The Dynastar Thread

[kc_7777]

Has anyone skis both 180 and 189 M-Free 118s? I am on 192 M-Free 108s and they are great for most things, but I am tempted to grab something for big pow days.

To ski deep pow all day at Whistler, it usually needs to be a storm day (on clear pow days, things get tracked out pretty fast, and the 108s are great). So for lower speed skiing in the trees, I am wondering if the 180 118s would be more fun than the 189s.

I’m 5’8” 170 lbs.

Same size as you.

Haven’t skied the 189cm M-Free, but I had 180cm Protos. Great inbounds pow ski at Whistler when it’s dumping all day. Had 178cm QST Blanks too. Sold both of those to get a 184cm Revolt….cause I wanted a bit more length for pow, but with a more forwardish (-3cm) mount for maneuverability. My Protos and Blanks were both -7cm mounts.

The 180cm 118 Protos did not ski long. They skied like a 180cm. The 178cm Blanks felt really really short.

I’d think you’d want the 189 M-Free 118s given you have 192 108s.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[D(C)]

Same size as you.

Haven’t skied the 189cm M-Free, but I had 180cm Protos. Great inbounds pow ski at Whistler when it’s dumping all day. Had 178cm QST Blanks too. Sold both of those to get a 184cm Revolt….cause I wanted a bit more length for pow, but with a more forwardish (-3cm) mount for maneuverability. My Protos and Blanks were both -7cm mounts.

The 180cm 118 Protos did not ski long. They skied like a 180cm. The 178cm Blanks felt really really short.

I’d think you’d want the 189 M-Free 118s given you have 192 108s.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Thanks, that’s helpful. The 192 108s are manageable but I wouldn’t mind if a storm day ski felt slightly shorter, though I found the 182 108s to be too short.

[kid-kapow]

Thanks, that’s helpful. The 192 108s are manageable but I wouldn’t mind if a storm day ski felt slightly shorter, though I found the 182 108s to be too short.

Keep in mind that the the difference between the widths is all in the tail - the profile from recommended and forward is identical across all M-Frees. You def do not want to size down on the 118 if you get along with 192 108s.

For reference, I'm 175cm/70kg - I run both 182 and 192 108s and 189 PR-OTOs that I haven't been on yet (I have 189 M-Frees too that I've skied a bit - awesome skis!). The only scenario I would size down on MF118s is if I skied a lot of dense snow with them as the only wide ski, though just using 108s then might be just a good an option while keeping 189s for the lighter snow (where they are amazing).

I use 184 ON3P BGs for the days when the snow is super moist / there's tons of variable.

Haven’t skied the 189cm M-Free, but I had 180cm Protos.

Didn't you have the Menance Pros? Aren't those the same as M-Frees, aka built in Spain? PR-OTOs are built in France.

[Shorty_J]

I think the rocker lines on the 118 are shorter for some weird reason... You might find the 180 118 to feel like more ski than the 182 108 but not sure.

I bought KC's Pro-tos but haven't skied them yet. I'm not at home but I'll try to remember to take a straight pull measurement when I get home.

I'm excited to try them but if I don't jive with them, the other ski that I might go to next in the directional powder ski would be the K2 mindbender 116c... Nice rocker lines, a little less taper, And they have smaller size increments between sizes if you're on the fence. Actually I'd prefer that ski in non-carbon and with a little metal but that's not on offer so...

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[D(C)]

kid-kapow, why do you say the 108s are better suited to wetter snow than the 118s?

[Shorty_J]

Keep in mind that the the difference between the widths is all in the tail - the profile from recommended and forward is identical across all M-Frees. You def do not want to size down on the 118 if you get along with 192 108s.

For reference, I'm 175cm/70kg - I run both 182 and 192 108s and 189 PR-OTOs that I haven't been on yet (I have 189 M-Frees too that I've skied a bit - awesome skis!). The only scenario I would size down on MF118s is if I skied a lot of dense snow with them as the only wide ski, though just using 108s then might be just a good an option while keeping 189s for the lighter snow (where they are amazing).

I use 184 ON3P BGs for the days when the snow is super moist / there's tons of variable.



Didn't you have the Menance Pros? Aren't those the same as M-Frees, aka built in Spain? PR-OTOs are built in France.

His (/mine now) are 180s... And I dont think they are the Spanish build... I think they are the softer ones.

They're not soft but they are not as stiff as I expected.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

Keep in mind that the the difference between the widths is all in the tail - the profile from recommended and forward is identical across all M-Frees. You def do not want to size down on the 118 if you get along with 192 108s.

For reference, I'm 175cm/70kg - I run both 182 and 192 108s and 189 PR-OTOs that I haven't been on yet (I have 189 M-Frees too that I've skied a bit - awesome skis!). The only scenario I would size down on MF118s is if I skied a lot of dense snow with them as the only wide ski, though just using 108s then might be just a good an option while keeping 189s for the lighter snow (where they are amazing).

I use 184 ON3P BGs for the days when the snow is super moist / there's tons of variable.



Didn't you have the Menance Pros? Aren't those the same as M-Frees, aka built in Spain? PR-OTOs are built in France.

I had these…






Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

Thanks, that’s helpful. The 192 108s are manageable but I wouldn’t mind if a storm day ski felt slightly shorter, though I found the 182 108s to be too short.

D(C)…as your southern neighbor who frequents W-B, I appreciate the quest you are on. I’ve settle on the 192 MFree108 as my “soft snow” ski in a two-ski travel quiver when I ski W-B. I have NOT found a ski that is as capable in all the zones that you can ski on a Pow day at W-B. Yeah, they can feel long in the tight trees mid and lower mountain,but so good everywhere else.

I also picked up some 189 Protos but haven’t skied them yet, so I have the same “curiosity”. I also have some 186 Salomon Blanks that are fun on a deep day, but don’t charge as hard as the MFrees.

[kid-kapow]

I think the rocker lines on the 118 are shorter for some weird reason... You might find the 180 118 to feel like more ski than the 182 108 but not sure.

The camber profile from the rear contact point and forward is the same across all MFs ( I should have snapped a photo of it re this post), but 118s have slightly less tail rocker - aka the splayed part is shorter, probably to make them looser - I dunno.

I had these…

I know. But aren't those the first year that were produced in Spain, aka the slightly softer layup?

The naming differentiator is about where they are made, not what they are called

Sorry if I come across as overly pedantic here - that is not my intention.

And I dont think they are the Spanish build... I think they are the softer ones.

The French Factory built PR-OTOs are supposedly a little bit stiffer. I can't tell that much of a difference when hand flexing 189 MFs and PR-OTOs back to back, so it will be interesting to try them back to back. My PR-OTOs are actually slightly lighter than the MF118s, so I am thinking about Castifing them.

There are def differences in the build though - most notably how the sidewalls look/are finished. I have no idea if there are other differences in the layup. FriFlyt did note some slight differences between the MF118 and PR-OTOs, but I have no idea if that is based on actual differences in design/layup, caused by being manufactured in different factories / quantities, just standard variation within/across production runs or if the measurements are just made in different ways / by different people. Probably a bit of all of the above.

I am really, really looking forward to skiing them.

kid-kapow, why do you say the 108s are better suited to wetter snow than the 118s?

Sorry, I was a bit imprecise - not better as in superior, better as in less work (or that is my working hypothesis anyway). I could be wrong though - it is not like there is much of a weight difference between 192 108s and 189 118s, and the extra width and slightly shorter tails could make them easier - especially for skiers who are on more size appropriate skis than I am.

[Shorty_J]

Ok... Probably got the geography wrong but I doubt KCs/mine are the stiff version... Flex seems pretty approachable.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Bandit Man]

Ok... Probably got the geography wrong but I doubt KCs/mine are the stiff version... Flex seems pretty approachable.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

The first year gray and black factory Proto were the stiffest, IIRC. The black/neon “Miami Vice” version are softer.

[kid-kapow]

Bringing up DarthMarkus's Menace Proto / M-Free 118 review again - lots of good info in that thread.

[sf]

The camber profile from the rear contact point and forward is the same across all MFs ( I should have snapped a photo of it re this post), but 118s have slightly less tail rocker - aka the splayed part is shorter, probably to make them looser - I dunno.

So the 3 cm difference between a 192 and 189 is all tail?

[kid-kapow]

So the 3 cm difference between a 192 and 189 is all tail?

Yes.

That is the reason I considered chopping a few cm of a pair of 192s. I have since abandoned that idea.

[Shorty_J]

Yes.

That is the reason I considered chopping a few cm of a pair of 192s. I have since abandoned that idea.

You should try it.

I have a thread on the subject. [emoji6]

Too much tail rocker is the only thing I'm trying to improve from my old Rocker2 122s.

Maybe I should just take my own advice and try that.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[sander_h]

The camber profile from the rear contact point and forward is the same across all MFs ( I should have snapped a photo of it re this post), but 118s have slightly less tail rocker - aka the splayed part is shorter, probably to make them looser - I dunno.

Yes, the distance between the front and rear contact points on the 108-192 and 118-189 are within an 1/8th of an inch of each other. The M Free 99-185 is a shorter, softer ski. Indeed, the tail splay and height on the 118 is less than the 108. Yes, the idea here is to have the tail be a bit looser on the 118.

118 is the closer ski, 108 the further

The French Factory built PR-OTOs are supposedly a little bit stiffer. I can't tell that much of a difference when hand flexing 189 MFs and PR-OTOs back to back, so it will be interesting to try them back to back. My PR-OTOs are actually slightly lighter than the MF118s, so I am thinking about Castifing them.

There are def differences in the build though - most notably how the sidewalls look/are finished. I have no idea if there are other differences in the layup. FriFlyt did note some slight differences between the MF118 and PR-OTOs, but I have no idea if that is based on actual differences in design/layup, caused by being manufactured in different factories / quantities, just standard variation within/across production runs or if the measurements are just made in different ways / by different people. Probably a bit of all of the above.

I am really, really looking forward to skiing them.

Yes, the menace 118 (orange sunset graphic) was the first year they were made in Spain. They were slightly softer than what came out of the “race room” in France. Skis that come out of the race room are definitely more stout and have an insane attention to detail/finish. I don’t know for sure if they used different materials but I would guess they did. I honestly prefer the current build over the race room skis as I didn’t grow up racing, I never learned how to drive a ski. That said, the current 118 remains the most stable (stout flex) yet playful ski I have skied(great shape and rocker profile).

Sorry, I was a bit imprecise - not better as in superior, better as in less work (or that is my working hypothesis anyway). I could be wrong though - it is not like there is much of a weight difference between 192 108s and 189 118s, and the extra width and slightly shorter tails could make them easier - especially for skiers who are on more size appropriate skis than I am.

I honestly prefer the 118’s in wet deeper snow as they are easier to stay on top and pivot back in forth. The 108’s will be further in the snow with the skinnier shape. To each their own. I have found the weight of the 118-189 and 108-192 to be almost identical. Around 2300-2350 grams.

[lrn2swim]

but 118s have slightly less tail rocker - aka the splayed part is shorter, probably to make them looser - I dunno.

Indeed, the tail splay and height on the 118 is less than the 108. Yes, the idea here is to have the tail be a bit looser on the 118.

Wait a minute, sorry but I'm a bit confused. Are you and Kid saying LESS tail splay and height makes a ski looser? I've always been under the impression the opposite is true.

[kid-kapow]

Thanks for chiming in!

The M Free 99-185

Can you please smack the marketing people over the head for me and have them relabel the 185 as what it really is, a narrower 182?

I honestly prefer the 118’s in wet deeper snow as they are easier to stay on top and pivot back in forth. The 108’s will be further in the snow with the skinnier shape. To each their own. I have found the weight of the 118-189 and 108-192 to be almost identical. Around 2300-2350 grams.

yeah, that kinda makes more sense. I guess I just need to man up a bit and get more strength / technique or get a more size appropriate 118 for the wetter days.

I really can't say enough good things about the M-Free line though. Dynastar knocked it out of the park with that line on skis.

Now, can you also encourage them to start making them in the oh so trendy 50/50 layups without making them softer, so we can use them for touring as well?

[bodywhomper]

No experience (yet) with the m free skis, but I have older lotus138’s and bibby’s. In deep wet snow, I prefer the wider looser ski with the tapered tip (lotus138) cuz of the width, versatility of turn shape, and the tips won’t hook-up in the muck. I ski in the Tahoe area.

[sander_h]

Wait a minute, sorry but I'm a bit confused. Are you and Kid saying LESS tail splay and height makes a ski looser? I've always been under the impression the opposite is true.

I can understand that it does sound confusing. Essentially, it's like the snowshoe effect of evenly distributing your weight over a larger area. Think of the downward force/skier weight to be more evenly distributed on the wider tail of the 118 with more of the tail touching the ground in comparison to the higher tail height and skinnier tail of the 108. The 108 tail will be more out of the snow and pinpoint the weight to the rear contact point of the ski. At least that's how I understand it, I could be wrong.

Added 11/5-1:15pm mtn time–I'd like to edit/correct what I said about the 108 and 118 tail in the above paragraph. I think the 118 tail would stay closer to the surface in powder (more float). I stand by the snowshoe effect, meaning the wider tail distributes your weight over a larger area. But what I should have said from there is that because the 118 tail is wider, like a snowshoe, it will have more float and stay closer to the top of the snow. The 108 tail will be further down in the powder. I am not an engineer so these opinions/thoughts are mine.

Thanks for chiming in!

Can you please smack the marketing people over the head for me and have them relabel the 185 as what it really is, a narrower 182?

LOL, Like most skis, Rossi/Dynastar will have roughly a 3cm range within the labeled size. Happy to chime in, I'm a gearhead too. Thank you for spreading factual information about the skis!

yeah, that kinda makes more sense. I guess I just need to man up a bit and get more strength / technique or get a more size appropriate 118 for the wetter days.

I really can't say enough good things about the M-Free line though. Dynastar knocked it out of the park with that line on skis.

Now, can you also encourage them to start making them in the oh so trendy 50/50 layups without making them softer, so we can use them for touring as well?

Honestly, I've found the 118 allows you to ski it less aggressively and not nearly as precise as the 108, especially in soft snow. I don't have any formal ski training and I appreciate that the 118 allows me to just wishy-wash it back and forth. Yes, having the right size would allow you to experience that. I've learned it's tough to please everyone in the 180-192 sizing range. Again, this is just my take on it as a 6ft 2in dude who grew up skiing center-mounted park skis all over the mountain, there are no wrong answers here.

As for the 50/50 layups, don't expect anything in the MFREE line but we're always playing with core materials and how they're laid out. I am touring every day and lugging the MFREE 108-192 with a CAST is overkill most days. Future design-wise, I'm doing my best to make sure we'll have something that people will want to ski and hike on. I've spent a few days on the MTour 99 and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it skis for how light it is.

I am very happy with the current M-Free lineup. As we move forward, the goal is to keep doing what we do well, making stable skis that people want to ski on, while also trying to incorporate new design elements for weight and most importantly, feel. Apologies for the run-on sentences and rough grammar.

[phatty]

As we move forward, the goal is to keep doing what we do well, making stable skis that people want to ski on, while also trying to incorporate new design elements for weight and most importantly, feel.

Yes, please! The current line up is great. The MFree 108 is probably my favorite ski of all time and is on my feet 85% of days regardless of conditions because it is stable enough but also a ton of fun popping off all over the hill. Allows me to haul ass and still get the side hits with my kids. Eager to try my 118 this year once we get enough snow.

[kid-kapow]

Wait a minute, sorry but I'm a bit confused. Are you and Kid saying LESS tail splay and height makes a ski looser? I've always been under the impression the opposite is true.

take into account that the shape is otherwise identical, so by cutting the tails shorter and also having more volume compared to 108s you basically end up with a shorter lever in the rear making it more able to slide around. This is exaggerated by the inherent front aft instability in the cambered section, making them even looser than a more balanced camber section would yield. It is great design imho. The camber height adds into this, making for a really well thought out design that kinda does the opposite of what you'd expect it to.

LOL, Like most skis, Rossi/Dynastar will have roughly a 3cm range within the labeled size. Happy to chime in, I'm a gearhead too.

There shouldn't be - marketing people need to get their act together. That the exact same shape can be labeled as both a 182 and a 185 from the same brand - to better slot into different segments - is real idiocy and does nobody any favours. You'll make a few more sales - sure - but a significant portion of the people who buy said ski will end up being dissapointed through overpowering the front of the ski like crazy. Just press a 192 and call it 188 instead - that is actually better (as it would measure in at 189 straight pull and not ski crazy short like a 185 will for most average sized males with any skills).

Adding this - nice watch, worth while perspectives and solid skiing like always:

[sander_h]

There shouldn't be - marketing people need to get their act together. That the exact same shape can be labeled as both a 182 and a 185 from the same brand - to better slot into different segments - is real idiocy and does nobody any favours. You'll make a few more sales - sure - but a significant portion of the people who buy said ski will end up being dissapointed through overpowering the front of the ski like crazy. Just press a 192 and call it 188 instead - that is actually better (as it would measure in at 189 straight pull and not ski crazy short like a 185 will for most average sized males with any skills).

Have you measured a K2 against other skis? There is a reason Blister does their own measurements on each product they review.

People work very hard at these brands to give consumers what they want. Rossignol makes a 194 freeride ski with metal aside from multiple burly twins and Dynastar has a plethora of skis that all different skiers want to ski on. We're in the golden age of board/ski riding design, enjoy it.

[Shorty_J]

The discussion on why the 118 might be more lose makes sense to me. I also love the idea of a ski that's still lose with a less central mount point... excited to try mine.

The only thing I'm not sure makes sense to me is the wider ski having less rise in the rocker. If I'm skiing deeper snow with the wider ski I would think at least the same rise of the 108 would be appropriate.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

Have you ever measured a K2 against other skis? .... We're in the golden age of board/ski riding design, enjoy it.

What does K2s whataboutism have to do with anything? My baseline is ON3P who guess what, measure true to stated length (as you know).

That parts of the industry stay true to the archaic pre-press standard is beyond me, as is brands letting marketing people dictate the "measurements", not their engineers. I mean, how hard can it be - if the a ski comes out of the same mold and has the same exact length as a different ski (both pre and post press) why not label it as having the same length? It seems like common sense to me.

Since you mention Rossi, it would be interesting to debate the actual differences between the various 22/23 Senders in terms of geometry, not layup, with their engineers and marketing people. It sure seems like there is none when comparing the skis in person. So thank you marketing - adding value for sure! Because having people having to consider if sender ti 104 or sender ti plus 106 has the best width for makes a ton of sense when the only difference across two models is in the layup (and that difference makes for an actual huge difference in how they ski). Some times more info and more marketing speak does not make it easier to understand and/or make choices, it just makes it harder.

yeah, if find this practices kinda irritating.

The only thing I'm not sure makes sense to me is the wider ski having less rise in the rocker. If I'm skiing deeper snow with the wider ski I would think at least the same rise of the 108 would be appropriate.

The rise is the same, it just stops sooner. If you want the same splay height in a shorter tail then you would need to change the rise significantly, something that would make the difference in the tails support (and thus also perceived looseness) even bigger.