or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Big Trouble

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Looking for advice on Dynastar's fat twin-tip "Big Trouble". I have been skiing on the original Troublemaker twin-tip in 175cm for a few seasons and am thinking about moving up to the Big Trouble (176cm). My question: will the BT be too much of a handful for me? The greater width and stiffer flex suggest to me the Troublemaker on steroids. I'm an upper immediate-type skier, 57 years young, and ski mostly blue runs with the odd easy black. I'm not into carving, basically just like to play on the mountain, hitting the odd jump, and trying to keep up with my 17-year-old son. Any feedback on the Big Trouble is appreciated.
post #2 of 15
I have about 35 days on the 176 BTs and wish that I had the longer length (I'm 5'8" and about 180 lbs; athletic skier who prefers off piste skiing). It is a very forgiving ski and I love it. Although it is stiff underfoot, it is quite flexible in the tips and I suspect that it is quite a bit like the Troublemaker (similar design), although I haven't skied the Troublemaker myself. My answer: no, it will not be too much ski. I found that I felt extremely confident on it. I'm a good skier but not a great or super high speed skier. I love this ski in the trees. Consider getting some online (I think Evogear had some from USA) especially if you perfer last year's graphics to this year's.
post #3 of 15
I gotta ask, what for? the upside of the Big Trouble over the trouble maker would all be about crud stabilty (it's stiffness is not such a great thing in pow). From what you say, you don't spend a lot of time being bounced around in uneven snow. I demoed one a few years ago as a first fattish ski, and it was great for blasting through stuff, but I found it to be sluggish and no fun on groomers--much more so than the used Bandit XXX's I ended up buying.
post #4 of 15
I hated the BT's (186) in anything but soft pow and crud. I was a very mediocre all-mtn ski for its width...

I would look elsewhere for what you are after...
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
I'm getting mixed reports on the BT. Some say it carves well on the groomers for a fat twin, others not so much. At the coastal ski resorts of BC you can go from powder to crud to slush all in the same day, so stability in variable snow is at the top of my list. My '03 Troublemakers are forgiving but a bit soft in the tip to bash crud with confidence, hence my desire to move up to the Big Trouble. I'm hoping the BT will be a lot like the Troublemaker, but with an extra shot of adrenalin.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
Alberto: The Big Trouble and Troublemaker have the same design (vertical sidewall contruction at mid-body tapering to a cap at tip & tail. The BT is 176 cm long & 92 cm in the waist, compared to 175 cm & 78 cm for the Troublemaker. The BT is stiffer all over. Evogear's website has the green/black 2007 Big Trouble for US $369.90 plus $48.90 shipping. My local ski shop (Mad Dog's in Abbotsford, BC) has a few pairs of 176's left, going for CDN $399.00, so I think I will support the locals on this one.
post #7 of 15
There are better skiing ski out there that cover a larger range of snow conditions.

soft to stiffer
Rossi Scratch Bc(not much better but slightly better)
Scott P4(181 would be money for you)
K2 Seth
Volkl Bridge
Volkl Gotama(my weapon of choice but some think its to burly for someone like you I say you should try it)
post #8 of 15
I would not be too concerned about the negative comments about the skis if you are happy with your Troublemakers. I spent considerable time on the Karma, Seth, Scratch BC, Nordica Hot Rods (Nitrous, Afterburner, Modified) and I personally preferred the BTs to all of them (although I have some Karmas as well). I guess the question for you is whether or not they do things dramatically different from what the Troublemakers will do. I would have a serious look at the Gotamas if I were you. The extra width might make it especiallly fun for deeper snow or for the heavy west coast snow.
post #9 of 15
FWIW : I demoed a pair in 186 and was very happy with their hard snow and crud performance. They really do carve very well and are very stable. On the heavy side on the moguls, but still ok.
I've found them disapointing in deeper snow (tip dive) but have been told they could be mounted further back from the center line.
post #10 of 15
Thread Starter 
Yeah, my Troublemakers are great. Easy, forgiving and fun. Will check out the Gotamas if I have a chance. I believe the Gotama is available locally but I haven't ridden a Volkl ski in a while. Maybe it's time for another look. About bindings, is it better to have them mounted 1.5 to 2 cm back from center for all-mountain use? I like to get air off bumps (nothing too dramatic) but I don't ride switch or do spins, so I would probably want to do that. I would expect it to improve the float in powder.
post #11 of 15
The line is pretty standard for all mountain; 1-2 cm for more powder. At least that's my understanding. Philippe's comment about tip dive fits with my experience, so if you are wanting them for more all mountain, the line is ok. If you are really thinking about deeper snow, definitely 1.5 - 2 cm back would be my recommendation.
post #12 of 15
The new version of the BT has an 8 cm. wide mounting zone. The old version had one mark which was IIRC 3 or 4 cm behind true center. Now there is a "center" mark, a "standard" mark which is C-6cm and an FR which is C-8cm. As a comparison, the FR mark on a BT 176 is about the same spot on the ski as the boot center mark on a Volkl Bridge 177. When you buy a BT you are getting a true twin with long tip and tail splay and soft tip and tail. It is however, very firm underfoot with a solid build and superb soft snow performance for it's width range. The BT also grips very well underfoot but does not "pull" from the tip like skis with more shape. Within this width range, the Volkl Bridge is among the better twins on hard snow. The BT however is better in soft snow and the park. Both are great skis but they have differing areas of greatness.

post #13 of 15
the newer bt was beefed up under the foot for the park (rails, boxes etc.) If you are mostly on the groomers with an occasional foray into the stuff... stick with your originals... great ski for just about all disciplines
post #14 of 15
Thread Starter 
I compared the Big Trouble & Troublemaker side-by-side. The 175 cm TM stands about 1 cm taller than the 176 cm BT. The tip & tail of the Big Trouble are higher than the low-profile Troublemaker, making the BT's running surface about 2 inches shorter than the TM. This should make it feel like a shorter ski on the groomed, with the stiffer tail adding some kick to the turns. The boot mid-point mark on the Big Trouble is 1.5 cm closer to the tail than on the Troublemaker, which should give it more of an all-mountain feel than the park-oriented TM. My TM's have the bindings mounted on the standard position, and it worked fine for me as an all-around ski, so I expect I will do the same with the Big Trouble.
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Reviving an old thread here: I went ahead and bought the Big Troubles in the 176 length. Have had them out twice and am very pleased with them. A fun ski, easy to handle and forgiving. Had a bit of a problem at first as the shop had neglected to detune the edges at the front, so the skis were very "hooky" on the groomed. Looking forward to a fun season on the BT's. Many thanks to all who offered their impressions of the Big Trouble.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion