The Dynastar Thread

[chewski]

I think you are talking about my skis so i am biased, but objectively speaking 1* base and 2* side would be standard on the vast majority of high performance skis. I have base bevels on my skis ranging from 1 for mostly carving to 1.5 for any hard charging to 2 for any soft or variable snow drifting. The greater the difference between Side and base bevel the "sharper" the angle formed is, meaning the ski wants to bite more, slide less, and dulls quicker. generally a 3* side and 1* base is "sharper" and edgier and would be reserved for very carvy skis. The base bevel simply affects how far the ski needs to be tipped on edge before it hooks and bites. Some people like to aggressively detune a ski to prevent grabbiness. Personally I prefer relatively sharp edges underfoot for grip when you need it, but want a split second more drift before it hooks up, hence the larger base bevel allows you to remove hooking/grabbing without really dulling the edges. I like it. A lot. Some may not. But i would venture most would find it very subtle and definitely does not prevent you from laying over high angle carves. Too little base bevel (0.5* or less) is MUCH more obvious because people just complain about catching edges (unless it's your slalom carver). Anyways that's my best attempt at objective information on this topic. Feel free to ask anything else

[chewski]

Also, the softer the snow the less ANY of this matters. You don't even need edges in powder, but i still think about them a lot for when you touch down on a scrapey base underneath. And not to belabor the point but here is a photo of me carving some 2*/2* full reverse camber devastators just to illustrate that carving is largely still just carving if you can carve in the first place. Base bevels mostly determine the milliseconds between tipping and biting into a carve, or conversely between flattening and drifting

[2FUNKY]

Dynastar standard 2/1

Base/side?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jackattack]

Base/side?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

2 side
1 base

I've never heard or a 2deg base bevel, that does not seem ideal. —edit chewski seems to make it work.

[chewski]

https://www.evo.com/guides/ski-edge-bevel

Once again i am biased but here are objective measurements on factory tune. Notice that carvy all mountain skis are around 1 base and drifty classics are around 1.5. You can draw your own conclusions and extrapolate. I have tried many skis at 1, 1.5, and 2 so i know what i think already

[2FUNKY]

2 side
1 base

I've never heard or a 2deg base bevel, that does not seem ideal. —edit chewski seems to make it work.

What I figured, usually base is first.
Most of my skis get a 1/2, protest ski gets a 2/1, groomer skis get a .5/3.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Hood26]

What's the standard tune on the Mfree108? Eying the boards in GS but wary of the garage tune..

Awkward.

Who would have thought the Mag selling Dynastars in GS would also frequent the Dynastar thread?

Are we heading for a Chinese tune off?

Mine are factory angles with heavy detuning of the rockered areas.

[chewski]

Awkward.

Who would have thought the Mag selling Dynastars in GS would also frequent the Dynastar thread?

Are we heading for a Chinese tune off?

Mine are factory angles with heavy detuning of the rockered areas.

Lol. No offense. I am not a salesman of edge tuning philosophy. Just MFree 108's. This is not epicski, but I do like tuning skis. I posted more in my sale thread to avoid any more thread drift. Carry on

[Huskier]

Awkward.

Who's awkward? Valid question and chewski provides a good walkthrough of his rationale. Personal pref to ski them factory and go from there

[rudy]

I assume that he was referring to you calling the tune garbage but what do I know. Doesn't seem chewski took it personally so I think we can move on.

[phatty]

I assume that he was referring to you calling the tune garbage but what do I know. Doesn't seem chewski took it personally so I think we can move on.

He called it a garage tune (i.e. DIY) not garbage.

[gaijin]

I agree with everything chewski wrote regarding a 2*base on surfy skis. Specifically Renegades.

They’re just looser. And you’re already throwing them way the fuck out there to hook up anyway.

I can easily envision this working on a high suspension ski like an MF108.

People just don’t want to try it because it requires a stone grind to get back to 1*.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Norseman]

But the MF108 is cool because it's loose in soft snow, but very strong on edge on the firm without any effort. I think 2 degrees base bevel would be a mistake on this ski.

I got no prob with 2 deg base on the pow skis.

[gaijin]

Yeah, I should probably shut the fuck up until I ski that ski.

Note to self-- "Stop speculating, you fucking foreigner!"

[WhetherMan]

MF108 is one of the only skis I've ever owned that I prefer very sharp from tip to tail. I imagine it's because the looseness is "built in" and thus doesn't require detuning. As it dulls I find it loses a bit of the sharp loose magic. Ymmv

[chewski]

This thread drifted harder than i meant already so here's what i posted to my sales thread. I think you'll all recognize these posters.




Not that this is gospel truth, but it was formative for my tuning biases. As the ONLY person here who has skied this ski at both factory tune and at 2* base i can definitely say it does NOT ruin the grip. The point of running larger base bevels is to get rid of catchiness with the shape of the edge rather than dulling the edge. Basically you do it INSTEAD of detuning, which everyone is wuick to try despite it truly decreasing sharpness. I used "sharpness" in quotes earlier because you can have a dull AF 1*/3* and sharp AF 2*/2* edge. It's just the baseline shape that determines characteristics WHEN sharp. I can get and keep this tune sharp from rocker to rocker points and not catch. And as far as setting an edge, well I posted photos IRL above

[Norseman]

Orrrr... you can leave em alone and they slay.

There's been a lot of improvement to ski geometry in the ten years since those posts you reference... the shape isn't catchy, so you don't need to bother with increasing base bevel.

Why is it important to you to keep the edge sharp all the way out, when the rockered/tapered sections are off the hard snow anyway? Sharp to the ends is a detriment for soft snow, IMO, especially when encountering crusts or corn or maritime chowder,, so a slight detune on the stock edge angles kills two birds.

Shrug

[chewski]

Orrrr... you can leave em alone and they slay.

There's been a lot of improvement to ski geometry in the ten years since those posts you reference... the shape isn't catchy, so you don't need to bother with increasing base bevel.

Why is it important to you to keep the edge sharp all the way out, when the rockered/tapered sections are off the hard snow anyway? Sharp to the ends is a detriment for soft snow, IMO, especially when encountering crusts or corn or maritime chowder,, so a slight detune on the stock edge angles kills two birds.

Shrug

Clearly you like them at factory. Ski em that way. You can carve em. You can drift em. I assure you at 2* i could carve em and drift em too (and i actually did compare 1* vs 2*), so i'm not sure what there is to shrug about. But at the end of the day i can just smash more stuff on my other skis while feeling maneuverable enough, so I personally didn't click with the ski. Edge bite or lack thereof never entered into the equation.

Edited to add that I am certain Norseman can out ski me on his m-free 108's or mine. But regardless of that, I will continue to put 1.5-2* base on all my freeride skis because I have never found it to negatively impact a single ski I have tried it on. And I have done it to at least a dozen of my own skis after trying the factory tune to compare and contrast the results

[ASmileyFace]

Picked up a pair of 192 mfree 108s from Ptex1's sale. In no hurry to mount them up, but contemplating mount point. Seems like most people here are on the line or a little in front...?

I'm -4 from TC on my current DDs (old sickles) and am thinking -6ish for these. I know this has been discussed ad nasuem here but what is the general consensus?

[Mofro261]

On the line

[kid-kapow]

Picked up a pair of 192 mfree 108s ... -6ish for these.

I really liked the 192s at +1.5. 192 felt inbalanced on the line for my tiny 25.5 293 bsl, whereas 1.5 felt fine. 192s feel fine on the line from a driving perspective though, not like the 182s that feel kinda softish on the line. I prefer 182s at +1.

+2.25 aka -6 sounds excessive to me.

[D(C)]

I have 293 mm bsl boots, but they’re race boots with decent amount of forward lean. On the line feels good on my 192s. But I haven’t tried them elsewhere.

[ASmileyFace]

I really liked the 192s at +1.5. 192 felt inbalanced on the line for my tiny 25.5 293 bsl, whereas 1.5 felt fine. 192s feel fine on the line from a driving perspective though, not like the 182s that feel kinda softish on the line. I prefer 182s at +1.

+2.25 aka -6 sounds excessive to me.

I didn't realize that the 192 has a slightly more reward mount point than the 182. so +2.25 does seems a little excessive... I might try +1.5 but still have some time to think about it.

[2FUNKY]

305 bsl mounted on the line. Ski feels really balanced there and couldn’t imagine going forward, esp with how much tail is back there. It already sometimes clunks trees when in the tight and pushing it closer than I probably should.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

Having skied the mfree 108 at +1.5 I wouldn’t recommend it.
The ski has too much camber in the tail so going forward feels awkward, even most of the dynastar pros that are really jibby only go +1 (Sander etc).

Unless you’re a jib machine to line probably provides the best skiing