The Dynastar Thread

[grinch]

Ive had my mfree 99 a yr and half now and theyre just the best all around ski ive had. Just moved the mount from the recommended to +12mm. They feel a little better balance now. If they still dont tip dive its a win win.
I picked up an mfree90 for the extra icey conditions on the EC this year and the mount looked like it could be forward so mounted those at +1 and it feels right. So right i moved the 99's forward. Fun little ski. I havent been on something this short or skinny in an alpine ski since the early 90's. Much less splay and rocker than the 99's but theyll still break free no problem. Fun railing groomers on a little167 16m radius ski

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[GoldMember]

Yeah, you will be fine. Interested to hear your take on them.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

So, skied yesterday morning on the MF 108, 182 length. We had a reported 8" new. With the wind, it was variable new depths and conditions. All in all, it was wind condensed pretty much everywhere so definitely not blower pow.

My first run was down Misfortune, a steep double black that usually holds good snow, deeper than most areas as it's lee to the prevailing wind. It was good but somewhat tracked as it got hit early. Still got into some decent untracked and had a fun run. My first impression of the ski was they're mounted too far forward. They skied well but I felt like I was going over the bars at any moment.

I then went to the C chutes and skied what looked to be wind blown slab. It was really good chalk for the first half then undisturbed new for a few turns then avy debris on the runout to flat. The wind blown slab was, unbeknownst to me at first, actually the slide bed from control work. Still fun and the skis behaved well in the wildly variable conditions of that single run. Still, it felt like I'd be going over the bars at any moment but never did.

The rest of the morning was similar results on everything I skied. As I got more used to them and skied a little more centered, I got more comfortable with the mount.

In the afternoon, I skied my x106 and went to many of the same runs. I really came to like the Frees but still really like the x106, too. I think the Frees probably were a little more comfortable with the weird stuff but not that much more. They're really a fun ski and I think I'd like them even more if mounted 1-2 cm back. However, not so sure I'm to a point where I'd dump my 106 to get them. At some point, I'll probably do the switch but not until at least next season.

I could provide a more indepth report but, doing this on my phone with a lousy connection is restrictive so I'll stop with the above.

[chewski]

So, skied yesterday morning on the MF 108, 182 length. We had a reported 8" new. With the wind, it was variable new depths and conditions. All in all, it was wind condensed pretty much everywhere so definitely not blower pow.

My first run was down Misfortune, a steep double black that usually holds good snow, deeper than most areas as it's lee to the prevailing wind. It was good but somewhat tracked as it got hit early. Still got into some decent untracked and had a fun run. My first impression of the ski was they're mounted too far forward. They skied well but I felt like I was going over the bars at any moment.

I then went to the C chutes and skied what looked to be wind blown slab. It was really good chalk for the first half then undisturbed new for a few turns then avy debris on the runout to flat. The wind blown slab was, unbeknownst to me at first, actually the slide bed from control work. Still fun and the skis behaved well in the wildly variable conditions of that single run. Still, it felt like I'd be going over the bars at any moment but never did.

The rest of the morning was similar results on everything I skied. As I got more used to them and skied a little more centered, I got more comfortable with the mount.

In the afternoon, I skied my x106 and went to many of the same runs. I really came to like the Frees but still really like the x106, too. I think the Frees probably were a little more comfortable with the weird stuff but not that much more. They're really a fun ski and I think I'd like them even more if mounted 1-2 cm back. However, not so sure I'm to a point where I'd dump my 106 to get them. At some point, I'll probably do the switch but not until at least next season.

I could provide a more indepth report but, doing this on my phone with a lousy connection is restrictive so I'll stop with the above.

I thought the 192 floated exceptionally well for its width and on par with skis 10+mm wider. The mount point on that length let you drive the tips and they would pop up to the surface in pow. But in anything firm or consolidated crud they needed to be skied centered, and while I have gotten along with a few skis in the more modern -4 to -8cm range, the vast majority of my all time greatest hits have been -11 to -13cm. I think some people rave about their stability (particularly the 192) because in most scenarios it gets more stable if you trust it and default to a centered stance, but you can also drive it some (especially when soft or deep). But for my preferences I had other skis that defaulted to a driving stance that allowed some neutral as well, which was why I sold mine.

My buddy who is smaller than me (but has similarly ridden very rearward mounted skis) demoed the 182 and then bought a pair. He has been struggling on them since and can't figure out why. i think the 182 just amplified the "mostly centered in choppy/only forward on smooth" personality that i experienced on the 192, which he is not used to either. If you can trust the centered stance it really is quite stable and if you can handle the 192 it really floats very well. If no to both then probably move on

[gaijin]

Gawd— it’s like reading a Brit versus a Tweener talk skis.

Neither of you ski, but both think you are heroes.

(Again— Gaijin is an asshole trying to be funny in textual form. Don’t take this shit too seriously. He’s just typing shit. And his goal is to tease you, because you suck and couldn’t buy a turn if Dynastar was selling it.)

Okay- cut me some slack. Go back and read GoldMember’s post in a British accent.

[CaliBrit]

Gawd— it’s like reading a Brit versus a Tweener talk skis.

Neither of you ski, but both think you are heroes.

(Again— Gaijin is an asshole trying to be funny in textual form. Don’t take this shit too seriously. He’s just typing shit. And his goal is to tease you, because you suck and couldn’t buy a turn if Dynastar was selling it.)

Okay- cut me some slack. Go back and read GoldMember’s post in a British accent.

I take offense.

[Bandit Man]

I know there are a few folks who ski the 182 MFree and it works well for them. However, the overwhelming praise given for that ski is directed at the 192 length. It’s practically a totally different ski. I’m never surprised when folks ski the 182 and are underwhelmed.

If you read the Blister Gear reviews on the ski, they came to the same conclusion. In their “Best of” list the specifically call out the 192 MFree and not the MFree 108 in general. I totally agree with making that key distinction.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[Mofro261]

I think it took me about a month of wishing the 182 was a 186 and shaking the feeling that I was on ice skates. I'm a pretty well balanced skier and small guy 70kg and 172cm so I could see how taller /more weight would push someone to the 192, and even the192 may not be enough for really big dudes.

I don't have a British accent tho.

[GoldMember]

I think it took me about a month of wishing the 182 was a 186 and shaking the feeling that I was on ice skates. I'm a pretty well balanced skier and small guy 70kg and 172cm so I could see how taller /more weight would push someone to the 192, and even the192 may not be enough for really big dudes.

I don't have a British accent tho.

Yeah, I was wishing it was 186.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I think it took me about a month of wishing the 182 was a 186 and shaking the feeling that I was on ice skates. I'm a pretty well balanced skier and small guy 70kg and 172cm so I could see how taller /more weight would push someone to the 192, and even the192 may not be enough for really big dudes.

I don't have a British accent tho.

This resonates with me. I really think they’re great skis, I’m not a great skier, but on a good day really pushing the 192 they’re too soft and floppy for me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[chewski]

Gawd— it’s like reading a Brit versus a Tweener talk skis.

Neither of you ski, but both think you are heroes.

(Again— Gaijin is an asshole trying to be funny in textual form. Don’t take this shit too seriously. He’s just typing shit. And his goal is to tease you, because you suck and couldn’t buy a turn if Dynastar was selling it.)

Okay- cut me some slack. Go back and read GoldMember’s post in a British accent.

I won't be offended if you don't mind me staying for the sideshow. I joined tgr in 2008, lost my credentials and rejoined in 2011 because i prefer alcoholism and bipolar disorder to wool pants nostalgia and greasy hormones. I don't take myself too seriously because i actually skied with the dood who clowned me the most in the other thread and he's a blast in real life. And i spent the last two seasons with a baby strapped to me so fuck it whatever. She outriggers too

[detrusor]

Anybody got a lot of days on the MPro 108?

My crazy strong ski racing daughter is in love with her mPro 99’s

[jimbojones]

Does the 180cm m-free 118 ski as short as the 182cm m-free 108? I keep waffling on whether or not I should pick up a 180cm 118 for super cheap, concerned it'll be too short. I keep reading that it's relatively stout flex-wise and in theory 118 underfoot should float me plenty, but all this talk about the 182 108 being too short has me worried now.

[Eluder]

Does the 180cm m-free 118 ski as short as the 182cm m-free 108? I keep waffling on whether or not I should pick up a 180cm 118 for super cheap, concerned it'll be too short. I keep reading that it's relatively stout flex-wise and in theory 118 underfoot should float me plenty, but all this talk about the 182 108 being too short has me worried now.

I have both, and they have very different shapes. Neither ski is stiff; both are loose and fun. I wouldn't complain if either were stiffer, as they both have speed limits in unforgiving snow. I've never really wanted the 108s to be longer, just a little stiffer to handle the chop, but I also would be okay with them if they had two more cm's. The 118 could be longer and stiffer. A lot of this is just my preference for a bigger ski but I feel the tips can disappear when you push it.

[scottishrider]

Anybody got a lot of days on the MPro 108?

My crazy strong ski racing daughter is in love with her mPro 99’s

Got 4 or 5 days on the 192 MPro 108. They are a lot of ski. I like the front half of the ski but the tails are overly stiff. Pretty fun when you are on top of them but get in the back seat just a little and the afterburners come on hard and quickly. Already got 1 core shot from getting a little off balance and getting shot straight into a rock band. Pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from the MFree 108 which you can shut down instantly, once these are going they take some work to stop. I am thinking the 182 might have been a better choice. For reference I am 6ft and 185lbs and I also own the MPro 99 in 186 which I think are the right stiffness for me and are a great ski for when conditions are a bit firmer. I bought the MPro 108s to replace 188 Legend X106 which were pretty worn out after 3 seasons but they are a lot more ski than those, definitely less manoeuvrable.

[kid-kapow]

I have both, and they have very different shapes.

eh, the only difference besides the width is that the tails on the 118 is what 3cm shorter in the rockered section. Other than that the rocker profiles, contact points, mount points relative to contact points, general shapes are all the same.

Their main difference is the construction - the hybrid core in the 118 is not the same as in the 108s and 99s.

I have not skied the 180 mf118, but have considered picking up a pair several times. But at 180 - so 177.6 or so - they are kinda short. They should have 5cm spacing between sizes, not this 10cm crap.

[shank]

Pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from the MFree 108 which you can shut down instantly, once these are going they take some work to stop. I am thinking the 182 might have been a better choice. For reference I am 6ft and 185lbs and I also own the MPro 99 in 186 which I think are the right stiffness for me and are a great ski for when conditions are a bit firmer.

Yeah, I've got 10 pounds on you and I'm really curious about the 182. The 184 Pro Rider (RIP) hits the sweet spot as a chargey daily driver that can still be manageable in tight terrain. Hoping smaller sizes of MP108 have the same manageable missile vibe.

[bourbonisgood]

I’ll have a pair of minty 189 MF118 up for sale soon if someone is anxious to try em out. Catch and release as I stumbled on the 187 BGs I was looking for

[mr_pretzel]

Yeah, I've got 10 pounds on you and I'm really curious about the 182. The 184 Pro Rider (RIP) hits the sweet spot as a chargey daily driver that can still be manageable in tight terrain. Hoping smaller sizes of MP108 have the same manageable missile vibe.

Heritage Labs FL105

[GoldMember]

Gawd— it’s like reading a Brit versus a Tweener talk skis.

Neither of you ski, but both think you are heroes.

(Again— Gaijin is an asshole trying to be funny in textual form. Don’t take this shit too seriously. He’s just typing shit. And his goal is to tease you, because you suck and couldn’t buy a turn if Dynastar was selling it.)

Okay- cut me some slack. Go back and read GoldMember’s post in a British accent.

This is TGR. I read the ROOLZ. My panties aren't in a bunch. I'm not British. Capice?

[NW_SKIER]

I’ll have a pair of minty 189 MF118 up for sale soon if someone is anxious to try em out. Catch and release as I stumbled on the 187 BGs I was looking for

Nice! Aren't they great?

[grinch]

Does the 180cm m-free 118 ski as short as the 182cm m-free 108? I keep waffling on whether or not I should pick up a 180cm 118 for super cheap, concerned it'll be too short. I keep reading that it's relatively stout flex-wise and in theory 118 underfoot should float me plenty, but all this talk about the 182 108 being too short has me worried now.

Are you in canada? If so i keep putting those in my cart and taking them out. I could never put my bg 116 down on a pow day.

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[D(C)]

I want to want some 118s but I haven’t found the 192 108s to lack any float for my purposes.

[grinch]

I wouldnt mind adding a 182 108. Theres a big difference between my mf99 and bg 116

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[ASmileyFace]

First day on the 192 108... I get the hype. Going to get a few more days on them before I make a final judgment but that was a lot of fun

[Eluder]

eh, the only difference besides the width is that the tails on the 118 is what 3cm shorter in the rockered section. Other than that the rocker profiles, contact points, mount points relative to contact points, general shapes are all the same.

Their main difference is the construction - the hybrid core in the 118 is not the same as in the 108s and 99s.

I have not skied the 180 mf118, but have considered picking up a pair several times. But at 180 - so 177.6 or so - they are kinda short. They should have 5cm spacing between sizes, not this 10cm crap.

I have to disagree. The tips react in 3d snow and look very different, the tail rocker is completely different, and the mount point is also different.

As long as you ignore, the core, the side cut, the rocker profile, the tip shape, and the mount point, then yeah I guess they are close...