The Dynastar Thread

[WhetherMan]

So glad I impulse bought a backup pair last spring.

Sometimes I like having a more supportive tail, and sometimes I even like lighter skis, in which case I ski a different fucking ski!

Hard to imagine the magic remains after those changes. I look forward to complaining about it for another year before we find out.

[WhetherMan]

Double post

[kid-kapow]

Any updates on the mfree118? I’d really like to see that ski get the rocker/shape of the mfree108 and come in a 192.

I am sure you are aware, but the only difference in shape between the 108 and 118 is 3cm length in tail rocker. The mounting spot is in the exact same spot relative to the contact points on the two skis, as is there rocker lines (except the tails being cut a bit shorter on the wider ski).

The biggest difference is the layup - the 118 does not have the same type of hybrid core.

I was told that the taper lines were to subtly change as well with the 108 - but who knows. The layup changes in a #projectgreenwash type move, but I have no idea how that affects the weigth. Time will tell. I am veery curious to know if the camber balance (or rather imbalance) is being changed, or if it remains the same.

I am not surprised that they nix the MF118 - they prob sell 3 pairs a season.

Also, the narrower m pros get reworked to reflect the 108 - new layup and new tail shapes.

I think the Rossi group is doing a lof of sensible changes to good skis for next year.

[WhetherMan]

What camber imbalance? In the 108?

[kid-kapow]

it is there by design to make them loose, together with the deep taper lines.

Most skis have like 5-6cm difference between the mount point to the front and rear contact points respectively, whereas it is 19 (if my memory serves me right) on the M-Free. I think the "instability" of the design is one of the main reasons strong skiers with a centered to forward stance love the MF108 as much as they do - the skis are strong and damp, yet very, very loose.


if you doubt me then just measure it for yourself - it is a very thought out design imho.

[CaliBrit]

Anyone seen m-tour 108’s in the wild. Seems like they might now get issued this year.

[Lvovsky]

it is there by design to make them loose, together with the deep taper lines.

Most skis have like 5-6cm difference between the mount point to the front and rear contact points respectively, whereas it is 19 (if my memory serves me right) on the M-Free. I think the "instability" of the design is one of the main reasons strong skiers with a centered to forward stance love the MF108 as much as they do - the skis are strong and damp, yet very, very loose.


if you doubt me then just measure it for yourself - it is a very thought out design imho.

This is may be the most useful graphic I’ve seen with respect to the skis design. Every damn model in the market should come with one. Source?…

[waxman]

They should just remake the Huge Trouble but with a flatter tip/tail profile.

[WhetherMan]

I don't disagree with any of this. I think calling it an "imbalance" could imply there's something wrong with it, which, as a loyal MF108 acolyte caught my attention. Clearly that's not what you meant.

Yeah, they're strong, damp, loose, but also track quite well considering that looseness and I don't doubt that the unique camber profile plays a role.

it is there by design to make them loose, together with the deep taper lines.

Most skis have like 5-6cm difference between the mount point to the front and rear contact points respectively, whereas it is 19 (if my memory serves me right) on the M-Free. I think the "instability" of the design is one of the main reasons strong skiers with a centered to forward stance love the MF108 as much as they do - the skis are strong and damp, yet very, very loose.

if you doubt me then just measure it for yourself - it is a very thought out design imho.

[mr_pretzel]

They should just remake the Huge Trouble but with a flatter tip/tail profile.

Fucking this

[ASmileyFace]

Anyone seen m-tour 108’s in the wild. Seems like they might now get issued this year.

Haven't seen a single pair come through my shop and I usually see these types of skis early. Maybe we'll see em in stock by the new year?

[waxman]

Fucking this

That ski was made when I still worked for them. Supposedly the only ski to go from design to production with no changes after testing, I always thought with a lower profile tip and tail it would be a category killer.

[TAFKALVS]

Haven't seen a single pair come through my shop and I usually see these types of skis early. Maybe we'll see em in stock by the new year?

I heard they’ll be hitting the US in late December, limited quantities available.

[kid-kapow]

This is may be the most useful graphic I’ve seen with respect to the skis design. Every damn model in the market should come with one. Source?…

Endre Hals of Evi skis makes them for the Norwegian ski magazine FriFlyt. I quite like them - very informative imho.

If you search for a particular model then just add "skitest" (not "ski test") in the picture search in google and there is a good chance that there is one for the more main stream of the more current designs.

I don't disagree with any of this. I think calling it an "imbalance" could imply there's something wrong with it, which, as a loyal MF108 acolyte caught my attention. Clearly that's not what you meant.

Yeah, they're strong, damp, loose, but also track quite well considering that looseness and I don't doubt that the unique camber profile plays a role.

yeah, my bad - I meant with a design that has a biased towards being very loose in soft snow, not as in "not balanced"

[TAFKALVS]

I am sure you are aware, but the only difference in shape between the 108 and 118 is 3cm length in tail rocker. The mounting spot is in the exact same spot relative to the contact points on the two skis, as is there rocker lines (except the tails being cut a bit shorter on the wider ski).

The biggest difference is the layup - the 118 does not have the same type of hybrid core.

I was told that the taper lines were to subtly change as well with the 108 - but who knows. The layup changes in a #projectgreenwash type move, but I have no idea how that affects the weigth. Time will tell. I am veery curious to know if the camber balance (or rather imbalance) is being changed, or if it remains the same.

I am not surprised that they nix the MF118 - they prob sell 3 pairs a season.

Also, the narrower m pros get reworked to reflect the 108 - new layup and new tail shapes.

I think the Rossi group is doing a lof of sensible changes to good skis for next year.

I have both skis. It’s pretty clear that the rocker on the 118 is less, along with the taper being different, and the flex is stiffer. They don’t float like the 108.

[Velomayniac]

I like these better than my Katana 108s

[Norseman]

LEG END

[Velomayniac]

I do not dare take these into big moguls. Leg enders for sure there

[TAFKALVS]

LEG END

I sold my pair with that top sheet for that reason. Couldn’t have that in the back of my mind when skiing.

[detrusor]

I’ll prob be alright since mine are Leg Leg. After taking out the ducroz last weekend I’m keeping a back up pair.

[alpinevibes]

Anyone seen m-tour 108’s in the wild. Seems like they might now get issued this year.

Pilou and ProVallone are rocking the new M-Tour 108 in Lange's new La Grave film:

[Velomayniac]

I’ll prob be alright since mine are Leg Leg. After taking out the ducroz last weekend I’m keeping a back up pair.

Yup. I have a back up, cold-dead-hands pair of MPro 105s. My Leg Ends have 10 years left, and then I got 15 years out of the MPros. I should be set until my legs get old, til my Legs End

[fat yeti]

Question how does the Dynastar Legend 94 ski. It’s older but in mint condition. Looking at this as my low tide ski.
Who’s skied it and what are your thoughts.
Loved legend pros and XXLs also lone Cham 107 and 127.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[shank]

Question how does the Dynastar Legend 94 ski. It’s older but in mint condition. Looking at this as my low tide ski.
Who’s skied it and what are your thoughts.
Loved legend pros and XXLs also lone Cham 107 and 127.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Love the 94s, I still ride them as my game on low tide skis. Much more traditional tail than the chams, but if you can drive a ski with a directional mount they’ll break free pretty easily. They’re not especially exciting, but they’re very predictable and I find them to have more energy out of a turn than pro riders while still managing chop fairly well. I’ve always been surprised they don’t get more shine, honestly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phatty]

Question how does the Dynastar Legend 94 ski. It’s older but in mint condition. Looking at this as my low tide ski.
Who’s skied it and what are your thoughts.
Loved legend pros and XXLs also lone Cham 107 and 127.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I got a pair of 177 Legend 94s in good shape I'm giving away for free in Seattle if anyone wants them. My kids outgrew them and they are sitting in my garage. Don't want to deal with shipping but will be driving to UT/ID in early January and could do a handoff.