2022 Dynastar Teaser

Stev

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Posts
580
Here is a quick mini-review of the Dynastar M Free 108 in a 182 length.
Instead of doing a demo first, I just went ahead and bought a pair based on having a positive experience with other Dynastar skis along with many of the comments in this thread.
Today was my first day on these skis. I went up to Heavenly and was able to find a wide variety of conditions. The day started out a bit firm, but it warmed up quickly. I felt comfortable on these skis right away. All I needed to do was put the skis on edge and they would do any turn shape at any speed. Not only were they stable going fast, but they could do smooth turns at slow speeds as well. They seem to have a big sweet spot and would stick through a turn whether I was forward or centered on the ski. I was also impressed with how well the ski would easily glide through many of the long traverses at Heavenly (was it the base of the ski, the Hertel Hot Sauce wax I used, or both?)
The ski performed well in all of the following conditions: Firm groomers, softer groomers, mank, creamed corn, moguls, chalky snow, good crud, chop, steeps (I took runs in both Mott and Killebrew Canyons) and I even did a hike up to a north facing leftover powder stash which confirmed that these will likely thrive in powder.
They inspire confidence and I'm looking forward to skiing these more in the future.
Going ahead and getting these skis has given me buyers rejoice.
 

PowHog

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Posts
124
Location
Eurozone
Yes, a 188cm MFree 99 that was 2150g with a 20m radius would be bought instantly too!
This! I found my own sweet spot length wise exactly there and I'm only 5'9" by now.

An M Free in a length right in between the 182 and 192 would do the trick. The folks at TGR reviewed and debated the M Free extensively in the Dynastar thread and consensus there seems to be that only the 108 in the 192 length really excels whereas at 99 underfoot the M Pro is currently the better ski. They also agreed that they ski short, probably due to the extended rocker on both ends.

Dynastar seems to have stiffened up the big length over the shorter ones, can anyone confirm?
 

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
1,508
Location
Ontario, Canada
This! I found my own sweet spot length wise exactly there and I'm only 5'9" by now.

An M Free in a length right in between the 182 and 192 would do the trick. The folks at TGR reviewed and debated the M Free extensively in the Dynastar thread and consensus there seems to be that only the 108 in the 192 length really excels whereas at 99 underfoot the M Pro is currently the better ski. They also agreed that they ski short, probably due to the extended rocker on both ends.

Dynastar seems to have stiffened up the big length over the shorter ones, can anyone confirm?
I’m 6’2”/175 and skied the 2 MFree 108 lengths back to back over a year ago in Alta. I noticed a big difference between the 182cm and 192cm MFree 108 in stability/power with the 182cm version far more playful/surfy and the 192cm version more of a playful charger.
Same thing with their Menace 98 where the longest 187cm length was much heavier and more of a charger vs the 181cm version.

Was going to buy a 192cm MFree 108 this Spring but decided to try the 2021 184cm Candide 3.0 and it honestly reminds me of the 192cm MFree 108 in a more friendly length for the tight moguls and trees I enjoy. Doesn’t ski like it’s 112mm width at all and carves insanely well.

If you’re a traditional skier, the 186cm MPro 99 is going to be more stable, damp and have better edge grip vs the 185cm MFree 99. MFree 99 looks like a riot in the trees and bumps if you’re a lighter or more playful skier though. Lots of rocker on any of these skis so they all ski shorter.
 

D(C)

Dan
Skier
Joined
Apr 5, 2021
Posts
2
Location
North Vancouver
I’m 6’2”/175 and skied the 2 MFree 108 lengths back to back over a year ago in Alta. I noticed a big difference between the 182cm and 192cm MFree 108 in stability/power with the 182cm version far more playful/surfy and the 192cm version more of a playful charger.
Same thing with their Menace 98 where the longest 187cm length was much heavier and more of a charger vs the 181cm version.

Was going to buy a 192cm MFree 108 this Spring but decided to try the 2021 184cm Candide 3.0 and it honestly reminds me of the 192cm MFree 108 in a more friendly length for the tight moguls and trees I enjoy. Doesn’t ski like it’s 112mm width at all and carves insanely well.

If you’re a traditional skier, the 186cm MPro 99 is going to be more stable, damp and have better edge grip vs the 185cm MFree 99. MFree 99 looks like a riot in the trees and bumps if you’re a lighter or more playful skier though. Lots of rocker on any of these skis so they all ski shorter.
I had a day on the 182s and decided the 192s would be a better call for me, so I pulled the trigger on a pair. The 182s were a ton of fun on the smaller local hill but I felt like the 192s would be a bit happier at Whistler, where I normally ski. Also, sounds like the 192s are only 8 cm longer than the 182s in tip to tail length, which is good.

I had the 182s mounted on the recommended line and I thought they felt great there. Should I mount the 192s on the line as well? I come from a race background and like to drive the tips, but the skis will spend a good amount of time in the trees, so I still want the 192s to feel loose, tempting me to mount them a bit forward.
 

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
1,508
Location
Ontario, Canada
I had the 182s mounted on the recommended line and I thought they felt great there. Should I mount the 192s on the line as well? I come from a race background and like to drive the tips, but the skis will spend a good amount of time in the trees, so I still want the 192s to feel loose, tempting me to mount them a bit forward.
The 192cm rec mount is actually about .5cm back further from center vs the 182cm rec mount, so I would go plus 1cm for your size on the 192cm. Would be a hair more playful but still could drive the ski.

Check the base flatness and tune(1 degree base/2 side) on the 192cm as there seems to be hit and miss tunes from the factory like many skis. Detune ABOVE the widest portion of the tip/tail taper only. Lots of edge high bases or uneven base bevels on TGR causing some to incorrectly detune and hamper the performance of that ski.
 

D(C)

Dan
Skier
Joined
Apr 5, 2021
Posts
2
Location
North Vancouver
Thanks! That’s helpful. From the info I’ve seen:

182s measure 181.5 tip to tail. Recommended mount is 83.0 cm from the tail = -7.75 from centre (= 45.7% forward of the tail).

192s measure 189.25 tip to tail. Recommended line is 86.25 cm from the tail = -8.4 cm back of centre (= 45.6% from the tail.

So it seems Dynastar kept the tip/tail length ratio constant between 182 and 192.

That said, I wouldn’t have wanted to be any farther back on the 182s, and with the 192s being more ski, going 1 cm forward could be the call.
 

anders_nor

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Posts
796
Location
on snow
my m-free 108, 192cm came with 1 front side sharp, 3 dull edges :p

I did also have issues with slow bases, hope some more work on them has sorted that, bases to look very very good graphics wise, but maybe fast & black should have been the thing.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,475
Love the graphic !!!!!**











** on a kitchen countertops. not so much on a ski...
I've a pretty high tolerance for graphics and would have no shame about buying a ski with uzi clown vomit at the right price but what is wrong with the dynastar and rossi graphic artists - marble doesn't have the classy impact they think, it's just 50 shades of meh.
 
Top