EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Q & A with Dynastar Legend Product Mgr.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Q & A with Dynastar Legend Product Mgr. - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Thread Starter 
It's been a while since I drilled one but IIRC, no metal. The ski does require a 4.1 drill bit but I'd attribute that to the thickness and type of glass used under the foot as part of the "Springblade" construction style. FWIW, Nat believes that the Legend lineup should have metal (at least the highest end ones) but the Sixth Sense models should not. Hence the new Legend Pro 115 has metal but the New Huge does not.

There was so much info flowing from Nat, that a lot of it didn't get on tape. One thing that came out was the fairly recent useage by Dynastar of some different types of glass and different layups that allow for thinner ski profiles. This is very evident on the Sultan 85 for instance.

One thing is for sure (at least IMO) is that the Springblade build really works. One of the best womens skis that I skied at Alpine was a new model using this construction.

SJ
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

It's been a while since I drilled one but IIRC, no metal. The ski does require a 4.1 drill bit but I'd attribute that to the thickness and type of glass used under the foot as part of the "Springblade" construction style. FWIW, Nat believes that the Legend lineup should have metal (at least the highest end ones) but the Sixth Sense models should not. Hence the new Legend Pro 115 has metal but the New Huge does not.

There is metal in the mount area of the '09 Dynastar Big Trouble, but I don't know if this spans the entire ski, or is shared with the Huge Trouble.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178074
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Skier219 wrote: "Finally, and this might be better for an off the record sideline, tell him the factory tune on my Sultan 85s was abominable."

SJ wrote: "On the production shaping thing....that has already been discussed."
 

SierraJim, I know that the poor factory tune has been discussed on this board among ourselves. I've seen a couple of those posts. Are you saying that Dynastar has responded formally to this criticism and that their response has been posted here? If so, could you point us to that? I'm curious. Apologies if I missed it.

On the other hand, if Dynastar has not responded, then it seems to me that the fact that WE have discussed the issue is irrelevant; Skier219 wanted to hear what Dynastar said. As a (very) amateur home tuner with no stone grinder in his basement, I don't relish the idea of adding another thirty bucks or whatever on top of the price of a new pair of boards to get them flat, not to mention the waste of good p-tex and steel. (I'm sure YOU would do this gratis, but I'm equally sure that not every dealer would.)
post #34 of 58
 I should note that my issue was with side edge angles, and was easily fixed by hand.  The bases and base edge angles were fine.  The sides were under-beveled, and I merely had to bring them from a variable 0.5-1.5 degrees to an honest and consistent 2 degrees.  Still, Dynastar should be able to get this right.
post #35 of 58
I mounted the Sixth Sense Huge today. I saw metal when boring the binding holes, aluminum came out with the drilled out core and fiberglass material. So metal in the mount area, at least.  (DtEW) 

Noticed the base had areas at tip and tail that had belt sanded surface peeking thru the stone grind patterning.  haven't checked for flat. I guess I'll check after I ski the wax off the first day. need snow, though.

Mounting point labeled standard is interesting. The effective edge at the tail lines up almost exactly with my mounted Legend Pro Rider's. That leaves the fore section about 6cm inches shorter than the fore section of the Legend Pro Rider. Should ski really agile if the fore and aft is balanced for float, which of course it is.

Repeating: the tip and tail have been "softened" by stopping the sidewall and using a cap in those areas. anyone know about the thinking there?  Dynastar has been tuning the flex of several models that way for years, Intuitiv, Mythic Legend, and so on.
post #36 of 58
Here's the perfect question for a Dynastar Product Mgr.

I would like to have a Legend Pro Rider in my quiver as the daily driver for many years to come. I know this, and regardless of what new ski comes out, with rocker or whatever. Should I buy up an extra pair to put aside until needed in 2 more seasons or so, or will I be able to buy that ski as a current model in 3 years?  Not a ski with the same name, but roughly the same ski, slight raised tail, round tip, same demensions and turn radius, same construction, and made in Chamonix,  and so on.

Of course it's not much fun to buy a ski and put it away for 3 years, and it doesn't add anything to the quiver as it is just a replacement; but I don't want to be without a pair of those sick sticks.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Here's the perfect question for a Dynastar Product Mgr.

I would like to have a Legend Pro Rider in my quiver as the daily driver for many years to come. I know this, and regardless of what new ski comes out, with rocker or whatever. Should I buy up an extra pair to put aside until needed in 2 more seasons or so, or will I be able to buy that ski as a current model in 3 years?  Not a ski with the same name, but roughly the same ski, slight raised tail, round tip, same demensions and turn radius, same construction, and made in Chamonix,  and so on.

 
Question..
Adding to the note from davluri above, what the closest new Dynastar ski to the 97mm waisted LP, with regards to performance on snow, not just dimensions?

Thanks
post #38 of 58
Thread Starter 
Killing two birds with one stone.............

The LP as we know it is going away and there is no exact replacement. There will be a new LP for 2011 that is 115 with tip rise. It is not the same ski or the same feel as the current ski but rather is a cross between the LP and the Big Dump. In the 184 and lower sizes it is not particularly stiff (rather like the 176 LP as we now know it). There will be a longer/stiffer version in limited numbers at some time next season but details are uncertain.

There will be a 105mm version of the LP also with tip rise in the future (probably 2012). The Sultan 94 is probably the ski with the closest feel to the 97mm LP in the incoming lineup. I'd venture that the new Slicer is probably the ski with the most similar set of capabilities to the 97mm LP albeit the feel is different.

SJ
post #39 of 58
Sierra,

I've not owned a pair of Dstars since my 203cm SL model back in 1975. Lightweight and fun as heck.

My questions for the man would focus on what they are prepared to offer in terms of a modern designated steep or "mogul" ski for someone weighing in over 200lbs.

It seems I can no longer (age 58) get away with simply going for a short "GS" unit, given the modern technology.

Makes me think a 165mm is best for me in a top end ski for that purpose.

What lenghths are the offering and do they have a good chart on model slash waist widths on their site nowadays.
post #40 of 58
Edit

165cm
post #41 of 58
Edit B

are "THEY offering...
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post



Question..
Adding to the note from davluri above, what the closest new Dynastar ski to the 97mm waisted LP, with regards to performance on snow, not just dimensions?

Thanks


 
Nothing really. I skied the old LP extensively, and the Sultan 94 is friendlier, and skis shorter too.  The Slicer likes a rounder turn, not too much edge, and less aggressive skiing in general and transitions specifically.  I tend to be on/off my edges (although I can ski a round turn, but I like the more fall-line edge to edge feel on most terrain) and the Slicer just doesn't like the more aggressive feel like the Sultan 94 does.  The HT skied like a more aggressive Slicer (it was more tolerant of fall-line technique), but is also not similar to the LP.

My money is on a ~105mm LP with the Sultan tip at some point in the future, and with a bit of camber (or basically flat) underfoot.   There is a hole for 2011 in the lineup for that do-it-all big mountain ski. The HT is closest of the skis I think, but something similar, without the tail rocker, and a bit narrower would be spot-on for that everyday big ski.  For most people that don't live in big mountain terrain or ski lots of new snow much, the Sultan 94 is going to be one of the best skis on the market next year, much in the way the Sultan 85 was this year for a 50/50 ski.   
post #43 of 58
Sounds like if you want to ski the LP for 5 more years, better buy the 09 or earlier model right now.

Some of the changes Jim has described for the future do not constitute an improvement of the ski, which has rocked for 8 years or so much unchanged, at least for my skiing.

the Sultan sounds a little like the Shogun?
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Nothing really. I skied the old LP extensively, and the Sultan 94 is friendlier, and skis shorter too.  The Slicer likes a rounder turn, not too much edge, and less aggressive skiing in general and transitions specifically.  I tend to be on/off my edges (although I can ski a round turn, but I like the more fall-line edge to edge feel on most terrain) and the Slicer just doesn't like the more aggressive feel like the Sultan 94 does.  The HT skied like a more aggressive Slicer (it was more tolerant of fall-line technique), but is also not similar to the LP.

My money is on a ~105mm LP with the Sultan tip at some point in the future, and with a bit of camber (or basically flat) underfoot.   There is a hole for 2011 in the lineup for that do-it-all big mountain ski. The HT is closest of the skis I think, but something similar, without the tail rocker, and a bit narrower would be spot-on for that everyday big ski.  For most people that don't live in big mountain terrain or ski lots of new snow much, the Sultan 94 is going to be one of the best skis on the market next year, much in the way the Sultan 85 was this year for a 50/50 ski.   
 
Thanks Sierra Jim and Scott....as always well written....and to Dynastar----a big BOO!
post #45 of 58

Jim, Dawg-


So sounds like the Sultan 94 is a prime contender for the next year's best western daily driver award (a ski that is at home on a big mountain skiing everything except the big storms)?

Alex
 

post #46 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Jim, Dawg-


So sounds like the Sultan 94 is a prime contender for the next year's best western daily driver award (a ski that is at home on a big mountain skiing everything except the big storms)?

Alex
 


That could well be the one. I skied it @ Winter Park on the frontside and it was surprisingly good on the very hard snow there. Then I skied it @ Mammoth in the wind chop and it shone there as well. Nothing felt more balanced for those distinctly opposed conditions.

Hafta admit though, I'm also intrigued by the Slicer.................

SJ
post #47 of 58
The new Sultan 94 got my pick as the best of the new skis I demo'd recently.  If this ski has early rise/rocker I sure couldn't tell on the groomers (unlike other skis that have these features and give up some performance on the hard stuff).  It had great edge grip, a nice powerful feel, smooth/stable/damp, felt quick edge to edge and I love the deeper sidecut on a wider ski - maneuvered tight trees very well.

Without a doubt this would be a perfect daily driver for me in CO.
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

The new Sultan 94 got my pick as the best of the new skis I demo'd recently.  If this ski has early rise/rocker I sure couldn't tell on the groomers (unlike other skis that have these features and give up some performance on the hard stuff).  It had great edge grip, a nice powerful feel, smooth/stable/damp, felt quick edge to edge and I love the deeper sidecut on a wider ski - maneuvered tight trees very well.

Without a doubt this would be a perfect daily driver for me in CO.
That early rise/progressive rocker shortens up the contact length, and eases turn initiation when you have snow building up under the tip in soft snow conditions.  That shorter contact length is why it is easy to ski, yet since the tip is engaged in softer snow, you still somewhat maintain the running length there in the soft snow. 

The biggest downside with that idea (which is what K2 is using on the Richter and Aftershock as well) is the shorter contact length can make the ski feel too quick (quicker than advertised, in both length and turn radius) and also lose stability in rough snow, again due to the shorter contact length. It is definitely a trade-off. For example, both the 177cm Mantra and 177cm Elan Apex (888 replacement), as well as the 179cm VXL,  were all a bit more stable than the 178cm Sultan 94, as the running length on the Sultan is on the short side compared to the other 2, which do not have the progressive/rocker/early rise tip. The shorter running length on the Sultan is maybe a little too turny for good, aggressive skiers in crud (those skiers who like bigger skis like the Stockli XXXL due to the lack of turn radius, as they run straight at speed well until the skier tells the ski when to turn).  Those who aren't as skilled in crud and need some help will love the new design.  

I think that design on kind of the mid-width skis such as we are referring to here will appeal to the less aggressive or skilled skier who doesn't mind the ease of skiing such a design, and isn't too worried about the loss in high-end stability.  Which is to say, probably 85% of the customers we sell skis to here on Epicski. The other 15% will either buy a ski such as this in 1 length longer, or get a ski with a traditional tip.  I didn't feel any more of an "ease of transition" aside from it skiing like a shorter ski, which would be easier to ski at any rate: many skis already have a soft tip which executes the same turn ease in soft snow.

We all liked the new 94 and thought it would be a great match for a whole lot of skiers. 
post #49 of 58
 So looks like people who preferred the "old" Dynastar in 178 would need to step up to 184 length in the Sultan 94? 
post #50 of 58
 BTW, Jim- Did you post the Q&A videos that started all this?
post #51 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 BTW, Jim- Did you post the Q&A videos that started all this?

Not yet. We have had issues with the borrowed camera (our fault) and have not yet been able to get to it. I don't think we've lost the video.....just sorta misplaced it for the moment.

SJ
post #52 of 58

The Legend Pro developed over a period of years into a classic ski. for Dynastar to drop it now is a bummer.

post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 So looks like people who preferred the "old" Dynastar LP in 176 would need to step up to 184 length in the Sultan 94? 

Does the above question merit a yes/no/maybe.....SJ or dawg ?
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 So looks like people who preferred the "old" Dynastar in 178 would need to step up to 184 length in the Sultan 94? 

not exactly true, IMO.

you should continue to ski the same size and you will have better tip float. slightly lesser stability is to be the acceptable trade off.
post #55 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post




Does the above question merit a yes/no/maybe.....SJ or dawg ?

I'd give that a maybe. Despite some obvious similarities, I'd characterize the the two skis differently. The Sultan is intended to be a daily driver with a roughly even split between on trail and off trail capabilities. Hence, it has more sidecut than the LP albeit with a roughly similar build and flex. Within that context, it is as good as it gets within next years offerings. The LP was developed as a "big mountan" ski with a fairly straight shape and burly ass flex in it's original incarnations. Recently it has evolved into a ski with more manageable flexes in the shorter (176,184) sizes. Hence it is a stellar crud buster but is only moderately successful outside of 3-D snow. I suppose if one wants to duplicate the LP with the Sultan, then maybe a longer size might be the way to do it.

There's no doubt that the shorter LP can work exceptionally well as that daily driver ski for some skiers and in some applications (specifically the west). However, the Sultan will work better for more people in more conditions than the LP ever did. The Sultan has better grip and is certainly more nimble. I don't attribute much to the "early rise" tip shape as i think it is a marketing development more than anything else. The thing that makes the 94 sooooo good is the same thing that makies the Sultan 85 arguably the most versatile 85mm ski on the market. That thing is balance and specifically balance in shape, stiffness and torsion. The Sultan 94 hits that mark in the X-ring. For those that can't let go of what the LP is, you have a few months to stock up and I have plenty of them for you to buy. For those that want a ski that is in broad strokes more versatile, the Sultan is worth waiting for.

SJ 
post #56 of 58
Always interesting to read about the skis I'll be on in a couple of years

Being a family man,  I always buy non-current models to keep the costs down,  but I've personally been on exclusively Dynastars since 1986.  My first D's were white Course SL's,  and my current main ride are Big Trouble LTD's with... the exact same graphics!  How cool is THAT?  I've probably bought about 20 other pairs of D's in between - some for me,  some for my boys.  Since I really don't have time to demo,  I have to go with something I can be reasonably confident in.  Dynastars,  to this point,  have never disappointed me,  so I'll probably be skiing 'em 20 years from now.

Thanks for the updates.  I'll look forward to offering my opinion on those skis in 2-3 years.

AM.
post #57 of 58
I've always really liked Dynastars and have been on the 194 LP and the XXL's for a long time.  I'm getting a little old and though I should try something a little shorter,  so I picked up a rebadged 184 LP (Corrupt XXXRay).   I have to say, I am disappointed.  It just doesn't have the pop or the edge hold,  that the older models do.   
post #58 of 58

WOW!!!!!!!!!!

Bought the Sixth Sense Huge based on specs and trust of Dynastar skis (ride the LP)

Took it out a couple days ago on 10 inches of the heaviest snow we ever get (that anyone would ski)

It was gold on the untracked wet powder. floaty, fun, stable, turny. I only had to think a turn to ski it.

When this stuff got cut up, these skis were awesome, smooth, and a blend of charging through and floating over.

I could slarve the skis over the powder with ease, so fun.

This ski in a 175cm is ideal for the expert weighing 130 to 160 lbs. Awesome of Dynastar to make a ski for lighter skiers. 

At 1:30, with all the connector runs turning to concrete, it was time to hike out to the car and get the Legend Pros.
 











ng: Dynastars.

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 › Q & A with Dynastar Legend Product Mgr.