New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Contact 9

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I'm looking for some information on these skis. They look like they would be a great eastern ski. I ski mostly in the South east. I'm 5'8" 195 lbs and level 7 skier. Any reviews or legnth suggestions will be appreciated.
post #2 of 16
I've been using the 07 Contact 9 165cm for this season-mostly at a smaller (yet impressively burly) Massachusetts ski area with a few trips up to larger Northern, VT ski areas (including one really great day at Mad River Glen!). Days skied on this model-roughly 35.

I weigh in at 170lbs, 5'10

Frankly, this ski is an ideal 80% of the time east coast ski.

Turn initiation (provided you're using modern technique) is flawless, but what impresses me most is how well it powers through the complete arc of the turn in various conditions and speeds. It's a great mogul ski for those who prefer more round turns/ carvier style of bump skiing (not the best for competition/ zipperline bump skiing-but then again, I'm not particularly good at that either!).

It's very user friendly with a wide envelope of performance.

However, as with any slalom-type ski, it comes with one caveat-it works best when put on edge early, and kept there through the complete turn-it even does well in soft and sticky snow (10 inches or less)-but not if you try to swish it around or straight run it-then it's gets squirrelly and bounces around, but, if you try to carve it in these situations-you'll be impressed at how well a narrow-shorter ski can handle.

Three words to describe these skis: smooth, lively, light

I give it a big thumbs up! solid intermediates to advance skiers-especially at smaller eastern mountains will get a big bang out of these skies.

I'm also a fan of the autodrive/ look binding interface--and, as with most Dynastar skis-it just looks great!
Hope that helps!

Liam
post #3 of 16
Agreed. Very user-friendly ski and recommended.
post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks Liam. I appreciate the information.
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBV13 View Post
I'm looking for some information on these skis. They look like they would be a great eastern ski. I ski mostly in the South east. I'm 5'8" 195 lbs and level 7 skier. Any reviews or legnth suggestions will be appreciated.
Bump
post #6 of 16
I skied them in a 165 for a couple of days in the Austrian alps in 2007 primarily on man-made and refrozen surfaces - hard stuff. I'm a level 9 skier, 6'4" and 200 lbs., and was able to easily overpower the Contact 9 at first - I was putting too much input into the skis.

Once I found the sweet spot, though, they were a gas. Don't harbor any notions that they're a ski for speed lovers, because they aren't. But they can rip the sweetest slalom turns with ease. While they don't have the edge grip of a full-on slalom racing ski, they hold their own on challenging snow. I recommend them if you aren't looking for full-on race performance, but want a ski that won't thrash them around and will turn on a dime.

Hope this helps!
post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by songfta View Post
I skied them in a 165 for a couple of days in the Austrian alps in 2007 primarily on man-made and refrozen surfaces - hard stuff. I'm a level 9 skier, 6'4" and 200 lbs., and was able to easily overpower the Contact 9 at first - I was putting too much input into the skis.

Once I found the sweet spot, though, they were a gas. Don't harbor any notions that they're a ski for speed lovers, because they aren't. But they can rip the sweetest slalom turns with ease. While they don't have the edge grip of a full-on slalom racing ski, they hold their own on challenging snow. I recommend them if you aren't looking for full-on race performance, but want a ski that won't thrash them around and will turn on a dime.

Hope this helps!
Everything I'm hearing about these skis make me want to buy them. Thanks.

Bryan

One question. Do you think a longer ski would have worked better for you? I'm thinking about getting the 172 cm.
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBV13 View Post
One question. Do you think a longer ski would have worked better for you? I'm thinking about getting the 172 cm.
Yeah, the 172 might have been a better all-around ticket. But in the end, the 165 was a blessing, as during the meager snow year the Alps had in 2007, the crowds sometimes became very thick. In this case, the maneuverability of the 165 was a nice trump card (though I'm sure I could've had the same turn results, more or less, with the 172).

It is a great ski, no doubt about it.
post #9 of 16
BBV13, I bought the Contact 9 after much deliberation and demoing the 9, 10, and Limited. I ski in Michigan on small hills, am 5'-8" and go about 180 lbs., maybe a level 7 or 8. Working on carving arc-to-arc with modern technique, and was looking for a good groomer ski for this.

When I demoed I had my best run on the 172 and was sure I was going to buy it. However I also realized it was warm (probably 38F) day with soft snow, thus the 172 supported me better. After discussion with my "coach" (sounds better than instructor) I made the decision to go with the 165 and have not regretted it one bit. His point is he hasn't put anyone on anything longer than 165 for at least 3 years, even 200 lb. plus guys . . . though I know many here would see the length issue differently. It was clear to me any lack of performance on the 165 was entirely skier related, not the ski lacking. Now that I've revamped my technique, gotten more ski days in (demoing was my second day on skis this year), and have skied the 9's 4 or 5 times, I'm happy with the 165. For small hill, eastern condition I think they will serve me fine.

The most noticeable characteristic to me of the ski is it's smoothness. Silky smooth compared to other skis I demoed. Great carving on groomed snow. Initiates turns very easily. Forgiving but not overly soft for my abilities. Handles the looser stuff later in the day just fine. I think songfta's description is accurate . . . for higher level skier than you or I they'd have to back off. I had a friend ski them last weekend . . . same size as me, less skill . . . he felt they weren't as effective until he got more speed and energy into the ski . . . kind of the opposite problem of songfta. Expertskier.com had great reviews on this ski. I chose it over the 10 and limited because I wanted a narrower wasted ski and felt it was quicker edge to edge.

The ski should be well discounted by this time of year. Dynastar discounted them to dealers about 3 weeks ago, and from what my dealer reports they are replacing the ski next year, so it will be no more. But I wouldn't let that stop you from buying it.
post #10 of 16
Thread Starter 
Bump. I'm waiting to hear something bad about these skis. I can buy them for $399 on line and thats not bad. Right now I'm just looking for more info.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBV13 View Post
Bump. I'm waiting to hear something bad about these skis. I can buy them for $399 on line and thats not bad. Right now I'm just looking for more info.
BBV . . . FWIW I spent hours looking for every review online for this ski, and had a hard time finding anything bad about the ski. Anything "bad" was just a preference for a different kind of ski, no glaring shortcomings that I can discern, but I'm not extensively well versed in skis like some of the guys here.

Another FWIW . . . I subscribe to the expertskier.com website and this ski, from their reviewers around the country, gave it all 4's and 5's in all their categories, and had good things to say about it. If you want a turnier ski you might want to look at the RX-8 or the Head Supershape which were on my shortlist. I ended up going with what I could demo, as I could not demo the Head or RX-8 that meant the 9.
post #12 of 16
[quote=jerry5757;871504]BBV13, I bought the Contact 9 after much deliberation and demoing the 9, 10, and Limited. I ski in Michigan on small hills, am 5'-8" and go about 180 lbs., maybe a level 7 or 8. Working on carving arc-to-arc with modern technique, and was looking for a good groomer ski for this.


Jerry,

What was the difference between the 3 skis, and why did you settle on the 9

Lee
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeX View Post
Jerry,

What was the difference between the 3 skis, and why did you settle on the 9

Lee
I'm in Michigan and wanted a dedicated carving ski for groomed skiing. The dims on the 9 are 122/68/102 with a 12 meter turning radius; the 10 and Limited are a same at tip and tail but 72 mm under foot which was wider than I wanted. Also wanted to keep the TR down. The 9 was a less expensive but in some peoples eyes was/is great performance for the money, and I was trying to keep the cost down.

I wanted to be able to carve short radius turns, as many as I can the 250 to 500 foot hills I have here in Michigan. Reality check: Michigan=groomed man made. Plus the 9 is more forgiving and more in line with my abilities/preference than the 10 or Limited.

I've been out on the ski maybe 5 or 6 times, and like the ski more each time out. It's fun, lively, carves well, very smooth and fits my abilities, and likely will for the next two seasons at which time I will consider a higher performing ski.

FWIW - I just looked at your post regarding a hardpack ski - my shortlist was basically the 9, the RX-8, and the Head Supershape. Couldn't demo the RX-8 or the Head, so went with what I know, I think they would all be great as a hardpack ski.

Hope that helps.
post #14 of 16
Thanks

Lee
post #15 of 16
How stiff are they ?

I'm a lower-mid intermediate (5-6, mostly blues) looking to buy something I can improve on in PA hardpack.

My other thoughts were a Magfire 10, or an XWing 8, but I like the idea of a thinner waist for the carving.
post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks to everyone who gave me information about these skis. I ordered a pair of 172's today and cant wait for next winter so I use them
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews