The Dynastar Thread

[One (+) Sentence]

Those are the original Big. I sold those the last time I worked in a shop way back when. IIRC, Olympic skier Tommy Moe had some connection to that ski (but my memory is fuzzy). Didn’t suck, but I never skied a pair. I jumped on the 4x4 Big bandwagon that was a descendant of that ski.

Yep, the original Big, and I’d be surprised if they are 100mm under foot. My guess is 85-90mm.

[TAFKALVS]

Yep, the original Big, and I’d be surprised if they are 100mm under foot. My guess is 85-90mm.

They pretty dang wide for a ski of this era, wider than my 4x4 Bigs for sure. I'll have to closer compare them to other skis in the fleet.

[One (+) Sentence]

They pretty dang wide for a ski of this era, wider than my 4x4 Bigs for sure. I'll have to closer compare them to other skis in the fleet.

Some perspective for skis from that era:
Volkl Snowranger - 78mm waist (IIRC)
Rossignol Cut 11.5 - 85mm waist
Volant Chubb - 80mm waist (IIRC)

[ticketchecker]

Some perspective for skis from that era:
Volkl Snowranger - 78mm waist (IIRC)
Rossignol Cut 11.5 - 85mm waist
Volant Chubb - 80mm waist (IIRC)

K2 AK Launcher - 88mm

[gwat]

The OG Dynastar powder ski.
Dimensions are 115-90-108.
190 is woodcore, shorter lengths are made of styrofoam and were known to snap in half.
Probably a pretty legit charger but it is one of the few skis I have not tried (despite having a minty pair hanging in the shed...).

[TAFKALVS]

The OG Dynastar powder ski.
Dimensions are 115-90-108.
190 is woodcore, shorter lengths are made of styrofoam and were known to snap in half.
Probably a pretty legit charger but it is one of the few skis I have not tried (despite having a minty pair hanging in the shed...).

That sounds about right, the flex reminds me very much of the Race Room LP and the Volkl Explosiv.

I'm oddly excited to try them. Anyone have some vintage forzas?

[whyturn]

Scored a pair of these today as part of a tele binding pickup at Nordic valley What to do with them???





Should I make a chair






Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gwat]

That sounds about right, the flex reminds me very much of the Race Room LP and the Volkl Explosiv.

I'm oddly excited to try them. Anyone have some vintage forzas?

Nord was selling a pair earlier this year, post #387 in the pivot gearswap thread.

Skisthetrees was selling a pair more recently:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Pivot-TTC-13-s

[skiing2skiing]

I'm excited to be mounting a pair of big dumps soon...anyone ski em recently?

[TAFKALVS]

Nord was selling a pair earlier this year, post #387 in the pivot gearswap thread.

Skisthetrees was selling a pair more recently:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Pivot-TTC-13-s

skisthetrees is a buddy, we live in the same town. He's fixing me up.

Should be a pretty nice looking setup...

[elevens]

I mounted my last pair of the original Dynastar 4x4 Bigs last season. Still an amazing ski. Best decision I ever made was grabbing 3 pairs instead of $500 for payment.

[arild]

I'm excited to be mounting a pair of big dumps soon...anyone ski em recently?

Nope, but mounted mine at +0.5. Will hopefully get somewhere nice to ski them, but the way this omicron thing seems to be going, not likely this season in this country.

Edit: By far the heaviest pair of skis I've ever mounted. Think the skis alone weigh close to 6kg/pair, then mounted with Sth steels. Could be worse, though. Almost scored a few pair of px18s last week. Haven't shaken that idea yet..

[arild]

Just because this is reaaally important, I had way too much time on my hands, and I have a huge need to share these important news.

I brought out the calipers and a measuring band to determine the actual sidecut lengths and radii for the LP105s and the Big Dumps.

First step was finding the absolute narrowest point of each ski, then pulling the calipers towards the tips and tails, measuring the widest spots, then marking it with a sharpie. Then, measuring from the "first" widest spot, determined the actual sidecut length. After this, plotted the numbers into nanoCAD, where I have multiple ski templates made, then it's just a matter of measuring the arc of three points.

LP105s surprised me, as they truly feel longer in their sidecut length, but numbers don't lie. Or do they, ski industry?

LP105s: 133/105/121mm, sidecut length of 160cm. Sidecut radius: 29m. A discrepancy of a whopping 2m from advertised (27)!
Big Dumps: 141.5/120/131.5mm, sidecut length of 163.5cm. Sidecut radius: 40.5m. That's a whole 2.5m from advertised (38).

Seeing as XXLs from that golden era of chargers were advertised with 41m, pretty certain they're sporting a true longer radius as well, but alas, no pairs are available to me.

Why am I measuring 10 year old ski designs, you ask? Because it fucking matters, that's why.

[DarthMarkus]

Just because this is reaaally important, I had way too much time on my hands, and I have a huge need to share these important news.

I brought out the calipers and a measuring band to determine the actual sidecut lengths and radii for the LP105s and the Big Dumps.

First step was finding the absolute narrowest point of each ski, then pulling the calipers towards the tips and tails, measuring the widest spots, then marking it with a sharpie. Then, measuring from the "first" widest spot, determined the actual sidecut length. After this, plotted the numbers into nanoCAD, where I have multiple ski templates made, then it's just a matter of measuring the arc of three points.

LP105s surprised me, as they truly feel longer in their sidecut length, but numbers don't lie. Or do they, ski industry?

LP105s: 133/105/121mm, sidecut length of 160cm. Sidecut radius: 29m. A discrepancy of a whopping 2m from advertised (27)!
Big Dumps: 141.5/120/131.5mm, sidecut length of 163.5cm. Sidecut radius: 40.5m. That's a whole 2.5m from advertised (38).

Seeing as XXLs from that golden era of chargers were advertised with 41m, pretty certain they're sporting a true longer radius as well, but alas, no pairs are available to me.

Why am I measuring 10 year old ski designs, you ask? Because it fucking matters, that's why.

Quality post IMO. Does the marked turn radius of a ski include any relevancy of flexing the ski? Just seems weird that they'd be 2m off.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Maybe ski makers label the turn radius based on geometry AND on snow feel?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gregL]

Maybe ski makers label the turn radius based on geometry AND on snow feel?

I bet they use a calculator like this, and no one ever checks to see if the numbers are right:

https://member.fis-ski.com/skicalc.htm

[arild]

Greg, that's what I initially thought,however,with a formula like that, catering to FIS dudes and skis with very, very little tip/tail taper, the sidecut R should be a lot longer, were that the case. My theory is that athletes wanted the longer R, marketing decided to massage that number down to a believable, yet more friendly number.

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

[forty]

Just because this is reaaally important, I had way too much time on my hands, and I have a huge need to share these important news.

I brought out the calipers and a measuring band to determine the actual sidecut lengths and radii for the LP105s and the Big Dumps.

First step was finding the absolute narrowest point of each ski, then pulling the calipers towards the tips and tails, measuring the widest spots, then marking it with a sharpie. Then, measuring from the "first" widest spot, determined the actual sidecut length. After this, plotted the numbers into nanoCAD, where I have multiple ski templates made, then it's just a matter of measuring the arc of three points.

LP105s surprised me, as they truly feel longer in their sidecut length, but numbers don't lie. Or do they, ski industry?

LP105s: 133/105/121mm, sidecut length of 160cm. Sidecut radius: 29m. A discrepancy of a whopping 2m from advertised (27)!
Big Dumps: 141.5/120/131.5mm, sidecut length of 163.5cm. Sidecut radius: 40.5m. That's a whole 2.5m from advertised (38).

Seeing as XXLs from that golden era of chargers were advertised with 41m, pretty certain they're sporting a true longer radius as well, but alas, no pairs are available to me.

Why am I measuring 10 year old ski designs, you ask? Because it fucking matters, that's why.

194 xxls
absolute widest points
tip 131mm
waist 108mm
tail 121mm

distance between
tip - waist 921mm
waist - tail 768mm

note: the widest points tip/tail are slightly past the contact points so a bit longer than running length which may be what dynastar's #s are based on, also radius may not be constant through the sidecut but idk i dont design skis

[arild]

Fantastic.
The XXLs were, from what I can twist out of the cad model, close enough, actually on the low side, at 40.2mR. That would be with a single radius, but as you say, could be more radii given the difference between front and rear.

Anyone holding Cham 1.0s or similar?

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

My theory is that athletes wanted the longer R, marketing decided to massage that number down to a believable, yet more friendly number.

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

I'm not sure the conclusion makes sense to me.

If you're buying a ski with a 38m radius, you're probably happy it's actually 41m. If you care about sidecut radius to within a couple of meters radius, you're almost certainly looking at smaller radius skis.

I'd suggest it's more likely manufacturing descrepancies. I.e. blister lists advertised specs and then true measurements... and they are usuly off one way or the other. Some more than others but it still happens, and in both directions.

[arild]

I'm not sure the conclusion makes sense to me.

If you're buying a ski with a 38m radius, you're probably happy it's actually 41m. If you care about sidecut radius to within a couple of meters radius, you're almost certainly looking at smaller radius skis.

Oh yeah, I'm not for a minute unhappy with a longer than stated radius, just saying that Dstar thought it easier to sell a 38m ski than a 40 or so one, for whatever inane reason.

I'd suggest it's more likely manufacturing descrepancies. I.e. blister lists advertised specs and then true measurements... and they are usuly off one way or the other. Some more than others but it still happens, and in both directions.

Agreed that tolerances at the manufacturer's end might be off, but I'm guessing Dynastar, especially with race room skis such as these three (not sure about the LP105s, actually) are built with tighter than normal tolerances, and in the end, marketing print makes the call what to advertise the ski with.

Funny though, how the LP105s in 2011 had two models in the Legend lineup with straighter cuts, and now, ten years later, none. When they came out, a lot of people were disappointed that Dynastar neutered the LP lineup, now, they're pretty much the gnarliest skis on the market.

The awesome thing is that the LP105s still exist. Looking forward to what LWS has up his sleeve. Wider, metal M-Pro?

[One (+) Sentence]

I make all sorts of different radius turns with all my skis, all the time.

There’s got to be more to it than simply measuring the ski dimensions and plugging them into a TI-99 computer? Someone please explain Volkl’s “3D” sidecut where each model length has multiple turn radius’

[waxman]

I make all sorts of different radius turns with all my skis, all the time.

There’s got to be more to it than simply measuring the ski dimensions and plugging them into a TI-99 computer? Someone please explain Volkl’s “3D” sidecut where each model length has multiple turn radius’

The sales reps giving clinics can't even explain it so I doubt it.
It's like Lange's dual core boots. "Invisitech" that is harder to explain to the customer so don't mention it and just deal with another visible feature.

[Bandit Man]

I make all sorts of different radius turns with all my skis, all the time.

There’s got to be more to it than simply measuring the ski dimensions and plugging them into a TI-99 computer? Someone please explain Volkl’s “3D” sidecut where each model length has multiple turn radius’

They say that there are three radii composing the skis edge. One in the tip, one under foot, and one in the tail. For instance, the 184 M102 is 27-m in the tip, 20-m under foot, and 25-m in the tail. It reads like marketing BS, but it doesn’t ski like it.

Doesn’t ON3P use a bi-radius sidecut on some of their skis?

[One (+) Sentence]

They say that there are three radii composing the skis edge. One in the tip, one under foot, and one in the tail. For instance, the 184 M102 is 27-m in the tip, 20-m under foot, and 25-m in the tail. It reads like marketing BS, but it doesn’t ski like it.

Doesn’t ON3P use a bi-radius sidecut on some of their skis?

So you are able to make all sorts of different radius turns, all the time?

I guess there IS more to it than simply measuring a ski and plugging data into an Apple 2E.