Cham 97, Cham 107, Bonafide, 8.5 TI, Gunsmoke

Some thoughts about the Cham 97 based on a couple of runs at the Mt. Rose demo day that Tromono based his review on. First a disclimer, as an eastern skier, I need more time on 100 waisted skis and in the fresh snow conditions we experienced, I did not get into trees. Having said that, the Cham 97 is a fun ski and I agree to the OP assessment. It handled the cut up pow very well and smeared easily. Held it's own on the groomers. Of the skis I demo'd, the Cham 97 performed the best overall in newer snow but I did not take it into demanding terrain. I gave them back with reluctance, would have liked more runs.

I loved the Cham 87. Smooth initiator, solid finisher. Nimble off piste, stable at speed and carvy on piste. My kind of ski.

I skied a length 12 cm. longer than my usual and didn't feel I had too much ski. The long tip rocker accounts for the extra length.

I also skied the Cham 97, and as Dawg said, this appears to be a polarizing ski.

I skied it on a totally untracked run, then on one with frozen bumps underneath, after skiing the same laps on my MX 98, and the same laps on a few others, and this was one of the least balanced skis I've tested in years. I like the rep, I like some dynastars, but this was just plain off for me. I believe the mix of flex and lack of balance between longituinal and torsional flex is a bit off.

my main feeling was that the tip wanted to "smear" away, while the stiff midbody wanted to stay straight and not bend progressively.

I also talked to a "noted" ski tester, who has run ski tests for magazines for many years, and without telling him my opion, he reluctantly said exactly what I felt, he said he wouldn't 'pass' the ski. He went on on a variety of reasons, but I'll let him expound if he chooses.

I'll review the others, but wanted to show just how polarizing this ski is already... Nolo liked it, I didn't. hum, what are we to figure here.

as far as my aversion to "fun shapes", there is something there...

but I skied the Head Rev 105 right after the Cham, which has early rise, some new school tweaks as well, and it was GREAT! best over 100mm ski I've ever skied on. I'll review it sepeately as well, but wanted to point out that I don't just create a negative opinion based on rocker, multiple point sidecuts, etc...

cheers,

Holiday

I also skied the Chams (97, 107).  I have to agree that these will be fairly polarizing skis.  I believe the reason is due to the tail design.  Some will like the tail because it's stupid easy to release - easy to smear, easy to pivot.  This makes the skis very maneuverable, but the tail will not be there for those that prefer a stronger finish.  The pintail design is quite aggressive.  So if you know what you like you can make an educated decision on these skis.

Interesting divergence of views,especially reading them after posting my review of the Cham 97.  I liked it in trees and chutes and was pleasantly surprised that I could ski the front of the ski if i wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

Thanks for the reviews!  From what I hear, you are a really good skier.  It is cool to get reviews from full-on experts that have the skills to really work a ski.  

Thanks Dawg!.  Don't think I would class myself in that league  especially given the depth of skills that was there on Tuesday.!  This was only the third day this season I wasn't on a race ski so my reviews should probably be viewed from that style of skiing.   However I suspect that because we both like to work the front of the ski and get it up on edge whenever possible we do bring a slightly different  perspective to a review of these skis. 

Off the top o' the head (have not skied any of the Chams, basing this on fatter 5 point designs I own or have skied), I have a hunch that the Cham's 5-shape front and rear is more sensitive to COM movements, requires more ongoing adjustments as surface changes from soft to firm and back, than predicted from traditional shapes. Wonder if the "polarizing" quality among a group of good skiers is really about small diffs in how you folks move through the turn, rather than the ski. Other possibility (would need a ski designer on this one) is that the rear shape becomes more obvious/behaves differently because it's flat. Either way, have never seen review feedback from guys who know what they're doing that's so contradictory.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

 

 

Ok. So you dislike fun shapes in general but will make a few exceptions?  My impression is this ski both 97 and 107 wants to smear as a default behavior and hook up only when asked (nicely). Does that sound like a bug or a feature to you?

 

To me the bonafide has exactly the opposite problem.

 

I think the CHAM line have a valid point of view that will appeal to many skiers. Skiers who like fun shapes but also actually know how to ski and want a ski with a tail. I really didn't love the CHAM I think its a ski that is good and interesting line of skis but I prefer what I already have. The only ski in test which I loved with out reservations was the 8.5 TI.

 

If I had to make a quiver out of the skis I tested I would be happy to ski the 184 Cham 107 and 181 8.5 TI for a season.

 

 

 

so, I softened my words a bit, no reason to get so blockheaded about it.

and,

yes, Tromano, I have owned quite a few new school skis  (i don't call them fun shapes, as I don't find most of the ones I've skied on that fun.)

and many of them I don't agree with, so you can take that to heart when you read my review of the cham.

I didn't like the s7 either, but i understood it, and could figure out how to make it work well. I had some great days on my pontoon, and figured it out, but didn't want to keep it long

anyway,

sorry for the minor hijack. I think your your statement, "smear as the default behavior" may be part of the issue for me, but this one was just more aggravating for me then others that also fit that sentiment.

sorry i missed you at rose, would have liked to ski w/ someone who knows the mtn, as I hadn't been there in many years.

cheers,

holiday

Nice reviews. Thanks.

Can you expand on the above comment a bit? I have the Sultan and like it a lot. I don't think of it as a "great carver" at all, but it's good enough in that department. What I like about it is the fluid, quiet feel in a variety of conditions - damp, but not at all lifeless. The narrower Blizzard that I own (Supersonic) is a "great carver," but like the other Blizzard I tried in the same family (one of the Magnums), it has a much more "bright," snappy feel that I don't really like in the bumps, for example. (To riff on Holiday's metaphor, the Blizzards are like steepening up the head angle on your bike a degree and moving the rebound adjustment about four clicks toward "fast".) How does the 8.5 Ti figure in this context?

I skied the Cham 97's and I really liked this ski.Was a bit tentative that the ski would be too damp. It's definitely a heavier ski, than most of the other skis I demoed. However, it was very easy to ski in moguls. You could ski in the trough or smear the tops. I found myself skiing the moguls and having fun. And that is not usually my favorite terrain. I had no issues arcing nice clean tracks on the groomers. It is damp but didn't feel overly so. Felt stable and confidence inspiring. I found a bit of tracked up pow, and the rocker ed tipped felt very floaty and smooth. As others have mentioned it was very easy to smear turns. I did find myself wishing the ski was a bit longer, say 182/183. The Dynastar rep said they would be coming out with a 184cm version this fall. But I suspect the 97 will give up some of its fun and ease with the increased length. I still own and ski the original orange topsheet Dynastar 8000's in the 178cm. I was looking for a ski to replace my Fischer Atua's, and I think I just replaced my old Dynastar Legends instead!

I have loved my Dynastar 8000's but the Cham 97 is so much more versatile.

Me: 165 lbs - More finesse than aggressive.

Current Quiver: Fischer Atua 186cm, Dynastar XXL 187 and Dynastar Legend 8000 -178cm

Dynastar Cham 107 2013
Written by Bill Kline on 04/07 at 06:36 AM

Skier Height: 6 2 Skier Weight: 200 Skier Ability: professional Ski length Tested:184

Ski Review:I skied the Cham 107   184 cm at Snowbird today with a surprise foot new drier powder on top of hardpack.  These skis are absolutely the real deal. before skiing only knew there was a new series to replace the Sultans/legends.  I knew nothing about marketing or hype

In short these skis rock! They kill it! The turn off the tip, the middle and the tail. I am blown away, NOT easy to do!  These are also loose under the ankle, so going across traverses they pivot or carve with ease! Back in Mineral Basin there was lots of old hard snow visible with some new. they were consistent in turns and stable and they held!  On top of Regulator they were steady in icy spots with powder. On the Cirque traverse the would carve or pivot for a smooth ride across rolling ruts bumps and Ice. In those bumps or regular bumps, a touch of the foot would get you straight over or around sides with easy. The response to independent feet rocked!.

then climbed up High Baldy, even with hard snow at times underneath knee deep powder they keep turning.

Then through a curved upper chute between rocks and the bottom narrow chute , I could really layout short or medium turns with aggression and ease!

This is a skiers ski! They hold on variable hardpack with windblown, killed it in the Cirque , High Baldy , and Blackjack. They rock in medium and short turns.

We have a National JR Freeski event here and I spoke with three coaches who had skied them.  They had skied them with pretty much the same results.

For target conditions these are one of the finest and the best in width range I have ever skied!  They are absolutely a powder ski, a big mountain ski and they TURN!  Yahoo!  Also cannot believe how they were in and around bumps!

BTW: I just sold my S7 188 s a few days ago, They are great skis and an easy recommend for powder, crud and spring.  But the Cham is a whole new ballgame.

Two days later skied on groomers, including advanced.. Regulator. They held great long medium and short!!

Did you like any of these as well or better than your DPS?

For me, the DPS is the most fun ski I have ever been on!

Nice reviews. I'm so glad to find someone else who will actually admit that the Blizzard Bonafide isn't the magical do-everything ski. I thought there was something seriously wrong with me. Like everyone else (so it seems) I loved the Bones in the wide open spaces--powder, crud, groomers. They are quick, stable, and quite glorious in their element. However, like you, I didn't like the Bones anywhere near the trees. They are even less fun in the bumps--and I love skiing bumps and do it well. I wondered at first if I simply wasn't man enough for big boy skis, but if that is the case, this ski (as a do-everything ski) is made for a very small (tiny) segment at the very top of the market (read, only for the Sons of Ullr). I really think the Blizzard Bonafide is best kept in the wide open. As the saying goes, every ski has its limitations. That said, so does every skier.  Just my opinion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

 

I would agree with that. With the caveat that driving the skis in the trees is often easier said than done. Sometimes given the spacing of the trees and the bushiness, it can be difficult to see and plan far enough ahead to really drive a ski safely in the length turns that the bone seems happiest with. And in those situations a ski like the bone I think will be not alot of fun. 

Amen! Bonafides may be heralded as the best of the best overall, but they are not a do-everything ski and they are certainly not a do-everything ski for every skier. You gotta be a pretty impressive skier to drive hard enough in the tight trees or bumps to take make that ski happy. Can lesser skiers do it? Yeah, but it won't be fun for them. 

 I believe all of the  hype surrounding the Bonafide will lead many recreational skiers to buy them and regret it. God help the "advancing intermediate" that buys a pair of Bones (because of glowing reviews or recomenations)  as a one-ski quiver and takes them into tight trees or bumps. For the right skier in the right conditions, the Bonafide is sublime. I just think the industry ought to be more honest about the relevance of this ski (and others) to the mass market. Let's face it, too many skiers (myself included) over represent our skills.

I suspect that next season, we'll start to see used Bonafides showing up for sale on the bulletin boards because "the wrong skiers" bought them and found they aren't having fun with them.

Admitedly this comment may be  more about the way skis are review and marketed than it is about  whethe or not Blizzard Bonafides are great skis. Just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashGordon 

 

I suspect that next season, we'll start to see used Bonafides showing up for sale on the bulletin boards because "the wrong skiers" bought them and found they aren't having fun with them.

 

I got to demo the Bonafides at eastern resort on an icey hill, loved them. After all the reviews started to think this was the ski for me, but after seeing all the info on 8.5 ti's I think I would like better. I am 6'3 and 190lbs. I travel west on ocassion, but don't want to purchase based on that. I don't want to be that "wrong skier"! I really wished I would have demoed the 8.5's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

 

Just my point of view, I think "advancing intermediate" and "tight trees or bumps" seldom ever go together. For that advancing intermed, I see that skier generally liking a bone because the carvability, solid feel, and performance in open terrain and ability to shrug off crud snow. It certainly shines in typical resort conditions for most types recreational skiing. Tight trees and big bumps are really on the fringe of what most skiers (including "experts") are interested in skiing at the resort. So I think the hype around the bone is generally justified for the vast majority of skiers, I just happen to have a differnet set of priorities than the majority. ;) 

You're probably right. As someone who really enjoys skiing bumps, I see the ability to handle bumps well--even very well--as a requirement for an all-mountain, all-purpose ski. I have to remind myself that I am increasingly in the minority.