Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 72 of 72
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Very much looking forward to this crappy commentary

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    40
    I can post my quick review of them. I wound up getting the new (yellow) Beast 108 in 188cm. Mounted with Hagan Core 12 Pro with freeride spacer.

    Ski: Beast 108, 188cm
    Binding: Hagan Core 12 Pro with brakes and freeride spacer
    Weight: ~2000g (single ski and binding)


    I only have one real touring day on them. The rest are exercise laps at the local hill.

    Skiing:
    Conditions - few days after storm put a few inches down. Warm. Top few inches softened up nicely for some really good skiing.
    I really enjoyed the beasts. They prefer a more centered stance than other skis and they held up to speed well for their stiffness and weight. If you want to consistently go mach looney you may want to look for a stiffer ski but it seemed like the beasts hit a nice balance of playful and stiff. Finished up with the day with some tighter turns down a chute and then gully and they and was able to make different turn shapes to adjust to the terrain.

    Skinning:
    Conditions - Softer warm snow and some glazed/icy skin track.
    The soft warm snow had no issues with grip (as I would expect). The glazed/icy track caused me to slide a bit. Seemed like my previous skis that had a longer camber profile performed better on the icy track than these, but I threw the ski crampons on and was rolling no problem.

    I will update as I get more time on them. But initial assessment is they seem to hit a good sweet spot of between chargey and playful feeling. The construction seems pretty solid with the wood core and full sidewalls (part of the reason I got them cause my last pair of skis didn't last as long as hoped).

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Thanks for throwing up some notes!

    Any similar skis (or dissimilar, for that matter) you can compare to?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by WhetherMan View Post
    Thanks for throwing up some notes!

    Any similar skis (or dissimilar, for that matter) you can compare to?
    Let’s see comparing to things I’ve skied more recently:

    1. Black Crows Corvus: Corvus are stiff and want you to be on top of them. They can pivot but you’re driving through the front of the boot a most of the time. Feel like they need a lot of speed and space to come alive. The beasts are softer, require a centered stance, and pivot quickly underfoot. Because the beasts are softer they do better in deeper snow and require less speed to make them do what you want them to.

    2. Voile HyperCharger: Great backcountry ski. They require a more forward stance than the beasts and are definitely more of a carver. The beasts want you to be centered and pivot around more. Float seems comparable? This is what I had before the beasts. I like them both. Just different skiing style for each.

    3. Atomic Bentchetlers: Skiing stance is pretty similar here IMO. Both want a centered stance. Bentchetlers are obviously more playful and will float better. They are similar in that the tails of the Bentchetlers and the beasts won’t whip you if you get back seat, but the beasts do have the stiffer tail.

    Probably a random assortment of skis for comparison, but hopefully that’s helpful haha.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by powderdetective View Post
    Let’s see comparing to things I’ve skied more recently:

    1. Black Crows Corvus: Corvus are stiff and want you to be on top of them. They can pivot but you’re driving through the front of the boot a most of the time. Feel like they need a lot of speed and space to come alive. The beasts are softer, require a centered stance, and pivot quickly underfoot. Because the beasts are softer they do better in deeper snow and require less speed to make them do what you want them to.

    2. Voile HyperCharger: Great backcountry ski. They require a more forward stance than the beasts and are definitely more of a carver. The beasts want you to be centered and pivot around more. Float seems comparable? This is what I had before the beasts. I like them both. Just different skiing style for each.

    3. Atomic Bentchetlers: Skiing stance is pretty similar here IMO. Both want a centered stance. Bentchetlers are obviously more playful and will float better. They are similar in that the tails of the Bentchetlers and the beasts won’t whip you if you get back seat, but the beasts do have the stiffer tail.

    Probably a random assortment of skis for comparison, but hopefully that’s helpful haha.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Awesome, I love the random assortment, haha. It helps. I should just go demo them already

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Compared to the prior model from Winter 19-20, its wood core has been weight-optimized again (less 100 grams) and a totally new topsheet was developed. The topsheet ensures less snow accumulation on the ski with nano technology and thus helps keep weight down. Developers have focused on downhill performance: Full ABS sidewalls and the ash wood core ensures edge grip and stability plus torsional rigidity. Nevertheless, this ski at 1,660 grams (at 181 cm)
    I’m kinda intrigued by the 188 beast, and any real world beta on the current version.
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    777

    Dynafit Beast 108?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0226.JPG 
Views:	56 
Size:	1.26 MB 
ID:	405232

    Finally tracked down a set of these. On my way to try a couple of runs, but at first glance, these seem to be the ski I’ve been looking for. Claimed weight for these is 1660 gms for the 181 cm size. The average weight of this set was 1550 g.
    Will post some thoughts after a weekend of touring

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Feldkirch
    Posts
    34
    I really like this ski, while it doesn't blow me away in any of its characteristics, its balance of performance has made it my go to ski for a few years now (if i can only take one ski to the mountains and have no idea what to expect this is definitely in the car)

    It's light enough for 1000m tours, stiff enough to charge and grip hard snow while having just enough reverse camber to break the tails out in almost any snow. Plus if it is super gloppy up there, the ski is light enough to pop up and swivel. If it wasn't so expensive (and in my opinion ugly) i think we would see a lot more on the hill as it ticks a lot of boxes.

    For info, as I understand it, the yellow version is a couple of mm flatter than the old red version to the point that the center is basically flat. Also i think it will be the last version derived from the old Chugach as the "Free" comes out this year and is a completely new ski.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rossland BC
    Posts
    1,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt D View Post
    I really like this ski, while it doesn't blow me away in any of its characteristics, its balance of performance has made it my go to ski for a few years now (if i can only take one ski to the mountains and have no idea what to expect this is definitely in the car)

    It's light enough for 1000m tours, stiff enough to charge and grip hard snow while having just enough reverse camber to break the tails out in almost any snow. Plus if it is super gloppy up there, the ski is light enough to pop up and swivel. If it wasn't so expensive (and in my opinion ugly) i think we would see a lot more on the hill as it ticks a lot of boxes.

    For info, as I understand it, the yellow version is a couple of mm flatter than the old red version to the point that the center is basically flat. Also i think it will be the last version derived from the old Chugach as the "Free" comes out this year and is a completely new ski.
    I thought the Beast 108 is a completely new ski, required after the Chugach molds burnt in the Fischer factory fire?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    I thought the Beast 108 is a completely new ski, required after the Chugach molds burnt in the Fischer factory fire?
    The yellow Beast 108 is still Chugach mold but with camber instead of reverse.

    The new Free 107 is orange and black and completely new.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    I posted in another thread about how much I’m liking my 188 2022 beasts. Super versatile, more dampness and edge hold than some other skis in this 1600 g category. Skied fine in mid-thigh pow, and I think some of my 115 mm skis (GPO UL, …) will get less use now. Tail isn’t particularly stiff, ski is designed for a relatively centered stance. Main characteristic that jumps out at me is that it feels comfortable with med or short radius turns…versatile…and a few times I threw them sideways to dump speed on a pow day in trees & they just felt intuitive. Skied them with F1s and Transalp Pro; not surprisingly, the laterally stiff and fwd progressive flex of the TP was a better match.

    Should mention that pretty much all my AT skis are 190-194 cm. I’m usually disappointed with 188 or shorter but the beasts are fine in that length.
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    I have a 2021 Beast 98 and my main complaint is the tail doesn't sink enough skiing steep pow. That's about it.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,455
    Any more feedback on the newer yellow Beast 108? I found a great deal on a pair in 173 and while its shorter than I'd like for a ski that fat I'm wondering if I could make it work. I'm 145lbs, and sized down to 170-173cm skis for touring this season and don't miss the extra length, but my other touring skis are 82 and 97mm underfoot.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    Any more feedback on the newer yellow Beast 108? I found a great deal on a pair in 173 and while its shorter than I'd like for a ski that fat I'm wondering if I could make it work. I'm 145lbs, and sized down to 170-173cm skis for touring this season and don't miss the extra length, but my other touring skis are 82 and 97mm underfoot.
    I think you’d like it a lot. Probably pretty similar to that WD110 you’re selling

    A little less loose and a little bit lighter and a much better skin system.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,455
    Thanks Jongiest. Yeah the WD110 seem perfect, the only reason I’m selling is that I weigh 145lbs and the vast majority of my touring is in very tight terrain and I’ve been enjoying shorter skis more than I thought I would. If someone buys my WDs I’ll probably buy the shorter length but even 177 seems overkill for me (blasphemy I know)

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Now that I have quite a few days on them, I want to reinforce what PD said: “ If you want to consistently go mach looney you may want to look for a stiffer ski but it seemed like the beasts hit a nice balance of playful and stiff. Finished up with the day with some tighter turns down a chute and then gully and they and was able to make different turn shapes to adjust to the terrain. ”.

    It’s not a Mach looney resort ski, it’s an interesting BC ski that seems to manage the usual tradeoffs better than most. The progressive stance and slightly loose tail makes it far more versatile (trees, steeps) than my 192 zeroG 108s yet the dampness and torsional stiffness gives some of the powerful feeling of those GS oriented but much heavier zeroGs. Compared to the current zeroG 105s, the Beast has an overall power and crud busting advantage, and floats more with wider dimensions….but adds over 200g per pair.

    Locally we have a particular ridge skin track that involves steep tight switchbacks hemmed in by rock faces. If you ski longer boards, a fwd mount makes this easier, but the trade off can be tip dive depending on the snow in the bowl. The Beast kills it on this tour.
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,455
    Just got some… psyched

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    Just got some… psyched
    Awesome. I noticed that the SteepandCheap price didn’t come up in Google shopping, but the listing on backcountry.com did (for $70 more).
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,455
    Anyone have thoughts on the mount point for the new Beast 108? I read a comment on wildsnow from Gary Smith (rip) who said he liked the new ones better at -1cm but said he hadn't found the ideal spot yet.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    Anyone have thoughts on the mount point for the new Beast 108? I read a comment on wildsnow from Gary Smith (rip) who said he liked the new ones better at -1cm but said he hadn't found the ideal spot yet.
    I think mine are at -0.8.
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,455
    Skied my new Beast 108s 173 length this weekend. Got the short length pretty cheap, would have preferred the 181 but I think these will work well. Mounted em -2cm (around -9cm from true center) to compensate for the short length. The skis are a ton of fun. The mount point lines up with my other skis, and they feel very stable and damp. The skis are pretty much exactly what I wanted - they can be skied hard but aren't too heavy, and are super easy to pivot in tight spaces. Skied them with the Skorpius in mixed spring conditions and they felt great.

Posting Permissions

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