The Dynastar Thread

[TAFKALVS]

Looks like an MPRO 108. Which is a really surfy in the tip, with a flatter tail. You ski it in the tip not the middle of ski like an Mfree

[2FUNKY]

Looks like an MPRO 108. Which is a really surfy in the tip, with a flatter tail. You ski it in the tip not the middle of ski like an Mfree

My thoughts as well.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

How do you get to that?

Well the mfree118 is -9 and then I guessed😂

Can you measure?

[Andyski]

Looks like an MPRO 108. Which is a really surfy in the tip, with a flatter tail. You ski it in the tip not the middle of ski like an Mfree

So, as a touring ski, would require more “on it” skiing style vs a more chill mfree shape, yeah?

[shank]

Yeah - haven’t been on mp108s yet but all the feedback here and elsewhere indicates no issues releasing the tail with a directional stance on the ski - assuming the tour 108 matches that ski’s design brief I’m sure it’ll ski well with burlier boots and pressure through the cuffs, but not really looking like a great candidate to be skied with upright race boots and a centered stance

[TAFKALVS]

So, as a touring ski, would require more “on it” skiing style vs a more chill mfree shape, yeah?

I don’t think so, I think it’ll be a fairly chill ski.

The MPRO108 is quite friendly, it’s not that much more demanding. It’s just the ski wants a little more tip pressure. You just can’t be full BSB and expect it to slash a pow turn. But they are surfy and playful in their own way. Very different animal than the old Mfree.

[TAFKALVS]

Yeah - haven’t been on mp108s yet but all the feedback here and elsewhere indicates no issues releasing the tail with a directional stance on the ski - assuming the tour 108 matches that ski’s design brief I’m sure it’ll ski well with burlier boots and pressure through the cuffs, but not really looking like a great candidate to be skied with upright race boots and a centered stance

Just mount it +1 I bet it will be fine.

[2FUNKY]

Again, echoing TAFKALVS. The Mpro108 can be skied centered just fine. It will get loose easily. Not as poppy and playful as the mfree but can slarve a turn nicely. More upright boots gel with +1. Never found them to hang up in weird snow either. Pro’s have a higher speed limit than the mfree. Ski chop at speed different.
The mtour judging by shape would seem to ski similar to the pro. But who knows until they click into them.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Va Ki Bo]

78.5 cm straight pull from tail. Ski measures out at 185cm. So -14!

Ouch, no more questions)
Thanks!

[TAFKALVS]

If you’re skiing a ramped AT boot with a dynafit binding with 10 - 20mm ramp, I would expect a more rearward mount to feel less crazy than an upright alpine boot plus a neutral alpine binding would.

All I’m saying is I wouldn’t be afraid to mount a little forward if you’re used to a more forward ski, but if your AT combo is ramped to hell like most setups are, a rearward mount might be less weird than you think.

YMMV and I haven’t skied the mtour108 or seen one in person.

Sander Hadley seems to ski them a lot, maybe get his input on mount?

[CaliBrit]

Well the mfree118 is -9 and then I guessed[emoji23]

Can you measure?

Haha literally measured in the post above. -14cm.

[Jong Lafitte]

OK thanks for the awesome feedback to everyone!!

Have you detuned the edges?

No. I usually don’t mess too much with that, but, the issue wasn’t in 3D stuff, do it anyway? How far from the tip/tails would you go?

Get the tune right first. Then self flaggelate.

This. Then worry about the length. Might be fine after a tune

So the tune when I got them seemed fine. Seems fine now too, no worrisome spots yet. The edges are sharp and I assume they went 1/1 or 2/1. I was hoping that an “every man’s “ tune would be all I’d need. I freehand most of my skis except those blizzards do use a guide to get a 3 deg side edge.

Are you suggesting to try a different edge bevel, or just make sure that the tune is good? It seemed fine re sharpness and flatness.

hm, first thought - the tune sounds off. Second - do the bindings have too much forward pressure creating a dead space underfoot?

MF99s grip fine for what they are and should not be punishing to ski, especially if you drive the front of the ski (the tails should be loose as a goose then). You could also experiment with going +1 to see if that helps a bit - I preferred my 185 (181.5s) theres.

Clamps check out to the correct forward pressure. The tune was done at the shop, it looked fine and felt fine, I suppose it could be off. Disappoint because I’d kinda thought I’d save a bit of cash (or time) by not needing to fuss with the tune out of the box, so to speak. Changing the bevel isn’t something I presently have the best setup for.

I tried to be front seat but my muscle soreness indicates backseat more often than I’d like to be. I’m wondering about the mount point too, thanks for the tip. I was thinking if I messed with it I’d try + first.

“They felt super loose and like I was not engaging the edge under foot or something like that.”

The bases sound “base high” along with possibly too large base bevels. Bet they are that way underfoot which give the feeling of skiing on marbles and you’re constantly trying to adjust stance to try and stay in balance. Opposite of confidence inspiring and thats why they would be tiring to ski.

Stone grind to flatten the bases and reset the base edge bevels down a bit and then try them out again. Would probably take about 12 plus passes on a semi auto machine or 3 plus flattening passes on a fully auto machine to correct most similar base issues.
Just went through this with my set of new Rossi Sender Free 110 and I measured them before tuning and didn’t look that bad. Transformed after a stone grind.

Something I hadn’t thought of but a Quick check with my super accurate acrylic scraper shows the bases nice and flat. They put a nice structure on there and they seem flat all the way up and down. Interesting that your rossis passed the initial measure test too though. Something I’ll def keep in mind thanks.


Anyhooo….

Any merit to the theory that these are just stiffer than the rest of my quiver and I need to just adjust my skiing to it? I know they aren’t stiff compared to other skis but the hand flex shows them stiffer than my Praxis BC and the Lattigo, which are my other non-deep day skis and I haven’t tried anything else in years. Maybe I’m not finding the personality of this ski right away.

Not discounting the tuning aspect. Almost everyone went right there. The obvious stuff checks out though.

I think I’m going to try them again with no changes and take better mental notes about what’s going on. Edges seem sharp, bases seem flat, since when is 6cm the difference between glory and misery? (In recreational skiing, that is.)

They are quite lovely in the trees and bumps but my out of shape ass needs to cruise groomers too. I could probably go old school windshield wiper and be ok.

Any other thoughts totally appreciated thanks so much so far everyone!!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TAFKALVS]

Can you send a video of you skiing them on a groomer? Maybe in a separate thread. No judgement

[D(C)]

After my 182 vs 192 M-Free 108 back-to-back experiment, I came away thinking the 192s might be more versatile mounted ahead of the recommended line. Curiosity got the better of me and I remounted at +1.5 cm.

I had the skis out last night in far from ideal conditions (night skiing, one run open on small, crowded terrain, local mountain). I need to use the skis a bit more, but got a bit of a preview of the effects. As you'd expect, the remount made turn initiation easier at low speeds. In slow, sliding turn initiation, the tips bite sooner and are less likely to get away from me. In big carves at higher speeds, I felt I needed to back off the tips a bit more. Mounted on the line, I could ski very forward and the skis would respond. It now feels possible to overpower the front of the ski.

In the little bit of bumps and tighter terrain I skied, I felt like the skis were maybe easier to slide around, in that the tips would bite more easily. But there is always that tradeoff when mounting forward of getting better tip control but having tails that are unwieldy. I need to get more time on the skis to know if I've crossed that line. But I suspect I've moved away from the strengths of the 192s as a ski that can be driven hard, particularly since I already own the 182s, which feel more intuitive than the 192s mounted forward as a nimble ski. My general impression is that, mounted forward, the 192s sit in a middle ground, still feeling somewhat cumbersome and not being overly playful, while reducing overall charginess.

I'll report back after some proper days (if I get any with the terrible season we're having), but there is a decent chance I end up going back to recommended. And I think I would recommend the 182s mounted on the line over the 192s mounted forward for someone looking for a more nimble ski.

[TAFKALVS]

I like them at -1

[kid-kapow]

Sounds like they rubbed some shit on the old graphic. Lol

behold le shit!

Source:
The brown parts are translucent and shows the core.

and the new m-pro 100

and m pro 94


found by sanhendrin over at NS

[Gnar_Shralp406]

Got on the MPro 108 and the new 112 at a recent demo event. 112 was a fun, drive from a centered upright stance, and slash around kind of ski. Felt solid on edge through chop and carved well enough on the groomed stuff. Seems more similar to the Sender free 110 than the MFree 108.

The M-Pro was instantly a favorite of mine. Reminds me of my Sender Squads in suspension and ease of skiing with a high top end. I think I'd really like the 192 at +2.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[TAFKALVS]

I’ve been skiing the Mfree108 since it came out, and the 192 Mpro108 for the last couple of years.

I’ve been wanting to try the 182 Mpro108. I wanted a ski that could still be skied fast and hard, but also could ski more slowly especially low tide conditions with lots of sticks and stuff poking out.

I’m 5’ 10” and 200lbs. I like traditionally mounted skis. I tend to drive through my shins. I have been described as not having any freestyle chops.

Picked up a pair recently, for science.

I have loved the 192 Mfree 108. But there are many situations where I notice the tail, especially in tight spots. I don’t need it.

I’ve been skiing the 192 mpro 108 primarily and the more traditional mount really gels for me. But that ski also creates a time warp when I’m on it. Which is awesome when I’m skiing with the BVC boys but when I’m just cruising with the wife it’s not the best match up.

Got day 1 in, and initially it seems really promising.

It feels stable as the 192 Mfree but in a shorter more nimble package with out the extra trail dragging around. Interestingly if you put the mount side by side with the 192 Mfree it’s the exact same amount of tip but less tail. Good tip float, I couldn’t sink em. 13” or so of snow stacked up over the last week. Conditions were a mix of chalk, and stashes of boot top pow.

Tail isn’t as loose or slashy as an Mfree in deeper snow but the missing extra length makes up for it. Requires more of front of shin driving technique, not as tolerant to a more upright stance. I’m fine with that.

Could be be the perfect dd for me… can ski almost as hard/fast as the 192 mpro but also dial it back and ski with the wife too. Way more comfortable in the really tight stuff. Gonna keep skiing them and see if they continue to gel.

Is it the 187 Mfree108 everyone wants? Well, if you’re a traditional skier, it might fill that slot. If you’re a jibber type person like 2funky who is spinning off stuff you might still want an Mfree108.

[2FUNKY]

You change ski ideas like a women changes her mind….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You change ski ideas like a women changes her mind….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I’ve been saying that for years…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ticketchecker]

If anyone has a dyna pro access all the mFree and Pro stuff is discounted further


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[Mulletizer]

I've been using the M-PRO 108 as a daily driver for the last 20 days or so. 182, mounted +1. Here's my take:

This ski is way more forgiving than I expected from the reviews I read. It's happy to ski across the fall line and to ski slowly, and doesn't need huge input to drive the ski (but goes even better if you load it up). Not a ski that works well from the backseat but, at the same time, it won't kick your arse if you do get in the backseat. I was expecting these to be like a Head M103 but with a softer tip (the M103 punishes deviation from the fall line and whoops the arse of anyone who gets in the backseat) but this ski is way more approachable/less punishing.

Not found a speed limit yet. Tips flap around a bit at speed but that doesn't affect stability or edge hold. They ski fine at low speeds but I find they are more fun when skied fast. Pretty damp on most snow so they don't take loads of energy to ski either.

Feels like a longer ski on hardpack. I was very surprised by the edge hold for such a short contact length - great even on very hard surfaces. Easy to smear to shed speed, doesn't hook up in the turns. Actually really fun in hard, smooth snow for GS to SG turns.

Tips are very bendy. This makes the skis very floaty (way more than I expected) and they surf beautifully if you put them on edge in powder. Really fun in pow. BUT...

I find the soft tips really affect how they ski in cut up snow; fine if it is cut up pow, but as soon as things get a little heavier and more tracked I find that the bendy tips lead to a lot of deflection off course. Maybe seems worse because it has been way too warm here the last few weeks so there's been a lot of heavy chop. Anyway, I expected to be able to centre my weight (forwards/backwards) on these skis and charge through any cut up snow but that's not really the case, they get bounced around a lot. They aren't awful but I was expecting the weight of the ski and its stiffness underfoot to translate to something way more stable in the chop. When compared to the skis I've used most in the last few years (Sanouks with tech bindings and 4-buckle rando boots - a very soft ski and boot combo, albeit very damp; and M103s with Pivots), these are - unexpectedly - the least stable for charging through cut up snow.

Mount: I'm running Lupos (fairly upright) and Pivot 15s (pretty flat) so I felt the ski would benefit from a slightly forward mount. Happy with +1. I was concerned that it might affect float in powder but that hasn't been an issue (probably due to the bendy tips and tip rocker).

Length: I would have bought the 192 if I'd been able to get it for the price I paid for the 182. No regrets about being on the 182 after a few weeks though. As above, they feel like they have a longer running/edge length than they do. And the shorter length makes them a little turnier and more maneuverable. Fun skis, would buy again. Eyeing the M-Tour 108 now too.

[phatty]

If anyone has a dyna pro access all the mFree and Pro stuff is discounted further


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Dang, I didn't need you to tell me that. All this talk of the MPro has me debating.

[nickwm21]

BUT...

I find the soft tips really affect how they ski in cut up snow; fine if it is cut up pow, but as soon as things get a little heavier and more tracked I find that the bendy tips lead to a lot of deflection off course. Maybe seems worse because it has been way too warm here the last few weeks so there's been a lot of heavy chop. Anyway, I expected to be able to centre my weight (forwards/backwards) on these skis and charge through any cut up snow but that's not really the case, they get bounced around a lot. They aren't awful but I was expecting the weight of the ski and its stiffness underfoot to translate to something way more stable in the chop. When compared to the skis I've used most in the last few years (Sanouks with tech bindings and 4-buckle rando boots - a very soft ski and boot combo, albeit very damp; and M103s with Pivots), these are - unexpectedly - the least stable for charging through cut up snow.

Thanks for the review - I’m interested if anyone can echo this negative. Were you undersized with the 182?

IMHO - It’s unacceptable for this ski to not shine in crud / chop.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

I have not skied them enough to give more than 1 cent so take the following with a grain or three of salt.

I find that they ski tracked out variable well - the ski is pretty damn stable and smooth underfoot and back, if perhaps not able to smash through everything in sight up front. I kinda think that the solution is to stay forward and let the tip absorb and have the tails make everything smooth again - not ski them more centered relying on the ski to soak everything up - if that makes sense. Or said differently, to let the tails work like an rudder keeping you on the line whilst the tips flap around a bit more all while under your active controll. These descriptions might make more sense in my head than in the real world though.



I swapped the bindings from Forza 2.0s to FKS18s because why not. They match even better. And yeah, I find that the back half of the ski is seriously smooth on shitty (variable to icy to scraped off to soft to whatever and so on) groomers - impressively so. I am not sure if they are the m free 108 187 some want, but it is a very good ski imho.

TAFKALVS - for science! I applaud your willingness to experiement for the common good