New Dynastar midfat

Anyone had a chance to fondle/test the new midfat Dynastar, 85 mm, 16 mm taper, same construction as the MR and LP? Curious because seems to overlap with the MR, unless either that's getting a bump up in width or this is targeted at different user. 

 

Wow. That really is in the iM88 territory, then. But with quicker-looking specs. 

Dynastar Legend Sultan 80, Sultan 85, Mythic Rider and Big Dump.

Looking forward to trying the 85. Like the MR, but the 85 has a slightly more sidecut which might make it more fun on the groomed.

 

I've skied the Sultan in a 172 and I think it certainly different than the Mythic although not necessarily stronger. The MR is pretty stiff and has a straight sidecut making it a stellar crudbuster. The Mythic is also a ski that needs some muscle to bend at slower speeds although the shape allows pivoty turns easily. The Sultan feels entirely different. It has a lighter more playful feel yet has equal or better grip. I'd actually compare the Mythic more to a Head 88 than I would the Sultan. Keeping the short size in mind, I think the Sultan is much more nimble feeling than either the Head or the Mythic. I don't know the long term future of the Legend line but I think the MR and Sultan are targeted toward different tastes. As always, waist width does not tell the whole story.

 

I would characterize the Sultan as a new and improved L8K and a very tough challenger for the Watea 84. (IMO those are both very good things to be)

 

SJ

It looks like Dynastar still believes in offering flat skis. I was afraid they might go full system. Bravo.

SJ, would you recommend the Sultan 85 as a backcountry ski(used with Marker tour binding) ? I`ve owned the 8K and it did a great job at that. Thanks!

 

 

I'm not a B/C guy so I can't really give a first hand recommendation. OTH, if the L8K was good then I see no reason that the Sultan wouldn't be as well.

 

SJ

Jesus, I finally suck it up and buy 8Ks this year and these things come out.  You always want what you don't have...

 

I also have PEs (same waist width).  As has been mentioned, width doesn't tell the whole story but I'd be curious to hear how these skis compare 

 

Based on what SJ said if you like the 8K's you will still like 'em.  If the Sultans are now more similar to the W84's then they will be a very different ski.  I demo'd the 8K's and W84's last year and can say that they have different personalities (I preferred the W84's turnier, livelier but less damp personality better, but that's just me).  Stick with the 8K's - they're a great ski!

Dangit......I didn't word that quite right. They compete with the Watea but are not that similar in feel. The Sultan is grippier and somewhat more energetic than the Watea. This is not better just different. I will have them side by side on the rack next year as a counterpoint to one another.

 

SJ

Edited by SierraJim - 3/13/2009 at 02:02 am

 

Nevertheless it sounds like the Sultan is a much different ski than the 8K (which to me wasn't grippier or livelier than the W84)....

Hmmm.......must be one of those earlobe deals as I think the 8K to be a notch above the Watea in both. (again....not a better or worse thing just different)

 

SJ

 

Yeah - each person can find something different in the same ski (ah yes - the reason to demo), though to be fair I did think the 8K was more stable and less hooky than the W84 (which is why I'd think a person that likes the 8K need not have buyer's remorse).

 

BTW - educate me on this "earlobe deals" phrase (the english language is so rich with opportunities to describe and confuse). 
 

 

Acutally I feel similar - I bought the W84's though the 8K was a close 2nd (they were more stable and better at crud busting, but not turny enough for me).  If the Sultan has the turniness/liveliness of the W84's but is more stable, I too will want something I don't have....

Hey SJ (and others),

 

Can you clarify something? When you refer to the Sultan in the exchanges above are you talking about the Sultan 80 or the Sultan 85 or both?

 

Thanks,

Nick

In my case the 85.

 

Earlobe deal: As in "opinions are like earlobes, everybody has one or two".............

 

SJ

do you guys know any place I can preorder 2010 Dynas and get a discount ?

Hey SierraJim,

 

I noticed in the Dynastar .pdf regarding the new Sultan series that it will be offered either flat or with the Fluid system. But what I also noticed in the photo is that the Fluid system appears to be a bit different than the current one. It looks to me like with the new one, the heel and toe are on separate shorter rails. This would seem to still give you the adjustability in positioning but, perhaps, with still a bit more flex in the middle of the ski without the solid single rail. Granted, the Fluid system might still be higher off the ski, but it  might be kind of intermediate between a flat and a total rail system. What is your take on this?

 

Secondly, I noticed in another thread you likened the Sultan 85 as being a "replacement" for the 8000. I was a bit surprised at that since the mid-ski width of an 8000 would be considered closer to the Sultan 80. Is your assessment based more on the fact that the 4800 and 8000 will be gone and the Sultan 80 and 85  are now in the stable, hence a rational consideration, or more in terms of how they will ski? The reason I ask is that some aspects of the two newer skis are almost identical (126 mm tip, 108 and 110 mm tail, respectively), with the mid-width being the big difference.

 

Hopefully, I will get a chance to demo them this weekend. Any suggestions on lengths to try relative to the current 8000 series. I now have a 178cm 07/08 8K?

 

Thanks,

Nick

Hooo-boy.

 

OK I'll try to cover all this without getting too cornfuzing. First, the dimensions are one of the last things I consider when categorizing or comparing ANY skis. The L8K is a classic and is far better than many of the "high buzz" models for maybe 90% of the folks that classify themselves as "good" skiers. But....time marches on and it was time for a fresh up. The build of the L8K and the Sultan 85 are the same. The Sultan has more shape and width but the general personality and characteristics are the same. The Sultan 80 has no metal and that makes more difference than the 5mm of waist width on the Sultan 85 vs. the L8K.

 

SJ

 

 

SJ - Cool, but where I grew up (NJ), we'd be more crass and say something like "opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one", but now I got your drift!

OK SJ,

 

I'll buy that; or, in this case....demo that. From your perspective then, the appropriate sizing of the Sultan 85 should follow the general guidelines and observations of the current recommendations for the current 8000K, just in case I do get a chance to do some demos tomorrow?

 

Nick

Yeppers. The general sizing guidelines for the two models feel the same to me. That is, the 178 should be the operative size for most of us. I have only skied the 172 Sultan which was surprisingly good. I look forward to the 178.

 

The Sultan could well be the ideal blend of two great skis (Watea 84 and L8K) when you think aboudit, that is way more than a mouthful.

 

SJ

I'm thinking of getting the Dynastar Sultan 85's for east coast skiing.

WOuld you guys recomend these? I'm concerned they will be for more powder , which you all know, we are lacking to a certain degree!

-Thanks~!

_P

Think of it this way.........

Dimensions (esp. waist width) are only part of the equation and are generally not definitive in determining a skis personality. You could have several different skis with similar waist widths yet different personalities. Here's what I mean..............

Watea 84: Fun, easygoing ski that is fairly soft overall and torsionally as well. Superb in soft snow and bumps but challenged by hard snow.

Sultan 85: Stiffer, both overall but especially in torsion. Gripper on hard snow, still fun and nimble in soft  snow and bumps. (Tweener)

Volkl AC 50: (85mm) Stiffer in all directions and grippier and more powerful than the other two on hard snow. However, the AC-50 is far below the other two in forgiveness and ease in softer snow and bumps.

Time for a priority check....................

SJ

I use the Dukes on Gotomas and love them.  Wondering if you know enough about the use of the Marker AT bindings on the new dynastar sultan 85.  I think it would be a kick to get a set of these bindings on this new ski.  My question would be this, would putting an At binding on a resort orientated like the 85 be good or bad for the performance of a ski like this.  Should I stick to a binding which does not sit as high on the ski as the Markers?

If you intend to use the Sultan in touring mode then it makes some sense. If you don't intend to tour on the Sultan then the logic of that combo eludes me. If you like the tall stand height, then it makes sense to consider the Jester although there are a lot of other ways to achieve that as well.

SJ

Jim

     Thank you for repling to my question.  I live close to some great back country where we skin to ridge top and enjoy early and convienent skiing before Alyeska (I live in Alaska) skiing gets good.  I have my Gotomas riged with dukes and would love to enjoy the sultans as well up there.  I really would only use the touring mode about 20% of the time so I understand your reply.  Do you think I should concider my sultans primarily resort skis?  Do you have a suggestion of another great binding for me if I don't use the Barrons?  I know from your vidios you have skied the sultans and would appreciate your input.  I would also like to take this time to thank you for your reviews.  Thay are very informative and have sent them to friends and relatives for info on current and future buys on skis.

Tim

The gripe that I have with the entire Royal series primarily has to do with stand height. I personally like a ski for mixed conditions to be mounted with a fairly low lift. For that reason, my preferences tend toward LOOKs, some Salomons, and some Tyrolias. There are Markers (M12,14,18 free) that are available with fairly low stand heights as well but I have some retention issues with those. Uhhhhh.......wellllll......actually no retention issues on the 18s

Stand height or lift is a personal preference like many other things in gear choices. Among skis in that waist width range, I find the Sultan among the two or three most versatile when all snow conditions are considered. From what I know of Aleyeska, I think a 178 or 184 Sultan would make an awsome ski for shallower conditions. If you do want to tour an honest 20% of the time on the Sultan, then the Barron is a good call. If you really would only use it in bounds, then the weight and the lift would not be my preference.

Thanks for the comments on the vids. Those were shot last year during my old job. I want to do a new series of Starthaus vids as well, but finding the time is tough.

SJ

Jim,

     Yes keep doing the videos we enjoy the strait on comments.  I went in to my favorite shop today and bought some Griffins (after all my questions about the Barrons) to use on my sultans only to find my toe had been alltered while at a boot fitting at Alta last year which makeing the unajustable Griffins loose fitting.  I may go back to the Barrons as my choice seeings how the toe can be adjusted for my boots.
     Another question for you.  You suggested me going to a longer set of sultans for my ski conditions (Alyeska/ and one week a year at Alta).  I am a little worried about going to a longer length than the 172s as I am a level 7 skier.  Also my 172s reach to the top of my head now .  The idea of a longer ski appeals to me however because I might have a larger sweet spot in going to a longer Sultan.  Should I look at the 178s with this new info I have given you?

Thanks,
Tim