http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=50419153
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=50419153
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
They look like they turn pretty quick for being so burly. I didnt like that quick turn initiation in the cham 87, but I may like that in a 127mm powder ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Eeeey chalk up another mark for loving the Cham 1.0s. The 97 has been my all-mountain for two seasons. I slarve plenty on different skis but the 1.0s really like to arc, so I feel like they keep me a little more awake and a little more creative with my lines than I might be otherwise. They're getting pretty banged up at this point, so I've been wondering lately what to replace them with when the time comes... haven't skied the 2.0s but they look sort of lightly neutered by comparison.
still on the fence with the 2.0 97's, 184 - mounted on line but not sure going back would do much better. skied them in pow, mixed, - felt a bit squirrelly...maybe the tip rise, maybe the light weight,,,,couldn't put my finger on it. looking forward though to trying out some LP 105's i picked up end of season.
Just got my hands on the 192 ProRiders. (The photo I posted was just a teaser). Absolutely beautiful boards. Missiles!
It's full on summer here in NZ, but I may just have to go and hike up a volcano - with a heavy load! - just to get a few turns on them.
I liked mine at -1Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnepa
My take:
In general I prefer a softer ski, old bumper habit I guess. most of my mounts are -1.5
184 97 HM, one of the best everyday skis I have ever had. Mounted my bit tired pair with Kingpins late last year for touring and side country. Just replaced the inbound need with Mythics, no time on them yet.
XXL 194's, had them for up in AK use. Hated them, they made little tiny turns and straight-lined well but would not make long super g style turns...weird combo of tendencies. Liked the 105 LP way better up there.
Cham 97 2.0, had em, sold em, not as snappy or poppy as the HM's I was trying to replace, nice and damp and held an edge well but not as much energy return for me as the HM.
107 HM , have two pair, one with Kingpins that fill the new snow backcountry need well and a near worn out pair for inbounds that just got down graded to rock ski duty this year. 106's waiting in the wings as snow depth gets respectable enough to bring them out.
87 Chams, wife and daughter each have a pair and love them . Same with the ladies 97's, virtually everyone I have talked into a Cham model has loved them. They do it all.
Of note the 107 ladies ski is the same as the HM model and can be obtained pretty cheap in 184's when available new on EBAY...sub $300 and sometimes sub $200...a good option when waiting for the 107 Mythic to show..if ever
i hear ya...just hate to put another set of holes in if i sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Just took a tape measure to my Pro Riders and geeked out a bit:
Straight pull (over the bindings): 191.5cm
Tip rocker: 27cm - decambered 33cm
Tip taper: 21cm
Tip splay: 5.0cm - decambered 5.5cm
Tail rocker: 11cm
Tail taper: 11cm
Tail splay: 1.5cm
Camber: 7mm
Weight: heavy...
So tips are low and have very gradual rocker.
Q for those of you on Cham 2.0s (paging Leavenworth Skier). I have a 3x tele mounted pair and the only mount point I can fit new holes is at +2.5. Would like to hang on to the skis - how will a forward mount ski? Prior mounts with different bindings have been at 0 and -1...
I dunno man, I always want more tip than less. I don't think I've ever purposely moved my bindings forward of the line. Can't help you on that one unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-wpk
Anything I should do with the Dynastar Pro Rider wood side walls?
Let them dry out between ski trips (ie bring them inside and don't leave them wet in your roofbox for 2 weeks post skiing.)Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
I didn't think the sidewalls were actually wood when I had mine. Looked more like micarta or something similar.
Some say they are a marine grade teak, others a resin based laminate. Either way I don't think it's best to leave them wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
I couldn't tell, but didn't want to mess around.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Sounds like I just need to make sure I'm not an idiot with em.
I can do that.
Mine have held up great.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Day One 184 Mythics, Pivots -1, Alpine boots, mixed cold snow conditions at Jackson.
Short answer...loved them, light, snappy, quick but still have chops for blasting through crap. Stiffer than my HM models but not "throw you around" stiff. Floated well in what new snow we had and blasted through the rapidly forming bumps on the steeper stuff no problem. Held on snowmaking ice when asked. I know these are marketed as a touring ski but if you the kind of skier that doesn't really like the ride of heavy metal and prefers to ski with a lighter more technical touch these are worth a look for sure. Touring is a no brainer winner.
Best Cham to date IMO...
All I can say is these fuckers are heavy. Like carrying a race ski.
Edit:
Can someone tell me what is supposed to mark the recommended line?
Is it that slight rise on the topsheet near the edge?
Ahhh, the signature of a great inbounds charging ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Hand fucked the mythics and the LP106's in the local shop last night, I thought I was done wanting more skis this year...
I used to the the AD LP105's in 192 and they were missiles, I just found them a bit too sluggish for my liking though.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Thanks. Choice is to hang them up or give a try at +2.5. Will report back in a week or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Considering the new LegendX 106 mounted with a pr of Tectons for here in the Jackson/Targhee area as a 70/30 resort/pass setup. Leaning towards the 188s(5'11 ~185lbs). Thoughts??
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
I'd say the 188 is the way to go, personally. What other skis are you on currently?Quote:
Originally Posted by GravityDT
You have me by an inch and have you by 10lbs. Personally I would go 188 all day. I like longer skis, 188 is not that long though, so ymmv.Quote:
Originally Posted by GravityDT
185 Zero G 108sQuote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
You'll have no problem with the 188 106Quote:
Originally Posted by GravityDT
188 X106 mini-review:
Me: 5' 10" ~200lbs, ski like a PSIA level 47 2nd degree wizard, ski in 130 flex boots that aren't red. Full disclosure: I like Dynastar and somehow got sent these skis for the TGR masses to demo at BBI etc. So I'm not on the take but take my review with a light salt grain.
Attachment 218605
(legend-ary)
Other skis I like: 192 LP105, any ski with good edge grip, damp layup and a traditional mount point.
Don't like lots of tail or centered mounts.
2 days spent at Mount Baker Ski area. Conditions skid: mid-winter chalk, proto-corn, refrozen, lumpy chair 8 "groomers", recycled old pow, crud. Majority of the time spent lapping Upper Canucks Deluxe to Upper/Lower Honkers.
Attachment 218603
I'm glad everyone at Mount Baker skis powder only.
Attachment 218604
The skis.
188cm
139-106-123
19m Radius
Snow feel: Damper than the Cham 107 2.0 with much better edge grip. Real tail rocker makes for an easier slash than any Dynastar I've skied to date. Definitely not an old school LP race feel but they have guts for sure. Although they look similar, these skis are more Legend than Cham. But unlike the old school LP, you don't have to go 40 mph to make these skis feel fun.
I started out at 0. At this mount point the ski feels super quick edge to edge and while it requires some forward pressure you are rewarded by big lateral movements and a slightly neutral stance. Sometimes in the bumps I would slightly notice the tail. But the tip is plenty supportive for me and I never once felt like I was overpowering the shovels. A tiny bit too quick on the groomers for me. Decided to go -2, just for kicks.
-2: Probably the best position for pure groomer skiing but the pin tail felt like it was sinking too much in soft stuff and they felt slugish.
-1: This is the perfect spot for more. almost as quick as on the line, can really push on the tips and the ski feels super balanced. If you're a more traditional skier, I bet this is the spot you'll like.
Anyways, more later once I get more days on the skis. My 188s have demo bindings on them and I'd love to get the maggot hoard to try them out. I'll be floating between Mission/Stevens/Alpental this winter (+ both BBI), so hit me up if you want to give them a try.
Very kewl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Shout out to the Candide, and its little brother the Concept, Dynastar's first-gen twin tips. I wasn't able to track down a great picture of them from the interwebs, but the Concepts were the first twins I ever had. I was so stoked on the cow spot base graphics.
Attachment 218624Attachment 218625
Any maggots with time on the Slicer Factory skis from Dynastar? I molested a pair at 2nd tracks today and they seem beefy AF. Are all the factory skis made similarly? Is the Slicer cut from the same cloth as the Pro Rider?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
My first Dynastars were the X8 in around 1994, after being on Rossi 4S or 4M for most of my 20's. They were ok, but I fell in love with the '93 (I think) Pro Course S. I had a few pair of those before going to the K2 Outlaw, then 1080 Mogul, then the first 3 generations of 1080.
In 2016 I picked up my first Dynastars in over 20 years; The Distorters. From day one I was reminded of everything I loved about the old Course S and then some. Two years and prolly 100+ days later and this pair is on their last legs, but still have more life than any of my Salomons did after 30.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...3747541d47.jpg
Dynastar stopped making the Distorter after 2016, but I picked up another pair on the cheap last spring on closeout. This pair are getting yellow and black pivots since the old FKS are well, old, plus I want to keep the old pair in the rotation for if/when I destroy the new ones. Rossi still makes the Scratch from the same mold, but different construction, so that might be where I'm headed next.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...342e23549a.jpg
I'm an old east coast bump fag Colorado transplant, and right now my quiver consists of the Distorters and a pair of Fatypus M5's. At least for Colorado, the Distorter is all the bump ski I need. My bumper friends keep telling me I should be on a Twister, but I can wiggle with my feet together well enough on the Distorter, an the extra width and ER works well for everything but deep days when I pull out the M5's. The M5's are pretty solid wigglers in their own right, but IMO are overkill for most days, plus at 87mm, the Distorter sinks into the snow more on not so deep days, which I like better than slapping around on a wider ski.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6c18821e2b.jpg
The Distorter is thin and light, but stable enough with its 22m sidecut, springblade core, and glass wrap under foot. I guess Dynastar/Rossi has decided to quit competing with themselves, making two skis with the exact same dimensions, and the pivot and FKS. It looks like the build on the Scratch might be better suited to park, but who knows? They might be really similar. I'm sure there are better all-mountain skis, but for what I like to ski most of the time, an all-mountain/park ski gets it done. FWIW, I mount on the "traditional" line, not center. It makes me chuckle when I see kids half my age on the same set up, but not as much as seeing folks on 115+ powder boards on groomers.
People like to tell me that I should be on something wider, skinnier, longer, or with some metal, but for what/how I like to ski the Distorter/M5 quiver is more than enough. YMMV
Those who mounted their Pro Riders, what size bit did you use?
I don't have the skis in front of me currently, so I'm not sure if it says on the topsheet somewhere.
They are full of metal, dude. 4.1mmQuote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Actually just send them to me for a proper mount and retention test.
That's what I figured, just wanted to make sure before I ordered a 4.1mm bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by NW_SKIER
Better to double-check in my experience ;)
Anyone with Cham 117s, can you please measure your mount point from the tail? Inches is fine.
Any need for dynastar intuitive 74, 188cm (small swallow tail, boat hull nose). free. Pm me
Might want to check with Leavenworth skier before you give them to anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by mntlion