or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Dynastar Powertrack 89 - opinions on sizing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Powertrack 89 - opinions on sizing - Page 2

post #31 of 58

We're sold several PT89s, mounted on the line, and not one customer has come back and complained.  If you want to be able to experiment, get some Head/Tyrolia rail bindings that allow fore/aft movement.

post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by madriversven View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

This all smells off to me.

Yes, I know someone will pipe up with a counter example, but super strong, super experienced skiers who ski dozens of skis finding a preference anomaly is one thing; most of us aren't them. I don't sense that you are, either. Have you taken a lesson with the new skis on and discussed the issue?

Never claimed to be super strong or super experienced or ski dozens of skis. I also would be unable to take any lesson with these skis because as mentioned above I have not drilled them yet because....I was simply looking for help.

Sorry. Can see how my comments came off brusque. I was responding to what can sometimes be lemming-like behavior here. Some jamoke decides the binding is too far forward on his skis, for whatever reasons that may or may not be valid for HIM, and that may or may not be based on sound knowledge of his own skiing and equipment issues. He posts on the internet and next thing you know six people who have never even been on the ski in question are all ready to drill holes down near the tail of a beautiful brand new ski whose design was executed very thoughtfully by Dynastar.

Did you read Sierra Jim's review of this ski? Don't think he mounted off center.

Suggest heeding mtcyclist's advice.

Again, apologies for being snippy.
post #33 of 58
Thread Starter 

I ski on the Pt's.  Although I'm no equipment expert, I've been skiing aggressively for 40 years.  Iv'e been on a lot of skis.  I've moved mount points to make skis more mogul friendly in the past. Equipment can certainly be tweaked for the better. The manufacturer makes suggested mount points for the average skier.  Not everything is a perfect fit at cookie cutter standards.  Dynastar and Rossi (same company) seem to have fwd mount lines vs. most other manufacturers.

My opinion after being on them for two months is that I very much wish I had mounted -3.5. (or gone bigger). I didn't complain to anyone.  I made the decisions I made. Still, I would have prefered to go about -3.5.

The tail does have some rocker too, and does not feel too long mounted on factory line, so I would say keeping  a little extra there would be nice, and it was sold w a fwd mount. Makes ski real versatile and quick.  I wouldn't go -5.  

post #34 of 58
They don't ski bad, they just don't ski ideally at the rec mount line if you size normally. I am 5'6" and went 172. The issue I think is the effective edge out front, the tips got super chattery when I pushed it hard and up to speed. It was not confidence inspiring.. I think a - 3.5 mount would be good or going a size up as others have said.

Edit: for comparison, I also have the brahma mounted on factory line in 166. The tips were far more stable at speed than the 172 PT ever was. Also the brahma busts through crud like no other while I got bounced around on the PT. The shorter length made it still maneuverable in the bumps too. That being said, I still feel myself topping out the brahma on speed at times when I carve on the groomers. I guess it depends what you prefer,for me a 173 brahma would probably be plenty stable, but I would lose the maneuverability in the bumps, tit for tat.
Edited by EraserXIV - 3/28/15 at 9:04am
post #35 of 58

I think I would definitely speak to a Dynastar rep, someone in their technical department, before randomly changing the mount. Dynastar says these have a tail rocker, but looking at them you'd have to doubt it. The widest point of the tail (107mm) is 18 cm from the very end of the ski, which then tapers down to 83mm. Supposedly this is a "hybrid" ski with a not so typical tail. I don't know if how it looks would be a good reason to chang the mount.

 

By the way I've got a pair (186) sitting in the box waiting for Look Pivot 14's to arrive, hopefully for some late spring skiing in NE. 

post #36 of 58

I got my bindings moved from my PT to my Brahma and I am debating whether to sell them or give them another shot with a -3.5cm mount. Looking at eBay, it doesn't seem that I can get much for it, so I think I would prefer to just have another toy. 

 

Bluedog: Spring skiing in NE is as good as ever now, get out there as soon as you can! Just recently went to Okemo and Killington this week, conditions were as good as when I went in early February. Okemo's snow is a bit softer, but Killington has more variety in terms of terrain still open and it wasn't icy at all. Oh and Killington is open to 5pm :D 

post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post


Some jamoke decides the binding is too far forward on his skis, for whatever reasons that may or may not be valid for HIM, and that may or may not be based on sound knowledge of his own skiing and equipment issues. He posts on the internet and next thing you know ...

 

Hey!  I resemble that remark  :cool

 

On a serious note, I get that Dynastar has been making skis for a looong time, and wouldn't just mess up a mount point.  I'm certainly not saying they did.  However, I'm not a big 'driver' of a ski, I do most of my demos on refrozen-softening-cut-up-bumped-up Australian groomers (and side stashes), so I'm quite comfy with a mount point that's a tad further forward than the factory recommended line, and I've messed around with mount points on occasion in the past  I've demoed over 100 skis in the past five years, I pay careful attention to what I'm skiing and I take a lot of detailed notes.  I know what I'm feeling through a ski when I click in and go skiing.  I felt I was mounted too far forward on that ski.  My post was intended to get people to test them at various mount points before they blindly mounted on the line.

 

Of course my notes reflect what I'm feeling and others will differ in their opinion, but what I wrote seems to have been backed up by a few others.  I wasn't unhappy with the PT89s, and I'd be happy to ski them over many other skis, I just didn't find them to be what I was looking for, had hoped for and was expecting for months prior to that test.  From a testing point of view I should have taken the time to adjust myself rearwards on the ski.  With luck I'll get that chance in late July when the Thredbo demo weekend swings by again. Given the chance I would have started with a 15-25mm move.  I've adjusted 15-25mm fore and aft on Railflex and demo bindings a number of times and know I can feel the difference. There's no way I would boldly go with a 50mm change or, worse yet, blindly mount myself 50mm rearwards from a factory line without first demoing a different mount position on the ski. Moving 15mm makes a difference, 25mm is very easily felt, and 35-50mm is a big move.

 

If they're available I'll ski them again in July and try a big move rearwards.  I have a 335mm BSL so I may be limited in how far I can move, but I should be able to get a sense of how they feel further aft.

 

Watch this space ...


Edited by sinbad7 - 3/30/15 at 9:54pm
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by EraserXIV View Post
 

I got my bindings moved from my PT to my Brahma and I am debating whether to sell them or give them another shot with a -3.5cm mount. Looking at eBay, it doesn't seem that I can get much for it, so I think I would prefer to just have another toy. 

 

Bluedog: Spring skiing in NE is as good as ever now, get out there as soon as you can! Just recently went to Okemo and Killington this week, conditions were as good as when I went in early February. Okemo's snow is a bit softer, but Killington has more variety in terms of terrain still open and it wasn't icy at all. Oh and Killington is open to 5pm :D 


Sounds like you've given up on the PT89?

post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by EraserXIV View Post
 

I got my bindings moved from my PT to my Brahma and I am debating whether to sell them or give them another shot with a -3.5cm mount. Looking at eBay, it doesn't seem that I can get much for it, so I think I would prefer to just have another toy. 

Mount a Marker Schizo binding and you'll have +/- 3.0cm to play with.  If you mount it at -1.0 you can get to -4.0.  You could also mount a demo binding and accomplish the same thing, but that requires a lot more fooling around.  With the Schizo once you have the forward pressure set you don't have to mess with it when you move it along the track.  With the demo binding, every time you move it you need to reset the forward pressure.

post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog View Post


Sounds like you've given up on the PT89?

Well with the resale prices, I'm apt to give it another shot. I was looking at the marker schizo bindings and think I will go that direction. I liked the PT, just didn't love them. I had demoed the Brahma before I purchased the PT and I loved the Brahma after just the first run. I think playing around with the mount position can make me change my mind about it. I did like them in the bumps, just didn't like getting bounced around in the crud.
post #41 of 58
IMHO, the dynastar likes tip to tail skiing. The brama tolerates pivoting more.
post #42 of 58

In the FWIW category...

I'm on the lighter and shorter side at 145lbs and 5'9". I've been on the Cham 87 for 2 seasons as my daily driver. I went short at 170 because I really liked the quickness in trees and tight spaces. I find that with a good tune, these also hold well on Colorado groomers in short to medium radius turns, even on scraped off faces.

 

The weakness of this ski has been high speeds on non-groomed bowls and faces that have had a lot of skiers and so are chunked up, especially later in the day when I'm starting to get a bit tired.

 

So the search was on this season to find a ski that kept the positives of the Chams (quick) but that added a bit of dampness and stability. Tough combo. The Supernaturals were a bit too dull, the Kastle FX94 was fun, not quite as quick in tight spaces (for me) as the Cham and twice the price, the NRGY 90 was fun but didn't hold an edge on really hard snow (maybe a bad tune...), the Powertrack 84 didn't offer anything over the Cham, etc.

 

I finally got out on the Powertrack 89 in a 172 at A-Basin yesterday. First 3 runs the mount was "at the mark" and I wasn't really feeling the love. I could turn them but without that "whip around" feeling I get on the Chams and they didn't offer confidence when things got tight. I was on demo bindings, so I pushed them back one click (-1cm?) and boom, they were everything I liked about the Cham, but with more stability and less "bounciness" in rough terrain. So for me, moving the bindings back really improved the performance of the ski.

 

Now the only thing keeping me from buying them at the great spring sale prices are the descriptions of the Stockli SR95 and the Fischer Motive 95 (thanks Dawg and others). But the Stockli's are hard to find and $$$ and in Summit County, I can't find a demo of the Motive anywhere.

post #43 of 58
Thread Starter 

I've been pushing 179's hard all week.  Must have been going 60+ mph more than a few times.  Hopped through ice bumps. Pounded soft bumps.  They were great.  I was looking for an eastern all mountain ski (bumps ranked highest) that i could use for a week In Utah, yet I still want to push the sensibilities of safety with speed. These are great.  They are especially quick in the fall line, thanks to the extra tail length.  Great ski.  Mount it -.

post #44 of 58
Tomorrow I'm mounting mine again at -1 with Schizo bindings so I can play around with the mounting point. I will report back when I can get on the mountain again, hopefully next week some time. Will bring my 166 Brahma to compare, the PT89 are 172. (I'm 5'6" 155).
post #45 of 58

Rather than riding you old ski, commit to getting to know the new. Some of my favorite skis have taken a day or two to really feel dialed into.

post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Rather than riding you old ski, commit to getting to know the new. Some of my favorite skis have taken a day or two to really feel dialed into.

Good advice, I think I made too quick a judgement on them, which is why I'm taking them out again. Thanks smile.gif
post #47 of 58

I'm looking at the pt89, cant decide on what length to get .172 or 179, I'm 5'-7", 195. like to hit the bumps and trees , but also the bowls etc.  demo'd a pt84 in 176 on sunday, it felt ok. is there a big difference in the 84 & 89?

post #48 of 58

I'm the same skier as Godzilla, except 5" shorter.  should I go 172 or 179? I did have the brahmas out west this year (180) and they felt too big in the bumps and trees.

post #49 of 58

graham,

 

I haven't skied the brahmas, but based on all the reviews, the brahma is stiffer and (?) probably will ski "longer" than the PT89. Based on a day this past Sunday on the PT's, I am leaning towards the 172. You have 50lbs on me, so I'm thinking the 179 for you. Better and more stable in the open bowls and at speed.

 

Depends a bit on where and what you ski most of the time - mostly tighter terrain or bigger open bowls.

 

Whatever you get, you will adapt, adjust and enjoy. Maybe just a bit more in some terrain and a bit less in other, but it will be all good.

post #50 of 58

I got out again on the mountain on the PT89 with Schizo bindings, started out at -2cm back and it seemed much better than at the recommended line. Tails not as grabby in all-mountain situations and the tip is more stable at speed. Edge still doesn't hold as well as the Brahma in icy conditions, but that wasn't an issue with the mount point to begin with.

post #51 of 58

If you get the 'Fluid X' version of the PT89 - the one with the plate pre-attached - is it easy to play with the binding mounting position?

post #52 of 58
Hi

Its extremely straight forward. Procedure would be:
1) Mount your boot according to the manual
2) Move toe-piece and heel-piece X lines back or forward

That, said, I need to tell you:
1) I never did it myself (I do have a ski with this system, so I adjusted it several times, just not like that)
2) I dont know what's the implication of doing that regarding the release force (I dont know, for example, if the forward pressure indicator would be accurate in this case)
post #53 of 58
Hi all,

Looking at picking up a pair of PT89. Just wondering on size as I've read that they can ski a bit small.

So, 5ft 8 176cm, weight is 170lb.

Be good to hear opinions from owners. I was thinking 172? Or would the 179 be better? Thanks.
post #54 of 58


Hey Andyy,

I demoed the PT89  in 179 cm last year at my local hill in Michigan.  I am  49 yo, 5'8" and 135 lbs.  Other skis I own and love are Fischer Motive 95, 180cm; Blizzard Mag 8.5 ti, 174cm; Blizzard 800 Power S, 167 and Blizzard Supersonic Force, 174.  I like to ski everything but would rather be off of the groomers especially out West.  I loved this ski.  It was very quick edge to edge and could knock off quick slalom turns and was good at longer turns.  I felt I could change the turn radius at will and pivot when I wanted.  I didn't check the mount but did not notice a lot of tail out the back.  I was trying to demo all skis that day on the same three runs.  A low angle groomer, a steeper groomer (short in MI) and some cut up stuff on a steeper section that nobody really skis.  I didn't get a chance to try it in the cut up as it was the end of the day and the race team took over the run.  My only reserve would be if it would be thrown around in junky snow.  I may still buy one as it was a fun ski on a short hill.  

post #55 of 58
Great thanks Tim. I'm going to go for it with these. Everything I read seems to be my style of ski. Thanks again.
post #56 of 58
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinbad7 View Post

 

 

If they're available I'll ski them again in July and try a big move rearwards.  I have a 335mm BSL so I may be limited in how far I can move, but I should be able to get a sense of how they feel further aft.

 

Watch this space ...

 

 

Ok, I have an update.  I managed to get on the PT89 a few days back and tried them both on the line and about 25mm behind the line.  Same initial feeling when on the line: felt a little too far forward, with a bit too much tail hanging out the back.  After changing the mount I was much more happy with them.  I actually wouldn't have minded another run set 35mm back from the line but others were waiting to give the skis a try and I handed them back.

 

In talking with the rep about the whole thing, to explain why I was trying them mounted back a little, he was quite familiar with that approach on this line of skis.  Seems a lot of people hereabouts are buying the skis flat and mounting themselves behind the line.

 

So, I'm certainly not saying you have to, but it would pay to try different mount points before you mount your skis.

 

edit - if you sit the PT89 (179) alongside the Cham 97 (178) and sort of eyeball the rocker and contact lengths to get them lined up correctly (which we did) the Cham is mounted quite a bit further back than the Powertrack when each is mounted on the line.


Edited by sinbad7 - 7/30/15 at 3:50pm
post #58 of 58

I have pretested the Powertrack in jan 15, as a preliminary selection for our ProSkiLab tests in Méribel (Alps).

 

For my size (6 feet) and weight (170 pounds), I felt that 179 is a good choice. 

 

The ski was later selected to be tested by our pro testers in the same size in march. As the test results are not public yet (september), I cannot disclose the details, but the ski in this size did pretty well in powder snow, where "buoyancy" and size mater. 

 

Although, I am always suspicious about rockers on longer skis, I would eventually go for a larger size if I would weight 190 pounds or more (a situation I am trying hard to avoid).

 

RV

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Dynastar Powertrack 89 - opinions on sizing