or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Dynastar midfat - Page 2

post #31 of 36
Oooops....................I missed your height/weight and your length priority thing. I'm 5-10/200# or so and a technical L-8 skier. For me, the tossup is between 178 and 184. I think if I were in a wide open area I'd choose the 184. In more confined areas, the 178 is the choice. Honestly, the 172 I skied last spring was surprisingly good so I'd say if you are mebbe 170# or less, the 172 is OK. If you are over that, then the 178 is operative and if you are close to my lard azzed weight, the 184 would be better in the open areas.

This is another of those personal choices and I've always erred on the side of somewhat longer skis. That's just me though and YMMV.

SJ
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I've skied the Sultan in a 172 and I think it certainly different than the Mythic although not necessarily stronger. The MR is pretty stiff and has a straight sidecut making it a stellar crudbuster. The Mythic is also a ski that needs some muscle to bend at slower speeds although the shape allows pivoty turns easily. The Sultan feels entirely different. It has a lighter more playful feel yet has equal or better grip. I'd actually compare the Mythic more to a Head 88 than I would the Sultan. Keeping the short size in mind, I think the Sultan is much more nimble feeling than either the Head or the Mythic. I don't know the long term future of the Legend line but I think the MR and Sultan are targeted toward different tastes. As always, waist width does not tell the whole story.

 

I would characterize the Sultan as a new and improved L8K and a very tough challenger for the Watea 84. (IMO those are both very good things to be)

 

SJ


I would also add the the Sultans feature vertical sidewalls from tip to tail. This puts the construction type in the same group as the Contact 4X4 & Legend Pro models. This will aid edge-grip and carving ability at the expense of ease-of-use. The deeper side-cut on the Sultans will also improve carving but require more skill in crud and moguls as SJ mentioned.

The Sultan would do better on hard groomed runs than the Mythic while still providing some float in soft snow. The Mythic would do better in softer crud and other skied-out natural snow while still providing one-ski-quiver versatility.

Michael
Edited by WILDCAT - 10/24/09 at 8:15am
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCAT View Post




I would also add the the Sultans feature vertical sidewalls from tip to tail. This puts the construction type in the same group as the Contact 4X4 & legend Pro models. This will aid edge-grip and carving ability at the expense of ease-of-use. The deeper side-cut on the Sultans will also improve carving but require more skill in crud and moguls as SJ mentioned.

The Sultan would do better on hard groomed runs than the Mythic while still providing some float in soft snow. The Mythic would do better in softer crud and other skied-out natural snow while still providing one-ski-quiver versatility.

Michael

I would only add that personally, I think the Sultan is a better OSQ than the Mythic. The only area where the MR is notably superior to the Sultan is in heavier more windblown or thicker snow conditions. The stiffer flex and straight shape of the MR allows it to bust through these conditions better. OTH, the Sultan is somewhat better at almost everything else including light 3D snow which is the MR's most notable weakness. Both are excellent skis, but for my tastes, the Sultan has a better balance of capabilities.

SJ
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




I would only add that personally, I think the Sultan is a better OSQ than the Mythic. The only area where the MR is notably superior to the Sultan is in heavier more windblown or thicker snow conditions. The stiffer flex and straight shape of the MR allows it to bust through these conditions better. OTH, the Sultan is somewhat better at almost everything else including light 3D snow which is the MR's most notable weakness. Both are excellent skis, but for my tastes, the Sultan has a better balance of capabilities.

SJ
 

Yikes...now I'm more confused.  I thought the vertical walls and LP-like build of the 85 would make it give it a more stout and a less forgiving feel than the Mythic.  This would be bad because I hated the Mythic.  Perhaps it's the lack of sidecut and the tip to tail stiffness of the Mythic but I can recall fighting it turn after turn.  The Mythic skied me more than the other way around.  I was on a 178 and even at 5'11" 190ish lbs they felt clumsy.

As another reference point I have skied the Watea extensively and love them.  The only thing that's kept me looking for something more has been its hard snow performance and it's never impressed me as a damp ski, despite the accounts of others here.  I thought the 85 was a step in the right direction but now I'm not so sure.  I'm still intrigued enough by the 85 for a demo so I'll see what comes of that.
post #35 of 36
My pair is sitting at the shop.  A couple of notes: Dynastar uses an early rise tip and tail, so the running length on the 178cm is more typical to most brand's 175cm. It is nearly exactly the same as the Blizzard Magnum 8.7 174cm. 

The ski is softer than the Mythic when flexing it, and has a nice flex throughout the body, feels very even.  Feels stiffer torsionally than the Mythic.  About the same flex in the tip as the Magnum 8.7, but softer in the mid-body and tail. I have a feeling than the Sultan 85 will be much more of a do-everything tool and less of a wide carver (more like an Elan 888, less like a Blizzard 8.7 and AC50, which are kind of stiff for skiing steep bumps (believe me, I tried the Blizz. at Squaw).  This ski will be a winner. I ordered a 178 for personal use, as the 172 is a little short with essentially a 169 running length, no matter what the "ski selector" on the Dyna* website says.
post #36 of 36
One should never assume anything from the construction (ie: full sidewall vs. partial sidewall) The effect is what counts and any effect the designer wants can be accomplished either way. The MR is straight and fairly stiff overall. Hence it is a ski that takes some muscle to ski but it also rewards one who can. The Watea is the opposite. It is reasonably soft overall and torsionally so it it supremely forgiving in lumpy and mixed conditions but it is a little challenged by the harder stuff.

The Sultan is somwhere in betwixt the two. Stiffer overall and esp. torsionally than the Watea so there is more grip but slightly less forgiving. Compared to the MR, the Sultan is slightly stiffer in torsion but a tad softer overall and hence it turns more readily in light fluffy snow and or bumpzzz and offers a touch better grip.

Comparing three really good skis.....................

Watea 84.......Easy, nimble, forgiving. Great in bumpz and fluff, lacking on really hard or heavy snow.

MR.........Firm and powerful, incredible crud blaster, pretty good on hard snow, not real forgiving or real floaty in fluff and a bit much for bumps.

Sultan...More grip and crud busting power than the Watea. More nimble, floaty and forgiving than the MR. Probably the best combo yet of these two really great skis.

My own pair of 178's are sitting in the way back corner of the shop too. I'll get to 'em one day.

SJ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion