The Dynastar Thread

[Hood26]

Took the Mfree99s out for a spin today, and I was really impressed with the suspension on this ski. For as loose and nimble as they are, I felt that they ate chop and bumps for breakfast. Incredible ski.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Is it Soul 7 incredible?

[tgapp]

Is it Soul 7 incredible?

I've sadly never skied the soul7, but I can only imagine how great of a ski it is.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Hood26]

tgapp, thanks for posting on the Mfree 99. I think it will be a better replacement of my former 99s now turned rock skis than the MPro. I will probably be getting pair tool next season.

[ticketchecker]

I also have never had the pleasure of the Soul 7 but can confirm the mfree99 is a solid tool, only had one day in spring like EC conditions and they were close to perfect. Wish I had time to A/B the mPro that day but did not.

[grinch]

Mfree 99 has been a fun ski. Handles everything quite well. Surprising how well it floats and you can ski neutral or push on the shovels and no otb happens. For being a shorter radius ski its still fine with a longer radius turn. In difficult to ski breakable crust and deep slush/semi iso my steeple 102 is still noticeable better

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[comish]

My fears about the wood sidewalls of the LP105's have come true. Clipped a small rock which cracked the sidewall and the edge to pull out. The edge is still in one piece and can likely be put mostly back into place, but man that was slightest of hits. First shop I took it to said to put them on the wall. Argh.

Anyone holding a midget 184cm sized pair of 105's I'm interested. So sad

[Bandit Man]

Had my Mfree108’s out today looking for stashes. They were perfect. I definitely favored my M102’s during the dry spell, but the Mfree’s are so much fun now that winter is back.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

The M-Free 118 189 is such a weird ski.

It is heavy, it has a lot of camber and it is pretty long at 186.something - especially for my diminutive stature.

Yet it is loose as all hell when it gets up to speed, especially when it is steep (where they are about as much fun as a ski can be). And in spite of this it is still fairly powerful, especially for one of my stature.

I had this preconceived notion that it would ski somewhat similarly to BGasym 184s, or rather somewhere between BGasym 184s and Woodsman116 182s - if a bit more ski. As loose as MF108s just a tad more powerful and way more aloaty. This was pretty accurate, yet also kinda completely missed the mark.

My first impression is that they are closer to Woodsman116s (or possibly C+Ds), mostly due to their balance point mounted at +1.5 from recommended and the larger surface area out back. BGasyms still feel more supportive / stiffer overall, where BGasym tails are even easier to controll speed with / flick around. But man, get MF118s pointed downhill in steep fresh - so much fun.

Like, a heavy ass, heavily cambered 189 ski should not be this easy, loose and fun to ski downhill when you are 175cm / 70kg with no detuning, no nothing, but they are / were.

Take the above with a grain of salt - I am one day in here. But so far so good. These must be freaking magical for bigger, more powerful dudes in steep, untracked fresh.

[phatty]

The M-Free 118 189 is such a weird ski.

It is heavy, it has a lot of camber and it is pretty long at 186.something - especially for my diminutive stature.

Yet it is loose as all hell when it gets up to speed, especially when it is steep (where they are about as much fun as a ski can be). And in spite of this it is still fairly powerful, especially for one of my stature.

I had this preconceived notion that it would ski somewhat similarly to BGasym 184s, or rather somewhere between BGasym 184s and Woodsman116 182s - if a bit more ski. As loose as MF108s just a tad more powerful and way more aloaty. This was pretty accurate, yet also kinda completely missed the mark.

My first impression is that they are closer to Woodsman116s (or possibly C+Ds), mostly due to their balance point mounted at +1.5 from recommended and the larger surface area out back. BGasyms still feel more supportive / stiffer overall, where BGasym tails are even easier to controll speed with / flick around. But man, get MF118s pointed downhill in steep fresh - so much fun.

Like, a heavy ass, heavily cambered 189 ski should not be this easy, loose and fun to ski downhill when you are 175cm / 70kg with no detuning, no nothing, but they are / were.

Take the above with a grain of salt - I am one day in here. But so far so good. These must be freaking magical for bigger, more powerful dudes in steep, untracked fresh.

Love to hear it. I love my 191 BGs but have a pair of MFree 118s that I need to get out on. Especially since I'm not in love with my new BG118s.

[kid-kapow]

Love to hear it. I love my 191 BGs but have a pair of MFree 118s that I need to get out on. Especially since I'm not in love with my new BG118s.

MF118s should feel pretty familiar then, especially if you prefer a slightly more progressive mount / balance point. Blister's take on MF118s seem pretty accurate thus far.

On a side note - the main issue with the MF lines as I see it is the lack of lengths / 10cm spacing.

There should def be a mid 180s ski, and possibly a bigger ski than 192 for bigger dudes as MFs ski rather short - even if a 197 length or whatever would probably shift very few units a year.

I also do not understand why the 182 MF99 labeled as a 185 (marketing people should stop claiming extra length - perhaps some female marketeers should be employed?) is their longest offering in that width. Sure, 182s is no problem for me at my height/weight, but what ski is average sized males and above supposed to ski? I could be way off, but if 108s are any indication then 182* MF99s must ski like snowlerblades for bigger dudes.

[SnakeMagnet]

Precisely my problem. I want to get on the 108, but 182 is gonna pretzel, and 192 while still well manageable for me is getting too long for what I want a ski like that to be, which is the perfect tree ski for our snowfall. At my weight it's not going to flex enough and is going to want faster and straighter lines.

And you just know Dynastar is doing that because Rossi's come in mid 180's and they're too scared about cannibalizing, but that's fucking stupid. MBA's are out of touch weenies.

[kid-kapow]

bottom line up front: MF118s are simply fantastic.

Day two: I had them out in good snow (semi dry untracked fresh, through tracked out to sunbaked mostly untracked soft snow) on a bluebird day and man, it is like Permin and whatever engineer(s) he worked with to create these skis asked themselves the question "how can we make a ski that skis exactly like Kid-Kapow wants to ski soft snow?".

The felt a bit cumbersome during my first run on them of the day, somewhat understandably as I skied the first third of the day on Völkl BMT122s with Pivots. But just give them more speed and kablam, hilarity ensues. They are looser than Woodsman116 182s. I do not really get how they can be so stable, yet so loose and so fun to pop off stuff with all at the same time, but they are.

I will refrain from providing more day by day feedback as this kind of stoke posts can get a bit tiring real fast, but still - these skis deserve more hype, they are freaking great.

[Norseman]

[2FUNKY]

Precisely my problem. I want to get on the 108, but 182 is gonna pretzel, and 192 while still well manageable for me is getting too long for what I want a ski like that to be, which is the perfect tree ski for our snowfall. At my weight it's not going to flex enough and is going to want faster and straighter lines.

And you just know Dynastar is doing that because Rossi's come in mid 180's and they're too scared about cannibalizing, but that's fucking stupid. MBA's are out of touch weenies.

Have you skied the 182? “182 is gonna pretzel “ seems as though you have not.

[tgapp]

tgapp, thanks for posting on the Mfree 99. I think it will be a better replacement of my former 99s now turned rock skis than the MPro. I will probably be getting pair tool next season.

okay got like 5 days on mine now and i feel like i can comment a bit better.

1. these skis definitely come alive with speed. so much energy exiting a turn. they definitely are "turny" skis, but still capable of doing bigger turns at speed as well. lots of different shapes with them, but the common denominator is the same - they're kinda boring going slow, so the faster you go, the more fun they are.
2. i have mine mounted at +1cm and they're not great in deep, unconsolidated/3d snow. no surprises here. the forward mount + 99mm underfoot = lackluster performance in deeper snow.
3. i'm sure there are better groomer skis out there, but these are pretty fucking fun on groomers, especially when making short-radius turns at speed.
4. soft chop, moguls, two days post storm - that's where this ski SHINES. so much fun, so confidence inspiring.
5. 185cm (really, 182cm) feels like the right length for me - 6', 150lbs, type III skier. i've never once felt like this ski was too short, but perhaps if you were 200lbs+ and a really hard charger, you'd want a longer ski.

[dcpnz]

^^^ I was initially concerned about the 182 MF108 but now that I’ve got a couple of days on mine I’m with 2FUNKY on this - if you’re not a clyde and not someone who should clearly be on the 192 I don’t think the “182 is gonna pretzl”. Its not super burly but its a fairly stout ski for this size/class and ain’t going to fold on you.

That said I’m not immediately in love with it - two days in what should have been close to ideal conditions for the MF108 and I think I might prefer my Enforcer 110 for where and how I ski. No doubt the MF 108 is stronger and can be skied harder and more of a charger BUT I had a few unnerving almost over the bars moments and found it to plow more than float if I was pressuring front of ski and if I skied more centered I found the tails to be too surfy and wash out. Will probably keep and choose for faster, wider, more open places because that’s when it comes alive but for more moderate speeds, tighter trees on the home hill I’ll pick the E110.

FWIW 5’10, 165, on the line w/ pivots. Think I wish it were a 185/186, zero interest in a 192.

[steveski]

^^^ I was initially concerned about the 182 MF108 but now that I’ve got a couple of days on mine I’m with 2FUNKY on this - if you’re not a clyde and not someone who should clearly be on the 192 I don’t think the “182 is gonna pretzl”. Its not super burly but its a fairly stout ski for this size/class and ain’t going to fold on you.

That said I’m not immediately in love with it - two days in what should have been close to ideal conditions for the MF108 and I think I might prefer my Enforcer 110 for where and how I ski. No doubt the MF 108 is stronger and can be skied harder and more of a charger BUT I had a few unnerving almost over the bars moments and found it to plow more than float if I was pressuring front of ski and if I skied more centered I found the tails to be too surfy and wash out. Will probably keep and choose for faster, wider, more open places but for more moderate speeds, tighter trees on the home hill I’ll pick the E110.

FWIW 5’10, 165, on the line w/ pivots. Think I wish it were a 185/186, zero interest in a 192.

It sounds defective, you should send it to me for disposal.

[Kopi_Red]

^^^Yup. Send those mfree's to steveski. He'll take care of their disposal for you.

[SnakeMagnet]

Have you skied the 182? “182 is gonna pretzel “ seems as though you have not.

Hyperbole. Every other ski I've ran at the low 180's with that much rocker, and shorter skis with more traditional rocker, ski too short. Worth a demo I suppose but I'm not being convinced to shrink my wallet to find out. If you get what I'm saying. I've got 5 inches on pnz here and even he wants it longer than 182.

[NW_SKIER]

Hyperbole. Every other ski I've ran at the low 180's with that much rocker, and shorter skis with more traditional rocker, ski too short.

You know what they say about assuming...

[comish]

^^^ I was initially concerned about the 182 MF108 but now that I’ve got a couple of days on mine I’m with 2FUNKY on this - if you’re not a clyde and not someone who should clearly be on the 192 I don’t think the “182 is gonna pretzl”. Its not super burly but its a fairly stout ski for this size/class and ain’t going to fold on you.

That said I’m not immediately in love with it - two days in what should have been close to ideal conditions for the MF108 and I think I might prefer my Enforcer 110 for where and how I ski. No doubt the MF 108 is stronger and can be skied harder and more of a charger BUT I had a few unnerving almost over the bars moments and found it to plow more than float if I was pressuring front of ski and if I skied more centered I found the tails to be too surfy and wash out. Will probably keep and choose for faster, wider, more open places because that’s when it comes alive but for more moderate speeds, tighter trees on the home hill I’ll pick the E110.

FWIW 5’10, 165, on the line w/ pivots. Think I wish it were a 185/186, zero interest in a 192.

I think what you are describing by pressuring the front of the ski going over the bars or centered the tails washing out is exactly because it is a pretzel. Damn Dynastar for not making more sizes. Seems like a great ski, IF the sizing lines up for you. I know I don't want 192cm, but I also wanted more than 182cm for a ski with that much rocker... I'm 5'9", 160 on the line with Pivot 15's.

[NW_SKIER]

You guys are tripping. I'm 5'10 165 pounds with my gear on, push the ski as hard as possible, and have no issues with "pretzeling" the ski, or not being able to finish a turn due to the tails. I was firmly in the camp of thinking I needed a mid 180's length and was thrilled to be proved wrong. There are better skiers than I on the 182, like mofro, and they also do not complain about what you're saying.

Always gonna be a hater for anything, I guess.

[Bandit Man]

I think what you are describing by pressuring the front of the ski going over the bars or centered the tails washing out is exactly because it is a pretzel. Damn Dynastar for not making more sizes. Seems like a great ski, IF the sizing lines up for you. I know I don't want 192cm, but I also wanted more than 182cm for a ski with that much rocker... I'm 5'9", 160 on the line with Pivot 15's.

You would be fine on the 192’s, especially at Mammoth. My 5’ 9” 155-lbs buddy skied my 192’s and he did fine. He thought they were easier to ski than my 184 K108’s. I know you are a better skier than him.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[Hood26]

You guys are tripping. I'm 5'10 165 pounds with my gear on, push the ski as hard as possible, and have no issues with "pretzeling" the ski, or not being able to finish a turn due to the tails. I was firmly in the camp of thinking I needed a mid 180's length and was thrilled to be proved wrong. There are better skiers than I on the 182, like mofro, and they also do not complain about what you're saying.

Always gonna be a hater for anything, I guess.

I am 580 lbs with gear on and I agree.

[Mofro261]

188 x106, 186 LP 97, 184 LP105, 182 Mfree side view.

The shorter length and less effective edge over the running length can be an adjustment for some, it takes a nuanced stance but still, it's extremely forgiving. I have found that the ski excels whether you stomp on the gas or like to feather the throttle.

But this talk over a couple of inches.... brings me back to listening to Richard Pryor as a kid on cassette tapes. "When your woman leaves you"



"if you had a couple more inches of dick... you'd find some new skis here."