The Dynastar Thread

[Bandit Man]

My five-ten/one-sixty-five twenty-one year old finally skied my one ninety two MFree one zero eights. He’s hooked. He thinks they are the perfect complement to his Volkl M one-o-two’s.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[waveshello]

My five-ten/one-sixty-five twenty-one year old finally skied my one ninety two MFree one zero eights. He’s hooked. He thinks they are the perfect complement to his Volkl M one-o-two’s.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

I was also late to the party, but I skied the 192 Mfree all last season and fell in love. I skied them back to back with some 2019 Asym 189 BGs this morning and thought the two felt more similar than different in 3d snow. That was my first time on BGs, and they were very intuitive after all the time spent on the Mfree.

[Bandit Man]

Skied my 190 MFree 112s today in 12-18 inches of some fairly light PNW powder. Mounted them at -3 from recommended with Pivot 15s, putting at at -6/-6.5-cm from true center. I have a 295-mm BSL, so I did not want to go too far back. I am a big fan of the first gen 192 MFree 108, which has become my soft snow daily driver. I was hoping that the 112 would retain the good things about the 108 (loose, pivoty nature and ability to push the ski farily hard) but give me "more ski" and more float.

Right out of the gate, they felt every part an MFree, but a bit more composed and a bit more damp/quiet. The added width made them a better floater than the 108 and the slightly larger turn radius took the MFree pivoty/loose nature up a notch. The added weight of the 112 also helped the ski to push through things that might buck the 108 a bit. I brought some "real" powder skis in case these felt outmatched by the impressive accumulations, but I never felt the need to swap them out, They have really impressive float for a 112-waist. On the soft groomers, they were passable, but not as fun and confidence inspiring loading up as the 108. I could see them being less than ideal for firmer groomers, but did not get to test out that theory today. I was a little worried about the weight of the skis with the P15s, but once they were on my feet, I forgot about the weight. Mind you, they are a solid ski with just enough playfulness. I alreay used the word composed and In think that is a good description of what they have more of than the 108...more compsure when being pushed hard, especially at speed. The downside is that they are not quite as easy to toss around as the 108s in tight spaces, but that seems like a fair trade-off.

I picked up some Line Bacon 115s looking for a playful powder ski. The MFree 112 feels like significantly more ski than the Bacon 115, but is more attuned to the kind of ski I wanted the Bacon to be...a freestyle oriented powder/big mountain ski than is not a total plank and has enough playfulness to be fun...if that makes any sense. I also own a 191 Rossignol Sender Free 110 mounted at -5.5-cm with Pivot 18s. Side by side, they look like they came out of the same mold as the MFree 112, albeit the MFree 112 has a bit more taper in the tip and tail. I haven't skied the 112 enough to make a fair comparison, but based on todays experience, if I had to choose just one, it would be the MFree 112. It is just a little more user friendly and skis looser, which really works for me. Looking forward to more time on the 112s. Needless to say, I quite like them.

[JRainey]

Also the blister podcast just confirmed the same. I was 100% on going from 184 SF110 (sold) to 191, but now I think Imma going MF112 in 190.

[BreckSkier]

If anyone is looking for a BNIP pair of 192 MFree 108s from last year (pre changes), I have a pair I'm selling for $400+ship. Bills are coming in from leg surgery and I won't be skiing this year anyway. Will be posting on FB once I can walk again.

These still available? I love the First Gen 192 mfree 108. Sadly my binding ripped out of the ski today and I think it’s shot. Unsure about the 2nd generation 108. How are people liking them?

[SkiLyft]

Moar burley is what rumors are, though none of the dudes I ski with have them.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[BreckSkier]

Skied my 190 MFree 112s today in 12-18 inches of some fairly light PNW powder. Mounted them at -3 from recommended with Pivot 15s, putting at at -6/-6.5-cm from true center. I have a 295-mm BSL, so I did not want to go too far back. I am a big fan of the first gen 192 MFree 108, which has become my soft snow daily driver. I was hoping that the 112 would retain the good things about the 108 (loose, pivoty nature and ability to push the ski farily hard) but give me "more ski" and more float. Right out of the gate, they felt every part an MFree, but a bit more composed and a bit more damp/quiet. The added width made them a better floater than the 108 and the slightly larger turn radius took the MFree pivoty/loose nature up a notch. The added weight of the 112 also helped the ski to push through things that might buck the 108 a bit. I brought some "real" powder skis in case these felt outmatched by the impressive accumulations, but I never felt the need to swap them out, They have really impressive float for a 112-waist. On the soft groomers, they were passable, but not as fun and confidence inspiring loading up as the 108. I could see them being less than ideal for firmer groomers, but did not get to test out that theory today. I was a little worried about the weight of the skis with the P15s, but once they were on my feet, I forgot about the weight. Mind you, they are a solid ski with just enough playfulness. I alreay used the word composed and In think that is a good description of what they have more of than the 108...more compsure when being pushed hard, especially at speed. The downside is that they are not quite as easy to toss around as the 108s in tight spaces, but that seems like a fair trade-off. I picked up some Line Bacon 115s looking for a playful powder ski. The MFree 112 feels like significantly more ski than the Bacon 115, but is more attuned to the kind of ski I wanted the Bacon to be...a freestyle oriented powder/big mountain ski than is not a total plank and has enough playfulness to be fun...if that makes any sense. I also own a 191 Rossignol Sender Free 110 mounted at -5.5-cm with Pivot 18s. Side by side, they look like they came out of the same mold as the MFree 112, albeit the MFree 112 has a bit more taper in the tip and tail. I haven't skied the 112 enough to make a fair comparison, but based on todays experience, if I had to choose just one, it would be the MFree 112. It is just a little more user friendly and skis looser, which really works for me. Looking forward to more time on the 112s. Needless to say, I quite like them.

Just joined the forum but I have read a lot of your reviews and find them very informative. I seem to really like skis you tend to like. I live in Breckenridge and ski all over Colorado. I have a 184 M6 Mantra for hard snow/spring and the M-Free 108 in a 192 was my daily driver for most of the season. I used to have a 186 enforcer 104Free and I found it much more locked in off-trail. I love the stability and looseness of the Mfree 108 and found no reason to keep the Enforcers. The M-free 108 is an extremely confidence inspiring ski especially on steep terrain in my opinon. I spend a majority of my time off-trail. Alluding to my other post. I think my Mfree 108 is toast and I need to replace them. Either with another 192 Mfree 108 or going the direction of Sender Free 110 or Mfree 112. Was wondering if you had a comparison on the 108 vs the new 112 yet and if you think it would be a solid daily driver and not overly soft snow oriented vs the 108. Thanks!

[Hood26]

Just mounted these sexy bitches. Even the dog has wood!

Very nice!

[Jack Burton]

long shot but if anyone is holding a pair of ~ 2018 Legend Factory boards in decent condition (or fresh ;-)) and wants to sell them please PM me, mine are about to give up their last day!

[slcdawg]

Picked up a pair of the new gen mfree 108's in 185 and got in a day of soft leftovers. I haven't skied the old Gen, so can't compare but really enjoyed these. They feel damp and composed charging through soft chop/bumps, yet easy to pivot and surf on the tails. I didn't love them on icy morning spring groomers but that's not what I got them for. Should be a good DD on all but the firmest of days.

At 5'10" 155 lbs, glad I went with the 185's (measure a little shorter than 182 tip to tail).

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[herrgard]

Had my first day on the 99s yesterday, it was slush everywhere and they killed it. They felt very pivoty and damp and easy to ski. Felt like you could drive them to keep them planted to the ground between the slush moguls or just lean them slightly on edge and just ski over everything. Really easy to ski way too fast on these things. The 185 length feels perfect for me at 5 8 170.

[oetk2]

I really like my 99s. I have skied them more than anything else over the past 2 years. Easy to noodle around on if it's a slow day, pivoty and playful, carve alright as long as you keep your weight underfoot, and can ski pretty hard. I've found their limit when it starts to get either steep and bumpy or bumpy and hard. Not that that's a surprise given their width and construction.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[oetk2]

As the season starts to wind down and I start thinking next year's skis...

What's a 99 that's narrower, more park focused, and carves a bit better. ARV94 maybe.

What's a 99 that's wider and skis harder but still is fun. Seems like the consensus is pick any of the great 108s with the graphic you like and ski.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[gaijin]

If you’re not yet on an HL ROneTen you are missing out on the cult.

The Dynastars are for people who missed the HL boat but still want a decent ski.

All that said— I may miss the AM One Hundred boat and will have to settle for an MPro One Hundred.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oetk2]

I thought that would be one of the answers. The FR has had my eye for a while now...and the R, and the RC, and the UT......

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[cstoner_97]

Hey guys,
I've been skiing the 182cm MF108 (mounted +2cm from rec) for the past few seasons and it's become my go to ski for most days. I love the combination of surfiness and the damp ride quality, and the fact that they can hold an edge pretty well on piste for a relatively wide ski. However, there have been a number of occasions when I've wished for more length, mainly to improve stability when skiing fast through deeper chop. When I bought this ski I was a bit intimidated by the 192cm length, and now they're making a 185cm version I am very interested if that is the ski to replace my 182cm. I've seen on Blister that there is a notable difference in feel between the 182 and new 185, but the new MF112 has really peaked my interest (in a 190cm length).
I know the measured lengths of the MF108 192cm and MF112 190cm are basically the same, but the more progressive mount and wider platform of the MF112 sound like they could work for me as an 'anything slightly soft' to 'resort powder day' ski. I know carving is not the point of a 112mm underfoot ski, but given how well the 108s perform I am curious if anyone can weigh in on how these do on piste relative to the outgoing MF108s?
I'm 6ft 160lbs, I like to ski fast and hit features. I suck at spinning, and have a lighter park ski for practicing my freestyle skills (Season Kin 181cm). I mostly ski in Europe, but make trips to the Canadian Rockies (I've just done a season in Fernie) and Japan. I also have a K2 Catamaran in a 184cm which does great in untouched powder but is way too floppy in resort chop for my liking - I'm going to remount it with a Kingpin for pow touring and future Japan trips. I think for most days in resort, 112mm underfoot would be plenty.
If I went for the MF108 in a 185cm I wonder whether I'd be wishing for a bigger (wider and/or longer) ski on deeper days. If I went for the MF112 in a 190cm I wonder if it'd be too much ski for a daily driver. What would you do if you were me?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[oetk2]

There was a bunch of discussion on the new 185 actual length a few pages back and reviews on the 112 as well if you haven't seen that.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk