2024 Dynastar M-Cross 88

[SkiTalk Test Team]

​

Andy Mink
Where Tested: Brighton, UT
Conditions tested in: Frigid firm chalk groomers
Size: 176cm, 135-88-117, R14

With a tip shape that is reminiscent of the M-Pro and M-Free, the M-Cross at first glance may put visions of long rocker in your head. That's not the case, as the M-Cross has camber that runs almost full length with just a bit of rocker at the low rise tip. I found the ski to be very versatile, not only as a strong groomer ride but also in the piling bumps we encountered at Brighton. At first I thought the low rise of the tip might be a detriment in the bumps, but the ski's flex and rise come together to make it easy.

On the firm groomers the short radius, longer effective edge, and Dynastar's Hybrid Core 2.0 join forces to make for a really entertaining, planted, strong turning ski. The M-Cross isn't lighting edge to edge but it is pretty quick for an 88mm ski. While the Hybrid Core 2.0 is Dynastar's continuing foray into responsible manufacturing and material use, the green effort does not impact its skiabililty in a negative way.

The 86-90mm waist range is a hotly contested and crowded segment in the industry. The M-Cross steps in as a heavyweight contender in the middleweight class.

Insider tip: The M-Cross skis pretty true to length; no need to size up like in the M-Free and its shorter wheelbase.​

One thing I would change: Time to move on from the counter top/birch bark motif.​

​

Long Term Update (5/1/23) The Tahoe area, as we're all aware, was blessed with a lot of snow this winter which, in turn, leads to a lot of snow for spring skiing! Mt. Rose had some really good spring conditions at the end of April, just in time for the area to close for the season. Not knowing what to expect as some of the days the snow SHOULD have been soft, it wasn't, I grabbed the Dynastar M-Cross 88s knowing they held well on the firm conditions I skied them on in Brighton. Two days, two no worries. Soft creamy snow, breaking up mashed potatoes, even some early morning scratchy stuff let the M-Cross prove its mettle.

The tip with its rise rode effortlessly through the softer snow and bumps while the relatively flat tail allowed the skis to hold strongly on firmer snow. There is just a small flip up at the tail that also allows for easy movement through the bumps. I found the 88 to be very comfortable to ski no matter where I chose to be on the ski. It can be driven at the tip, ridden in the middle, or played with on the tails. The short 14m radius made for some seriously fun carving in the spring snow. After one or two tentative turns didn't drive the tip into the snow I opened them up and just had a great time. The rise in the tip that performs so well in the bumps also floats enough to keep the front of the ski up while the belly, camber, and tail do their part to provide the power in the turn. On melty, sun baked snow the skis just cruised. I would like to try the next length up but it may take away some of the quickness that proves enjoyable in the 176. I don't hesitate to say I skied better in these spring conditions on the M-Cross than I have in past years. That may not be a particularly high bar to hurdle but it is a shout out to the wide band of capabilities this ski possesses. Has Dynastar built the perfect spring snow ski? That's a personal choice, of course, but the M-Cross 88 should be swaying a lot of skiers to give it a shot.

​

Tester: Philpug
Location: Utah/Tahoe (Long term test ski)
Conditions: All
Size: 176cm
I don't recall when Dynastar last had a winner in this mid to upper 80 mm range of a ski, maybe the Legend 88? Well, they have a solid stand up triple with the new Cross series and I wil explain in a moment why it is not a home run .. at least not in this testers eyes but a solid stand up triple. Dynastar has been holding on to their elongated tip design tightly with both hands for years but this is the first time I have seen a slight wavering from it with the all new M-Cross 88 and its about time.

I really like the new tip direction on the M-Cross, while it is still a gradual design, it has more flair in shape which is a departure from the M-Pro and M-Free collection along with prior generations. This change creates more turn in and a reactionary turn shape which for me, makes the ski a ton more fun than even the M-Cross's big brother, the M-Pro 90. OK, why a triple and not a home run? Well, for me sizing. An 88 mm ski that has size breaks of 176 and 184 in the core/reference sizing, is either a half size or or down for me. I just prefer an 88 mm ski to be in the 178-180 cm lengths, and that is kinda sorta the industry reference, again right wrong or indifferent, it just me. I know quite a few skiers who will prefer these offered lengths. But, I will reserve complete judgement until I get to ski the M-Cross in the next size up. Expect a long term review in the Fall when the 184's are produced.

Tester: Rudi Riet
Where Tested: Waterville Valley, NH
Conditions tested in: Dust-on-crust, groomed machine made, boilerplate
Size: 176cm

Having an 88mm variant of the M-Cross is a winner for Dynastar. This ski basically does everything fairly well. Want to carve some long, high edge angle turns? It's game. Want to smear some short radius stuff? Fine. Need to adjust trajectory, releasing a carve and resuming it? OK! I thought a 176 would be a little too short for me but it hits a sweet spot in terms of turn shape versatility, which is key in the east where the trails are narrower and more strictly dictate where you need to go.

This width is a tough one to get right for typical eastern mixed-bag conditions (read: refrozen surfaces and boilerplate ice) but the M-Cross manages to find a sweet spot. If the surface is onlyboilerplate I'd look elsewhere, but if the day presents a mixed bag of surfaces and trail options this ski is certainly up to the challenge. It exceeded my expectations - well done, Dynastar.

 

[DerKommissar]

So, what does this ski do to the Mpro 85 in the lineup? Is there any reason to get the 85? This seems like a better, more versatile overall ski.

 

[Andy Mink]

So, what does this ski do to the Mpro 85 in the lineup? Is there any reason to get the 85? This seems like a better, more versatile overall ski.

Personally I'd grab the M-Cross for the conditions I generally see, which is usually a bunch of snow followed by a streak of no fresh. We ski chopped up left overs for days and I think the the Cross is more suited to that than the Pro. The Pro is good at off piste but more happy on. The M-Cross is also a bit better when we do get that 6-10" of fresh that's not quite Utah quality.

 

[Philpug]

Long term update 1/1/24: Low snow ... old snow ... snow guns a blazing with man made and lets also toss in some terrain that wasn't groomed. What skis to choose ... and also I didn't know any of what I jsut wrote before I put skis in the car. So, why did I choose the M-Cross 88 today? It was a while since i was on the M-Cross 88seemed like the right thing to do and boy was I right. The M-Cross was did everything I asked of it in every one of those variable condtions and overall I was impressed byt the ski that I previously felt was too short and I was in between sizes on, I usually ski an 88 is a 180-ish and before I felt that the 176 was a bit short and in the conditions that were beinf skied that is where that shortcoming would rear it's ugly head but maybe the M-Cross grew a bit over the summer ... I know I did.

 

[MarkG]

I spent yesterday cruising Alpine Meadows, mixing groomers, baby slushy forming bumps, trees and just whatever tickled my fancy. Sometimes finding fun little technical problems by cutting traverses. It was a blast.

Did it on a Laser AX, which I thought was almost perfect…i frankly was hoping for bigger bumps. Another option could have been an MFree 99 (formerly of pugski/skitalk demo fleet fame.) I love that MFree ski btw.

then I thought do I need an 88 for days like that? Let’s say a 80% off piste but bomb the piste when you have to kind of ski? Is this it? Or is there just too much overlap with an 88 and specifically this one?

this sounds like a great option BUT DO I NEED IT?