190 Lotus 120 vs 191 Lhasa Pow

[mauriskier]

I am looking for a versatile POW ski with the emphasis being on POW.

The conditions where it should shine are (in order of priority) the following:

1) Deep powder - untouched and tracked out
2) Crust/variable
3) crud
4) groomers - getting back to the lift.

Both the skis seem to be the right tool (And pretty similar to each other) but want to know your opinion.

[stone88]

lhasa probably slightly more versatile but if the emphasis is on deep snow then go 120's they are sick and still very versatile.

[marshalolson]

the 120 is flat camber under foot and tail, with a long rockered shovel.

the lhasa has ~1cm of camber, and no rocker. just a big shovel.

the lhasa has a much tighter turn radius and carves better. the 120 floats and skis powder better.

both are very light, with excellent rebound and life, and both are awesome skis. they are different though.

[deeppo]

I will be skiing both as soon as it starts snowing(maybe 2011?) This years 120's do have a little camber under foot. Flex is very similar(120's are flex 2). The 120's are around 3/4 of a pound lighter(pure). I will give an on snow report hopefully soon
deeppo

[wcf3]

I own the 120's in a 200 (2) and the Lhasas in a 196, both in carbon. +1 on what Marshal said. I would also give the 120's the edge in crust/variable snow where they are not as inclined to hook a tip when going through transitions or punching through breakable crust. This is probably due to a combination of the long rockered shovel and long turning radius. Neither ski is a standout in these conditions, for my taste at least. In variable snow, the light weight and poppiness of these skis make them pretty twitchy, particularly at speed.

The Lhasa's are much better on steep firm snow, such as a wind or slide scoured coulior. The 120's with the semi-pintail and without much sidecut and have a have a stronger tendency for the tails wash out in these conditions.

[SouthCentralShralper]

Lhasas with no rocker??? That's not what I heard...

"The first true carbon/fiberglass rockered one-ski quiver has arrived." - from the web site.

Guess everybody has a different definition of rocker.

[adam]

Do you want the hybrid lotus or the pure?

[Beyond]

Lhasas with no rocker??? That's not what I heard...

"The first true carbon/fiberglass rockered one-ski quiver has arrived." - from the web site.

Guess everybody has a different definition of rocker.

All semantics. My Lhasas have a rocker. But it's not an in-your-face big rocker like a S7. M.O. is probably calling a mild rocker a big shovel. What you call it, or a few cm more or less curve, is a lot less relevant than how it skis. The Lhasa's nose cuts crust and rides up in powder. This whole "how-much-rocker-or-is-it-really-an-extended-tip" thing is getting lame...

[SouthCentralShralper]

Well yea, and then there is the "early rise tip". I have a feeling all this will be standardized in the next few years as well as ski shape and design.

[StroupSkier]

All semantics. My Lhasas have a rocker. But it's not an in-your-face big rocker like a S7. M.O. is probably calling a mild rocker a big shovel. What you call it, or a few cm more or less curve, is a lot less relevant than how it skis. The Lhasa's nose cuts crust and rides up in powder. This whole "how-much-rocker-or-is-it-really-an-extended-tip" thing is getting lame...

The contact point for the Lahsa is about 35cm back from the tip, measured along the base. The widest point of the ski I think is 25cm back. We call it rocker. I think the term splat coined was progressive rocker. Basically he did not want the wide point of the tip of the ski so far off the snow that it would catch and hook when you laid it on edge.

I call it rocker, Marsh said it had none, but it is certainly not like EP Pro.

I think we also settled on about 3-4mm per ski on camber, 1cm sounds like on of the first proto pairs splat sent you marsh.

[marshalolson]

my first proto pair were totally flat and after about 10 days of skiing were effectively reverse camber. all of the spring pairs from last year i saw, and all the pairs from this year i have seen are ~1cm (ie. 5mm per ski) or more camber. also, i have not measured the shovels, but from what i have seen the camber ends at the widest point of the ski and the shovel rises from there... give or take. so if its a cm or two early that that great. sorry for the confusion.

**i am applying these generalizations to probably 15-20 total pair i have seen, tuned, mounted or whatever.

the rocker on the lotus 120 starts about in the middle of the shovel - right in between the boot and the tip. it gains an appreciable amount of splay (distance between the bases @ the widest point of the shovel).

all this jargon makes me crazy. there actually ARE definitions to them, its just that most people don't know what they are.

rocker = 2 stage rise. initially coined by stephan drake in 2001. there are 2 lines, 1. where the shovel rises and 2. another line deeper in the body of the ski where camber or flat transtions to rise. this terms is applied to skiing by way of boat, surf board and shoe design (rockered hull, rockered sole)

"early rise" = is a generic design term coined by Eric Pollard in 2003-ish?. any tip that begins to rise before the widest point of the ski. this could apply to rockered skis, as well as non rockered skis (ie the tip starts rising before the widest point, but there is only 1 line).

splay = the amount of rise from the bases at the widest point of the ski. this is the small number in salomon's and k2's 300/25 type nomenclature. ie: 30cm deep rocker line, and 25mm splay.

long/big shovel = the shovel is longer and may rise higher than most designs. but there is only 1 line of rise, and no appreciable amount of splay. this is most similar in design to an EHP, XXL, and yes, a lhasa pow.

reverse camber: coined by pete turner and shane mcconkey in 2000. this applies to skis that are completely and smoothly reverse camber. really only the spatula and praxxis as far as i know are designed in such a way, though the rocker 3 & 3.1 lotus 138 and new 4frnt renegade are verging on reverse camber design.




i am not bagging on the lhasa, i thinks its an awesome ski. its just not that similar to the lotus 120. its much more a fat everyday ski that carves hardpack as well as it slashes pow. the lotus is more of a pow specialty ski that does pretty well most low snow days too.

[Hugh Jass]

^class dismissed, bitches.

[todug27]

not to start a debate, but just if people are interested in buying lhasas, i just checked my pair from the newest batch and it is definitely a bit more like stroup described. So perhaps it has been changed slightly this year. I would say at most 3mm of camber per ski, and then the early rise begins about 5 inches before the widest point of the ski. That being said, it is not a steep early rise to the widest point of the ski, but it is definitely there.

I think that is the right use of early rise if my reading comprehension is any good, but whats it matter anyway as long as it floats.

[butterscotch]

splay = the amount of rise from the bases at the widest point of the ski. this is the small number in salomon's and k2's 300/25 type nomenclature. ie: 30cm deep rocker line, and 25mm splay.

thank you for posting this definition.

[bptempleton]

I figured there would be some interesting input, what with the idolatry spewed at both of these skis. FWIW, I've only been on the Lotus 120's, flex 2, and they kill it in almost any conditions. I just sold my prophet 100's, because I didn't anticipate ever needing to use them. The lotuses are fun on groomers and only really suffer on crust/ice. They are 8 mm wider (I think lhasa's are 112 waist), and it sounds like a little more rocker/early rise/ splay (I'm still internalizing Marshal's lesson), so the lotuses should be a little more floaty/playful in powder. You gotta remember however, Bro's are made in the USA and they're sick, mag-crafted skis. That should definitely be worth a few points.

[Ender]

there actually ARE definitions to them....

That was an ill,ill display of rocker nawledge.

[khyber.pass]

To get back to Mauri's Q, if you're looking for a dedicated pow ski, I'd say get the Lotus (and get Pures).

If you're looking for more versatility, get the Lhasa.

You can straightline a Lotus home on the groomers, but depending on snow conditions, it can be a bitch to engage the edge, with deflection in groomed chop. That said it depends on where you mount the Lotus. For me they rode groomers better at midsole (had them railing it) but I prefer them +3 for turning versatility in the steeps and sacrifice groomer performance because of that. Btw I find no compromise in pow performance with a more forward and modern mount. Still can't bury the tips and they toe the line at speed.

In comparison the Lhasas will rail on hardpack surprisingly well, but don't have quite the surfed-out slarve capabilities, or straightline balls, of the Lotus. The Lotus is a big quiver stick for all-out pow-piste. The Lhasa can handle that, but doesn't accelerate up to the mach surf that the Lotus can pull off even at low speeds.

[mauriskier]

Thanks a lot, guys!

[sierraskier]

For those that have skied both, which would you take to AK? What about the 138?

Thanks in advance...

[masterofgreenbeans]

Get them both and add a 138 too

[vailcat]

BOTH if you got them. Thats what i did with my 196's last year

[splat]

the 120 is flat camber under foot and tail, with a long rockered shovel.

the lhasa has ~1cm of camber, and no rocker. just a big shovel.

the lhasa has a much tighter turn radius and carves better. the 120 floats and skis powder better.

both are very light, with excellent rebound and life, and both are awesome skis. they are different though.

Only the Lhasas I sent you have 1 cm of camber, Marshal. Those were the first pressed this year while we were dialing the process. All but a few pair have between 1-3 mm of camber.

[comish]

I have owned both and kept the 186cm Lhasa's. My other experiences on rockered/>105mm skis are the Praxis pows (hated, also had tip diveage) 182 rockered Zealots (very good ski, but more all mtn oriented than pow), and XXL's. I will write a more in depth comparison shortly, but I know my review of the 120 is up here somewhere.

Ultimately I like the shape of the Lhasa better, especially for groomers/in bounds mixed skiing, but also definitely in the pow as well. The deal breaker for me on the 120's was for some reason I got major tip diveage in the maritime deep pow we get in Mammoth. 120's were tried after a typical huge (3-5 feet) Mammoth storm, while Lhasa's were out after prolly two feet of fresh. Both skis were mounted +1 (I reused holes in both skis) w/ Duke's and used w/ Nordica Dobermans so the only variable was the skis.

I wished the 120's (black w/ bamboo sidewall generation) had either more tip rocker, splay, early rise, or bigger tip, whatever so I could drive the tip without it diving. Maybe that changed with the Red ones, I don't know. I was looking for a pow ski I didn't have to ski centered, but with a forward driving the shins into the boot stance and for me, the Lhasa has worked while the 120 did not. I know I'm in the minority here on this, but that was my experience. I'm only 5'9" and 165ish so no neanderthal either. Do I think the Lhasa's are perfect, nope, but they are really damn fun and I do think the shape is nearly perfect for what I am looking for.

Oh yeah, my Lhasa's have no camber underfoot, and a pretty large rockered/early rise/whatever tip (larger than my pair of 120's). I think my Lhasa's are from last year, although since I'm a 2nd owner I don't know for sure.

[marshalolson]

Only the Lhasas I sent you have 1 cm of camber, Marshal. Those were the first pressed this year while we were dialing the process. All but a few pair have between 1-3 mm of camber.

NICE. 1-3mm is perfect for that ski, especially the carbon buddies, as they have the life and pop of a cambered ski, but in a flat camber shape.

well played.