The Dynastar Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgapp

okay got like 5 days on mine now and i feel like i can comment a bit better.

1. these skis definitely come alive with speed. so much energy exiting a turn. they definitely are "turny" skis, but still capable of doing bigger turns at speed as well. lots of different shapes with them, but the common denominator is the same - they're kinda boring going slow, so the faster you go, the more fun they are.
2. i have mine mounted at +1cm and they're not great in deep, unconsolidated/3d snow. no surprises here. the forward mount + 99mm underfoot = lackluster performance in deeper snow.
3. i'm sure there are better groomer skis out there, but these are pretty fucking fun on groomers, especially when making short-radius turns at speed.
4. soft chop, moguls, two days post storm - that's where this ski SHINES. so much fun, so confidence inspiring.
5. 185cm (really, 182cm) feels like the right length for me - 6', 150lbs, type III skier. i've never once felt like this ski was too short, but perhaps if you were 200lbs+ and a really hard charger, you'd want a longer ski.

---

This all sounds like what I am expecting since I have Pro 90s and MFree 108s.

Rode the lifts with some father son dynastar fanboys today, thought I'd share the love. Also finally smoothed out the bases on my LPRs, now they're perfect. Feel like an idiot for waiting so long.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e30b7ac9f1.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hood26

I am 580 lbs with gear on and I agree.

---

What's your DIN?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Attachment 407824

188 x106, 186 LP 97, 184 LP105, 182 Mfree side view.

The shorter length and less effective edge over the running length can be an adjustment for some, it takes a nuanced stance but still, it's extremely forgiving. I have found that the ski excels whether you stomp on the gas or like to feather the throttle.

---

Cue Jedi mind trick "Sell me your LP105's"

Look at the picture of the Toe pieces on the 105's v MFree's. That's a big difference. Add in a bit of tail rocker and you it's nearly a snowlerblade in comparison :cool:;)

I will readily admit I didn't give the MFree's enough time, but for Mammoth, cue wide open, wind buff, I was pretty sure the MFree's were too short for me for my primary use. I think in more 3D snow the short length wouldn't have mattered as much. Definitely likely could have gotten used to them, but figured I would pass them onto someone else who's mountain and style jive more with it.

Ok, I suck, I can't get his pict with from the front showing the toe pieces. See above for the difference.

A few paper airplane pilots in here.

https://youtu.be/4QTp8lTzqUI
(5'5" on 179 mpro99 as daily driver)

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using TGR Forums mobile app

Skied the menace 98s at deer valley, Alta, snowbird, and solitude. I'll admit that there were many times I wished I had brought the mf108 instead, but for a 98mm ski, the menace 98 is a very underrated ski:
1) it manages VERY well in the bumps, and you can really drive the tips on the downside - something a lot of modern skis can't boast with their amount of rocker.
2) the menace can handle speed like a champ. 25m radius in the 187 makes the ski rage down ice and groomers. It also has a pretty accessable tip to change the radius as you see fit.
3) The twin tip in the tail is actually kinda strange. Where other skis have a wider, more symmetrical tail, the menace 98 has a pintail. You can still ski and land backwards on the ski, but it is quite a bit less "parky" than other twins in comparison. That includes it's rather stiff profile in the tail.
4) the stiffer profile throughout the ski, sans the last foot or so of the tip, matches up quite well with the minimal camber, and minimal reverse camber. The ski takes a bit more to get energy back, but it also allows the ski to tackle some pretty sizeable transitions off rocks and hits across the mountain, without folding the ski on the takeoff or landing. Where I think if the ski were softer, and even with more camber, it would dive on the landings.

Some of the talk lately seems to be targeting the mf108's sizeable rocker profile in the tip and tail, and I would agree that it makes the ski feel short, I would reiterate that the rocker profile does NOT match the sidecut profile of the ski though. Which contributes to how well the ski can perform while maintaining an amazing amount of surfability. It means that if you lay the ski over, you can still engage a good amount of the ski in the tip and tail, which makes the ski charge.





Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowaddict91

What's your DIN?!

---

DIN of 1.8 given my BSL of 230 and being a Type 1 skier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NW_SKIER

You guys are tripping. I'm 5'10 165 pounds with my gear on, push the ski as hard as possible, and have no issues with "pretzeling" the ski, or not being able to finish a turn due to the tails. I was firmly in the camp of thinking I needed a mid 180's length and was thrilled to be proved wrong. There are better skiers than I on the 182, like mofro, and they also do not complain about what you're saying.

Always gonna be a hater for anything, I guess.

---

so fanbois spit truth, everybody else spits hate? ;) People ski differently and their experiences will differ too, which is fine. And just to re-state my take on MF108s - I think they are great. Hell, MF118s make me want to get another pair of 108 182s to give them a second go.

I know I said that I wouldn't do this, but day three also yielded some insights I thought I should share. MF118s are great at doing big arcs on groomers at mach looney. The tails feel a bit vague and they do not drag you into a turn like you'd expect, where both are probably due to lots of taper, +1.5 mount and my lower weight. They are very comfortable at speed, yet are easy to shut down / drift on. I only had the sudden loss of grip that Blister talks about at lower speeds on flatter terrain, never when the skis were skied actively - no big deal and easy to manage. They are probably even better on hard snow if mounted at rec.

They were freaking terrible in snow that had been skied to shit, that was also somewhat sunbaked and refrozen. So shit snow. The "issue" was more that I feel like they need a bit of speed to come alive for me being so small/light. It could be that I should've just stomped on the gas, but I am not strong enough to shut them back down in these conditions if I loose controll, so took it a bit easy to prevent a season ending yardsale. And yes, you are correct - the conditions I am referring to is more 99 or 108 land, and yes, they would probably be more managable at 180, but still - I thought I should mention my experiences to nuance my "best 118 ski ever" description thus far.

As for float, they are 118mm skis, so they float fine at slower speeds for my lower weight. Their weight and shape (camber) make then a bit cumbersome at slower speeds in deep snow. They are great when at speed where they plane up well, but they are not the floatiest skis I have been on. Or to be honest, I never really thought about their float when skiing them, but they are perhaps a bit more in the snow than on top of it, but in a very loose way - if that makes sense. They are still 118mm skis, so "in" the snow is pretty relative here.

edit: holy crap MF99s' shovels hand flex soft. Makes me not want a pair, as soft shovels do weird stuff if loaded in denser/coastal snow. Probably super poppy and fun though I have a hard time seeing heavier dudes getting along with these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

so fanbois spit truth, everybody else spits hate? ;)

---

Nah, not my thoughts at all. Just don't understand how some in this thread think that they can judge a ski they haven't ridden yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NW_SKIER

Nah, not my thoughts at all. Just don't understand how some in this thread think that they can judge a ski they haven't ridden yet.

---

yeah, fair enough :)

Though I can understand some people being a bit apprehensive of how they hand flex and not committing to buying a pair, especially heavier/stronger dudes who are used to really strong shovels. And just to nuance that point, 182s shovels are no noodles, but the hybrid core has a bit of a different feel for sure. So perhaps learning how to get the best of them is learning to sometimes ski them slightly more upright and trusting in that the shovels will bring you through and pop you off at the other side of whatever. But 182s with the same flex as 192 - man, that would be something else :)

And also, do not get me wrong - I do not mean to come across as a contrarian here - the praise of MF108 is more than justified, they are terrific skis.

Not Pro or Free related, but I'm hoping someone might be able to help me with this. I can't find any sort of centerline mark for mounting some non-plate bindings on a pair of Speedzone 12ti skis. Any ideas?

Attachment 407890
Attachment 407891

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powbmps

Not Pro or Free related, but I'm hoping someone might be able to help me with this. I can't find any sort of centerline mark for mounting some non-plate bindings on a pair of Speedzone 12ti skis. Any ideas?

Attachment 407890
Attachment 407891

---

Is there a slight ridge on the top sheet where you would expect bc to be? It’s not always easy to see on some Dynastars


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I can see the ridge on my pair of mogul skis from the same year, but these are totally smooth. I've never seen these offered without the goofy Konnect binding system, so maybe they assumed its wasn't needed? Should probably just set my boot back on there with the original bindings and mark the center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Is there a slight ridge on the top sheet where you would expect bc to be? It’s not always easy to see on some Dynastars


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powbmps

I can see the ridge on my pair of mogul skis from the same year, but these are totally smooth. I've never seen these offered without the goofy Konnect binding system, so maybe they assumed its wasn't needed? Should probably just set my boot back on there with the original bindings and mark the center.

---

I would start centered on the 7


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Cool. Thanks!

Edit to add, you are right on. Put the bindings back on and used a square. Boot centerline is right at the middle of the 7. :yourock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I would start centered on the 7


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthMarkus

Skied the menace 98s at deer valley, Alta, snowbird, and solitude. I'll admit that there were many times I wished I had brought the mf108 instead, but for a 98mm ski, the menace 98 is a very underrated ski:
1) it manages VERY well in the bumps, and you can really drive the tips on the downside - something a lot of modern skis can't boast with their amount of rocker.
2) the menace can handle speed like a champ. 25m radius in the 187 makes the ski rage down ice and groomers. It also has a pretty accessable tip to change the radius as you see fit.
3) The twin tip in the tail is actually kinda strange. Where other skis have a wider, more symmetrical tail, the menace 98 has a pintail. You can still ski and land backwards on the ski, but it is quite a bit less "parky" than other twins in comparison. That includes it's rather stiff profile in the tail.
4) the stiffer profile throughout the ski, sans the last foot or so of the tip, matches up quite well with the minimal camber, and minimal reverse camber. The ski takes a bit more to get energy back, but it also allows the ski to tackle some pretty sizeable transitions off rocks and hits across the mountain, without folding the ski on the takeoff or landing. Where I think if the ski were softer, and even with more camber, it would dive on the landings.

Some of the talk lately seems to be targeting the mf108's sizeable rocker profile in the tip and tail, and I would agree that it makes the ski feel short, I would reiterate that the rocker profile does NOT match the sidecut profile of the ski though. Which contributes to how well the ski can perform while maintaining an amazing amount of surfability. It means that if you lay the ski over, you can still engage a good amount of the ski in the tip and tail, which makes the ski charge.





Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

---

I've been loving my 187 Menace 98s during our 6 week-long dry spell in southwestern BC. I have mine mounted on the rearward line and they charge in carves on groomers. They're also loose enough to be fun in firmer bumps, trees and steep alpine terrain. As much as I enjoy my 192 M-Free 108s, I have enjoyed having the Menace 98 when there's no new snow, and the skis are different enough from each other that owning both makes sense.

Not sure how this experiment will work out, but these bindings sure look dorky on narrow skis. Plus they only go to 11.

Attachment 407942

Hoping the reduced weight will give me better extension on my spreads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

Just spent the morning on the MFree 108s in 182. East coast spring conditions (firm in the shade to start and soon after soft everywhere).

I caught an edge on the first run and felt more comfortable than I've been on any ski after that. The ski does anything you want it to do with merely a thought.

This ski shines in soft snow and small (6 inch) piles of pushed up snow. It smooths out the piles almost as if you are on a groomer.

It carves medium sized turns well on crisp groomers, but is not the right tool for early coast refreeze. It carves soft snow like a razor. I actually collapsed the front of my boot pushing it through a tightish high speed turn - the ski loves to rail soft snow. When my boot momentarily went beyond its flex point I instinctively pulled back into the backseat and the ski released the turn and skidded speed as of on auto pilot. Big sweet spot and very balanced.

Because of the crowds and conditions today was not a day to fly, but i did get a clear run down the race course run and never found I was nearing the skis speed limit (probably got about 50 mph).

For those of you on the fence regarding 182 vs 192 I would say the 182 very stable, intuitive, and playful, while being plenty powerful in most rough stuff. I would not want the 192 for the East. I'm 6 foot 245 ( about 25 pounds of fat ass on what was an athletic frame (; )

I imagine if I skied wide open bowls out west a 192 might be the choice, but until I find then182s speed limit I cannot say for sure. I cannot imagine the 192 being a handful as the 182 is a dream. I ski 192 BCs as my powder ski and find them incredible easy to ski. I would think the 192 MFree 108s would also be very easy to ski. But, at 53 I don't want the extra "work" 190+ skis often require and the 182 is plenty for me, and I would venture 96% of skiers.

Wonderful ski, thrilled with the purchase. Glad I drank the cool aid.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

After a week skiing at Wolf Creek I am still in love with the MFree 108 in 182. I mounted mine on the line. They eagerly handled all conditions.

However, if I was a west coast skier I would definately go with the 192 and possibly mounting forward 1 or 2.

The ski is so easy and intuitive that it is difficult to get into trouble on this ski.

The 182 tips soft groomers and is very quick for a 108 waisted ski. I found the speed limit for the 182 on groomers and I think the little bit longer effective edge would be a greater benefit than the greater size would detract from quickness .



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeMagnet

Precisely my problem. I want to get on the 108, but 182 is gonna pretzel, and 192 while still well manageable for me is getting too long for what I want a ski like that to be, which is the perfect tree ski for our snowfall. At my weight it's not going to flex enough and is going to want faster and straighter lines.

And you just know Dynastar is doing that because Rossi's come in mid 180's and they're too scared about cannibalizing, but that's fucking stupid. MBA's are out of touch weenies.

---

I'm 6 foot and 250 with gear on. The 182 won't pretzel. The ONLY place I want more length is carving soft groomers. If I was out west I would go for the 192 because I would be ripping more bowls and wide open groomers. For trees and 90% of skiing the 182 is an absolute dream.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

mF99 continues to provide smiles.

We picked up 2-3” of fairy dust here in Maine and it was all blown in on the left side everywhere. These friggin’ skis just danced around staying in the fluff zone skipping in between snow guns like nothin bub.

And then you can lay GS turns too :)


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ticketchecker

mF99 continues to provide smiles.

We picked up 2-3” of fairy dust here in Maine and it was all blown in on the left side everywhere. These friggin’ skis just danced around staying in the fluff zone skipping in between snow guns like nothin bub.

And then you can lay GS turns too :)

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

---

Totally agree. I love my M-Free 99s! I find that I reach more for the M-Free 99s over the Enforcer 104s now for low-tide, do-it-all, groomers, steeps, chalk etc. Others were complaining about the snow, which was shit, but the MF 99 doesn’t care.

The MF 99’s have been ripping up the crap snow we’ve been having at Whistler.

And they make gold Pivot 15s look great.
KC
Attachment 408111
Attachment 408112

I went low brow with a pair of black SPX's I had on a shelf

My quick take on Menace 98:

These are extremely fun carvers at low/medium speed. At higher speeds/choppier conditions these lacked the backbone I was hoping for. They will not usurp the OGLP and LP105 as my daily drivers, but they are a blast for skiing around with the family.

What really matters is that my kids think they are cool..

Attachment 409196
Attachment 409195

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwat

My quick take on Menace 98:

These are extremely fun carvers at low/medium speed. At higher speeds/choppier conditions these lacked the backbone I was hoping for. They will not usurp the OGLP and LP105 as my daily drivers, but they are a blast for skiing around with the family.

What really matters is that my kids think they are cool..

Attachment 409196
Attachment 409195

---

Those Forzas make them extra sexy. Good to know about the lack of top end.