Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    avon, co
    Posts
    370

    Dynastar XXL Review

    I just skied the xxl at vail on monday.
    I am 28 years old, skied for 23 years and live here in vail. I ski vail/b.c. about 75 days a year. I am physically strong, weigh 190 pounds and ski everything fast and hard. Technique is better than most, not as good as others here. I ski 186 LP's everyday, have been for 3 years now. I also ski 184 stockli stormriders XL on really hard days.

    About the xxl.
    First of all I have heard so many speak highly of this ski. I have also heard comments such as a "great all arond ski." I have to say that I don't know when I would really use this ski unless there is over a foot. Granted the conditions at vail were firm, with old crud in the back bowls, most of it soft. Bumps were uniform and hard. Visibility great.

    Groomers:

    It railed going at a substantial speed. I skied riva top to bottom carving on edge and never found the speed limit and tried. I just felt that you had to skid them going speeds most people feel comfortable skiing. Although this ski isn't designed for everday "ski moderately fast" skiers.

    Bumps:

    You can do it, it is just alot of work even for a good bump skier. Obviously not intended for hard bumps.

    Crud:

    The crud was soft, but had been skied out to the point that hard bumps were forming in the midst. You hardly felt the inconsistency in the snow going mach stupid. You could run over small children and not even blink. However, I didn't find them all that more stable in variable snow then the 186 LP. I don't know if the length and width justifies purchasing them for a crud buster.

    Powder:

    There wasn't any, but I am sure you could kill it.

    Overall I think it is a great ski for the intended purpose. I know I probably am going to get slammed here, but I think we have gotten to the point of diminishing returns with traditional shaped, camber skis. I think the 100 underfoot mark is the ultimate ticket. Skis that are around 100 underfoot such as LP, Squad, Seth, Bros are killer in powder but also kill it on groomers, bumps, trees, crud. I think for dedicated powder skis, why not just get reverse camber (which I have yet to try) or something super soft that is intended for skiing fresh.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    lost in the network
    Posts
    483
    what size xxl was it??
    If you open a second beer and don't miss a beat between sips, is that two beers or just one 24 ouncer? -Tye 1on

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Providence RI
    Posts
    2,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Townicus View Post
    I have to say that I don't know when I would really use this ski unless there is over a foot.
    So, Ive just had my first few days on the XXL and am STOKED! This is the best, most fun ski I have ever been on. The first thing you said here is exactly opposite of what I was saying today. I was saying that I'm not sure when Id ever want to be on anything except the XXL no matter what the condition(and I have 138's coming so that is saying something!).

    The XXL is SO easy to ski it is amazing. It will straightline at will, but pivot amazingly fast for the length. I don't care if it does say 194 cm, it does not ski like that at all(well in terms of stability at speed it does act like a 194, but in terms of effort it takes to turn, no way, more like mid 180's). Tight trees, no problem. Variable, crusty, pow, wind-effect/hardpack, we saw it all today and never once was there any problem on these babies compared to other people who were getting locked into their turns in the crust on shapelier skis and taking tumbles. So stoked to have them, these will for sure get the most use of any ski in my quiver.

    I mounted mine on the line b/c I was afraid the ski would overpower me at first, but it feels a little too far forward. Not that there is ever any feeling of tip dive with the soft tips and the huge shovel, but it just feels to me like it will be a little more stable(not that its unstable but you know) if it had an extra bit more in the tip. If my dukes ever blow out and I need to re-mount these, I'll move them 1-2 cm back.

    FWIW, I am 5'8" 175 lbs.
    Last edited by couloirman; 12-18-2007 at 09:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    das heights
    Posts
    2,546
    beacuse the first 6cm of the ski dosent touch the snow usually

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    I'll echo these reviews. They do have a cool "pivot" feel to them. They are pinner skis. Don't kid yourself, they do NOT want to go slow unless you want to work a lot.

    The 41M radius is just that. FUCKING HUGE. Every turn takes about 300 verticle feet. Seriously.

    Personally, I think this is a great 1 ski quiver type ski if you don't ever ski park and want to charge day in day out.

    Strangly, I actually thought these ripped bumps unlike any other 105+ ski I've ever been on. That's cause there is no sidecut and i could actually rip zipper if I want. Kush loved it when I did this. Mary Jane rep!!

    All I will caution is everybody talks about how "easy this ski is". It's easy, but it's still a big ski. It's as easy as a 194 comp style ski could be. That's all I will say. Personally, they scared me.

    All this being said, I sold mine. Granted, this was mostly due to financial reasons. I decided having Praxis and Gotamas that I'd rather get the normal Legend Pro. There really was no reason for me to have the XXL. I thought their pow performance was sick btw.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    SoCal. SoVT.
    Posts
    1,184
    Anyone else think the factory mount is too far forward like couloirman? I just mounted mine on the line this afternoon. I'm usually the guy dropping the clamps back 2cms b/c I tend to ski way up in the front seat and am on the bigger side. I'm not too concerned about tip dive with the monster tips and all, but squirrelly @ speed sure freaks me the fuck out.
    Quote Originally Posted by doughboyshredder View Post
    If you're not standing on the fucking traverse with your thumb up your ass you wont get checked.

    dumbfuck.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    They may look more forward than you like but ski it first.

    With it's lack of sidecut I bet you'll be happy w/the mount point.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Providence RI
    Posts
    2,599
    Im more than happy with mine on the line, just saying if I had it all to do over again, Id move back a cm or two. Nothing worth re-drilling for though unless you really hate it the way it is, give it some days and then decide

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    SoCal. SoVT.
    Posts
    1,184
    Awesome. Thanks guys, I was starting to freak a bit there...
    Quote Originally Posted by doughboyshredder View Post
    If you're not standing on the fucking traverse with your thumb up your ass you wont get checked.

    dumbfuck.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The bottom of LCC
    Posts
    5,115
    Maybe he will chime in with some more info but I watched macdadmorgan rip up tight, deep, EC tree lines and drops on his XXLs Monday at MRG. It sounded like this can be an EC ski but they do require a bit more work.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    I realized i wanted to add one more thing.

    For me, these were the best non revere camber/sidecut skis I've ever been on in pow. I just wanted to be clear on this. Their pow performance is VERY good.

    EDIT: To the above comment....you COULD ski these EC just like I COULD ski my Praxis everyday....but what's the point? Best tool for the job right? Well, these are best going fast in big open steep shit where you can let them run. They are MANAGEABLE in tight places but if that's where you find yourself more often than not, there are better skis. You can totally forget about turning using the sidecut in such a situation...IMO----FWIW
    Last edited by JeffreyJim; 12-18-2007 at 11:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    avon, co
    Posts
    370
    Another point. The point of my review is that there are more versatile skis out there. I have heard most people talk about how versatile they are and that they are the only ski needed. I just feel unless you are skiing at a substantial speed all the time in wide open steep terrain, there are much better skis. I just found the 186 LP is a ton easier in tight trees, bumps, and groomers....and they don't give up that much in stability. FWIW

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,046
    Fyi......41m sidecut isn't that big....that's the old minimum dh radius, and if you put it up on a high edge angle they can make a reasonable sized carve. However, the latteral forces on your leg and binding due to a 110mm waist vs. the ~65mm of a DH ski are quite immense - takes mucho strengh and very stiff bindings to ride a super-g sized at a 50+ degree edge angle at 50+ mph.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Townicus View Post
    Another point. I just found the 186 LP is a ton easier in tight trees, bumps, and groomers....and they don't give up that much in stability. FWIW


    Thats saying something to how easy the XXL's really are to ski, because the LPs are not really that easy to ski in tight trees or big\hard bumps.

    Ive only been on a couple skis that are more difficult in those situations than the LP, ie mojo103 and somewhat partially the 192 Bro depending on snow conditions. Even the 180 explosivs i had were a ton easier in tight trees and bumps than LPs.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Fyi......41m sidecut isn't that big....that's the old minimum dh radius, and if you put it up on a high edge angle they can make a reasonable sized carve. However, the latteral forces on your leg and binding due to a 110mm waist vs. the ~65mm of a DH ski are quite immense - takes mucho strengh and very stiff bindings to ride a super-g sized at a 50+ degree edge angle at 50+ mph.
    What? 41 "not that big?" Find any 95+mm waist ski that has a larger radius and I'll be impressed. These boards like to go one direction.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,318
    This thread reminds me..... I really should mount up the shiny new XXLs that are currently just sitting in my garage. The real question is "green linkens" or "yellow linkens", but maybe I will start a new thread on that issue
    "I dont hike.... my legs are too heavy"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyJim View Post
    What? 41 "not that big?" Find any 95+mm waist ski that has a larger radius and I'll be impressed. These boards like to go one direction.
    i agree with you in that 41 is "pretty big"

    but
    190 Igneous LG
    190 Igneous FAT
    190 Igneous FFF
    193 Mojo 103
    193 4Frnt EHP
    190 DP120
    196 Bro Rockers
    190 Atomic Big Daddy

    to name a few off the top of my head
    Last edited by pechelman; 12-19-2007 at 02:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    ...you are right.

    BUT

    Igneous is pretty small
    Fun Shapes don't count (including the EHPs)
    that leaves the 103 and big daddy.

    Touche

    Edit: I checked, the 103 is a 37m radius, Big Daddy is 41. Yes, those are big but I said find me a BIGGER radius and I'd be impressed

    *cause according to Damien 41 "isn't that big"*

    That's all.
    Last edited by JeffreyJim; 12-19-2007 at 03:43 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,220
    Lotus 120 (not a full funshape - only rockered tip)

    dimensions: 140/120/125

    190cm version = 46M turn radius (per website)

    200cm version = 50M turn radius??
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyJim View Post
    ...you are right.

    BUT

    Igneous is pretty small
    Fun Shapes don't count (including the EHPs)
    that leaves the 103 and big daddy.

    Touche

    Edit: I checked, the 103 is a 37m radius, Big Daddy is 41. Yes, those are big but I said find me a BIGGER radius and I'd be impressed

    *cause according to Damien 41 "isn't that big"*

    That's all.
    you didnt list all the exceptions beforehand!

    Id still count the 196 Bros as they really dont have much rocker and is designed that way.

    Not really sure Id totally classify a dp120 or ehp193 in a "funshape" category either. For me those are reserved for things like ARGs, 138s, spats, or other reversed skis.

    For me, if its got sidecut for more than ~75% of the skis overall length, then its still pretty traditional.

    Also, the 103 is 37m in the 183 not the 41ish m radius of the 193.

    And Ill also add
    191 Blizzard Titan Kreitler Pro IQ @ 58m
    ETA: 193 Volkl Sanouk @ 45m
    ETA: 183 Rossi Axiom @ 43m
    ETA: 180/190 Atomic Powder Plus @ 45/50m respectively
    ETA: 192 Atomic Thug @ 43m

    but yea i agree with you
    really any freeride ski with a traditional sidecut, as I see it around 75% of the OAL, over about 35-37m is "pretty big"
    Last edited by pechelman; 12-19-2007 at 04:09 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,046
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyJim View Post
    What? 41 "not that big?" Find any 95+mm waist ski that has a larger radius and I'll be impressed. These boards like to go one direction.
    I own the super big daddy. The front of the ski has a ~45m radius, however, the back of the ski with it's pintail (145-125-129) has a 100m sidecut. I've still carved it on steep packed powder.

    I also carve on 201 asteriods with a 35m radius and a 218cm volkl DH. Steep, wide, groomed double black diamonds are the best for these skis - Liftline at Stowe and Cascade at Killington have some of the best 50-60+ mph carving in the east....

    The Kritler pro model by blizzard has a 58m radius.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    Touche.....

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    Not really sure Id totally classify a dp120 or ehp193 in a "funshape" category either.
    While those skis my not be "fun shapes" in your book, they sure as hell are not "traditional in my book..... Traditional big skis like XXLs, Sumos, Thugs, etc. Ski very different from something with a VERY thin tail (compared to the shovel) like 120s, EHPs and the 190 Big Daddies. Not sure what to call these newer shapes, but "traditional" definitely doesnt fit. So if they arent "funshapes" and they arent "traditional", what are they?
    Last edited by Professor; 12-19-2007 at 04:30 PM.
    "I dont hike.... my legs are too heavy"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Prof, you and I will never see skis eye-2-eye and Im willing to accept that.

    Now that thats out of the way.

    Id call it a heavily tapered traditional sidecut since youre asking.
    (edit one might also call it pintail, but that started some debate as well and i think yoss and I settled on tapered)

    traditional sidecut being where the tip is bigger than the tail and the waist smaller than both.

    either way, its just a meaningless label in the end.
    i think we can agree though that they are skis
    Last edited by pechelman; 12-19-2007 at 04:51 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    i think we can agree though that they are skis
    I thought they were "skies"

    I agree it is just a label and pretty much meaningless. I just think it is interesting that a ski can be named "traditional" even though it has no "traditional" traits. Even a ski I would call "traditional" such as a Sumo really has nothing in common with skis of 20 years ago. Even the amount of shape is much more than anything 20 years ago. I think that is why I like skis with such a big radius, it feels like I am back on my 207 K2 Extremes
    "I dont hike.... my legs are too heavy"

Similar Threads

  1. Long Term Review: Dynastar Big Trouble
    By single in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 03:14 PM
  2. Dynastar Legend Snowbird 11000?
    By CaddyDaddy77 in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-02-2005, 09:42 PM
  3. dynastar 186 pro rider review
    By dude_le_skibum in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-02-2004, 12:04 PM
  4. Dynastar Inspired Review?
    By Angry Red in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-28-2003, 12:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •