Dynafit Beast 108?

[ahparker]

Basically new to TGR forums, but used them for some solid research and to buy boots in the past, so thanks for that.

Been doing some digging and haven't seen much of anything regarding this ski, and only a bit on it's predecessor the Chugach. Anyone have any impressions of this thing? Basically looking for something with a bit more heft and more "fun" to ski to compliment my BD Helio 105. On paper the Beast 108 sounds awesome, but also open to other suggestions in that weight class for a fully rockered ski (I think fully rockered, but open to suggestions). I say the Beast because I've got a line on them. I basically tour 95% of my ski time and out am of the Pacific Northwest. Currently on the Helios and BD Amp, but the Amp is far too heavy for my touring tastes anymore. Thanks in advance for any advice!

[XavierD]

Lots and lots of rocker. I was hoping for a wider Beast 98, and this wasn't it.

[ahparker]

I take it you don't care for the full rocker then? Any comment on stability (I know that's kinda dumb to ask on a full rockered ski), weight, stiffness etc? Thanks.

[HotSchmoo]

Dead thread revival.
Anyone been on the Beast 108? Looks like the 194 is actually 109 underfoot.
26m sidecut & a smidge over 8.5# so appears to check alot of boxes for me at least on paper. Want a lightish ski for touring but not too light. 188 would work for me ok too but prob a bit too short. They've been out for a year now and haven't read much about them good or bad. Wondering about longterm durability of a dynafit ski.
Other somewhat similar sticks i've been looking at:
Blizzard Zero G 108
G3 Synapse 109--I was all primed to pick these up this fall but they sold out.
Atomic Backland 107-109
G3 Seekr 110
G3 Sendr 112 This is about as wide as i'd want to go.

The Blizzards seem highly thought of but maybe a bit more high performance than i'm looking for. Since it's based on the Coshise it also makes me wonder about it's pow abilities since the Cochise doesn't seem to do so great in that regard.
Seekr 110 seems sweet and damn light (maybe too light) but shorter radius than i really want.

Really looking for thoughts on the Dynafit but if ya'll can make any comparison with these others, thanks.

[garuda]

I have a pair of beast 98s and have found them a very good all around touring ski. A friend has the chugach, which was the heavier, earlier iteration of the beast 108. He likes them but the full rocker does require a centered, balanced approach. Out of your list, the Zero G 108 would be the most edgy and traditional feel, I believe. I had some for a couple years and sold in part because for a ski that wide I wanted a bit more relaxed and playful feel. Based on my experience with the 98, I'd say the beast 108 would be a nice pow touring ski that is easy to ski, and easy to make any turn shape, and pretty light.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Check out the 2019 (non Freebird) Black Crows Corvus 108. It’s rocketed, flat underfoot, fairly light at 2000grams in a 188 and pretty stiff.

https://www.black-crows.com/eu/fr_en/product/corvus/


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Why not Ravens? People love those things.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[doebedoe]

Moment Wildcat 108

[truax]

Why not Ravens? People love those things.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

Second this. (Currently trying to talk myself out of a pair)

[HotSchmoo]

Both versions of the Corvus are indeed interesting! Hadn't seen these, thanks for the rec'. A bit tight on the sidecut and not especially light though. Just checked the specs on backcountry and it actually looks like the freebird version is heavier? I'm not super familiar with Black Crows but thought the freebird skis were the (lighter) touring versions? Anyone who owns these skis can verify weights? Backcountry is only giving weight for one size.

[HotSchmoo]

Ravens are interesting and i'd love to try them, but they've got a long-ass sidecut and skinnier than i wanna go. The Blister review on the newer ones is interesting in that they say the ski isn't really demanding. Pretty much the opposite i've found, at least for skinnier skis with long sidecuts.

[HotSchmoo]

Wildcat tours look like a great ski, but is in the full pow ski width for me. Especially in the 190 @ 118 underfoot. 184'd be too short, I'm a big dude. 188 is the shortest i really care to go. And that'd be for a spring skinny ski.

I'm in the process of revamping the touring quiver and so starting with a 107-112 under foot daily use type ski. Trying to keep it at more 107-110 so the bigger pow boards would be around 116-120. Current fatty pow touring ski is Praxis Protest UL core so workable but finding them wider than i really need. Eventually get a new hard snow-springtime ski around 90-95 i think.


Faaack, i just realized you were talking about the 108 version of the Wildcat. Those do indeed look damn nice.


Anyone else actually skied the Beast 108. I know, i know. Not a typical TGR cool kid ski.

[HotSchmoo]

doebedoe i'm half surprised you didn't also suggest the Meridian tour considering the full rocker like the Beast and waist width.
Meridian tour looks almost perfect actually. Full rocker, good mid-twenties sidecut, looks like a great ski just a little too heavy and too short.

[Shredly von Whiplash]

i have both the 88 tour and the 108 beast - they are both 182 i think - that is a good size for touring for me - i don't feel like they have a ton of rocker compared to say a bentchetler (which i have) or a rossi s anything (i have the fat ones i cant remeber what they are called and have skied on them all) to me they feel about the same rocker wise as a qst 106 a touch more rocker but jsut a touch.... they ski fine but i prefer the tour 88's if conditions allow (prob because i can ski those with fun light boots). im pretty impressed with both these ski's but im focussed on getting around nimbly more than huckin spines or whatever. i also had coomba 104's in a 186? and the beasts are much less damp and more nimble - most striking thing about the ski is that they feel if anything slightly undercambered. perhaps thats the shorter length tho.

[ahparker]

So I ended up going with the Beast 108 and I gotta say I'm pretty psyched on it after 1 season. Seems to hit a sweet spot in the weight to fun department (not sure the exact weight but I think the 188s I have are like 1850 or so?). I mounted with Speed Radicals and ski them with TLT6P's. The full rocker profile is really subtle and I'm finding it super easy to ski and playful etc, but then I lay it over and it holds an edge really well. I will say the lack of camber doesn't produce that springy edge to edge feel, but not really why I bought it. I basically only tour, but did get some resort turns in on them. No experience with the other skis on your list, but I was also looking at the Synapse 109, basically ticked all the boxes for the shape and weight I wanted and I'm very happy with the Beast 108. I'll be pairing it with something more traditional in the 95 under foot realm for a 2 ski quiver. Let me know if you have any more specific questions.

[HotSchmoo]

Nice.
How are you finding the full rocker while uphilling?

[ahparker]

I haven’t had any issue with it so far, but I’ve had generally good conditions. The tail rocker is so subtle I don’t think it’ll be too much of an issue, still plenty of contact. I had one bullet day out on upper reaches of Mt Hood that required ski crampons, but literally everyone that day either had ski crampons or had to switch to booting with crampons, so that was a bit of an anomaly.

[ahparker]

Also note that I’ve only got about a dozen days on them, so take with a grain of salt.

[Andyski]

I've got 6 touring days on 181s, 2 insane pow days, 1 springy slushy day, 1 deep/wet day, 1 6" on crust day. Mounted with Dfit Verticals, skied with TLT6Ps 2x, Lange Freetours 1x, Vulcans 2x. I'm 5'8", 140 w/o gear. Mounted on the line.

Digging these so far. I'll take a photo later, but Xavier is obviously right about the rocker tonnage.

Let's get the skinning thing handled up front: I haven't been on many very steep or glazed skin tracks yet, just some short sections of steep and none of them frozen hard. Haven't had any issues on the steeper stuff, likely because i'm paying a ton of attention knowing I don't have as much surface area on the snow, which is nice. I have, however, had a couple times (literally 2) where a ski/skin would just totally fail to stick and slide back seemingly out of nowhere on mellowish pitches, which is not nice. Too early to know if this is an issue with the ski or skin or human.

Skiing: They ski pow as well as a fully rockered, 107 underfoot ski should. They plane quickly and are loose enough but not crazy pivoty - they go where you point them. Sweet spot seems fairly big - not Protest big, but in that neighborhood. Got both forward and back too much on weary legs this weekend and didn't get killed for it.

They have WAY more energy out of turns that I've experienced in flat camber skis - was super fun to bounce around in pow this weekend.

In the luge track exit, they were weirdly fun due to the small effective edge - could blast down fast and wiggle around while pressuring the front of the ski.

The 22m radius is definitely smaller than I'd like - 25-30 seems ideal for this kind of ski. So, basically a Raven, but got these instead as I got a smoking deal on them. It hasn't really bothered me so far. There have been a few times when coming in hot and putting the full brakes on where they whipped around a bit faster that I thought, but detuning the edges a bunch seemed to have mostly mellow this out. No twitchiness or hooking in good snow.

Haven't been able to ski them in truly weird snow or crusts yet to test that out.

They were good in the spring slush, too. It's still a lightish ski, so not revelatory there, but pretty smooth and fun.

On the deep/wet day (the type where you have to straight-line or follow tracks to get real momentum to turn) I was wishing deeply for the Protests, which make that sort of fun. Buddy on Lotus 124s was clearly having more fun than I was. Felt bogged down and having to ski from the heel. Not shocking for that width in that snow on that mellow a pitch.

They were insanely fun on back to back long pow days this past weekend with the TLT6Ps (w/Plug liner). What an amazing kit for the weight. Apparently next year's will be even lighter, so I'm glad I have this year's. The amount of mass seems perfect for me.

[whatsupdoc]

Nice review Andyski. These are piquing my interest with the moderate weight, full rocker, and no too much taper. These type of skis tend to do well in poor bc snow in my experience.

Any chance you could throw up a rocker profile shot?

[Andyski]

[whatsupdoc]

Nice, thanks.

[volklpowdermaniac]

To those with the beast, wondering if 181 will be too short, found an insane deal on a pair, I’m 5.'9 but 190-200, alpine skis range from 184 mantras, 186 bodacious, 189 automatic 109, 190 magic J, current tour is 184 DWT which seems size right, but not jiving with, 188 beast seem too big for a touring ski, and yet 181 maybe too short? I’m kind of fat sooo

[galibier_numero_un]

Shameless plug. If 181 works for you, I have a pair I'm selling for my buddy (not skied but with plugged holes): https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-(Never-Skied)

I get the sense you want a longer ski (since you like 189 Automatic 109s), but just in case ...

... Thom

[ASmileyFace]

To those with the beast, wondering if 181 will be too short, found an insane deal on a pair, I’m 5.'9 but 190-200, alpine skis range from 184 mantras, 186 bodacious, 189 automatic 109, 190 magic J, current tour is 184 DWT which seems size right, but not jiving with, 188 beast seem too big for a touring ski, and yet 181 maybe too short? I’m kind of fat sooo

The 181 would probably be too short for you. Been out on both the 181 and 188, back to back groomer runs. It was pretty obvious to me that the 181 would be way to small for me. I'm 6' 175ish and the 181s felt like snowblades in comparison to the 188s. I typically ski stuff in the 184 to 189 size range.