the old 175-185 XXX's were to the 195's. Different construction, metal layers, etc. You wouldn't want to fork over your hard-earned cash for a noodly tree ski, would you?