The Dynastar Thread

[johnnyg82]

My quick take on Menace 98:

These are extremely fun carvers at low/medium speed. At higher speeds/choppier conditions these lacked the backbone I was hoping for. They will not usurp the OGLP and LP105 as my daily drivers, but they are a blast for skiing around with the family.

What really matters is that my kids think they are cool..

Attachment 409196
Attachment 409195

Which length?

[gwat]

187

[kid-kapow]

Dammit.

I spent the entire day thinking about whether getting a pair of 180 MF118s made sense. You know, for an easy wide ski for the start of the season when agility is the name of the game, where one cannot just let the skis run. I had a hard time getting something that measures 178.5 straight pull though - that is short.

I ended up buying a brand new pair of PR-OTOs instead, at a steal I might add (aka less than I paid for the MF118s).

I guess I will have to bulk up and grow a pair prior to next season.

[kc_7777]

Dammit.

I spent the entire day thinking about whether getting a pair of 180 MF118s made sense. You know, for an easy wide ski for the start of the season when agility is the name of the game, where one cannot just let the skis run. I had a hard time getting something that measures 178.5 straight pull though - that is short.

I ended up buying a brand new pair of PR-OTOs instead, at a steal I might add (aka less than I paid for the MF118s).

I guess I will have to bulk up and grow a pair prior to next season.

I skied 185cm skis for years and then figured 179-181 is the best length. Especially for steep, sketchy stuff.

Unless the ski is rockered? Then longer. Eg My 4FRNT Ravens and Renegades are both the 184cm, but they ski shorter.

How big are you?

I’m 5’7”, 165-170 lbs and have the Proto 118mm in a 180cm and the M-Free 99 in a 179cm.

Both are perfect length.

The 118cm is a riot in pow. It slarves and carves so nice.

I’m at -7cm on the Proto (+2cm)

At -6.5cm on the M-Free 99 (+1cm).

The Proto 118mm does this turn below so nice….where you are sliding/slarving into your next pow turn.

[kid-kapow]

175cm/68kg.

I get on really well with 189 MF118s at +1.5cm, at least three days in. They are freaking great in soft snow.To be fair, it is not that I charge that hard, but I am not a fan of tight tree skiing - I like to make bigger turns and let the skis do the work for me.

I am not a fan of short skis or soft shovels, so MF99 is not for me. I would probably get on fine with 180 MF118s, but I have a hard time seeing that they would replace the 189s. The 189s are freaking fantastic in soft snow.

[Shorty_J]

175cm/68kg.

I get on really well with 189 MF118s at +1.5cm, at least three days in. They are freaking great in soft snow.To be fair, it is not that I charge that hard, but I am not a fan of tight tree skiing - I like to make bigger turns and let the skis do the work for me.

I am not a fan of short skis or soft shovels, so MF99 is not for me. I would probably get on fine with 180 MF118s, but I have a hard time seeing that they would replace the 189s. The 189s are freaking fantastic in soft snow.

Is it possible you don't like tight tree skiing because you're usually on a longer ski?

I'm with KC on this.... used to ski long skis but have settled on high 170s to low 180s for the last 6 years or so and I'm happy with it.

I also see merit in a longer ski, particularly for powder, but where I ski I'm rarely getting long sustained days of open riding to feel like I'm missing out on much.

[kid-kapow]

Is it possible you don't like tight tree skiing because you're usually on a longer ski?

Nope. I just do not like fiddling around in tight stuff, and I do not like shorter, softer skis (even if I am not as hard core with long skis as most mags). As we have discussed, I am neither big nor powerful, but I def prefer stiffer skis.

I have yet to try any ski that I've had two lengths where I prefer the shorter. Holds true for C&Ds, BGasyms, BG108/110 and BMT122s - so all pow/soft snow speciic skis like MF118s. I prefer the longer lengths by a healthy margin.

[Shorty_J]

^^^ sounds like you made the right decision then. [emoji16]

[grinch]

I can understand the dislike of short turns. I try and avoid them. I like the flow of a gs turn. Tight trees are ok though. The challenge is to flow a gs turn. I dont find my mf99's that soft. I find it fairly stable at speed. I was expecting it to be softer looking at all that rocker and splay. Really clicked with it the last few days. Handling funk and shit f skiing comfortably. I dont find them super friendly in deep hard moguls but they got me thru and i generally suck in moguls. I really cant ask for more out of that ski. I favoured my steeple 102 in funky crusts until i adapted now they both have their strengths and weaknesses. More pop out of the turn on the mfree than the steeple but less sidecut to catch in the crust on the steeple than the mf99. Just had to alter my technique. All things equal except the mf99 carves an icey groomer better. New dynastar bases are much tougher than their bases of old but the steeple is tougher. Skied the lake for a few years on my 207 coupe de monde gs' missing a lot of base and 8" of edge under foot of all 4 edges. Skied well but ultra fragile back then. Im always apprehensive about shorter radius skis but the mf99 rips

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Eluder]

175cm/68kg.

I get on really well with 189 MF118s at +1.5cm, at least three days in. They are freaking great in soft snow.To be fair, it is not that I charge that hard, but I am not a fan of tight tree skiing - I like to make bigger turns and let the skis do the work for me.

I am not a fan of short skis or soft shovels, so MF99 is not for me. I would probably get on fine with 180 MF118s, but I have a hard time seeing that they would replace the 189s. The 189s are freaking fantastic in soft snow.

171cm/65kg

The 180cm MF118's are frustratingly too short for me. Super soft shovel, torsionally as well. I do use them for exactly what you are talking about though, early season poking around when you cant go fast. Once things open up I find myself reaching for other skis.

[grinch]

Forgot. At 5'7" 170lbs 180ish is my size. 179 bg, steeple 108, mf99 is my happy medium..

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[kid-kapow]

just to be clear, I fully expect the PR-OTOs to be a lot of ski, probably more ski than I can chew off. Still, it will be interesting to try this construction. Figuring out how to ski the PRs will also probably make the regular build MF118s be more managable across more conditions.

I fully agree that too much ski can hold you back as a skier in certain conditions. I've just found that having smaller, softer skis makes for more unpredictable skiing, where the skis bend too much and spit me out in a different direction than I want to go or not get enough float. I had one time that happened on BGasyms 179s that changed how I skied them - it made me much more timid and careful. BGasyms 184s are way stiffer where you need to get on it for them to ski well. So overall I just find stiffer skis to be more predictable in those regards, where one can really slam into turns with them, and they will still not do anything too weird. Aka make the ski do the work for me.

sorry for the slight thread derail here

[grinch]

Im with ya on the too soft tips. In consistent flex tip thru to tail sux. Back in the day before shape skis and fats it was "combi" skis or "detuned gs skis". Basically ski companies took their gs skis and put a sl tip/shovel flex on a ski to split the difference between a sl and a gs. Kind of 1st gen all mt ski to make a gs ski handle more varied terrain. It sucked because you'd relax with stable flex underfoot and in the tail and the shovel would hit something or you'd pressure it , and because you were comfy with the stable underfoot flex and tail flex, it would fling you across the fall line and otb or into the backseat if you werent ready to adjust. Just too much difference in the flex. I prefer a rounder flex thats not too soft. Its just more predictable or intuitive to me. With the rocker profile , radius, and camber on the mfree its not a problem to shorten a turn if needed. Im just surprised how stable it is at speed

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Eluder]

I know this is a Dynastar thread but I am wondering if anyone here has skied the Black Ops 98/Holy Shred. I think it may be a nice complimentary ski to the MF108 without too much overlap in design but maybe share some of the ride characteristics.

[toast2266]

175cm/68kg.

I get on really well with 189 MF118s at +1.5cm, at least three days in. They are freaking great in soft snow.To be fair, it is not that I charge that hard, but I am not a fan of tight tree skiing - I like to make bigger turns and let the skis do the work for me.

I am not a fan of short skis or soft shovels, so MF99 is not for me. I would probably get on fine with 180 MF118s, but I have a hard time seeing that they would replace the 189s. The 189s are freaking fantastic in soft snow.

I'm about the same size as you, also on the MF 189's, also mounted at +1.5 (technically mounted +5/8", because 'murica!).

I'd rather make bigger turns, but I spend plenty of time noodling around in trees looking for fresh snow. The trick is finding a ski that's reasonably happy doing both - big and fast in the morning, then slower as the day progresses, things get tracked up, and I move into the trees. And I'll say these do all that really, really well. They're so damn easy to slarve around and throw sideways, I don't really ever feel like I'd want a shorter length. And while they're not the *most* stable ski at speed, they're entirely adequate. So yeah, pretty psyched on them as a nice all around pow ski.

[kid-kapow]

I'd rather make bigger turns, but I spend plenty of time noodling around in trees looking for fresh snow. The trick is finding a ski that's reasonably happy doing both - big and fast in the morning, then slower as the day progresses, things get tracked up, and I move into the trees. And I'll say these do all that really, really well. They're so damn easy to slarve around and throw sideways, I don't really ever feel like I'd want a shorter length. And while they're not the *most* stable ski at speed, they're entirely adequate. So yeah, pretty psyched on them as a nice all around pow ski.

hear hear!

Though to be honest, my main take away from me getting on and loving longer skis is the question "if I love these skis, what lengths do the big boys ski?". It must be hard to find stock skis from a lot of brands for clydes, especially heavily rockered skis. I can def sympathize.

[TAFKALVS]

My big boy friend has 200cm+ skis from volkl, lithic and dps, and dailys 196 bodacious and 193 cochise.

[D(C)]

I know this is a Dynastar thread but I am wondering if anyone here has skied the Black Ops 98/Holy Shred. I think it may be a nice complimentary ski to the MF108 without too much overlap in design but maybe share some of the ride characteristics.

The Black Ops 98 looks to be quite similar to the Menace 98. I’m running a 192 M-Free 108/ 187 Menace 98 quiver and the two skis are definitely complementary. The 98s have a longer sidecut length / less taper and rocker that makes them nice to use when there’s no new snow, and gives them stability and smoothness on groomers that the M-Free 108s don’t have. The skis are different enough from each other that owning both is worthwhile.

[Fred Pabst]

I know this is a Dynastar thread but I am wondering if anyone here has skied the Black Ops 98/Holy Shred. I think it may be a nice complimentary ski to the MF108 without too much overlap in design but maybe share some of the ride characteristics.

I have a pair of the Black Ops 98. They are a decent ski. Not a ski I would ever consider buying but they gifted to me by my GF. She got an insane pro deal on them and also got the lady Black Ops 98. Anyways these are the 192 cm. Blister puts them in the freestyle category. They are pretty decent all mountain ski. They do have some metal in them which makes them OK at crud busting but not a charger by any means. Not really any tip and tail rocker and has some camber. I really dislike twin tips These have a medium amount of rise comparable to a R11 tail which I can tolerate. The tips and tails have a layer of rubber which makes them really quiet and damp feeling. No Volkl clink to these. Rec mount point is very forward. I mounted mine -1.5 cm from the line. They carve well and want a more centered stance, but are still fun to drive the tips. Easy in trees and moguls. OK ice hold. Good in shallow pow. Very versatile ski that I get along with just fine. The black leopard graphic is stupid AF but whatever.

[ZomblibulaX]

Though to be honest, my main take away from me getting on and loving longer skis is the question "if I love these skis, what lengths do the big boys ski?". It must be hard to find stock skis from a lot of brands for clydes, especially heavily rockered skis.

192 LP 105's. And nearly everything else is 10+ years old.

That's the folly of rocker-everything-everywhere-all the time. You can put anyone with a reasonable skiing acumen on a 185 in damn near anything now, and most skis top out at...~185. Honestly, heavily rockered pow boards are not the issue, as surface area makes up for a lot, and many of them are available in longer lengths (190+). It's all-mountain and frontside options, where longer lengths and radii don't exist, or don't scale well (see: 193 enforcer 93/100).

[kid-kapow]

well, the only thing that is in worse condition than my impulse controll is my bank balance... Oh well.

MF99 "185"

I had my first few runs on them. I did not exactly set them up for success due to somewhat challenging conditions.

I rode most of the day on BGasyms after we got a surprise spring dump. The snow was moist, dense and intermittently (very) sun affected. I found that I prefer BGs to MF118s by a mile in these conditions, which was welcome news. So MF118s are preferred in drier snow, BGs in moister snow. The +1.5 mount could have affected the balance of the ski adversely in these conditions, which is fine - I love them there in drier snow.

As for the M99s, first impressions is that they are not for me. I cannot understand how this is a ski that bigger dudes will thrive on (outside of park / larking around skiing). They do not have a lot to push against, felt like sticks in the spring pow compared to BGs (duh i know) and get knocked about a bit. They felt light underfoot (meant as a compliment, as in very easy to throw around) and the tails felt very similar to MF108s in soft snow, so loose for days and days.

So first impressions are that they are great if you want a loose ski to pop and schmear around on, but perhaps less so if you want a playful charger light - especially for heavier / stronger dudes. I have no idea why these top out at "185"/182 - a stronger 192 version could probably be a great ski for most average size and up (male) skiers. Their shape is still a recipe for a lot of fun.

So great skis, just not what I want in this quiver spot. I will try them again tomorrow, back to back with Woodsman96s (stiffer and heavier, the balance / camber contact points in the skis are pretty different too in spite of pretty similar mount points).

[jackattack]

Honestly if I didn’t weigh 110kg I would never ski a 192.

[kid-kapow]

perhaps the rumored 187 would be a more appropriate longest length than a 192, even if a 187 ski that measures in 1-2cm short with this much rocker / short effective edge is still a lot less ski for certain types of skiing than say a shorter Vólkl am ski (or even the comparable Revolt). The 182 is too short as the longest length in this model imho (kicking in an open door yes).

To be fair, it could also be that I am setting up a bit of a straw man here arguing against it not being something it was never supposed to be. Oh well.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Honestly if I didn’t weigh 110kg I would never ski a 192.

Same


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SnakeMagnet]

I wish Dynastar would accurately measure their skis or at least be consistent with their over/underestimation. Apparently to my recent (re)discovery the 192 Mf108 is 189 and change? Well I've figured out through many trials that I can go about that long before length becomes an issue for my weight...

But you already know my name's on the list of 'why isn't there a mid-length?' complaints.