EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Dynastar Mythic - right length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynastar Mythic - right length?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
I've never skied Dynastar Mythic, but I'm thinking of rolling the dice on a cheap online deal - just not sure about the best length.

5'8", 148 lbs., 45 years old. Level 8. Relatively fast and aggressive for an old guy. Ski mostly east but buying these as a quiver of one, east or west ski. Priority is trees, bowls and pow, but need to carve too.

So here's the question: When I demo skis that are that fat under foot, I have typically been in a 165 cm to 170 cm, but according to Dynastar 172 cm is the recommended size in the Mythic. Anybody with a similar profile want to weigh in on 165 cm vs. 172 cm?
post #2 of 11
I'm slightly bigger than you at 5'9" & 165 lbs.

I ski the 178 Mythic and so I'd recommend the 172 for you. I haven't skied the 165 but speculate you'd lose quite a bit of stability on groomers and crud and loss of float in powder.
post #3 of 11

I don't Ski BACK EAST

But Snow is Snow, and I think you would be better off on the 178
post #4 of 11
I have the MR and am the same size, but inexplicably a bit heavier - 172 is correct for you.
post #5 of 11
172 not 178 or 165. dynstar is right on this.
post #6 of 11
Can you tell us the web site and price for what
you found as a "good deal"?

post #7 of 11
Probably a 172 would be best for all-around skiing. I am about your size and prefer the 178 for Western GS-type skiing. It depends on what you are looking for, really.
post #8 of 11
I'm 6' 155 lbs. and did a demo of both 172 & 178. Never considered the 165. Bought the 178 and haven't looked back.

OP wanted an opinion regarding 165 and 172. I'd opt for 172.
post #9 of 11
I guess I'm one of the few people that think everyone is buying this ski too long. I'm 180", 5' 11", 53 and ski everywhere. I bought this ski in a 178cm even though many people recommended the 185cm model. The biggest downsides of going shorter is you lose float in deep powder and stability at high speeds in crud. The upside is you can take the skis into trees and moguls without having to fight them. Since I have dedicated powder skis I wasn't worried about the deep powder performance but these skis are going to be my primary crud ski I was concerned about crud stability. I decided I'd rather put up with less stability doing SG turns in crud in exchange for having a length that was easier to handle in trees, moguls and narrow steeps. (I should note that the 178cm length is as long as I need for bombing groomers and very stable compared to most other skis in crud.)

If you were ten pounds heavier I wouldn't hesitate recommending the 172cm length but at your weight I'm 50/50 between the two lengths you're looking at.
post #10 of 11
I vote for the 172 for you.

I am 5 10" and 155-160 and bought the 178. West coast/Idaho/Utah.

I demo skied the 178 in slightly heavy powder and cut up powder/crud and they were awesome. My ski pal is a little taller and felt the 172 were a little too short for him the same night.
I intend on buying some 170-172 groomer rippers this year for non new snow days. Not sure what model or brand yet.

post #11 of 11
Just to chime in, I'm 5'10" and 160; I ski Colorado and some Oregon.

I have the 172s and love 'em to death. There are *occasionally* brief moments where I wish I had a little more underfoot but those thoughts are easily overwhelmed by the times I'm slinking through trees or dodging rocks. To be fair, I've never skied the 178s but I don't regret the 172s at all.

I certainly wouldn't go any shorter though.
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 Mythic - right length?