dynafit manaslu

**srsosbso** · 04-09-2008, 09:06 PM

Anybody have any thoughts on these? There's a blurb on pistehors (pissed whores?) about them, and another on wildsnow, but nothing else, and nothing to speak of here. Sounds like an interesting AT ski. Very light, no, CRAZY LIGHT (1450gms per ski in a 178cm.) Something of a rockered tip. Predrilled for dynafit binders. Dimensions (tip and tail at least) very similiar to LP or bro minus 2-3 mm (122 tip, 95 waist, 108 tail.) Something about a dual-radius sidecut which I don't really understand, claiming a 35m radius in the front and 21 in the rear??? What does it all mean, Basil?

Anyhoooo, very interested if anyone has any INFO on these.

**f2f** · 04-09-2008, 09:31 PM

i thought of those when i read your post, but they're dynastars. 2600gms per pair:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3og7u_dynastar_sport

**srsosbso** · 04-09-2008, 09:43 PM

Ya, the dynastars are a little narrower- 85mm underfoot, and I don't think they are wood core (con't quote me on that.)

I just did a little surfing re dual radius sidecut- msp's and seths have it, but shorter radius in the front (for initiation) and longer in the rear (stability at speed). Sounds like a way to move the waist of the ski forward (for a twin) but maintain some taper? THESE skis (the manaslus) are the reverse of that. WTF, over?

**pechelman** · 04-10-2008, 07:56 AM

ive got nothing here to add except that it sounds pretty cool
other than the fact its way too damned light for skiing really variable snow

dynafit skis tend to be pretty stiff too the way they make them so lightweight, so im not sure what to expect from this ski

be interested to hear more though when there is more information

**verbier61** · 04-10-2008, 09:52 AM

manaslus look uberrad... but WTF they are 168, 178 and 188, and my size is 172-175

**pechelman** · 04-10-2008, 10:08 AM

so buy a 168 and mount it back or a 178 and mount it forward
whats the problem?

or just "sack up" and ski something thats like three whole centimeters smaller or larger. thats like, um, the width of your thumb

**srsosbso** · 04-10-2008, 11:34 AM

Ya, I think the 178 would make a fine length for a touring ski. Interesting comment about them being too light, there, pelcheman. I see your point, though they'd be nice on the uphill.

That dual radius thing wigs me out. Seems like it'd make them hook around at the end of the turn as you shift your weight a bit back towards the shorter radius sidecut. It's also wierd because the tail is a relatively narrow 108mm, so I can only imagine they tightened up the sidecut in the back end by shifting the waist of the ski back? Hmmmm.

Boy, it'd be nice to hear once somebody has skied these things. Lou Dawson raved about them, but that's just him.

**verbier61** · 04-11-2008, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by pechelman

so buy a 168 and mount it back or a 178 and mount it forward
whats the problem?

or just "sack up" and ski something thats like three whole centimeters smaller or larger. thats like, um, the width of your thumb

your american thumb is 3 cm, my yurp thumb is 2 cm

seriously, you are right (and, after all, lou says the 178 ski really shorter than 178), but kick turns are already a mess with a 172......

**squatch** · 04-11-2008, 02:04 AM

I think I mounted a pair of these. Are they black/silverish?

**verbier61** · 04-11-2008, 02:19 AM

they are already predrilled for dynafits......
and should be black and wood

**squatch** · 04-11-2008, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by verbier61

they are already predrilled for dynafits......
and should be black and wood

Yup.

I'm of the biased opinion that they are teh suck. But maybe if you are a super-lightweight and are easy on your gear you'll like them. I just feel like I've made sturdier balsa wood airplanes.

**harpo-the-skier** · 04-11-2008, 09:23 AM

I had the first year, foam core, Dynafit FR10.0's and wasn't impressed with their durability, both for the screw holes and the the tip protector. Lou didn't like the tip protector on the Mansulu either and removed it, I think. I will wait for other people to try these out before jumping on the Mansulu bandwagon.

**alive** · 04-11-2008, 11:19 AM

I have a pair comming and hope to get out with them a lot this may. I plan on using this as my main touring ski for this year, so hope to put its durability to the test. I'm not so sure about the predrilled holes, but I'm trusting that dynafit has tested this and that it will be solid. I'm report back...

**srsosbso** · 04-11-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by alive

report back...

EGG-ZA-LANT! Looking forward to hearing about these. Have your people contact my people with an update. Then we can all do brunch.

**Wetdog** · 04-11-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by srsosbso

Ya, the dynastars are a little narrower- 85mm underfoot, and I don't think they are wood core (con't quote me on that.)

"The Manaslu has a slightly different construction compared to the other skis in the Dynafit freetouring range. The Paulownia wood core (a hardwood as light as balsa) is supplemented by glass fiber stringers for rigidity. A carbon fibre / fiber glass mesh is added to the mix."

This, from a description of the ski. http://pistehors.com/news/ski/commen...zzeus-manaslu/

**srsosbso** · 04-12-2008, 09:45 AM

I was talking about the dynaSTAR touring ski that's uberlight and 85 mm underfoot (the manaslu is 95) maybe being non-wood core.

But thanks for the link, and ya, the construction of the manaslu still sounds like an inviting ski. I'm still wierded out by this dual radius side-cut business. Only sense I can make of it would be as a way to reduce the taper (tip to tail) of the ski and get a wider tail on a big radius, rear waisted ski. And I don't know why that would be a good thing.

Love to hear from somebody who has skied these or has any ideas about the wacko ski geometry.

**carlsonmark** · 04-16-2008, 11:21 AM

I don't know anything technical about the skis, but I learned something interesting about them last night at an alpine club meeting. Dynafit sponsored a small expedition (4 people) to Manaslu around Sept. 2007. They were attempting a speed ascent, but didn't end up summiting (several meters of snow & Class 5 avalanches.) One guy returning from a failed summit attempt, on a whim, skied up North Manaslu and did a first descent on skis. These guys put the skis through their paces for sure... they practically never took them off, even when "downclimbing" fixed ropes they would just clip in, and whiz down.

**ulty_guy** · 04-16-2008, 02:56 PM

I'm actually quite intrigued about the geometery b/c it melds principles of 2 of my favorite skis- explosivs and zag bigs (I know, quite varying skis). The shape is quite explosiv-esq with 2mm more in the tip and 4 less in the tail. The dual radius thing is quite similar to the zags- in 2 dimensions they have a notably smaller radius than in 3 dimensional snow (crud and powder). Should be pretty cool, hpefully they have the bugs worked out w/ the inserts and construction using new materials (for them).

**mojorisin** · 04-16-2008, 03:34 PM

I played around a bit with the skis at the dynafit tent when they were in town, and the skis seemed like toothpicks - so light they would snap at the sight of anything variable. Aside from maybe the geometry, they don't share anything with the explosives. Super soft at the tips, and maybe medium soft the rest of the way down. I bet they'd be great for some long distance skin suit wearing euro-style skiing, but I wouldn't really want them for anything else.