Printable View
So trying to understand the Dynastar models for their Speed series. They have some cheater GS skis - 175cm 15 meter radius in both a 763 and 963 (which I was told the 63 was the year they were founded and of course 7 is a step down from their 9 series...) I am not finding this exact ski on their web site, but not sure which year either- have to assume 2022-23 current season though...
Attachment 450760
^^^ could be wrong but i think that topsheet you have posted is next years 23/24 graphic - at least it looks a lot like next years race lineup which the speed usually mirrors somewhat similarly.
No idea if theres a comparable ski in this years lineup.
Speed 763 is the "cheater" GS
Speed 963 is the "cheater" SL
Website links:
https://www.dynastar.com/product/speed-963-konect
https://www.dynastar.com/product/speed-763-konect
I've skied neither, but it is my understanding that the M-Pros get less turny / more inclined to do slightly longer turns as the they grow wider - with the 90 still being more inclined to do smaller turns and being very forgiving to ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by DerKommissar
The 90 is supposedly still more of a frontside carver than a big line slayer (compared to the two wider m pros, especially the widest), so it could be that the jump to a more advanced construction and slightly wider ski could be the best of worlds approach you are looking for.
some tests:
84, 90, 90, there are also a fair few videos on youtube for either.
Those both look more like ‘fun carvers’ than cheater GS to me. Quite short radius, even in the longest length (16m).Quote:
Originally Posted by scottishrider
That may or may not be what you’re looking for, but the real ‘cheater gs’ ski in the line is the ‘speed course master gs’, with 21m radius in the longest length (which is still pretty tight as far as cheater gs skis go).
I think this is pretty accurate. I've never skied the 84 but have both 90 and 99. The 90 is an 18m radius, the 99 is 20m. The 99 is a beefier ski and is my favorite. The 90 is fine for where I use it but isn't quite the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
That makes sense- demo day and they had these on Sunday from a tent that the Company rep had in his quiver of skis... The closest that I can see on this years web site is the 763 Konect or 963 Konect. However Dynastar this year are a 174 cm and 15 meter radius, I believe next year I was told are 175 cm and still a 15 meter radius (not really a big deal in that change- hardly noticeable) or I could be not remembering the correct length of next year's ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
https://www.dynastar.com/product/speed-763-konect
Ok, thanks for that and makes sense. I skied the 2023-24 in both models I guess, the rep had his personal ski slalom series (without the system or demo binding) and set them up for my ski boot length and I did one run on them. It was pretty soft snow and the shorter slalom skis did not seem like they were as responsive on that snow (should be at 13 meter radius in the 165 cm) compared to the 175 cm 15 meter radius that I jumped on right after that run.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottishrider
I appreciate the feedback, but the local Nastar hill course tends to be depending on the setup better for something in 170 to 180 cm and shorter turn radius (I have Fischer 175 cm 16 meter that some days are tight and really have to work on getting them around or throw them sideways) - some are doing better on slalom skis- 165 cm and 12 to 13 meter radius on the GS course.... All depends on the driver. I could not use my Head 180 cm < 21 meter most days, or my Fischer 183 cm skis on their turny courses set some days.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Ok. Sounds like you know your needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatty
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
Thanks for the replies y'all. Unfortunately my indecisiveness saved me $400 this time around. Called Corbett's on Monday morning and they are indeed out of stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by resolute goggles
After doing some soul searching I think the 192 is probably what I want. I tour on the Cham 107 HM, seems like if you add a rockered tail to that ski you've basically got a 192 mfree. I bet the mfree feels similar in length.
If you or anyone is interested in some cheaper 192 mfree 108s, I'll be selling some here soon. Mounted with "oil green" STH2 16s. 1 core shot with 2 deeper gouges as well. Not repaired yet (but haven't been skied since the incident). Not sure what they're worth. I'm located in spokane so maybe we could arrange a drop off in you're interestedQuote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
After a couple of weeks of skiing the 192 Mfree 108 I figured I'd throw a few of my thoughts into this thread. I mounted them on the line and skied them in everything from punchy suncrusts/bullet proof windboard/dust on crust to 16" of blower at the end of a 30" cycle.
- They really live up to the hype. I had high expectations and after a few days of getting used to them, I'm fully on board.
- The ability to charge through soft chop while popping off every little side hit and pillow possible is unparalleled in any other ski I've owned. They turn steep, soft terrain into a playground.
- They are so much more composed in tight, techy, firm conditions than they have any right to be. Coming off rossi Sickles (which always felt a bit squirrelly when conditions were truly firm) having the stability and suspension of camber again is awesome.
- Despite the camber they will pivot on a dime when you need them too if you work for it. They aren't flat camber/reverse loose, but loose enough for what this ski needs to do.
- They ski much shorter than the 189.5 straight pull would indicate when you need them to but come alive down the fall line.
- Super forgiving if you stay balanced and strong over the middle of the ski. I've found myself saying, "I can't believe I held on through that drop/line/straight line/runout," a few times recently when on a different ski I might have lost it.
- Unweidly in super tight low-angle trees, but that might be the worst place for this ski outside of EC groomers or the GS course.
- In bulletproof conditions, they are strong enough to be fun while you get to the softer snow on the mountain. Which is all you can really ask for.
- They seek and destroy soft snow when conditions get really chopped and variable. Eye up that soft pillow on top of the bump and slash to your heart's desire.
- In super deep, untracked, continental pow they float adequately but lose some of that playfulness that makes them special when things get more chopped or variable. There are better skis out there for that kind of skiing anyways and for most days inbounds you'll only see that kind of snow for a few runs before the MFree special-ness comes roaring back.
They aren't cold dead hands level yet, but for the type of skiing I typically do I'll be hard-pressed to grab anything else out of the shed for the next few months. I pre-purchased Marshall's FR110 to replace my Sickles and am excited to A/B them next season. But I can easily see a place for both in my quiver.
Stoked for ya Smiley!! They always put a giant smile on my face. Spent a Sunday crushing 10”in 3hrs with a bunch of other maggots during the INW Meat up! Bell to bell crushing! 5 pairs of Mfree 108’s there, all on the feet of very ripping skiers.
Attachment 450927
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks everyone for the info.
I'm guessing you're not skiing the 90 in much powder if you have the 99 around. My original plan was to ski the 84 and demo something wider out west if I ran into a dump (which I haven't yet). If I had the 90, I'd hope I could skip the demo ski. The 84 has been great for the bluebird, no fresh snow days that seem to make of 90% of my trips. It's also been fine after 2 or inches, which is the most I've run into, and in the doubles at CB this year. I don't really know what I'm missing on more of free ride ski, however. I grew up skiing straight skis, so there's something comforting about having not much rocker in the back. I think I really need to demo the 90 to see what I'm missing/if I'm missing anything at all.
Yeah- They're a fun tree ski when it's steeper or more open (RedDog @ Squaw) when you can get them up to speed and use their slashability. But, when noodling around tight low-angle trees at Eldora they've a bit less inspiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASmileyFace
They're certainly a playful charger. Anyone looking for either end of that spectrum is likely going to be disappointed.
Zero issues here pivoting through low angle tight trees, very very nimble ski. Get more centered on them and they pivot better than they should, like stoopid quick and effortless.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah i sold mine for other reasons but agree the tight tree skiing was super satisfactory for me (based off only skiing them in pow or lightly tracked trees... never got them in super skied out or firm conditions in the trees)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Where I ski the 90s, a big day is 8" new and they're fine for that. Where I ski the 99s, we get twice that fairly often and they're better than the 90s would be but I have a pair of x106 Legends for those bigger days. I like the 99 for the chopped up, cruddy, used snow and for ripping on groomers. They're the most versatile ski I have and they fit that bill well.Quote:
Originally Posted by DerKommissar
I, too, grew up on long skinny skis so having a 90 in powder isn't an issue as I like being in the snow more than surfing it. The 90 is okay for that but the 99 is better. The 84, I would presume, is really more for frontside skiing with a healthy dose of groomers being the main course. The 90 would be more versatile for other conditions so, a better all-around conditions ski. YMMV.
Finally got out on my 185 MFree 99’s. About 4 inches of new snow on top of a soft base. Took me a few runs to get used to the combination of camber, rocker and short running length. However, once I got things sorted, they were a blast. Slashy like my MFree108’s but much just easier to manage and a certainly more playful. Was surprised by their groomer performance as well. Snow was quite soft, but they were more than adequate. Not chargers but made the whole mountain a playground. Just wish they made a longer length for you bigger guys.
Nice! As you maybe read a couple pages up, I have been very happy with mine. They are the ski I have used the most this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
i bought another pair of 108s. it’s been a solid daily the last two years. better in lighter snow, but i like it a lot as a softer snow fun ski.
I read your review and it motivated me to take out the 99’s on a day I typically would have gone with my 108’s. As I eluded to, the first few runs were a bit of an adjustment. They just felt too short and a bit too reactive. So, I adjusted my approach to fit how the 99 wanted to be skied and found the magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
Will be curious to see how they handle firmer conditions where I tend to prefer a heavier, damp ski. However, since they are part of a large quiver, I’m okay with being a soft-snow biased option.
Mine were grabby and weird at first. It seemed like a tune issue, like the skis were edge-high. They only felt intuitive after some significant tip and tail detuning and hitting the edge with a diamond stone to remove any hanging burr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
But yeah, they are also quite a bit quicker than the 192 108s but can still be pushed quite hard.
I really enjoy them on groomers, actually more than the M-Pro 99 they replaced. They don't need much speed to come alive but hold a good edge with a big sweet spot.
OK I k ow they just launched some new skis, but the social media push of all the skimo racing is watering down the vibe. I hope they start giving us more Reine and Megan soon.