or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Skied the Mythic Rider ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skied the Mythic Rider ?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Walked into the local shop this afternoon and saw the replacement for the Dynastar 8800's, the new Mythic Rider, on the shelf. Nice looking ski. And I read Sierra Jim's thoughts about them in a prior thread. But has anybody actually skied them ?
post #2 of 14
I skied them last week and they are just about what they look and feel like. That is, a smaller version of the Legend Pro.

Welllllll..............ok not quite like that.

BUT!! this is a pretty stiff, powerful ski. I skied it on a rough, frozen sidehill with about 6" of wind slab on top. It engaged readily, but took some authority to bend it. The greater shape is apparent on the groomers vs. the 8800 and the stability, grip, & dampening was stronger as well. The easy nature of the 8800 is no longer as apparent.

SJ
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
Thank you, Jim.
I will probably end up demo'ing a pair. I have always enjoyed skiing Dynastars and these sound interesting.
post #4 of 14
I just spent Wednesday at Squawwywood, switching back and forth between the 176 LP and a 178 Mythic. They are closer in capability than the dimensions would suggest. I skied everything that you could imagine in snow that was transitioning from winter (in the shade) to springy in the sun. I even found a stash of about 12" of good chowdah over some broken crust that nobody was skiing.

The Mythic is slightly stiffer in the forbody and has more camber. Initiation was understandably quicker, and the ski was carvey (er) on the plentiful hard stuff. In the chow, the Mythic felt more like a slicer than a floater. The Mythic was more stable than the 176 LP in the goop but did not come around quite as easily. In the tighter spots I'd say that the Mythic was more manuverable.

I think that the Mythic could be a great everyday ski for somebody, that does not have the need for a full fat. The LP was more specialized toward the softer snow than the hard.

SJ
post #5 of 14
My time on the Mythic was very enjoyable. It was easy and smooth in the crusty crud and small bumps relative to some of the stiffer skis, but ultra stable, and it totally ripped up the hardpack. Edgehold was phenomenal for an 88mm ski. On the hard snow, it was the Elan 888's equal, if not quite as stable, but it held better than the old 8800. I found it very easy to ski, even in 178 (I would prefer a 172 for my 5 foot 9 frame). Float in the minor crud was great, and this ski had a knack for being relatively easy to ski and very high performance.

It will work well for alot of people. The 888 was slightly more powerful and stable, but with a similiar feel. It wanted to get going a bit faster before coming alive. The Mantra was the other wider ski I tried and not really comparable: superb in the soft stuff, easy and stable, but pretty bad on hardpack. Overall, I would say that the Mythic is a step up from the 8800, and will be great for the solid advanced skier upwards to the full expert. I don't think Dynastar always gets the attention they deserve, but this one is a real winner.
post #6 of 14

Sweet Summary

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I just spent Wednesday at Squawwywood, switching back and forth between the 176 LP and a 178 Mythic. They are closer in capability than the dimensions would suggest. I skied everything that you could imagine in snow that was transitioning from winter (in the shade) to springy in the sun. I even found a stash of about 12" of good chowdah over some broken crust that nobody was skiing.

The Mythic is slightly stiffer in the forbody and has more camber. Initiation was understandably quicker, and the ski was carvey (er) on the plentiful hard stuff. In the chow, the Mythic felt more like a slicer than a floater. The Mythic was more stable than the 176 LP in the goop but did not come around quite as easily. In the tighter spots I'd say that the Mythic was more manuverable.

I think that the Mythic could be a great everyday ski for somebody, that does not have the need for a full fat. The LP was more specialized toward the softer snow than the hard.

SJ
Hi Jim:

Is the Mythic stiffer in the forebody than the LP176?

Any more impressions on you experiences with the 176LP would be appreciated. I'm curious how it differs from the Head IM88 (my current fav ski).

It seems like the Mythic may be closest to the IM88 from your post, but any thoughts on the LP176 re stability, initiation, edge hold, etc. would be cool.

Thanks,
Got
post #7 of 14
Got:

As I've mentioned before, the 176 LP is very different than the rest of the sizes. Wed. at Squaw was the first time that I had really spent significant time on it and I found it to be very easy and compliant for it's width. Naturally, the Mythic was quicker to hook up and pull and more manuverable. This is due to the somewhat deeper shape, and of course the narrower waist. I also suspect that the greater camber generates more tip pressure early in the turn and generates more 'pop' in general.

MHO and YMMV, but when you take the width out of the equation, the LP 176 is easier to ski than the iM88. For my tastes, the Heads are too stiff and hence lack the nimble feel that I prefer in the goo. The qualifier here is that I have skied the 82/88 monsters in the 183/186 lengths. I like them and appreciate what they do, they just don't fit my preferences. (nor does the 186 LP)

FWIW......Myself and a couple of other dealers have been lobbying Dynastar to make the 176 LP in one or two other sizes and rename it. Then they could have the really burly sticks as a seperate model that is really deserving of the moniker "Pro"

SJ
post #8 of 14
Jim:

Thanks for the follow up.

I ski the IM88 in 175 and it seems real nimble, yet allows a much more relaxed, blast through all crap, style than say a traditional 75-82mm mid fat.

In 185 it is no doubt more ponderous, but in the 175 its a pretty good all round every day eastern ski with remarkable edgehold.

I attributed it to the sandwich, vertical sidewall construct. From there I searched for a similar quality and style of ski and , viola: the LP176 seemed to be similar, likely with even more ability to rip through crud and uneven snow.

It semed it would be more impervious to deflection, hold on difficult surfaces, run flat without worry and be more stability due to the reduced sidecut.

I think you are confirming my hopes and I should be able to find out for myself soon.

Regards,

Got
post #9 of 14
Again to Jim:

I would like to ask some more questions on the Mythic. How do you consider the snappyness/rebound of the ski?
The mythic seems interesting, but I wonder if their stiffness and dampness makes them planky. I like skis that kick back if one push them or lean back.

(I apologise if my english is bad.)
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
Since starting this thread, I have demo'ed and now purchased a pair of 172 cm Mythic Riders. Shortest skis I've ever owned. (I'm 5'10" and 160lbs).
I'd agree that they do not have the kind of high energy rebound that GS type skis have. But they are terrific crud skis. Powerful, stable and secure.
They hold surprisingly well on the hard stuff and initiate turns exceedingly well for such a wide ski. But they ski exceedingly well on steep slopes with cut crud. Since that is what we often have here at Alyeska, they should be great.
post #11 of 14
Skied the 178 Mythic Rider & liked them a lot.
Will likely buy them for '07-'08

My review is here:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=54216
post #12 of 14
I demo's the Mythics in a 178 a week or so ago at Alta with about 8-10 inches of fresh in the am, slopped out by the afternoon. I am 5'9 168lbs and absolutely loved these skis. I have not been this excited about a ski in a while. Last year I demo'd the Mantras, K2 Outlaws, and Rossi B3s but never got a chance to try the Dynastar 8800s. I wasn't all that impressed with those skis, not enough to buy. The guy at Alta told me the Mythics were the replacements to the 8800s so I said sure. The Mythics were great in the morning through some nice fresh powder and even better in the afternoon blasting through crud, stable and much better than any ski i had been on before. I got some nice turns on a groomer late at higher speeds and was sold. I will definitely be picking up a pair of these this summer. I demo'd the Rossi B3's on a back country tour from Park City to Snowbird the next day and wished I had the Mythics. These are a great all around performer and were very good at higher speeds, which made me happy. Definitely check out this ski, everyone is different, but it was perfect for me.
post #13 of 14

Mythics - 178's or 172's?

I am 5'9', 165, athletic, level 9 skier, mostly Snowbird and the Canyons. I'm trying to decide between the 178 and the 172 Mythic. I like big, fast GS turns in all snow conditions, as well as the trees. My current skis are 175cm Head Monsters (75mm) and 173cm Atomic Teledaddies (99mm) mounted with AT bindings for touring and deep snow. The Mythics sound like they'd be the perfect fit between these two rigs. Any suggestions on length?

Thanks
smers
post #14 of 14
Your size would suggest the 172 but your L-9 ability and agressiveness level suggests the 178. I'd suggest the 178

SJ
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 › Skied the Mythic Rider ?