The Dynastar Thread

Hey guys, wondering if I could ask for some sizing advice for M-Free 108's from the assembled Dynastar brain trust. I’m proud to say I’ve just finished reading thru all 140 glorious pages of this thread...and I’m still unsure about length between 182-192.

I’m 6’2, 180 lbs, 44 y.o., Type III (though too much of a wuss to drop anything bigger than 5 feet), and ski Whistler mostly. Today I demoed some 182’s and they were all I’d hoped they’d be: super fun, surfy, stable, and overall great in the refrozen, dust-on-crust on offer.

But there were a couple of instances where I felt I was maybe about to go over the handlebars…of course that could’ve been user error, or just getting to know the skis, etc. Even so, I’m curious about those vaunted 192’s, which aren’t available to demo locally.

I’m wondering: would that extra notch of stability of the 192’s come at a substantial cost, i.e. losing the fun and maneuverability the 182’s in the trees and tighter spots?

These would be the goldilocks ski in my quiver, which currently comprises:

Blizzard Rustler 9 @ 186cm (low tide)
Elan Ripstick 116 @ 193cm (touring + high tide)

FWIW I did demo a bunch of other mid-100mm freeride skis over the past year, and the best length for me has been in the mid-to-high 180's. Of course, there's no such option with the Mfree's.


Thanks for any insight here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obviouslynotagolfer

Hey guys, wondering if I could ask for some sizing advice for M-Free 108's from the assembled Dynastar brain trust. I’m proud to say I’ve just finished reading thru all 140 glorious pages of this thread...and I’m still unsure about length between 182-192.

I’m 6’2, 180 lbs, 44 y.o., Type III (though too much of a wuss to drop anything bigger than 5 feet), and ski Whistler mostly. Today I demoed some 182’s and they were all I’d hoped they’d be: super fun, surfy, stable, and overall great in the refrozen, dust-on-crust on offer.

But there were a couple of instances where I felt I was maybe about to go over the handlebars…of course that could’ve been user error, or just getting to know the skis, etc. Even so, I’m curious about those vaunted 192’s, which aren’t available to demo locally.

I’m wondering: would that extra notch of stability of the 192’s come at a substantial cost, i.e. losing the fun and maneuverability the 182’s in the trees and tighter spots?

These would be the goldilocks ski in my quiver, which currently comprises:

Blizzard Rustler 9 @ 186cm (low tide)
Elan Ripstick 116 @ 193cm (touring + high tide)

FWIW I did demo a bunch of other mid-100mm freeride skis over the past year, and the best length for me has been in the mid-to-high 180's. Of course, there's no such option with the Mfree's.


Thanks for any insight here!

---

192s all the way for your size. My stats are similar (though a few pounds heavier) and 192 is perfect. They ski shorter and have all the fun and maneuverability you'll want.

Look at something that you want to ski and ski it.

192

Thanks guys - much appreciated. Alright, 192 it shall be.

They straight tape at only 189.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yup, thanks. But I also recall reading here the 192's are apparently a bit stiffer, right? I'm probably in the minority here in not wanting something stiffer than what the 182's were offering.

Yes they are stiffer than the 182.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Ok, thanks.

In the spirit of paying it forward, FYI I just came across this deal for 192's in Kelowna, BC. 20% off with their promo code. 2 in stock as of now. (i'm already committed to buying a pair elsewhere, otherwise i'd jump on these)

https://shop.freshair.ca/2024-dynast...ml?id=96709414

I'd also say 192. I am 5'11", 180lbs also ski Whistler, I have the 182s and while I like them they are a bit too short for me.

Thanks Samp, I appreciate hearing this.

I've demoed the 182 and thought it was short. 5'10" and 180 lbs. I thought a 186 would be about right but haven't skied the 192 .

Thanks Goldmember, yup a 186 would seem to be the sweetspot for a lot of us. (Also realizing i'm pretty late to the MFree party and this sizing issue has no doubt been beat to death already!)

Since your quiver has deep snow covered, another option is the 185 M-Free 99. Although it measures the same tip-to-tail as the 182 M-Free 108, I find it skis a bit longer, but with a flex more similar to the 182 108 than to the 192. I own the 185 99s and both 182 and 192 108s, and the 185 99s are the ski I grab most of the time.

Thanks D(C) - definitely good food for thought. I will say that while i love my 116mm Ripsticks, they don't have much mass for their size, and can get tossed around, so I'd look to these Dynastars to offer some more dampness/plushness while going thru variable snow. I don't want a charger per se, but something that has some mass to it would be nice.

That said, I might hold off on buying and try some M-Free 99's when I'm back up later this week. I thought I'd read someone say that the 99's weren't quite as surfy or damp-feeling as the 182 108's, but clearly you like yours. PS I've enjoyed reading yours and others 'deep dives' on all these skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obviouslynotagolfer

Thanks D(C) - definitely good food for thought. I will say that while i love my 116mm Ripsticks, they don't have much mass for their size, and can get tossed around, so I'd look to these Dynastars to offer some more dampness/plushness while going thru variable snow. I don't want a charger per se, but something that has some mass to it would be nice.

That said, I might hold off on buying and try some M-Free 99's when I'm back up later this week. I thought I'd read someone say that the 99's weren't quite as surfy or damp-feeling as the 182 108's, but clearly you like yours. PS I've enjoyed reading yours and others 'deep dives' on all these skis.

---

Yeah, they’re not as loose as the 182 108s but are looser than the 192s, hence the comment on them feeling a bit longer than the 182s while turning. That might not help you in terms of stuffing tips, since overall length is similar, though.

I guess I’d say that the 99s are a bit more slashy (i.e. engaged on edge), whereas the 108s are more smeary, which is likely a function of their width. I still find the 99s can smear and slide around pretty nicely in tight trees. But the 185 99s and 182 108s are in the fun category, while I find the 192 108s feel more serious (though still being quite nimble for a ski with that much backbone). I find the degree of dampness similar between the 182 108s and 185 99s. The skis are definitely in the same family.

I think demoing the 99s is a good plan. I’ll be interested to hear what you think, and whether my take is out to lunch :) .

D(C), could you do a Mfree 108 182 vs 192 review? Pros and cons of each. I have the 182(which I love) but everyone on here raves about the 192 being such a better ski.
Thanks, Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCskid

D(C), could you do a Mfree 108 182 vs 192 review? Pros and cons of each. I have the 182(which I love) but everyone on here raves about the 192 being such a better ski.
Thanks, Mike

---

Have you read the Blister review? They describe the differences pretty well.

Also, the comparison you ask for have already been asked and answered multiple times before in this thread. So going through the last 50 or so pages of this thread should provide lots of info.

I can't say that I ever found the 99 to ski stiffer than the 108 - and I choose the stiffest + heaviest left and right ski out of four pairs that I bought at the same time. As the 99s prob have more wood and less pu it kinda makes sense that they feel a bit stronger though, or if not stronger than a bit more precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waveshello

Hey MF108 fan bois and girls, can you help guide my choice between 182 and 192?

Skis I like/ski the most: 184 devastator, 186 Mindbender 116, 186 Renegade.

I'm 6' 160lbs. Primarily ski at alpental, sometimes white pass or mission.

I desire maneuverability, just a little worried that the 182 is going to feel too short. Are there taller folks that are happy on the 182? I'm not afraid of the length of the 192 but I do want something that feels great in the trees.

---

Quoting my own post, because I asked the same question last season and you may find the responses helpful. At 6', 160 lbs, I settled on the 192. I think they feel comparable to the 184 Devastator that I have been skiing for several years in terms of perceived length and weight. It's a similar amount of ski in front of my boot as my 186 Dynastar Cham HMs too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D(C)

Yeah, they’re not as loose as the 182 108s but are looser than the 192s, hence the comment on them feeling a bit longer than the 182s while turning. That might not help you in terms of stuffing tips, since overall length is similar, though.

I guess I’d say that the 99s are a bit more slashy (i.e. engaged on edge), whereas the 108s are more smeary, which is likely a function of their width. I still find the 99s can smear and slide around pretty nicely in tight trees. But the 185 99s and 182 108s are in the fun category, while I find the 192 108s feel more serious (though still being quite nimble for a ski with that much backbone). I find the degree of dampness similar between the 182 108s and 185 99s. The skis are definitely in the same family.

I think demoing the 99s is a good plan. I’ll be interested to hear what you think, and whether my take is out to lunch :) .

---

Sounds good D(C) and appreciate your comparisons - will report back. I also have to admit: I’m intrigued that you still own all 3 skis. Part of me is thinking maybe I’ve gotta pursue a similar strategy; maybe go nuts and buy both the 182’s (or 185’s) and 192’s, A/B for a while, and then sell off the losing pair. (of course, there are no ‘losers’ in this bunch) Or, maybe more likely, keep ‘em both!

Thinking this is the Fan Boi place, i have a set of NOS Factory's that need a home after a client went another direction for their pond skim ski - hit me up PM way. thanks B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waveshello

Quoting my own post, because I asked the same question last season and you may find the responses helpful. At 6', 160 lbs, I settled on the 192. I think they feel comparable to the 184 Devastator that I have been skiing for several years in terms of perceived length and weight. It's a similar amount of ski in front of my boot as my 186 Dynastar Cham HMs too.

---

Thanks waveshello, this is indeed helpful to know and I remember reading your impressions. I haven't had the chance to be on any of those other skis you listed but checking out the reviews and specs on Blister just now, those 4frnt's in particular seem like markedly 'less ski' than the 192's - so it's interesting and indeed reassuring that you're enjoying the 192's. How are you finding them in the trees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

Have you read the Blister review? They describe the differences pretty well.

Also, the comparison you ask for have already been asked and answered multiple times before in this thread. So going through the last 50 or so pages of this thread should provide lots of info.

I can't say that I ever found the 99 to ski stiffer than the 108 - and I choose the stiffest + heaviest left and right ski out of four pairs that I bought at the same time. As the 99s prob have more wood and less pu it kinda makes sense that they feel a bit stronger though, or if not stronger than a bit more precise.

---

Yeah, I can't really add much more than what has already been said, and the Blister comparison is quite accurate in my experience. Summary is: 182 is best for wiggling through tight places, 192 requires more deliberate effort to make short turns but gives much more stability while still being easy to throw sideways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obviouslynotagolfer

Thanks waveshello, this is indeed helpful to know and I remember reading your impressions. I haven't had the chance to be on any of those other skis you listed but checking out the reviews and specs on Blister just now, those 4frnt's in particular seem like markedly 'less ski' than the 192's - so it's interesting and indeed reassuring that you're enjoying the 192's. How are you finding them in the trees?

---

The blister review you read is probably for the newer Devastator, I think it's ~2000g in the 186. I was talking about the old heavy one.

I guess the OG dev comparison is probably not very useful to anyone who hasn't skied the OG dev--It's similar in weight, waist width, dampness, but it's kind of a unique ski. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the 192 M-Free skis shorter than it's stated length. It's one of the more maneuverable skis I own, great in the trees. The only point I noted a real decrease in the manuverability was in rain pow... It works fine there but the reverse camber dev does it better.