The Dynastar Thread

[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...

[CaliBrit]

I know shit about any of the other dynastar skis, but the 118 is an amazing ski. If you have a history of liking damp fast heavy skis that somehow float, smear, pivot. This is your huckleberry.

[phatty]

I know shit about any of the other dynastar skis, but the 118 is an amazing ski. If you have a history of liking damp fast heavy skis that somehow float, smear, pivot. This is your huckleberry.

I have the Factory Proto 118 (gray/black/orange) and it's my 2nd favorite powder ski behind my BGs. They can do everything you want from a powder ski. Plus you can find them pretty cheap.

[TAFKALVS]

So, skied yesterday morning on the MF 108, 182 length..

You should try my 192s, sent you a PM.

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

The 192 is the magic length if you're an average TGRite. I would say if you are > 5'9" or 150lbs you should consider the 192. Its like an ON3P 189 anyways. Also, Bandit, you should really get your hands on an Mpro108...

Anybody got a lot of days on the MPro 108?

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

Yeah, I've almost exclusively skied it since last spring. The more I ski it, the more I like it. Haven't reached for my LP105 or the Mfree108 since. Have skied pretty much every condition including powder. Once I adjust back to skiing properly (un-mfreeing myself) I can't get enough. They are fall-line chargers that also carve and float. Super fun ski. A few pages back I posted a review.

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.

Personally the Mfree108 and the X106 are more related... the Mpro108 is more a modern XXL or LP105. They are not slarvy slashers. They are a fat GS ski with modern tip rocker and a touch of tail rocker. You need to get forward on them and not lean back trying to slash. The tail is perfect imho, total stomp machines with enough suspension in the front to smooth things out. But they ski big, you gotta give them input.

[shroom]

if anything I wanted a damper tip on the pro 108. also wanted to ski them in soft snow and play with a detune.

[kamtron]

Nice to see a >100 mm touring ski here. Looks sweet

[GoldMember]

if anything I wanted a damper tip on the pro 108. also wanted to ski them in soft snow and play with a detune.

Having skied the MFree 108 the other day, and now after reading TAFKALVS past review of the MPro 108; and having both MPro 99 (Schweitzer ski) and MPro 90 (Mt Spokane ski), I'm really curious about the MPro 108. TAKFALVS has offered that to me and I'll likely take a turn on those (Thanks!) but I'm a little spooked by the 192 length. He outweighs me by 20 lbs (and is younger....) and my 99s are 178s, which I love, so the longer length seems like it may be too much. The MFree 108 I skied is 182 and seemed short so I'm flummoxed as to what the ideal length might be....thinking about 186 would be where I'd want to be....but, I'll find out!

I'd like to get a sense on the dampness, too. I like a damper, stiffer ski with good energy and I think this may be the answer but need to try them. My 90s are fine for Mt Spokane, the 99s are a better ski; damper and more stable in crud, so my thinking is that the 108 is even more so and that's a good thing. Anxious to find out.

[Climber Joe]

Having skied the MFree 108 the other day, and now after reading TAFKALVS past review of the MPro 108; and having both MPro 99 (Schweitzer ski) and MPro 90 (Mt Spokane ski), I'm really curious about the MPro 108. TAKFALVS has offered that to me and I'll likely take a turn on those (Thanks!) but I'm a little spooked by the 192 length. He outweighs me by 20 lbs (and is younger....) and my 99s are 178s, which I love, so the longer length seems like it may be too much. The MFree 108 I skied is 182 and seemed short so I'm flummoxed as to what the ideal length might be....thinking about 186 would be where I'd want to be....but, I'll find out!

I'd like to get a sense on the dampness, too. I like a damper, stiffer ski with good energy and I think this may be the answer but need to try them. My 90s are fine for Mt Spokane, the 99s are a better ski; damper and more stable in crud, so my thinking is that the 108 is even more so and that's a good thing. Anxious to find out.

For next year the Mpro 108 comes in a 182 length.

[kid-kapow]

The MFree 108 I skied is 182 and seemed short so I'm flummoxed as to what the ideal length might be....thinking about 186 would be where I'd want to be....but, I'll find out!

I would be very surprised if 182 M-Pro 108s would not ski significantly longer than 182 M-Free 108s. Their effective edge is way longer, without seeming to be too much ski. Also, the back half of the ski should be way more supportive than MF108s from a construction standpoint alone, so I would not sweat it overly much if you want to size down. There will still be lots of ski in front of you due to their mount point.

So, it seems to me that if you enjoy 178 M-Pro 99s then 182 M-Pro 108s should be the ticket to charging heaven if you want to stay aboard thee Dynastar train

I was very pleasantly surprised by a pair of 182s I fondled in a local store. I would have considered getting a pair if the mount point was a bit more progressive and the terrain I usually skied had more elevation changes / longer runs. MP108's shape and flex pattern are very very interesting imho.

[GoldMember]

For next year the Mpro 108 comes in a 182 length.

I would be very surprised if 182 M-Pro 108s would not ski significantly longer than 182 M-Free 108s. Their effective edge is way longer, without seeming to be too much ski. Also, the back half of the ski should be way more supportive than MF108s from a construction standpoint alone, so I would not sweat it overly much if you want to size down. There will still be lots of ski in front of you due to their mount point.

So, it seems to me that if you enjoy 178 M-Pro 99s then 182 M-Pro 108s should be the ticket to charging heaven if you want to stay aboard thee Dynastar train

I was very pleasantly surprised by a pair of 182s I fondled in a local store. I would have considered getting a pair if the mount point was a bit more progressive and the terrain I usually skied had more elevation changes / longer runs. MP108's shape and flex pattern are very very interesting imho.

I'll try the 192 because it's available to try..but, yeah, I think 182 MPro 108 is probably the right length. I think in the MFree, 186 would be better than what I tried the other day. Having said that, Mofro went through an adjustment to his 182 but I'm bigger than he is.

[2FUNKY]

I'll try the 192 because it's available to try..but, yeah, I think 182 MPro 108 is probably the right length. I think in the MFree, 186 would be better than what I tried the other day. Having said that, Mofro went through an adjustment to his 182 but I'm bigger than he is.

The 192 mfree108 is not unwieldy at all. Maybe try both the pro and Free in 192. The 192 Free would be my choice for you as you will be using for a pow ski from reading your replies. The Free is more playful from my discussion with TAFKALVS but it will still absolutely charge contrary to what a couple peeps think, I think that is mainly pilot error. The Pro sounds killer as well and I will be stepping into TAFKALVS pair or another mags if/when they show up.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[D(C)]

Even with the M-Pro and M-Free 99, the M-Pro was what I thought I wanted for a ski in that category. But there was rarely enough space to let the M-Pro run to its full capabilities in less than ideal conditions, and I am enjoying the M-Free much more. They can be pushed super hard but the shape/rocker makes them way more fun and versatile.

[kid-kapow]

The 192 mfree108 is not unwieldy at all. Maybe try both the pro and Free in 192. The 192 Free would be my choice for you as you will be using for a pow ski from reading your replies. The Free is more playful from my discussion with TAFKALVS but it will still absolutely charge contrary to what a couple peeps think, I think that is mainly pilot error. The Pro sounds killer as well and I will be stepping into TAFKALVS pair or another mags if/when they show up.

yup - sound advice / take.

192 M-Free 108 is a pretty damn capable ski that happens to be loose and playful at the same time, not the other way around. I mean, Reine still uses them on the FWT, so if they are capable enough for the mayor of stomp town, then they are no slouch (provided his pair is stock).

[GoldMember]

^^ Thanks for all the input, guys. I think the only way for me to truly know what's best for me is to give them a go and see what rings my bell. I think the 192 Pro is probably going to be a bit much, due to my love for the 99 in 182. Going into it with that in mind, it'll be interesting to see how they feel.

[shroom]

lean in!

[shank]

If you grab the 182 pro 108s please report back! I'm on the fence between lengths too and I think we've only heard feedback on the 192s.

[GoldMember]

If you grab the 182 pro 108s please report back! I'm on the fence between lengths too and I think we've only heard feedback on the 192s.

I won't be grabbing anything until next season but, if I believe what I feel on my existing skis and follow the Dynastar size chart, 182 is the correct length for me. I'm 5'11" and 175 lbs, if that helps.

[californiagrown]

but it will still absolutely charge contrary to what a couple peeps think, I think that is mainly pilot error.

How do you find is best to charge hard on the MFree 108s? Get over the front and get em up to speed? Stay nuetral try to get high edge angles? take advantage of their looseness and playfulness to be extra agile through the rough shitty stuff? IME they dont hold me back from "charging", they just arent the kind of ski that rewards you for skiing faster through rough shitty snow.

I find they struggle on setup chop and refrozen (but not rockhard) day old rubble. Previous skis i considered good chargers became noticeably more damp and stable the faster and more fall line i skied- E.g. get over the front, get em up to speed and let them smooth the shitty snow out. I find the MFrees get bucked around by the bumps, and the tips seem weirdly catchy in the heavy snow piles.

[phatty]

How do you find is best to charge hard on the MFree 108s? Get over the front and get em up to speed? Stay nuetral try to get high edge angles? take advantage of their looseness and playfulness to be extra agile through the rough shitty stuff? IME they dont hold me back from "charging", they just arent the kind of ski that rewards you for skiing faster through rough shitty snow.

I find they struggle on setup chop and refrozen (but not rockhard) day old rubble. Previous skis i considered good chargers became noticeably more damp and stable the faster and more fall line i skied- E.g. get over the front, get em up to speed and let them smooth the shitty snow out. I find the MFrees get bucked around by the bumps, and the tips seem weirdly catchy in the heavy snow piles.

I agree with you. On west side, set up snow, the energy return will buck you around. They do better when you stay on edge, but I lay off the speed when it gets chunky with the heavier snow. The MPro or LP105 would be way better in that regard. Still one of the best skis around, but that's its one weakness that I've found.

[2FUNKY]

How do you find is best to charge hard on the MFree 108s? Get over the front and get em up to speed? Stay nuetral try to get high edge angles? take advantage of their looseness and playfulness to be extra agile through the rough shitty stuff? IME they dont hold me back from "charging", they just arent the kind of ski that rewards you for skiing faster through rough shitty snow.

I find they struggle on setup chop and refrozen (but not rockhard) day old rubble. Previous skis i considered good chargers became noticeably more damp and stable the faster and more fall line i skied- E.g. get over the front, get em up to speed and let them smooth the shitty snow out. I find the MFrees get bucked around by the bumps, and the tips seem weirdly catchy in the heavy snow piles.

First off, they are not a Monster 108, nor do I want them to be. My stance is ball of foot with pressure on the ski just in front of the binding, stacked. Lay off the tip pressure or they will flex up to much. Lay them over and stand on them. They like to be on edge through chop and up and over instead of steamroller. These are not scalpels. They want to play over the shit snow. Pop of the top, knees loose, set an edge and rail through the shit snow. I had them in 18” of medium density chop a couple weeks ago and had a smile on my face while raging through it. Carve, pop, carve slash, rinse and repeat. If you tail gun or outrigger you’re gonna have a bad day. Not directed at you CG.
Again, these are not Monster 108’s, the cream of chop destroyers, nor do I want them to be as they are more fun on the rest of the mountain but I have no issues charging very hard on them.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[chewski]

How do you find is best to charge hard on the MFree 108s? Get over the front and get em up to speed? Stay nuetral try to get high edge angles? take advantage of their looseness and playfulness to be extra agile through the rough shitty stuff? IME they dont hold me back from "charging", they just arent the kind of ski that rewards you for skiing faster through rough shitty snow.

I find they struggle on setup chop and refrozen (but not rockhard) day old rubble. Previous skis i considered good chargers became noticeably more damp and stable the faster and more fall line i skied- E.g. get over the front, get em up to speed and let them smooth the shitty snow out. I find the MFrees get bucked around by the bumps, and the tips seem weirdly catchy in the heavy snow piles.

This was also my experience. Clearly 2funky can do it but back to back skiing these skis against 3+ other skis over multiple days showed me unquestionably that it's less work to do so on lots of other skis. 18" of any kind of snow is still a lot of newish snow, and for that depth i was also pleased with the mf108, but as stuff got beat down into 3-9" of piles that then sat for a while... it was doable but not a pleasure. I know people ski this at an incredible level on the mf108. I bet they could do it on a lot of other skis in the same conditions

[Climber Joe]

Just in case someone really wants to like the Mfree but doesn’t like the 182 or the 192, the 186 Nordica Unleashed 108 is everything I wanted the Mfree 108 to be and then some. I’m torn between the Fischer Ranger 108, and the Unleashed 108, but they both kick ass compared to the Mfree 108. I haven’t been on the 182cm Mpro 105, but I don’t want a 192cm, and I really like everything about the unleashed.

[2FUNKY]

Yup, Way too many good skis out there to be on some thing you don’t like. If a certain ski does not fit you well then move along and get a ski that does!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[D(C)]

I’ve just never gotten along that well with most more traditionally-shaped skis at Whistler. Once the snow is skied out, there’s no blasting though it, and I find I can charger harder on a ski where I know I can vary turn shape and throw it sideways. Feeling like I’m on a runaway train does not make me want to ski faster. I’m a fan of rocker and taper, combined with a heavy weight and stiffer flex.

[mn_teleswede]

Just in case someone really wants to like the Mfree but doesn’t like the 182 or the 192, the 186 Nordica Unleashed 108 is everything I wanted the Mfree 108 to be and then some. I’m torn between the Fischer Ranger 108, and the Unleashed 108, but they both kick ass compared to the Mfree 108. I haven’t been on the 182cm Mpro 105, but I don’t want a 192cm, and I really like everything about the unleashed.

I hear you. I really wanted the Ranger 108, but was able to “settle” for a pair of mfree 108’s. First world issues