The Dynastar Thread

[Hood26]

They are a 22m ski. Not really conducive to tight bumps

Yup. Wasn’t a surprise.

[Hood26]

Well crap. It sucks being a gear head.

I really like the MPro192 with its 22m radius and can see myself riding it a lot at TFlats where I am about 20% of the time, but I still think the 182 with its 20m radius and true 108mm underfoot is the ski I really, really need at the tighter Skibowl where I am at most of the time.

Anyone holding a pair? The cheaper and more thrashed (couple of mounts, minor core shots, beat top sheets no problem as long as they still have good edges) the better. Haven’t seen any in gear swap. I got a pair of mint 2022 182 Billy Goats I might need to walk away from to buy yet another pair of Dynastars. Looks like I am becoming a true FANBOY. It shouldn’t be a surprise to me since my first pair of favorite skis as a kid were some Big Max. I wish I hadn’t sent them to Goodwill.

[DarthMarkus]

Went 1.5cm forward of rec. on the 192 M-pro 108. Will report back after skiing it in Utah. Then maybe some more if I ski it in Alaska too.

[Bandit Man]

Made my slender 16-yo ski his new mighty-mite MFree 108’s (172’s) today for the first time in the 21-cm deposited last night at Blackcomb. Needless to say, he’s stoked on them.

[phatty]

Made my slender 16-yo ski his new mighty-mite MFree 108’s (172’s) today for the first time in the 21-cm deposited last night at Blackcomb. Needless to say, he’s stoked on them.

[obviouslynotagolfer]

Update on the Mfree 192’s after 2 days: I prefer the 182’s.

Conditions for both days at W/B were similar: a few inches of fresh over April-appropriate refreeze/slush.

The 192’s (mounted on the line with Attack 14’s) felt a smidge too long; a bit more work than I wanted at sub-sonic speeds. I did enjoy the greater stability and longer radius in the open steeps, but I found those improvements marginal and overshadowed by the 192’s unwieldiness (if only compared to the 182’s, whose nimbleness as maybe spoiled me, ha)

That’s not to say 192 wouldn’t be the advisable size for my height/weight (6’2, 175 lbs.), and I may just be lazier and/or less aggressive than most. But as a more versatile tree ski, a billygoating-into-spicy-spots ski, and a fun-uber-alles ski, the 182’s work best for this old chunk of coal.

I know I could try a more forward mount, but I’ll more likely just put 192’s up for sale as is. If anyone in the Sea-To-Sky corridor is interested, feel free to PM me.

[whyturn]

Update on the Mfree 192’s after 2 days: I prefer the 182’s.

Conditions for both days at W/B were similar: a few inches of fresh over April-appropriate refreeze/slush.

The 192’s (mounted on the line with Attack 14’s) felt a smidge too long; a bit more work than I wanted at sub-sonic speeds. I did enjoy the greater stability and longer radius in the open steeps, but I found those improvements marginal and overshadowed by the 192’s unwieldiness (if only compared to the 182’s, whose nimbleness as maybe spoiled me, ha)

That’s not to say 192 wouldn’t be the advisable size for my height/weight (6’2, 175 lbs.), and I may just be lazier and/or less aggressive than most. But as a more versatile tree ski, a billygoating-into-spicy-spots ski, and a fun-uber-alles ski, the 182’s work best for this old chunk of coal.

I know I could try a more forward mount, but I’ll more likely just put 192’s up for sale as is. If anyone in the Sea-To-Sky corridor is interested, feel free to PM me.

I came to same conclusion man Stability in runouts is 85-90% of the 192 Quickness is 40-50% better


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

I know I could try a more forward mount, but I’ll more likely just put 192’s up for sale as is.

I moved the mount forward +1.5 due to the 192 feeling tip heavy for me at 175cm/292 bsl. That made them a lot better for me. They were still freaking long missiles though and a bit unwieldy for me at anything other than mach schnell, so I ended up selling them. But at your height 192s should be the ticket arguably unless you want something über loose. Looking back I prefer the 192s to 182s though

[obviouslynotagolfer]

I came to same conclusion man Stability in runouts is 85-90% of the 192 Quickness is 40-50% better

Right on man, good to hear you've had the same experience.

I moved the mount forward +1.5 due to the 192 feeling tip heavy for me at 175cm/292 bsl. That made them a lot better for me. They were still freaking long missiles though and a bit unwieldy for me at anything other than mach schnell, so I ended up selling them. But at your height 192s should be the ticket arguably unless you want something über loose. Looking back I prefer the 192s to 182s though

Thanks kid-kapow, good to know this. To your point, I do like the uber-loose feel of the 182's, and haven't had too many moments where I've longed for that aforementioned 'freaking long missile,' haha. I'm again remembering D(C) mentioning his own experience re-mounting his 192's at +1.5, and how they still didn't feel quite right. Ultimately while I'm certainly curious how they'd feel remounted, I also don't really wanna have to deal with selling a twice-drilled ski. (of course, I could then just accept defeat and turn the 192's into shot-skis )

[kid-kapow]

RUltimately while I'm certainly curious how they'd feel remounted, I also don't really wanna have to deal with selling a twice-drilled ski. (of course, I could then just accept defeat and turn the 192's into shot-skis )

Realistically - re-drilling them should not affect the price dramatically. The the two mounts (with a potential third heel remount) should cover most bsls, provided you plan to sell the skis with the bindings having reusable holes might not be 100 wrong. I might be too optimistic here.

That being said, MFs are not terribly sensitive to 5mm or below change in mounts, so this might be one of the those occurences where rolling the dice to try might just be worth it. 182s sounds like snowlerblades at your height at 188cm. Detune the 192s more aggressively aft of the contact points, remount further forward and do not look back - 192s are awesome.

[obviouslynotagolfer]

Realistically - re-drilling them should not affect the price dramatically. The the two mounts (with a potential third heel remount) should cover most bsls, provided you plan to sell the skis with the bindings having reusable holes might not be 100 wrong. I might be too optimistic here.

That being said, MFs are not terribly sensitive to 5mm or below change in mounts, so this might be one of the those occurences where rolling the dice to try might just be worth it. 182s sounds like snowlerblades at your height at 188cm. Detune the 192s more aggressively aft of the contact points, remount further forward and do not look back - 192s are awesome.

LOL now I’m picturing myself on snowlerblades. I mean at the very least, I definitely *feel* a lot radder on those big-boy 192’s – but I can’t let vanity get the better of me here, haha. OK, I appreciate the insight here, I'm going to think about it!

[Hood26]

Called it. MPro 108 in 192 absolutely eats terrain at the wide open Timberline.

Wish I had turned on my Apple Watch to speed when I rolled from Outer West on top of Palmer to the bottom of Flood.

From a moderate to high speed they are very composed and confident when they get to make their preferred 22m turns. Able to rail
and carve, but also able wash and smear turns if wanted or being lazy.

Really handle the firm chicken heads into corn into soft groom and then into the almost sticky slush at the bottom.

Just stand on these things and stay in an athletic position and put miles behind with a huge grin.

[D(C)]

I just did 3 days of spring skiing at Whistler on my 185 M-Free 99s. They are so good. I skied everything from groomers to slush to 15 cm of bluebird pow and they did well everywhere. The length feels spot-on, and they are stable and smooth while being easy to throw sideways.

I’m hoping next year’s 185 M-Free 108s strike a similar balance in terms of how ‘much’ ski they are. The current 182s definitely feel shorter, in spite of measuring the same as the 185 M-Free 99s.

[2FUNKY]

Wish they made them in a true 189 ish straight tape.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[grinch]

Mfree99 is a top 5 funnest ski ive ever had, maybe top three. I think i mounted +2.25? The flaw in them is the butter base. Easily scratched and ez to get core shots. No good reason for that. Ya im used to praxis and on3p and they are indeed waaaay tougher but ive also seen big brands park skis that have much tougher bases than my mfree and its not because the base material on the mfree is fast. Bases are slow especislly compared to praxis. A buddy on his praxis consistently gets more turns then me on my mfrees, and on3p's for that matter. Extra noticeable in sticky pow. If the mfree had tougher bases id have one in the fleet 4evaa. Too rocky here to replace with another pair unless i find a screaming deal. They ski amazing everywhere but many of those places have rocks

Sent from my SM-S711W using TGR Forums mobile app

[forumskier]

https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/74836634

Here are some Pro Riders… MPro 105s… if anyone has been looking

[GoldenBC]

I finally took out our demo pair of Mfree99 in a 185. I always thought they seemed like a punter ski but it was closing day, super slushy, and my joints were lubed with vitamin P so I thought I’d do some jib laps. I mounted them as far forward as possible (prob +2) and skied with no poles, because. Thoroughly impressed. I spend too much time on big stuff skis and thought my days of being nimble and jibby were gone. I was surprised how well they skied traditionally as long as you were light footed and balanced. The hinge point half way up the tips made for forgiving butters and the tip and tail shape make for a very hard to describe, yet sublime feeling when fully leaned over in high speed switch turns.

Unfortunately, they do tend to blow up. We will see if the new construction fixes that.