EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 Dynastar Huge Trouble 185cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 Dynastar Huge Trouble 185cm

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Review: 2009 Dynastar Huge Trouble, 185cm

This ski is 115mm underfoot, and has a 33mm radius. It has NO camber, so completely flat. I have it mounted up with a Railflex, so that I can dial in the position fore and aft and also use it a demo ski. This ski only comes in a 185cm. It is fairly stiff, with a decent amount of metal, and a full twin-tip. There are 2 mounting positions: Center and Standard. I chose the latter. Skis came out of the box tuned at 1/1, and I just touched it up, although Coup recommended a 1.75 on the base bevel, so that the ski releases easier in the chop. After skiing this pair, I would agree, but didn't have time to touch it last night.

About me: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, solid skier, ski 40-60 days/year (averaging about 3 days/week this season so far). I like to ski fairly fast, and seek challenging terrain as well.

Review: I skied this ski briefly a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get much time on it. Not to mention that the conditions really weren't ideal. Today, it was a different story. A typical windy Bachelor storm moved through, depositing around 12-14 inches of 15-20 degree snow, but was very windpacked anywhere but the lower trees. This mountain is flat, and the parts that are not flat are very exposed and usually lousy snow. Today was no exception, as the upper bowl (which has pitches up to 40 degrees) had a nice wind-pack crust over punchy snow up to 10" deep, as well as lots of wind-lips (the storm came in windy, and probably was up around 70-80mph at the top of the mountain during the windiest part. 100mph winds are not uncommon at the summit during a storm). Down lower, the mountain was fairly tracked out from the day before, so soft bumps were common, as was lightly-skied crud. The upper mountain borders on scary with these conditions (at least scary for the knees, as you never know what your skis are going to do underneath you) and I am usually struggling to deal with the inconsistent snow.

I was excited to get on this ski. It seems like the perfect Bachelor ski: wide, traditional sidecut, no camber, and versatile. I haven't gotten on the reverse camber/reverse sidecut bandwagon, as the few skis I have tried seemed to specific to deep snow and nowhere near the versatility I was seeking. Soft bumps and well-tracked crud and those reverse/reverse skis just don't cut it, not to mention groomer skiing. But, the Huge Trouble is a combination of some of the better aspects of the more radical skis and the more traditional ones, and it seems like a fine choice for any soft-snow condition.

I was very impressed by this ski, to say the least. It absolutely made mincemeat out of tough-to-ski windpack and wind-lips, as well as cut-up crud. In bumps, it was extremely maneverable (very soft bumps, that is) and in the trees, assuming I was on a few inches of snow, it allowed me to carve through the trees. This ski totally steepened the mountain for me: now I can ski anywhere, instead of picking areas that only have enough pitch to sustain my momentum. Pitch is not really an issue on these skis, at least in moderate snow. They really impressed me at speed: I hauled ass down the Cirque, which on skier's left has built up to around 40 degrees with wind-loading. It was cut-up windcrust and chop, and everyone on the pitch was doing short turns and barely making it down. One guy ate it and slid down the whole face. But, on the Huge Trouble, I just let 'er rip. Huge Super-G arcs, going way too fast, but this ski allowed me to stay up on the crappy snow and carve it well. Not that it was easy skiing, but it felt relatively easy, especially with how everyone else was struggling, even those on Gotamas. It definitely was a holy sh** run, but hey, I pulled it off. On my narrower Watea 94's, I probably would have been tomahawking down the hill after I buried a tip at that speed.

The other thing that suprised me about the Huge Trouble was the superb versatility. I was initially thinking of buying a more radical reverse camber ski, but both some of my own demos and also the opinions of other skiers I know turned me off. Those skis just are so darn specific. At the industry demo at Snowbasin, they were all the rage, and rightly so. Conditions were perfect, although the snow was so light, frankly I didn't need anything over 90mm or so (actually, a race ski was even adequate in that snow). Still, if there is any place that a rockered or reverse-camber ski will work, it was at at Snowbasin, after 8 feet of new snow had fallen. Fast forward 2 weeks to our local demo, with crusty snow and a few inches of fresh on top of it. Reverse camber skis: all of the sudden not so popular, and all of us that did ski them were struggling. Hence my draw toward the Huge Trouble. I wanted something more versatile, that could ski most any off-piste condition: beat up crud, soft bumps, as well as the usual deep snow/windpack/challenging snow. And, this ski was all that I expected and more. I couldn't say enough about it's versatility. I started the day on it, switched to the Watea 94, then switched right back after 2 runs. No question, the Huge Trouble was the ski to have today. The Watea is a great ski, but no match in really cruddy snow. If I lived in Utah, however, I doubt I would desire anything wider than the 94. Also, I did ski an icy/windblown 40-degree pitch with this. It held OK, not great, but manageable. This ski it laterally stiff, although at 115mm underfoot, it gives up some performance on ice.

The feel of this ski was very powerful: laterally stiff, fairly stiff flex. It feels a bit stiffer and more substantial than the Watea 101, for example, and definitely trademark Dynastar. It is a laminate ski, with a lot of metal, and almost reminds me of the Legend Pro 176cm, but longer and wider, which is a good thing. It searches for the top of the snow, and rarely dives, but doesn't feel overly surfy or floaty when in variable conditions. The Huge Trouble seems to be the right blend of all-mountain performance with true soft-snow/big mountain at insane speeds capability. I could ski it slow, or fast, and it took everything in stride. It was a poor groomer ski, but that is too be expected. It was better with the rearward mounting point, but still very grabby and on/off. It liked pressure on the outside ski, and not much angulation. A wide carver, this is not.

One note about mounting: the recommended mount position (standard) is much too far forward, IMO. I had the Railflex, and ended up going back 2.5cm before being very comfortable. The recommended mount position felt horrible: I felt like I had no tip, and the ski was much too aggressive. Back 1.5cm was better, 2cm was even better (although still a little far forward) and 2.5cm was best for me: the ski became very easy, I felt like I was in the sweet spot. If you demo these, play around with it, as I would have put these in the nearest dumpster had I been forced to ski them at the "Standard" mount position. This isn't a super-long ski: the running surface is only 1cm longer than my 178cm Watea 94's. But, even with the mounting point 2.5cm rearward of recommended, they still mount up 1cm in front of the Watea 94. So, keep this in mind, as it plays a huge role in how this ski feels. If you mount it in the recommended position, you may feel like you were tricked into buying a 170cm instead of the 185cm.

So far, so good with the Huge Trouble. It did so well in the soft snow, even stuff that was only 4-6" deep, that I am considering going with this as part of a 2-ski quiver (probably the Elan 82X as the other half). I feel pretty confident that I could really enjoy this in any soft snow condition, and the 82x being such a superb carver and still adequate off-piste, I am not sure that my Watea 94 will get much use now! But, if I lived elsewhere (tight chutes, lighter snow, not as much windpack, such as Utah/Colorado) I would give a more qualified thumbs-up to this ski. For example, for what we were skiing at Aspen, it doesn't make much sense. Watea 94/888 are better all-around choices.

Pros:
Great at speed, easy when going slow
Makes tough conditions skiable, and moderate conditions easy
Superb float
More versatile than rockered/reverse camber skis
Skis like a normal ski
Large sweet spot

Cons:
Lousy groomer performance
Slow edge-to-edge, not a nimble ski
Really heavy if you are thinking about an AT setup
Mounting position is crucial
post #2 of 20
Thanks dawgcatching. Great review, as usual. You drew a few comparisons to the Goats....is this ski a complement to that and will it fill a gap in the quiver if one already owns the Goats? Or....are they close enough in performance that it would be redundant to own both? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

Thanks,

LnL
post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
Thanks dawgcatching. Great review, as usual. You drew a few comparisons to the Goats....is this ski a complement to that and will it fill a gap in the quiver if one already owns the Goats? Or....are they close enough in performance that it would be redundant to own both? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

Thanks,

LnL
I wouldn't own both pair. The Huge Trouble does everything that a 100mm underfoot ski would off-piste, but is much better in variable snow. If you only had 1 pair of ski, something 100mm underfoot probably isn't a bad choice if you primarily ski off-piste, but it wouldn't make much sense to own both. I was considering purchasing a BRO or Pro Rider but doubt I will now consider purchasing either. I can't comment on the Gotama comparison directly, as I have only skied them briefly for a couple of times. They are very popular with the moderate-speed skiers in this area, whereas most of the aggressive skiers are on something more aggressive, FWIW.
post #4 of 20
feel totally the same about how my thugs are...


but in Utah its not allways light dry powder...
post #5 of 20
Thanks for the great review.

A couple of question :
- How does it compare to the XXL ? As a tradi shaped crud buster, they seem to fit he same spot.
- Do you confirm it's nowhere near a BTrouble replacement ? The BT was good on the groomers.
- Could you elaborate on the hard snow / ice performance ?

(That's 3 questions, I know...)
post #6 of 20
anyone have the cliff's notes?
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
anyone have the cliff's notes?
A great ski for gnarly snow.

Michael
post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR View Post
Thanks for the great review.

A couple of question :
- How does it compare to the XXL ? As a tradi shaped crud buster, they seem to fit he same spot.
- Do you confirm it's nowhere near a BTrouble replacement ? The BT was good on the groomers.
- Could you elaborate on the hard snow / ice performance ?

(That's 3 questions, I know...)
The XXL has camber, so it won't be as good in funky snow, probably better in hardpack. The HT is more of a soft-snow/funky snow ski.

I don't know about the BT.

And, hard snow performance on the HT sucks. Get another ski if you are worried about edgehold on ice: no camber and reverse camber skis aren't worth a darn there. Of course, if you just cruise and don't put the skis onto edge much, they are probably fine. But, forget skiing them aggressively with edge angle, arc-to-arc.

My personal theory is that people who ski wide skis on groomers ect. and rave about the performance aren't pushing the skis on groomers. After skiing at Squaw last week, where everyone is on something 90mm and wider, most everyone who was on these skis, when on the groomer, wasn't getting much edge angle, and definitely not skiing them aggressively. Mostly, it was just cruising: low energy, low edge angles. In those conditions, wide skis are probably fine. Where I am coming from is that I like to ski them aggressively, arc-to-arc, with lots of edge angle. Many of the wide skis just don't like much edge angle on groomers, the HT's included. I figure it is a solid groomer ski if you could run GS on it without feeling scared for your life. If the ski can't handle a 20m carved, aggressive turn, then it isn't a good groomer ski, IMO. But hey, not everyone skis like me, hence the difference in opinion.
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
A great ski for gnarly snow.

Michael
cheers.

sounds unique.



Seriously, I'm sure it's a blast. They all are.
post #10 of 20
phillipe NOT a replacement for the BT, just a new wide ski to add to the line
post #11 of 20
Thread Starter 
The BT is around 95mm underfoot, if I am not mistaken.
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
The XXL has camber, so it won't be as good in funky snow, probably better in hardpack. The HT is more of a soft-snow/funky snow ski.

I don't know about the BT.

And, hard snow performance on the HT sucks. Get another ski if you are worried about edgehold on ice: no camber and reverse camber skis aren't worth a darn there. Of course, if you just cruise and don't put the skis onto edge much, they are probably fine. But, forget skiing them aggressively with edge angle, arc-to-arc.

My personal theory is that people who ski wide skis on groomers ect. and rave about the performance aren't pushing the skis on groomers. After skiing at Squaw last week, where everyone is on something 90mm and wider, most everyone who was on these skis, when on the groomer, wasn't getting much edge angle, and definitely not skiing them aggressively. Mostly, it was just cruising: low energy, low edge angles. In those conditions, wide skis are probably fine. Where I am coming from is that I like to ski them aggressively, arc-to-arc, with lots of edge angle. Many of the wide skis just don't like much edge angle on groomers, the HT's included. I figure it is a solid groomer ski if you could run GS on it without feeling scared for your life. If the ski can't handle a 20m carved, aggressive turn, then it isn't a good groomer ski, IMO. But hey, not everyone skis like me, hence the difference in opinion.
Thanks.
(and to elaborate : unfortunately, hard snow does not means only groomers where I ski... )
post #13 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR View Post
Thanks.
(and to elaborate : unfortunately, hard snow does not means only groomers where I ski... )
I skied them in crusty off-piste conditions as well, and they were a little better, but certainly wouldn't be my first or second choice in those conditions either. This is really meant as more versatile alternative to "fun" shape skis.
post #14 of 20
Thread Starter 
A quick update:

I skied both the HT and the Legend Pro 176cm (2008 model) today in anywhere between 3 to 8" of new snow, with crust underneath. I first skied the HT, and it did well, especially in windy ridges of snow that had built up, a well as the partially-tracked crud, and definitely on the new snow. The 3" stuff was a little thin for it, as dust on crust always is. I switched out to the LP, expecting an easier time on the 3" stuff, and around the same performance on the 8". In reality, the HT beat the LP in both conditions. The wider HT allowed me to stay up above the crusty snow for the most part, and the bit of trouble I was having in the trees due to the unpredictability of the crust underneath was greater with the LP's, as I was bottoming out on it a bit more. The LP wasn't as good in the windblown snow, the deeper uncut snow, and was about the same in the crud. Stability was a bit lower than on the HT. And, although the HT is a poor groomer and solid-snow ski, it was much better when the groomer is a bit soft. The LP really didn't feel much better on the groomer: It liked to wander almost as much as the HT.

For today's conditions, I would say that the HT was better, hands down. The only place I could make a case at this point for the LP is for skiing really light snow where a wide ski isn't necessary, or as more of a daily ride. I am sure the LP is going to hold better on off-piste hardpack, just due to the narrower waist. In new snow though, the HT feels spot-on, and will be my go-to ski. I ended up with the binding 3cm back of the standard mount point, FWIW.

I would love to see something from Dynastar that has a mid 90mm waist, but a shorter turn radius, like the Mythic. The big turn radius of the Legend Pro/Pro Rider is great off-piste, but not as versatile as a 20m radius ski.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
I would love to see something from Dynastar that has a mid 90mm waist, but a shorter turn radius, like the Mythic. The big turn radius of the Legend Pro/Pro Rider is great off-piste, but not as versatile as a 20m radius ski.
Big Trouble: 92mm underfoot and 20m turn radius at 176cm (23m at 186cm). Not as stiff as the Mythic (particularly in the tip) and a little more snappy/poppy. The 186 has been my daily driver for 2-years now--both busting crud back on Mt Hood and skiing up the tracked out here in UT.
post #16 of 20

 Great review - have you dialed in the mounting point yet?

post #17 of 20

So far the mounting position for this ski seems to be highly debated. I'm a young, aggressive skier who's also a lightweight, so I'm pondering if -2.5cm works for heavier skiers because it transfers the weight distribution back, effectively making the ski ski its length. So, would the standard mount make the ski closer to a 175, or even shorter? I ski 172 Dynastar Legend 8000s currently, if that helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Review: 2009 Dynastar Huge Trouble, 185cm

One note about mounting: the recommended mount position (standard) is much too far forward, IMO. I had the Railflex, and ended up going back 2.5cm before being very comfortable. The recommended mount position felt horrible: I felt like I had no tip, and the ski was much too aggressive. Back 1.5cm was better, 2cm was even better (although still a little far forward) and 2.5cm was best for me: the ski became very easy, I felt like I was in the sweet spot. If you demo these, play around with it, as I would have put these in the nearest dumpster had I been forced to ski them at the "Standard" mount position. This isn't a super-long ski: the running surface is only 1cm longer than my 178cm Watea 94's. But, even with the mounting point 2.5cm rearward of recommended, they still mount up 1cm in front of the Watea 94. So, keep this in mind, as it plays a huge role in how this ski feels. If you mount it in the recommended position, you may feel like you were tricked into buying a 170cm instead of the 185cm.

 

post #18 of 20
Hi Dawgcatching,

I know this thread is pretty old now, but I've got a question re: mounting point for HTs. It seems like there's a consensus on mounting behind the standard line somewhere.
I'm a bit heavier at just over 200lbs so wondering what your thoughts are? Given I wont get to try before I mount mine up, should I go 3cm back of the standard line, or more/less than this?
How do you think skier weight influences an 'ideal' mounting point for a ski like this (obviously many other influences too - e.g.stance, aggressiveness, etc)?

Cheers,
Vinski

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

For today's conditions, I would say that the HT was better, hands down. The only place I could make a case at this point for the LP is for skiing really light snow where a wide ski isn't necessary, or as more of a daily ride. I am sure the LP is going to hold better on off-piste hardpack, just due to the narrower waist. In new snow though, the HT feels spot-on, and will be my go-to ski. I ended up with the binding 3cm back of the standard mount point, FWIW.
 
post #19 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

Hi Dawgcatching,

I know this thread is pretty old now, but I've got a question re: mounting point for HTs. It seems like there's a consensus on mounting behind the standard line somewhere.
I'm a bit heavier at just over 200lbs so wondering what your thoughts are? Given I wont get to try before I mount mine up, should I go 3cm back of the standard line, or more/less than this?
How do you think skier weight influences an 'ideal' mounting point for a ski like this (obviously many other influences too - e.g.stance, aggressiveness, etc)?

Cheers,
Vinski
 


 

Vinski,

I really have no idea!  I pretty much came to the 2.5cm number by comparing it to other skis that had recommended mounting points that I liked (such as the Mythic Rider). If you calculate for the difference in running length (the 178cm Mythic and the 185 HT are nearly identical with respect to running length), you will see the recommended mount on the HT is 2.5cm further up than that of the Mythic.  I like the way the Mythic skis, so why not the HT at the same point? Of course, you could go further back if you wished.  As a general rule, moving back may  make the ski more powerful, but harder to initiate, so it all depends on skill level.  I do think that 2.5cm is a good place to start, or if you don't want to fiddle around, then a good set and forget point.  
post #20 of 20
Thanks Dawgcatching,

I don't think initiation will be a problem for me so I reckon I'll go for -2.5cm and set and forget.
As a general rule do you think it would also be accurate to say that moving back may increase the float of a wide ski? E.g. by moving the skier's weight back marginally..

Cheers,
Vinski

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

As a general rule, moving back may  make the ski more powerful, but harder to initiate, so it all depends on skill level.  I do think that 2.5cm is a good place to start, or if you don't want to fiddle around, then a good set and forget point.  

 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 Dynastar Huge Trouble 185cm