Page 88 of 96 FirstFirst ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... LastLast
Results 2,176 to 2,200 of 2400
  1. #2176
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,660
    Quote Originally Posted by tgapp View Post
    I'm curious, with all the love for the Mfree108, why isn't there any mention of the Mfree99s? I find that ~100mm underfoot is the perfect size for most of my resort days since we don't get a ton of new snow. Are the 99s that different of a ski, or are they similar but the collective just prefers the wider width of the 108s? In my case, I would prefer to trade groomer performance for float, since I have dedicated powder skis that I already love.
    The 99 is new this year and few people have actually skied them.

    For your use case you might be on the right track, but I have no issue with the 108 on edge-able snow.
    Quote Originally Posted by mfcf13 View Post
    The world needs more Donnely and less Stainless.

  2. #2177
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    ahead
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by kc_7777 View Post
    Dynastar siblings pic…..

    180cm Proto @ +2cm (-7cm)

    179cm M-Free 99 @ +1cm (-6.5cm)

    Glad the 179cm M-Free is not “shorter” as I had heard the 185cm size M-Free 99 measures below it’s stated length.

    These two will get lots of use this season (5’7” , 165lbs). Also have Enforcer 104s and Rustler 11s that sit right in the middle of these.

    Attachment 393163

    Attachment 393164
    That's a LOT of rocker on the M-Free 99 - bet it's real fun in tight places. Curious to hear how you like them when putting the pedal down in open terrain.

  3. #2178
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,439
    I just got a pair of MFREE99 and will report my findings here.

  4. #2179
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by VON View Post
    That's a LOT of rocker on the M-Free 99 - bet it's real fun in tight places. Curious to hear how you like them when putting the pedal down in open terrain.
    Ya it almost looks like more rocker than the 118mm Dynastar Proto's?

    The skiessential guys liked it. I'm sure I will too as I like lots of rocker....will report back once I get on it in a few weeks.

    Here's the pics again for reference:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	thumbnail_IMG_3659.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	421.3 KB 
ID:	393849
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	thumbnail_IMG_3657.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	427.7 KB 
ID:	393851
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  5. #2180
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,439
    It has the same rocker as the 108 (which is one of the reasons I think the 108 is so good in pow.)

  6. #2181
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    951
    What is an “mfree 108 tour?” My beast 108s are fine but, despite the fuckton of rocker they’re somehow not as evenly loose as the mfree.

  7. #2182
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,011
    The closest options are probably the Line Vision 108, Moment Wildcat 108, and On3p woodsman tour 110

  8. #2183
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyski View Post
    What is an “mfree 108 tour?” My beast 108s are fine but, despite the fuckton of rocker they’re somehow not as evenly loose as the mfree.
    I’d recommend the Billy Goat 110 tour if you can live without the carving ability of the mfree. It has the similar loose feel but is better in pow and natural funky snow.
    Quote Originally Posted by mfcf13 View Post
    The world needs more Donnely and less Stainless.

  9. #2184
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyski View Post
    What is an “mfree 108 tour?” My beast 108s are fine but, despite the fuckton of rocker they’re somehow not as evenly loose as the mfree.
    An mfree108 with tech bindings?

  10. #2185
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,759
    Quote Originally Posted by The Artist Formerly Known as Leavenworth Skier View Post
    An mfree108 with tech bindings?
    Sounds heavy.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

  11. #2186
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyski View Post
    What is an “mfree 108 tour?”
    I found Woodsman108tours to ski really similarly in soft snow to MF108s. WD108t do not have the same heft, but have slightly stiffer shovels - something I like - though MF108s tails were a tad bit smoother. I expect Woods110tours to ski really similarly to MF108s after their revised core profile (softer tails) - though they are slightly wider out fron/in the back, so a tad less loose (though plenty loose at speed). BG110tours could be a good contender as well.

    I never skied my Wildcat108tours so can't comment on them, but I found the tails on regular wildcat108s to be slightly more supportive than MF108s. Both are fine skis, though MF108s are the loosest in soft snow of the two. I prefer the Wildcat108s stiffer shovels / front ski on hard snow.

    Dynastar should def consider making a touring version of the MF108, though it could be that the lack of mass would make the shape too loose / unstable - I dunno. Def worth a shot eh Dynastar

  12. #2187
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,203

    The Dynastar Thread

    Mounted my 189 Menace PR-OTO 118’s this afternoon. I think the murdered out Armada Warden 13 demos pair well with them. Ready for sharing with friends on pow days.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1637973281.668479.jpg 
Views:	116 
Size:	206.0 KB 
ID:	394159Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1637973291.993704.jpg 
Views:	134 
Size:	219.5 KB 
ID:	394160
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  13. #2188
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,304

    The Dynastar Thread

    Have this same ski. Absolutely love it. So loose. It makes the slide/slarve turn in pow so well:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F7104C30-4F30-4787-8A67-69388B52A4E0.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	206.6 KB 
ID:	394175
    Last edited by kc_7777; 11-27-2021 at 12:49 AM.
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  14. #2189
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,562
    Thinking about some 187 Menace 98s as a low tide ski to complement some 192 MF 108s. How does the Menace do on groomers? Is it exciting to carve on?

  15. #2190
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Thinking about some 187 Menace 98s as a low tide ski to complement some 192 MF 108s. How does the Menace do on groomers? Is it exciting to carve on?
    I like mine a lot. I haven't tried it in comparison to the mf99, but I'm kind of glad I have it instead. The sidecut engages quite a bit, and it's pretty flexible for where you wanna mount it. I did mine forward for a nice round turn, but I know others have mounted theirs on zee line.

    Usable in the park if you wanna go there, good in bumps, I also used it for some touring.
    Last edited by DarthMarkus; 11-28-2021 at 10:13 PM.

  16. #2191
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,660
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Thinking about some 187 Menace 98s as a low tide ski to complement some 192 MF 108s. How does the Menace do on groomers? Is it exciting to carve on?
    there's been quite a bit of chatter about that ski in this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    This is exactly the slot for the menace 98, it's the quintessential playful one-ski quiver with a groomed/low-tide bias. I have 187's mounted on the rearward line (about -7.) It's predictable at any speed, easily makes any turn shape, and will still hook up and rail groomers. The shape is nearly the same as my 186 OG LP, just softened a bit with some rocker so it's a little more easy-going, progressive not floppy, but I haven't found a significant loss in stability over that ski, and they both ski pow well for what they are. Also, inexpensive. I was told by the Dynastar Rep that the 187 has different core materials than the shorter models because "it's the one the athletes ski." I haven't skied the shorter models, but I have no reason to doubt him. YMMV

    I'm a huge ON3P fan, but I've kinda moved away from their narrow offerings. I don't think they excel in low-tide conditions when it's firm and the menace is just as fun in slushy or shallow crud as something with more extreme rocker lines. There was a recent post in the ON3P thread that indicates as much, with an ice-coaster mulling over the idea of going to a 3° edge angle to increase bite on his woods 96. The characteristics that make them excel in 3d snow are working against him, as a result I don't think it's possible to get their skis to hook up on genuinely firm snow, no matter how sharp the edges are.
    Some Aever-talk

    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    I skied today for the first time in over a year, and my first actual confident day on skis since I broke my neck. First day I can really get the feel for ski characteristics. Both the LP105s and Menace 98s are great spring skis for Squaw. They handled different types of snow well.

    I am very surprised by the stability of the 187 Menaces, for price point skis that truly measure 184.5cm.. I love the lack of taper, and they've got a little weight behind them for short 98mm skis. I have them mounted -3.75 from center. I'm using them for park/all mtn type, and I can already tell they will be great for that. Compared to 188 Moment PB&Js, my first real impression is the Menaces are a bit softer, but almost as stable and more playful. Compared to Shreditor 92s or Poachers, these feel significantly more stable but not quite as buttery.

    LP105s were phenomenal in slush. Can't wait to get these out early tomorrow on some harder stuff. I can see myself using these a lot, especially for places/terrain without trees or big bumps. Amazing in spaced out small bumps, a lot of work in big tight bumps. I also haven't skied hard in 2 years though, so they will only get easier. These things are on rails. Them tails are less "slarvey" than those 2015 191 Wrenegade comp skis that ChugachJed has now, as well as Monsters or Katanas. However LPs are not as stable as 191 Head Monsters, they feel more like the Wrens or Katanas in that regard, which is plenty for me. Monsters were overkill most of the time, but I still love them.
    And an interesting take on the new MF99. I must admit I'm leery of the deep rocker lines on a ski under 105mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by waxman View Post
    108 vs 99, it pains me to say it as I was really hoping for a worthy replacement for the Slicer/Menace after what? 14 years? The 108 is one of our most go to skis in demo, most everyone likes it, it is "fun" and does most things well.
    I'm 3 or 4 days in on the 99 and so far it is just average, kind of lifeless (maybe damp because it does shine on groomers oddly enough).
    I've tried the two longest lengths and a couple different mount positions and I can't find the joy.
    The M-Pro 99 is a better ski for the width unless you fell you need rocker etc.
    I am not a flippy dippy jib guy so maybe I'm missing the Free 99s potential there? I've skied 50 odd different skis since New Years and the 99 is middle to low in the pack.
    Quote Originally Posted by mfcf13 View Post
    The world needs more Donnely and less Stainless.

  17. #2192
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Thinking about some 187 Menace 98s as a low tide ski to complement some 192 MF 108s. How does the Menace do on groomers? Is it exciting to carve on?
    Get them, i bought some for cheap least year and they are great. I mounted -5 from center and they've been one of the better ~100mm skis ive been on. Rail groomers really well for a 98 ski, awesome spring ski too, the main reason is they should be cheap so you can thrash them and not feel bad about it. Ive tried a lot of skis in the ~100 range but these just clicked with me immediately and have been above avg - great for everything. The only skis id choose above them in this range if i owned them would be mantras or fisher ranger ti's

  18. #2193
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,562
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    there's been quite a bit of chatter about that ski in this thread.
    Yup, you’re right. I had searched “Menace” but you miss a bunch if you don’t search “Slicer.” Thanks for pulling up those posts.

    I pulled the trigger on the 187s from Corbett’s. I’m excited to try them, but they definitely look about right.
    Last edited by D(C); 11-29-2021 at 12:49 AM.

  19. #2194
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    604
    I had the 181 Slicer Factory (couldn't find a 187) and it carved extremely and surprisingly well.

  20. #2195
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,562
    Day 1 on the 192 MF 108s. Compared to the 182s, they are quite a bit more stable and happier to lock into a turn on groomers. But they are still easy to break loose and can be slid into any shaped turn.

    Mounted on the line, to me, they felt balanced and intuitive. They initiated turns easily, and I never felt like I had too much tip or too little tail.

    I actually think the length is perfect. 192 sounds long, and these have the dampness and stability to go along with a ski that length. But their pop and turn shape versatility makes them quite manageable, definitely in line with a lot of mid-180s skis I’ve tried. I got them in some trees and had no problems skiing them there.

    I had some firm, icy conditions today and these did everything pretty well. It has me thinking I was maybe a bit hasty ordering those Menace 98s. The 192 MF 108s definitely verge on something that could be a one ski quiver.

  21. #2196
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,203

    The Dynastar Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Day 1 on the 192 MF 108s. Compared to the 182s, they are quite a bit more stable and happier to lock into a turn on groomers. But they are still easy to break loose and can be slid into any shaped turn.

    Mounted on the line, to me, they felt balanced and intuitive. They initiated turns easily, and I never felt like I had too much tip or too little tail.

    I actually think the length is perfect. 192 sounds long, and these have the dampness and stability to go along with a ski that length. But their pop and turn shape versatility makes them quite manageable, definitely in line with a lot of mid-180s skis I’ve tried. I got them in some trees and had no problems skiing them there.

    I had some firm, icy conditions today and these did everything pretty well. It has me thinking I was maybe a bit hasty ordering those Menace 98s. The 192 MF 108s definitely verge on something that could be a one ski quiver.
    Thanks for taking the time to share your impressions. Agree with everything you said. I’ve never had mine in very firm or icy conditions (we had 600” last season) so glad to hear they held their own.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  22. #2197
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    'sconsin
    Posts
    11
    Scrounged up a pair of creamsicle orange 184 LPRs from the garage of a Chicago dentist, not sure what he was doing with them in the first place but I'm excited to have way too much ski to rip 300 ft midwestern vert thanks to this thread for the years of dynastar stoke that got me to this point.

    Lots of archived threads on how to keep wood sidewalls in good condition on new-ish skis (consensus seemed to be dry them out after use and don't fuck with them too much), but any input from gear hoarders on what to do if you're acquiring them in semi-beater shape? I think they lived a previous life as rentals out west and while there's no obvious cracking or weak points to my eye the rental shop belt sander has definitely taken off a fair amount of the outer layer of wood in places. Apply preventative epoxy? Respect the wisdom of my forebearers and don't fuck with them? Thoughts?

  23. #2198
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by lemon_head View Post
    Scrounged up a pair of creamsicle orange 184 LPRs from the garage of a Chicago dentist, not sure what he was doing with them in the first place but I'm excited to have way too much ski to rip 300 ft midwestern vert thanks to this thread for the years of dynastar stoke that got me to this point.

    Lots of archived threads on how to keep wood sidewalls in good condition on new-ish skis (consensus seemed to be dry them out after use and don't fuck with them too much), but any input from gear hoarders on what to do if you're acquiring them in semi-beater shape? I think they lived a previous life as rentals out west and while there's no obvious cracking or weak points to my eye the rental shop belt sander has definitely taken off a fair amount of the outer layer of wood in places. Apply preventative epoxy? Respect the wisdom of my forebearers and don't fuck with them? Thoughts?
    I used to build wood sidewall skis. I usually would touch up any wear spots with tung oil once they were completely dry. I was planning on doing the same with my new dynastars.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #2199
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,439
    GWAT, Waxman and any other old school Dynastar collectors - can you tell me more about these skis I just picked up? They are 190s, seem to be around 100mm underfoot and are marked with some kind of rental serial number. The top sheets say "Extreme Line - Big Powder". They flex pretty stout. Big, long tips. The limited info I found about them seems to indicate they came out mid-late 90s as a pow ski for heli ops, much like the explosive, pow plus, etc. The skis are nearly flawless, including the bindings. Thinking they got skied very little and only in pow.

    Are these like Explosives for Dynastar aficionados? Do they suck? Should I mount Forza's on them and ski them?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132731.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	396035
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132737.jpg 
Views:	116 
Size:	1.08 MB 
ID:	396036
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132740.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.21 MB 
ID:	396037

  25. #2200
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,203
    Quote Originally Posted by The Artist Formerly Known as Leavenworth Skier View Post
    GWAT, Waxman and any other old school Dynastar collectors - can you tell me more about these skis I just picked up? They are 190s, seem to be around 100mm underfoot and are marked with some kind of rental serial number. The top sheets say "Extreme Line - Big Powder". They flex pretty stout. Big, long tips. The limited info I found about them seems to indicate they came out mid-late 90s as a pow ski for heli ops, much like the explosive, pow plus, etc. The skis are nearly flawless, including the bindings. Thinking they got skied very little and only in pow.

    Are these like Explosives for Dynastar aficionados? Do they suck? Should I mount Forza's on them and ski them?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132731.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	396035
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132737.jpg 
Views:	116 
Size:	1.08 MB 
ID:	396036
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211209_132740.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.21 MB 
ID:	396037
    Those are the original Big. I sold those the last time I worked in a shop way back when. IIRC, Olympic skier Tommy Moe had some connection to that ski (but my memory is fuzzy). Didn’t suck, but I never skied a pair. I jumped on the 4x4 Big bandwagon that was a descendant of that ski.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •