The Dynastar Thread

Just for some added perspective, the best skis I have tried this year are the MF108 and K108. I skied my Rustler 11’s at Snowbasin last week on a pow day and I wished I had brought the MF108 instead. They would have been perfect for the conditions and terrain. Also, when I talk about stability, the K108 is my new benchmark. And with a bad knee, I want something that provides suspension and dampness. The MF108 isn’t quite that ski.

That being said, I could honestly get by with the MF108, K108, and a pair of Billy Goats as my three ski quiver. I’m sure my wife would love that if I went through with it.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Artist Formerly Known as Leavenworth Skier

The amount of energy that they give back in a turn in unreal, I didn't know a 108 underfoot ski could launch you out of a turn so quickly. It almost feels like 2 skis... flatter bases, more neutral stance = surftown. Push in to shins, steeper edge angles, more aggressive transitions = snapcity.

---

Kopi and discussed this while looking at our turns under the chair. Soft groomer run or the run that was getting wind buffed and reset each time, there was a good 8’ of air time distance coming out of a turn before touching down to start the next one. Speeds were very high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judo Chop!

thinking about some MFree 108 192cm to replace some 4frnt Devastator 194's (that are loosing their liveliness) as my resort dailies for W/B next season.

I wouldn't mind a little more camber for rebound carving groomers and playful pop for lower speed fun, but keep some of the damp charger mode and non-hooky pivoty fun, while dropping just a few grams. I'm worried the short turn radius would be kinda unfamiliar.

Am I on the right track?

faaaack. I wish they just still made the 194 Dev's.

---

Ignore the turn radius. I lean more toward skis with a large turn radius and don’t even notice the shorter radius on these even at high speeds or inconsistent snow.

This thread is just frothy with hype, keep having to double check I'm not in the on3p thread, love it.

Can one of you throw a straight tape on the 192? Then I can decide how hyped I personally should consider getting

why did you wish you had the MF108 vs. R11

any clydesdales on the MF108? I always get excited about a ski then realize everyone is like 40 lbs lighter than me. big boned and all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhetherMan

This thread is just frothy with hype, keep having to double check I'm not in the on3p thread, love it.

Can one of you throw a straight tape on the 192? Then I can decide how hyped I personally should consider getting

---

With bindings on the number I kept coming up with was 190cm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2FUNKY

With bindings on the number I kept coming up with was 190cm

---

Thx. About 1.5cm less hyped now. The 182 is more true to length I guess. Probably still have to either demo or else stop reading this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klauss

why did you wish you had the MF108 vs. R11

any clydesdales on the MF108? I always get excited about a ski then realize everyone is like 40 lbs lighter than me. big boned and all

---

How big we talking? I'm 190, a lot of the other boys on here are a little over two hundo.

200 nekkid, prolly pushing 220 standing on my skis. Zero issues with the 192.

I choose the MF108 192 since I'm in the 220lb class and will use the ski on powder days only. It seems like a LOT of ski on non-powder days, but I don't have much ability and virtually no experience w wide skis so I can't contribute much to what's already been written here. But they are fun when it snows. I wouldn't be afraid to buy 182's if you're lighter and looking to use the MF108 as a DD, in trees/soft bumps, etc, especially if you already have a 110mm+ ski for deep days. I know that goes against the TGR longer, stiffer mantra but I'm just a low post count Jong at this point.

May have missed it, but any lighter guys on the 192cm? I'm 165lbs, maybe 180ish(?) with gear on. Fairly strong skier though. Free skiing a 130 plug, used to race a 150 plug cut down to ~140. Currently skiing a 189cm Kore 99 as a daily driver and thinking about switching onto the MF108. The Kore never feels too long except for in really tight trees. Never really feels too short either.

Edit: Should mention the 140 was only ever the right boot in tech races. Definitely not a boot I could ski all day given normal weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreeskiTrenchCarver

May have missed it, but any lighter guys on the 192cm? I'm 165lbs, maybe 180ish(?) with gear on. Pretty strong skier though. Free skiing a 130 plug, used to race a 150 plug cut down to ~140. Currently skiing a 189cm Kore 99 as a daily driver and thinking about switching onto the MF108. The Kore never feels too long except for in really tight trees. Never really feels too short either.

---

I'm 160 pounds and have ridden the 192. I wouldn't say I'm a strong skier, but I'm not a beater either most days. I found the 192 to be skiable at my weight, just not what I would grab everyday without having late season legs of steel. It is certainly manageable, but it requires more input from guys/gals our size due to that length. After skiing the 182 back to back, I'm glad I went 182 because they are fun all day, even if I relax a little. I didn't get that impression from the 192. They felt like they needed more aggressive input from me at all times, not just when I'm feeling feisty. YMMV

Edit to add: If your current daily is a 189, you'll be fine on the 192. They ski shorter than their stated length.

Are you beaters running 95 or 115 brakes on the MF108s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NW_SKIER

I'm 160 pounds and have ridden the 192. I wouldn't say I'm a strong skier, but I'm not a beater either most days. I found the 192 to be skiable at my weight, just not what I would grab everyday without having late season legs of steel. It is certainly manageable, but it requires more input from guys/gals our size due to that length. After skiing the 182 back to back, I'm glad I went 182 because they are fun all day, even if I relax a little. I didn't get that impression from the 192. They felt like they needed more aggressive input from me at all times, not just when I'm feeling feisty. YMMV

Edit to add: If your current daily is a 189, you'll be fine on the 192. They ski shorter than their stated length.

---

Do you ever find the 182's to be not enough? I originally wanted the 180 Kore's but could only get a deal on them in the 189. Now that I'm on them I feel like a shorter ski for most of the skiing I do would be lacking just a bit strength/stability.

The 189cm Kore 99 tape measures almost exactly the same as the 192cm MFree 108 and the MFree has deeper rocker lines with more splay, a more forward mounting point and it’s not quite as stiff in the tips/tails as the Kore 99 is.
You’d be perfect on the 192cm I bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noslow

The 189cm Kore 99 tape measures almost exactly the same as the 192cm MFree 108 and the MFree has deeper rocker lines with more splay, a more forward mounting point and it’s not quite as stiff in the tips/tails as the Kore 99 is.
You’d be perfect on the 192cm I bet.

---

Nice. Now just need to find someone willing to sell their pair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GBB

Are you beaters running 95 or 115 brakes on the MF108s?

---

Either will work. I put 115s on mine because that's what I had on hand.

Have a pair of 189 menace protos arriving today. Nice deals out there on the ski that is the same under the top sheet as the Mfree 118.

Before I stick holes in them, consensus on mount point? On the line is just sooooo fine?

I'm sure it's in here somewhere - but refresh my mind:

Anybody with a Wren 108 vs M-Free 108 comparison? 189 vs 192 that is.

I skied my wren 108’s two days in good snow last week and promptly sold them.

The mfree 108 is the ski I was hoping the woodsman would be: a more playful, nimble, loose charger than the wren. The Dynastar will actually carve a turn on the way back to the chair, the wren is a little meh on 2d snow. For me, the wren is better in deep pow and rough chop than the mfree but that is what goats are for.

~$460 shipped from T-P for 108s, fwiw. With some gold pivot 15s...sex machine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliBrit

Have a pair of 189 menace protos arriving today. Nice deals out there on the ski that is the same under the top sheet as the Mfree 118.

Before I stick holes in them, consensus on mount point? On the line is just sooooo fine?

---

Great minds think alike, I picked up a pair a couple of weeks ago. Poking around TGR, Blister, etc the consensus seemed to be that the ski's got a big sweet spot so if you like to ski more centered you'll be happy +1 or +2 of the line, if you want more float you can mount them -1 or so, couldn't find anybody willing to admit that they'd mounted the ski far enough to one side or the other to make them unskiable. I put em right at the line and have been real happy ripping turns on 350 feet of icy midwestern vert but I suspect those are not the conditions the skis are built for so ymmv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

I skied my wren 108’s two days in good snow last week and promptly sold them.

The mfree 108 is the ski I was hoping the woodsman would be: a more playful, nimble, loose charger than the wren. The Dynastar will actually carve a turn on the way back to the chair, the wren is a little meh on 2d snow. For me, the wren is better in deep pow and rough chop than the mfree but that is what goats are for.

---

Can anyone with the 192 do a true tip to tail length for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon_head

Great minds think alike, I picked up a pair a couple of weeks ago. Poking around TGR, Blister, etc the consensus seemed to be that the ski's got a big sweet spot so if you like to ski more centered you'll be happy +1 or +2 of the line, if you want more float you can mount them -1 or so, couldn't find anybody willing to admit that they'd mounted the ski far enough to one side or the other to make them unskiable. I put em right at the line and have been real happy ripping turns on 350 feet of icy midwestern vert but I suspect those are not the conditions the skis are built for so ymmv.

---

Thanks for the input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliBrit

Can anyone with the 192 do a true tip to tail length for me?

---

about 189cm -- 192 mfree 108 is the same length as 189 wren

Some measurements from earlier in the thread. 182cm version measured on Blister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthMarkus

Some quick measurements and pictures because I'm bored and avoiding homework:

Straight pull tip-to-tail: 189.25cm
True center: 94.5ish cm from tail.
Recommended : 86.25ish cm from tail.
Cambered portion of ski: 117cm

Halfway point after dividing the cambered portion of the ski puts it at the +2 mark, or barely in front of it.

Halfway point after dividing the widest points of the ski puts it at about 1cm behind true center.

Attached you can see the marks on recommended, camber contacts, and widest parabolic shape. Certainly does highlight a little different ski than the m-free 118. Attachment 348844Attachment 348845Attachment 348846Attachment 348847

---