Dynastar Mythic — Ski Review

Post by WildSnow.com blogger | July 16, 2015      
Dynastar Mythic.

Dynastar Mythic. Click to enlarge.

There are a lot of good skis on the market these days, be it ski touring or alpine. Thus, skis of “mythic” proportions don’t come along every day — but the new Dynastar Mythic reaches those storied heights.

At first glance, the Mythics seems unremarkable in terms of cutting edge technology. Yet somehow the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. This ski appears to be nothing more than a “carbon” version of a Dynastar Cham 97 High Mountain, but similarities end once the P-Tex meets the snow. Mythic lays down the law, breaks it and makes no apologies.

Dynastar positions Mythic in the freetouring category for those looking to push boundaries and charge. I couldn’t agree more. However, any skier with a solid technical foundation will benefit from its attributes.

While certainly a light ski at 1422 grams per ski (177 cm), this is no one-kilo wonder. That’s as it should be. Clearly the brain trust at Dynastar concluded that this level of performance and the feather type of ski are to some degree mutually exclusive. The Mythic reaches it’s respectable weight range with the now commonplace Paulownia wood core and carbon sandwich construction. Dynastar also claims weight savings through a lighter topsheet, base and edges. I don’t know if that means thinner or different materials for these components, but I didn’t experience any durability issues despite my best efforts. One very noteworthy aspect of the topsheet was by far the least amount of snow build up while ski touring, compared to all the skis I tested this spring. Interestingly enough, they are almost entirely black. Go figure.

Mythic sizes are a bit limited with only 171cm, 177cm and 184cm. This leaves out any petite women unless a smaller size is introduced in the future. The ski has the requisite rockered tip, camber underfoot and a less rockered tail. The dimensions are fairly pronounced at 133-97-113 resulting in a 36 mm, 15m radius sidecut and pintail design. I personally have always preferred a tight turning radius to suit my more-turns-per-square-inch style but I know some people with a more freeride orientation like a bigger turning radius. That said, the Mythic was never hooky in the tip, never over-turny or unstable. Quite the contrary.

My test size was the 177cm, and given my small stature I might be better off on the 171cm ski. Of course, I say “why choose?” and I’ll start next season with one of each and let the winner make itself known. Thing is, the winner might be both (as the longer might be nicer for on/off resort, and shorter for pure ski touring).

Dynastar indicates three different mounting points as options. The primary recommended line is the most forward with two additional hash marks at -1cm and -2cm. I went for the most forward position on the 177cm and was very happy but might consider going back one or two cm on the 171cm to insure better flotation in soft backcountry snow due to the shorter tip.

From the get go I knew I was on a fine ski but I wasn’t sure who was skiing who. I had to up my game by standing taller and driving into the ski with more commitment to the fall line. The more I did this the better the results, yielding great power and precision, superb tracking and unshakable stability. One run this spring I pushed off of a peak with moderate pitch and let the Mythic run free on some barely softened corn snow making an uncharacteristic less-turns-per-square-inch. At the bottom my friend Pete skied up and said, “I’ve never seen you ski that fast.” On the one hand I’m sure it was the superb edge hold, wonderful damp feel and all the above mentioned attributes of the Mythic — but I think it had more to do with the two cute girls standing on top as we took off.

Mythic is a ski that charges through any variable snow. Stand on them, drive them, ride them and they won’t let you down. You feel like an icebreaker busting up the spring pack ice as you blast through anything in your way. But alas, as I discovered the nuances and subtleties of the Mythic, I was able to find all of the finesse I needed to get back to my old ways of not wasting any opportunity to make a turn. Old habits die hard.

I found the 97mm waist to be very versatile and perfect for spring touring in Colorado but despite the superb spring skiing we had this year, the only condition I never experienced on the Mythic was powder. The stars never aligned as I was always testing a different ski whenever it was a powder day. I have always said in the past that I prefer a ski with a waist of 105cm or greater for mid winter touring in CO so that could be the one shortcoming of the Mythic. I am determined to find out just how wrong I might be come next winter.

It seems AT touring skis are always trying to find that perfect balance between weight and performance. More often than not something has got to give one way or another. There is nothing watered down about the Dynastar Mythic; instead of settling for good enough, here is a ski that stands out and says “Go for mythic greatness.”

Mythics seem to always be in short supply. Check Backcountry for Dynastar Mythic. as well as Evo.


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


162 Responses to “Dynastar Mythic — Ski Review”

  1. Jim Milstein July 16th, 2015 11:20 am

    Mythic sounds very attractive. Question: Is the 2800 g weight/pair for the 177 cm length? Another question: Any experience with breakable crust? I assume the Mythic would be fine in powder, since that is the least demanding condition for a ski like this.

  2. NT July 16th, 2015 11:50 am

    Thanks for the review, I’m looking forward to checking these out. I have the Cham HM 107s and am super happy with them for resort skiing. They’ll make any shape/size turn you ask of them. The pin tail provides the easy release of a rockered tail but has the solid platform of a flat tail- best of both worlds. Huge shovel rocker seems weird at first but only bothers me on groomers at high speed- it flaps a little bit but not badly, just not as stable as a non-rockered ski. I mounted mine on the furthest back line. They excel in powder, chop, crust, bumps, you name it. I have the 184 and they feel about right. I normally ski a 176-180 in early rise tip skis (6′, 160lbs).

  3. Bob Perlmutter July 16th, 2015 2:07 pm

    Thanks for the comments. The Mythic is up on the Dynastar website which is where the weight info came from. There is no reference to a specific size. We’ll try and track that down. I skied a run with snow of variable density from top to bottom but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it breakable crust. I couldn’t read the changes from the texture so it came as a constant surprise. The Mythic provided a solid and stable platform which lent confidence to keep charging. I couldn’t agree more with the comments regarding the pintail design. I have been told that the mount point on the Mythic has been changed so one doesn’t have to move -1cm or -2cm back to achieve optimal performance which seems to be the widely held view with the Cham series.

  4. JPVallone July 22nd, 2015 2:22 pm

    Over 70 days on mine now since mid March. By far the best tool I have ever used if I don’t know what I am getting into and can only bring one ski. Touring it with a Plum Guide and it is a nice combination. If only someone would make me a boot to match.

    Regardless, it does it all including skiing switch like a champ at high speed on hard pack and in powder. The tails are clean on switch take offs as well due to the pintail design and just enough clearance in the twin tip. You might think that is an irrelevant comment, but if you get into some serious steep skiing, big couloirs, tight, technical passages and variable snow you will appreciate the tail and it’s abilities. Maybe you don’t care about skiing switch but you will appreciate the tail when doing falling leafs, backing up in tight spots, or in couloirs and a tail that releases the turn with ease in the tightest of places.

    It’s way more playful and versatile then the old HM from last year due to the turned up tail. The new HM for this year gets similar qualities in it’s quiver due to the added slight turned up tail but keeping the pin tail that I personally have come to love. It will let go of the turn with greater ease and you can slash and slurf huge floaty tail presses and it charges in the bumps. Speaking of bumps, it rips the zipper line at speed better then any of the HM’s due to its beautifully tight turn radius. Don’t be fooled, I have also let the ski ride down at speed in some super deep conditions, and on some pretty heavly lines, faces, and mega couloirs in the Alpes. I consider the ski to be more a tool then a ski or a toy. I have not been able to speak so highly of ski as I can this in a long time.

    I hope to have it in a 107 one day as well, but the 97 skis better then anything else in it’s class, and I am pretty sure I have probably skied on and or tested at least 70% percent of the skis in it’s class on the current market.

    I was on Kastle TX for the almost 3 years, and thought they were on to something but didn’t quite have it figured out. I liked the ski for what it was, but I can’t say I loved it.

    This ski fooled me, It was everything I wanted in my Kastles that was missing, but so ended up being so much more.

    I’m skiing around 200 Plus days a year on average, and I have a feeling I will be using these skis for close to half of them or more. They are that good.

    The strength to weight ratio crushes anything else in it’s class. A very powerful ski for it’s weight. Plus it’s made in France and Dynastar has some of the best in the business working on design and testing.

  5. Bob Perlmutter July 22nd, 2015 11:48 pm

    Right on JP! If that doesn’t convince you then nothing will.

  6. JCoates July 24th, 2015 6:48 am

    Hi Bob,

    I saw in a previous post that you had a chance to review and compare the Mythic to a few other skis I am also interested in this season: How does the Mythic compare to the La Sportiva Vapor Svelte and the DPS Tour Wailer 99 since they are all in the same “sweet spot” mid-fat ski class?

    Any chance we can get a review/comparison on those skis too before the fall?



  7. Bob Perlmutter July 26th, 2015 11:18 pm

    Hi Josh, I spent a number of days on the Vapor Nano Svelte this spring but have not skied the Tour1 99, only the Tour1 112. The Svelte are one of the crop of “5lb. wonders” and are a dream on the uphill. The lack of weight vs. other skis of similar dimensions(94-95mm waist) is noticeable and translates into less energy used and less effort over the course of a day. Good incentive for one extra lap. More skiing is always better than less skiing.
    Word on the street is the Svelte is more damp than the original and wider Nano(I have never skied) which is always helpful with a particularly light ski. The Svelte was certainly more damp than anticipated for it’s weight and helped with keeping it from getting knocked around in crud. It was also more torsionally stiff than anticipated and tracked reasonably well for a light ski. The profile of the Svelte is a bit of a dichotomy. The tip and tail rocker are fairly pronounced for it’s dimensions and something more common on a wider ski. I think less pronounced rocker would allow more of the edge to engage thus improving both edge hold and tracking. As a result I gained the best performance standing over the middle of the ski to best engage the edge and could really only drive the tip aggressively in powder. The Svelte packed more punch than anticipated but I would not call it explosive or lightening quick edge to edge. Rather it rolls with the punches, smooths out any issues, plays nice and won’t get you into any trouble. In other words, not the bad boy of the neighborhood like the Mythic.
    To reiterate, the Mythic is powerful, explosive, great edge hold, damp, stable and is kicking a– and taking names. Think Spinal Tap and turn up the volume to 11 or is it AC/DC and Back in Black? It all comes down to what kind of skier you are and where does the extra lb. or so fit into your equation? Or simply go back to JP’s comments above because he sums it up perfectly. Hope this helps.

  8. Lou Dawson 2 July 27th, 2015 6:47 am

    Nice summary Bob, thanks so much! Lou

  9. JCoates July 27th, 2015 6:57 am

    Yes, that’s perfect Bob. Thanks for the honest comparison. This helps a lot.

  10. Jim Milstein July 27th, 2015 12:28 pm

    What does “switch” mean as JP uses it?

  11. XXX_er July 27th, 2015 2:43 pm

    dude switch is like backwards

  12. Jim Milstein July 27th, 2015 4:46 pm

    dude like thanks

  13. XXX_er July 27th, 2015 7:49 pm

    Ya, And dude don’t ever say backwards … only the old guys say backwards

  14. Silas Wild July 29th, 2015 12:25 am

    Hey Bob, if you prefer 105mm waist, give the Kitten Factory Toors Light a try! 1470g per ski in 184cm length, hope they make a 176cm next year. Great performance.

  15. Bob Perlmutter July 29th, 2015 4:06 pm

    Hi Silas, thanks for the suggestion. I’ll check them out. I like the 105mm for the one ski quiver but find it hard to be limited to just one ski. In a perfect world I like to have something both narrower and wider still to cover all of my bases.

  16. Lou Dawson 2 July 30th, 2015 6:45 am

    Hi Bob, my robot filters held up your comment, have no idea why, sorry about that. Lou

  17. Kristian August 1st, 2015 7:31 pm

    XXX_er, when you grow up in later years, you’ll cringe to remember that sort of attitude.

  18. Jim Milstein August 1st, 2015 8:08 pm

    Kristian, don’t worry. When I read XXX_er’s remarks, they sounded genuine and alive to me. I really and truly laughed out loud. I have also taken them to heart, and I have resolved only to say ski the other way, never to say ski b_ckw_rds. And, I am an old guy, maybe even older than our host, His Blogness, if that is possible.

  19. swissiphic August 2nd, 2015 2:04 pm

    Droppin’ props to XXX’er for his sense of humor steeze. (had to urban dictionary those words because i’m an old stoic german with no sense of irony, sarcasm or jest.) 😉

  20. XXX_er August 2nd, 2015 2:29 pm

    All I can say is I have my soft shelled pants pulled up under to me armpits, I am older than most of you but have managed to not really “grow up” in the classic sense and show absolutely no signs of doing so

  21. Jim Milstein August 2nd, 2015 2:49 pm

    What does “steeze” mean, as swissiphic uses it?

    Go for it! Anyone?

  22. XXX_er August 2nd, 2015 3:29 pm

    According to urban dictionary combining the words style and ease for Steeze and spell it with a Z … for more steeze

  23. Ben W August 2nd, 2015 4:25 pm

    XXX-er is Tanner Hall?

  24. Ben W August 2nd, 2015 4:26 pm

    Dude, I heard you were dead!

  25. Lou Dawson 2 August 2nd, 2015 4:42 pm

    Louie saw him up in Hains… Tanner sighting!

  26. Jim Milstein August 2nd, 2015 6:22 pm

    Dudes, I am so lost!

    . . . gots no steeze, either.

  27. XXX_er August 2nd, 2015 9:21 pm

    Dude all the best people are lost, but apparently, I was recently up in Hains …

  28. Dennis Gaspari August 5th, 2015 1:23 pm

    The reference size for the Mythic is 177 cm. That’s where the weight, 2800 grams per pair comes from.

  29. Zach Fletcher September 7th, 2015 8:42 am

    Hi Bob. I live in the eastern sierra where much of my skiing involves long tours culminating with a couloir, consisting of variable snow. I’m looking to buying a light weight midfat ski this year to pair with a set of TLT superlite binders. Both the Fishcer Hannibal 94 and the Dynastar mythic seem like contenders for a strong and long ski. From what i have read the Hannibal is lighter but the Dynastar may be more solid. Any advice or opinion about choosing between these two skis.

  30. Bob Perlmutter September 8th, 2015 12:06 am

    Hi Zach, I have not skied the Hannibal 94 but have skied the Hannibal 100. The 100 had a classic Euro feel ie: damp,solid, stable, tracked well yet surprisingly light. I tried the Hannibal in a 170cm which felt too short and therefore not enough ski to handle as aggressive skiing as I would have liked. It left me begging for a 175cm. Which leads me to the 177cm Mythic, with all of the above characteristics plus more rebound and energy. I did enjoy the Hannibal but have to tip my hat to the Mythic.

  31. Dave Johnson September 18th, 2015 8:04 am

    Thanks for the review. I am looking for a ski for the Haute Route in April ’16. Besides the obvious (a Chamonix-based company), I’m thinking the Mythic would be perfect. Was also considering the Nano Svelte, but they are pricey and I’m guessing not as well-rounded a ski as the Mythic. Your take?

    I’m Tahoe-based skier, currently on BD Converts. The Converts (105-waist) seem too fat for the HR, not just because European’s ski on skinnier skis.

  32. Lou Dawson 2 September 18th, 2015 8:42 am

    Hi Dave, Bob will probably chime in but I’m here so I’ll comment. You indeed need a well rounded ski for Haute Route as you never know what you’ll get and you could get everything from powder to blue ice. I’d say the Mythic is more of an all-around ski than Svelte and it might be a bit stronger. It’s not really much heavier in the greater scheme of life, and unless you’re going self-guided on Haute R. and moving quickly, a few extra grams are not going to be an issue. One thing I’ve learned about Europe is no matter what skis you bring make sure they’re nicely tuned and you’ve skied them. There is a wrong headed tendency for folks going on dream trips to buy new gear just for those trips, and not wring it out before the trip. Don’t fall for that trap. If you’re getting any new gear get it sooner and use it. Lou

  33. Dave Johnson September 18th, 2015 9:02 pm

    Amen, thanks, Lou. Will have them mounted by mid-Dec. then pray for Sierra snow.

  34. Lou Dawson 2 September 19th, 2015 5:56 am

    BTW, I’m guilty of the new gear syndrome. Had untested goggles on Denali that didn’t work well, and our modified sleds broke, should have tested them more before trip. I beefed the sled and the guys on Skithebig3 got good service out of it. Lessons learned. Again. Smile.

  35. Bob Perlmutter September 20th, 2015 12:06 am

    Hi Dave, I have skied the HR and agree with Lou that any and all conditions may be encountered but it is more common to ski hard snow in Europe then the Rockies or Far West. Also, the HR involves a lot of low to moderate angle touring without a lot of big descents. To that end, my perfect HR ski would emphasize light weight and good edge hold. That points me to the Movement Response X-series or the Cho Oyo. If I was looking for a ski that will work well on the HR but also become my primary all round ski for touring back home then I would likely go with the Mythic. Lastly, when on the HR you will be looking around at endless amounts of good ski descents while touring from hut to hut. If you have the time, build in some extra days at the huts to devote to picking off some of these lines rather than just touring under them thinking to yourself, ” i wish I could ski that”. In that case, bring a ski that will allow you to maximize your enjoyment on those bigger lines which leads me back to the Mythic. Hope this helps and enjoy your trip.

  36. Bob Perlmutter September 21st, 2015 10:15 am

    Hi Dave, I have skied the HR and while one can encounter any and all snow conditions, Europe tends to have more hard snow that the Rockies or Far West, Also, the HR tends to have a lot of long,moderate touring and not any big descents. To that end, my perfect HR ski would emphasize light weight and good edge hold. That leads me to the Movement Response X-series or Cho Oyu. If your HR ski isalso going to become your primary AT rig after the trip then that tips the scale to the Mythic. Also, while touring from hut to hut on the HR you pass in the vicinity of lots of great looking, big lines all the while thinking, “I want to ski that”. Schedule permitting, I would build in some extra days to layover at the huts and tick off some of these lines. In that case, go Mythic. Have a great trip.

  37. Dave Johnson September 21st, 2015 11:56 am

    Thanks, Bob!

  38. Al T October 5th, 2015 10:52 am

    Ok, I’m an idiot. U already looked at it

  39. Jim Milstein October 12th, 2015 8:59 pm

    Just got the 2016 Mythic in 171 cm. The pair weighs 2820 g, which is what I expected the 177s to weigh. So, they’re coming in a little heavy. That’s 6 lb 3 ½ oz for us Americans. Considering what Bob and JPV say about the Mythic above, it’s still a lot of ski for its weight.

    I would like some advice on where to mount the bindings. I’m 5′ 8″ and 150 lb. I ski mostly soft snow in the San Juans near Wolf Creek Pass, but need to ski other snow sometimes. Should I mount with boot center at the forward line or the line one cm back or two cm back? Or somewhere else?

  40. Bob Perlmutter October 14th, 2015 10:48 pm

    Hi Jim, I now have both a 171cm and 177cm Mythic but have only skied the 177cm to date as it was the only test size available last spring. I skied the 177cm at the forward line and given my size(5′ 8″, 130lbs.) I can’t imagine any other option. That said, I have the same question in my mind regarding the 171cm. I am considering going 1cm back on the 171cm to insure better flotation in soft snow given the shorter length. If you have another pair of skis to start the season, feel free to let me be the guinea pig and I will report back ASAP.

  41. Jim Milstein October 15th, 2015 6:59 am

    Thanks, Bob. Couldn’t wait though. Yesterday I installed inserts centered at the forward line, but if that’s not good enough in deep soft snow, I’ll just install more inserts farther back. Who will be the guinea pig depends on who gets enough early snow. Go Wolf Creek!

    Actually, I’ll start the season on Manaslus, since they have already tasted rocks.

  42. Bob Perlmutter October 15th, 2015 8:09 am

    Hi Jim, I too will start the season on some older skis but will keep the conversation going as soon as I spend a few days on the 171cm Mythic. Go Elk Mtns.(but not too soon).

  43. Fred October 16th, 2015 5:06 pm

    Thanks for the great review, Bob! and thanks for keeping up the high level of information on this fantastic blog, Lou & Co!

    I am looking for a new ski as my primary touring ski for the alps. Should be light (but not too light), between 90 and 100mm under foot, stable at speed, still easy to ski, good edge hold, easy turn initiation, versatile – meaning it should work for quick and fast after work tours, regular day tours, technical & steeper alpine tours, as well as longer tours (1500m+). Reading your review, I think the Mythic could be the way to go.

    Initially I was looking at the Black Crows Orb Freebird for its more classic shape and construction and weight. Meanwhile also the Black Crows Camox Freebird and Kästle TX97 were two options I looked at. You mentioned that the Mythic is superior to the Kästle so that one is out for me. How would you compare it to either of the Black Crows skis, in case you have skied them? Unfortunately I don’t have the possibility to test any of those models mentioned before my purchase. That´s why I would love to get some input from you on this to make my decision easier.

    If going for the Mythic I´m also not quite sure about sizing. I am 185cm (6’1″) and was initially looking for something around 180cm. I guess the 177cm version of the Mythic might be a little small, whereas the 184cm version could feel a bit too much in the steeper, narrower or more technical terrain. What would you suggest here?

    looking forward to your answer and sending my regards from Switzerland! (desperately waiting for the first snow..)

  44. Bob Perlmutter October 16th, 2015 10:41 pm

    Hi Fred, I’m sorry to say I have not skied on any of the Black Crow skis. I’ll have to do something about that. Regarding which size Mythic, how much do you weigh? If you are 6’1″ and thin to average then I would say go with the 177cm but if you have been going head to head against the Japanese champ in the hot dog eating contests and making annual pilgrimages to Munich for Octoberfest downing infinite steins of beer then you might consider the 184cm. Another ski to consider given your parameters is the Fischer Hannibal 100 in a 180cm. Love to hear what you decide.

  45. Fred October 18th, 2015 10:46 am

    Hi Bob, thanks again! I´m around 172-175 pounds and not a huge fan of Octoberfest, so I guess 177 should be ok. Will check out the Hannbal but don’t want to go much wider than the Mythic, since I also have a Rossi Soul 7 for touring in powder.

  46. Bob Perlmutter October 19th, 2015 10:17 am

    Hi Fred, given your weight I would go with the 177cm Mythic.

  47. Josh L October 27th, 2015 3:11 am


    Does anyone have any idea how Mythic 2016 skis doing telemark? I’m also interested in lenght, I’m “only” 5’6″ (150 pounds), but really cosidering getting Mythic at 177cm. Do you think that is too long for me? How doeas Mythic ski for it’s given length? I’m pretty aggressive telemarker and like speed. Also trying to optimize soft snow floatation.

    Thanks a lot!

  48. Robert November 4th, 2015 4:28 pm

    Hi Lou,
    You wrote “any skier with a solid technical foundation will benefit from its attributes”. So what about a skier with, well, a less solid technical foundation? Is this Mythic more difficult to ski / less forgiving than, say a Wayback or a Hannibal 94? I have noticed at the shop that the straight edges run along all the length of the ski. Does this result in such a good edge grip that it requires a lot of precision from the skier? thanks for your insight.

  49. Jim Milstein November 5th, 2015 11:57 pm

    Just skied the Mythics today in more or less winter snow.

    Bob is right about the Mythic top sheet resisting icing. And Lou gets some confirmation about white being better than black on the top sheet. The Mythic is almost all black, but not quite: it has some white triangles and a white Dynastar shield at the tip. What little snow adhered to the ski adhered on the black parts. The white were snow free. Strange to see.

    I tried scraping one ski’s top sheet, but not the other. The scraped ski collected almost no snow. The unscraped ski collected little. The snow today was moderately cold and dry. Sun was intermittent. When it wasn’t sunny, it was snowing. I was breaking trail much of the time, giving plenty of opportunity for the skis to collect snow on top.

    Oh, the Mythics skied fine in powder (no surprise), a condition missing from Bob’s review.

  50. Bob Perlmutter November 6th, 2015 8:24 am

    Hi All, I’ll catch up with all of the recent questions and comments about the Mythic. Josh, I am not a telemarker but given your description of “aggressive and speed” makes me think the 177cm is your length. Robert, I would say the Wayback is a more forgiving ski than the Mythic. I have only skied the Hannibal 100 and would put it right in the middle of the three in terms of forgiveness or the amount of input required from the skier to utilize it’s full performance characteristics. This is not to say the Wayback or Hannibal are slouches by any means, just a bit different performance profile. Jim, I really appreciate your running commentary on the Mythic. I just received the 171cm Mythic and as soon as I get them mounted I will provide a comparison between the 171cm and 177cm. It’s starting to look a lot like winter in Aspen(snowing as I speak) so it shouldn’t be too far off. Believe me, I would have loved to ski the Mythic in powder but the opportunity never arose last spring. I intend to rectify that soon.

  51. Lou Dawson 2 November 6th, 2015 8:31 am

    Thanks Bob!

  52. Jim Milstein November 6th, 2015 7:31 pm

    As a public service today, I violated my solemn oath not to ride ski lifts. The question had to be answered: Can the Mythics deal with horribly chopped up powder? Yes, they can. They can go from untracked to heavily tracked snow, barely noticing the change. That is impressive for lightweight skis. They are stiff, both the long way and the twisty way.

    I mounted the bindings using the principal boot-center line. So far, so good.

    Off topic, but I mount with Quiver Killer inserts. I can move the Vipecs from one pair of skis to another in the field (actually, at the car in the field) in about ten minutes. With a pit crew and lots of practice, we could get it down to less than one minute, for sure.

  53. Frame November 7th, 2015 8:03 am

    Thanks Jim. If you are going to get a pit crew, I think you will need the equivalent of a race drivers, driving suit, which in this case would be a one piece, possibly flouro. there may be a number of solemn oaths that you will have to violate.

  54. Lou Dawson 2 November 7th, 2015 8:42 am

    Within 2 years Artificial Intelligence will cause bindings to mount themselves, or so I read. AI will also figure out when not to lock all the doors on our truck. It’ll be a new dawn!

    Meanwhile, binding mount inserts are frequently worth the effort and expense.

  55. Jim Milstein November 7th, 2015 12:09 pm

    As a recovering AI guy, I counsel Lou to be patient for the new dawn. It will take another four or five hundred years before Lou’s truck will understand his mind (and vice versa).

  56. Steve November 8th, 2015 4:21 am

    I am thinking of buying the Mythic, or the K2 coomback. Can anyone comment ? I will use them for thouring, freeride, groomers, ice, couloirs, everything. I am an experienced in-bounds skiër, but started freeride and touring just 5 years ago. So I won’t go charging down Mt. Elias in Alaska :). I am 52 years old, 192 cm long, 93 kg. I also have some knee injury, so need a stable, forgiving ski. Thanks.

  57. Lou Dawson 2 November 8th, 2015 6:19 am

    Steve, either one in terms of performance, main difference is Mythic is going to be quite a bit lighter weight, so if you’re touring much then it would be nice. Coomback will not disappoint when it comes to how it skis. Lou

  58. Steve November 8th, 2015 7:40 am

    Hi Lou, thanks. I notice that the difference in weight is 2 x 250 gram, in favour of the Mythic. I don’t have enough experience to judge if that is a relevant difference, even at high altitude etc. What is your opinion ? Thanks again :). Steve.

  59. Lou Dawson 2 November 8th, 2015 7:50 am

    Hi Steve, it’ll make a difference if you’re walking uphill. Lou

  60. Jim Milstein November 8th, 2015 7:57 am

    Also, Steve, it will make a difference if you are getting older. In my mind, a pound on the feet is a lot. A heedless twenty year old can shrug off a measly pound.

  61. Jim Milstein November 8th, 2015 8:14 am

    Steve, you might be interested to read this piece on the extra rate of O2 required by extra weight on the feet. Science speaks. In short, each 100g on the feet requires 1% more VO2.


  62. Steve November 8th, 2015 12:54 pm

    Hi Lou and Jim, thanks ! I also notice that the K2 has a little more body. Would this give me a little more float in the pow ? With other words; if I ascend a lot, the Mythic wins, if I descend a lot, the K2 wins ? Or maybe it’s not so simple ? 🙂
    Regards, Steve.
    P.S: the Mythic looks really cool with my Scarpa Freedom boots. The K2 is a colour mismatch 😉

  63. Jim Milstein November 8th, 2015 3:00 pm

    Lookin’ good trumps everything!

  64. Jim Milstein November 23rd, 2015 7:37 pm

    Mythic Update: They’ve been working well on thin snow cover in trees with lots of deadfall. This means the tips stay up and ride over scantily covered logs. Today I found a condition in which they are–at best–average, breakable sun-crust. But, I was not reduced to gnashing of teeth and inconsolable tears.

  65. neil tilley December 2nd, 2015 7:55 am

    just added the mythic to a short list for my new touring ski for 2016 , looking at
    kastle tx 97 – whitedot R,98 carbonlite – and now the mythic , the skis will be used on med-long day tours on back to back days in the french alps , most of the comments above are very positive about the mythic but seem to come from very accomplished skiers , i consider myself to be a capable off piste skier but still have a lot to learn on steeper more techy terrian , and dont want to ended up on a ski that needs a super high level of technique to get the most out off it , im 5’6″ and 170lbs and would like your thoughts how the mythic compares to the other skis on my list and what would be the optium length for me

  66. Mark L December 2nd, 2015 9:57 am

    Jim, if you are going to rate your skis based on breakable sun crust performance means you could probably use some help. 🙂

  67. Jim Milstein December 2nd, 2015 10:44 am

    Mark L, of course I could use some help! Please break trail for me. It’s been deep here since the last storm in the Wolf Creek Pass region. Taking a rest day today.

    Oh, by the way, the Mythics are fine in deep snow, light or dense. They are good enough that I’ve stopped using the Manaslus. The Mythics are livelier, floatier and are only a few grams heavier. Also, my pit crew is not dependable.

    To be candid, another and big reason for sticking with the Mythics is that I love their Contour skins. The Manaslus have Dynafit skins reglued with BD super-glue, which is so aggressive that I have to dismount to de-skin and use of plastic separator film is required in the field. Why suffer?

    As for neil’s concern that Mythics require you to be a great technical skier, I’m not. I don’t even know most of the modern vocabulary that technical skiers and wannabes know (still not sure what carving is about). I just try to get down without falling. Typically successful.

    I ski the 171 cm length, but weigh about twenty-five pounds less. I’d suggest for neil either that length or one notch longer. If in doubt, chose the shorter. Like Bob P. I like to turn and turn frequently. Shorter skis are quicker to turn but are less wonderful at high speed.

  68. neil tilley December 2nd, 2015 2:00 pm

    hi jim , thanks for the info , although 170lbs now aim to be 10lbs lighter by the time i get to ski this season 🙂 so think the 171’s are the length for me as i like lots of turns and never get to mach speeds !!
    the rocker profile on the mythic looks a little gentler than my friends HM 97’s from a couple of years back , is that the case ??

  69. neil tilley December 2nd, 2015 2:00 pm

    hi jim , thanks for the info , although 170lbs now aim to be 10lbs lighter by the time i get to ski this season 🙂 so think the 171’s are the length for me as i like lots of turns and never get to mach speeds !!
    the rocker profile on the mythic looks a little gentler than my friends HM 97’s from a couple of years back , is that the case ??

  70. neil tilley December 3rd, 2015 8:58 am

    just bought a pair of mythic in 171cm and am going to mount them QK’d for dynafit ST binding with and 287mm bsl , is the consensus to mount them 1cm back from the free ride line to catch a bit of extra float in the powder ❓ or leave them on the line for a better allround performance .

  71. Jim Milstein December 3rd, 2015 6:17 pm

    I had the same question about mount position, neil. Lou suggested using Dynastar’s principal line, the forward one. I did. The tips stay up in deep snow. The early season snow I’m skiing on is not super light, but I do not expect a problem with the light stuff when it comes. If there is, I’ll just install another set of inserts for the toe pieces.

  72. neil tilley December 4th, 2015 1:47 pm

    cheers jim , i use qk inserts too so will go on the line , can’t wait to get these on the snow “:-)”

  73. Felix December 9th, 2015 8:46 am

    Hi Bob, Hi guys. Thanks for the interesting review and informative discussion! I have decided to get the Mythic and am now wondering about for the 171cm vs. the 177cm size. A quick overview:
    – 5’9 (160-165 pounds)
    – Looking for a “freetouring” ski that I can use both for touring and lift-assisted freeriding
    – Prefer short to long turns, medium to high speeds
    – New to skitouring but experienced on-track skier
    – Europe-based

    It’d be fantastic if you had an opinion on which way to go.
    Thanks! Felix

  74. Jim Milstein December 9th, 2015 8:56 am

    Felix, since you want to go fast and probably aren’t spending much time in the trees, you’ll probably be happier with the longer 177 cm length.

  75. Mark L December 28th, 2015 12:51 pm

    Narrowing my list and I think the Mythic is for a more aggressive skier than me. The Hannibal 100 is very intriguing. At 5’8″ and 165, I’m thinking the 170 sounds short and the 180 sounds long. My style is more control than speed.

  76. Aaron December 29th, 2015 3:07 pm

    Great thoughts and dialogue on this ski here. Any thoughts on how Mythic compares to the Blizzard Zero G? Thanks everyone!

  77. Jim Milstein December 30th, 2015 9:03 pm

    I’ve been skiing the Mythics in way deep powder for a while now. They stay up without special attention, are quick to turn and lively. I am not a technical-type skier so have little to say about their niceties. This skier is having fun–I can say that. Also, this skier is skiing faster in the trees than he used to. The Mythics’ quick response and liveliness are to blame.

    I recently paired them with the Atomic Backland Carbon Lights. Good move. I had to sell one of my children, but it was worth it.

  78. Jim Milstein January 1st, 2016 6:17 pm

    Sunny day today and cold snow, perfect conditions for icing. Lou gets some more confirmation of his belief that black top sheets ice more than white. It happens that the Mythics are mostly black but have some small patches of white. The white areas stayed pretty much snow-free today. The black areas had some icing. However, it’s possible that I just didn’t see the icing on the white areas. White on white, you know. But, boy scientist, I tested that hypothesis with a scraper: not an illusion. White resists icing better (on these skis).

  79. Lou 2 January 1st, 2016 7:12 pm

    Jim Milstein: BOFFIN!

  80. J.L. January 6th, 2016 5:54 am


    Mythic owners, could you check if your ski behaves like mine, please.

    Inside (room temperatures) the ski camber is what it is supposed to be but when taken outside (winter temperatures) the ski’s camber changes dramatically. Outside, in cold, my pair’s profile changes to negative camber (to full rocker). This is most propably (has to be) due to thermal expansion/contraction in materials and problem in controlling this.

    I’m thinking that there is a manufacturing error, but being such an expensive ski, there should be very strict quality control and this kind of error shouldn’t leave factory without them being aware of it.

    I have contacted Dynastar with pictures but I haven’t had a reply yet. It seems that it will take some time… I really need to know that is the ski like that or is my pair f***d up…

    Here are the pics (hopefully the links go through..):
    Inside +20°C (68°F)

    Outside -5°C (23°F)

    Thanks a lot for your replies!

  81. Michael January 6th, 2016 8:24 am

    I’d blame the tele bindings JL…

    That’s strange. Good luck working that out with Dynastar.

    The future – remote controlled camber. Camber for the uphill and hardpack. Reverse camber for soft snow.

  82. J.L. January 6th, 2016 10:12 am

    Michael, Yep, I would be more than happy if it worked backwards! 😉 Less camber for warmer/softer snow and more camber in colder temperatures.

    I can’t agree blaming the tele binding. It’s my fifth ski with Rottefella Freedom and no such problems before. Frame of that binding is dead stable.

    I wish to hear some observations from the ski owners. Is your ski dead stable (in terms of camber amount) in different temperatures (inside/outside)?

  83. J.L. January 6th, 2016 10:48 am

    + additional info: form the pictures, you can see that especially skis tail twists from the area where there isn’t binding even close…

  84. neil tilley January 6th, 2016 12:12 pm

    J.L i am of to whistler tomorrow for a week and will be on the mythic for the first time , so will take some measurements and report back at the weekend , but i can’t believe this is normal and that it hasn’t been flagged up my other users if it was happening regularly , i would take them straight back to supplier asap.

  85. J.L. January 7th, 2016 1:31 am

    Neil, thanks for your effort!

    I bought the ski from the internet and from another country. It was one of the worst customer service experiences I’ve ever had and it took 10 weeks for them to deliver the ski. I am highly patient man but already getting nervous to deal with them again. That’s why I already send mail straight to Dynastar. Hopefully this isn’t turning into infinite and painful process. 🙂

  86. neil tilley January 7th, 2016 2:32 am

    J.L , i am based in uk , and we hear consatant complaints about the euro bucket shop sites that have spawned recently , its a shame because some of the established sites offer a great service and keep prices competitive . agree your best option is to deal with dynastar direct .
    anyhow just off to airport to begin trek to BC , and will report back on friday eve after first turns on the mythic

  87. J.L. January 7th, 2016 5:55 am

    Thanks for your replies Neil. I live in Finland. I like to deal with local shops, but there’s no reseller for Mythic in Finland at all and Dynastar Finland distributor never bothered to reply my mails and questions about the ski in the beginning… As we see, my Mythic road has been a bit bumpy so far 🙂 I ordered the ski early enough, with the best price I could get from Europe and paid with PayPal to have buyers protection. I wasn’t really expecting any major problems. (yes, i am naive. 🙂 )

    I talked about the situation with my local ski/binding tech and he said that he’s gonna tell the story to Dynastar in week or so; he’s gonna be dealing with them with some other business matters anyways. Actually, I’m gonna see the tech today and possibly we will remove the binding (no inserts…) to test the ski flat and to figure out possible influence of the binding.

    I’m sorry to hijack this topic with this matter, but this was the only converstation between several Mythic owners I was able to find. Hopefully the story ends soon. 😉

    Thanks again.

  88. J.L. January 7th, 2016 1:58 pm

    Well. Binding is off and same thing happens. Flaw is in the ski indeed.

  89. Neil tilley January 8th, 2016 5:29 pm

    J.L , been out on mythics today , camber stayed the same in
    20′ room temp
    0′ base of mountain
    -7′ at 2200 m in alpine
    And then left out in rack at lunch at -4′ mid mountain
    So as you say it must be a fault in your lay up ,
    Hope you get sorted .
    On a positive front the skis are amazing , and the contains up here are not perfect atm , so can’t wait to get them in the soft stuff

  90. Bob Perlmutter January 9th, 2016 8:21 am

    J.L., sorry to hear about the camber issue with your Mythics. Certainly, I have not experienced anything like that with my two pair(177cm, 171cm). Hopefully this is a singular and isolated situation. Speaking of my two pair, I promised to provide comment about my thoughts on the two different sizes. It was very simple for me. I took one run on the shorter length and quickly realized they were too short for me. I experienced a loss of tracking, stability and increased chatter. Plus not enough fore/aft for soft snow. 177cm it is for me. It’s snowing out as we speak so gone skiing.

  91. Jim Milstein January 9th, 2016 4:44 pm

    Chatter, Bob? What are you skiing on?

    I thought chatter was what companions do on the uptrack. I want my skis to stay completely out of it; there are enough opinions already.

    Just had a chatter-free day in S Colorado!

  92. Alex January 10th, 2016 5:24 pm


    I am hoping to take up ski touring in the near future (currently ski backcountry, but have no touring experience), and I am looking at purchasing the Mythic or Cham 97 2.0. Is it possible to mount the Mythics with alpine bindings then, when I begin touring (and have the boots, bindings etc), replace these with touring bindings?


  93. Jim Milstein January 10th, 2016 5:55 pm

    Alex, if you intend to ski uphill, get the lighter skis. No reason to worry about mounting bindings on the skis twice. If we can do it, so can you.

    Mounting each pair of bindings with inserts would allow you to switch back and forth. Your pit crew, when trained, will do the switch in less than sixty seconds. You, alone, ten minutes.

  94. J.L. January 11th, 2016 12:16 am

    Neil & Bob, thank you very much for your observations about the chamber. Hopefully I will get a new pair as soon as possible. I’ll let you know how this process evolves.

    The time I had with these skis was, anyway, good. I felt that the ski is very capable and it felt fantastic in the right places (despite of camber problem I’m having). Tail felt pretty much perfect for telemark skiing. Of course these opinions are somewhat invalid because of my pair’s flaw. I will report more after I have skied with properly working pair.

  95. neil tilley January 11th, 2016 7:47 pm

    J.L stick with them , when you get a fully working pair you’ll love em !!, had my first day touring on them today off the back of blackcomb glacier , and they were amazing on the way up , and even better on the way down , they also felt amazing on the runs back to resort with a soft top on firm base .

  96. Jim Milstein January 15th, 2016 3:04 pm

    Finally, a less than perfect day!

    Mythics yesterday ran in breakable wind slab, elderly powder, and breakable sun crust. For the two breakable conditions I had to moderate speed, and then things were okay. The problem is that the Mythics have been urging me to go faster than has been my habit. I like it. A new habit forms.

  97. emily sullivan February 11th, 2016 10:16 pm

    I’m in the market for some touring skis that will also be used on area. We’re talking75% BC, 25% in-bounds. I’m still learning, and need those lift-serve days for practice!

    I was eyeing the women’s Cham 97 2.0, after hearing many wonderful things about them, BUT I’ve been touring on some very heavy loaner skis this season (total setup 21+ lbs!) and have become a gram-counter of sorts (never thought I would say that). Thus, considering the lighter ski. From what I hear, the Cham 97’s ski short, so I’m wondering if the Mythics do too? I’m 5’6″, 130lbs, and wondering if I can get away with the Mythic 171.

    Additional question: as an intermediate skier, should I be shying away from these and going more towards the Cham, despite the weight? I don’t know a ton about ski technology, but it sounds to me like these may be a bit more of an advanced ski. I do care about weight, but overall, I suppose I care more that I will be able to enjoy the overall experience and have control over my skis.

    Any info/advice appreciated 🙂

  98. Jim Milstein February 11th, 2016 11:02 pm

    Why not, Emily?

    I ski the 171s and am only a bit taller and heavier than you. My skiing is all in the BC, and I find myself sometimes in tight trees, sometimes in the steeps, sometimes in both at once. Short skis are helpful for that. The Mythics are lively, for sure, but I don’t think they are tricky. For their surface area they are quite light. In the BC light is right. Losing a bunch of weight off your feet will be a revelation when going uphill, which is what you do most of the time in the BC.

  99. emily sullivan February 11th, 2016 11:05 pm

    Thanks, Jim. I guess I should clarify that my two concerns were the possibility of these skis being too long and too stiff for me. They should really great though!

  100. emily sullivan February 11th, 2016 11:49 pm

    they sound** great.

  101. atfred February 12th, 2016 6:42 am

    Hi Emily,

    I am 5′ 11″, 160 lbs and have been skiing the cham 97 HM (“high mountain”, 97 HM lighter than 97) for several years now, both BC and in area. I find them a very quick, stable, and versatile ski in all types of snow (short turn radius, big rocker, flat tail).

    For sizing, I can tell you that I have skied with a female mountain guide about your size, and I’m pretty sure her 97’s are 160 (maybe 165?), definitely not 171 – that’s the length I use, and I find it to be just fine.

    Short is nice for kick turns in the BC.

    Rent a pair if you can, and try them out.

  102. neil tilley February 12th, 2016 7:41 am

    emily , i am 5’6″ and find the 171cm just perfect , they do feel at least 5cm shorter with the ample tip rocker , just spent two weeks in chamonix in all conditions and in all kinds of terrian from steep icy chutes to mellow knee deep powder and everthing in between , including a day on piste , the mythic was pretty great in all aspects , and on the longest day tour we took with a five hour ascent breaking trail in 2′ of fresh snow they were a revelation as i have never had a lighter ski before , and basically felt like i had no skis on at all compared to my old baron/fx94 set up . my freind has the cham 97 and i think in terms of performance they only outdo the mythic on proper groomed runs , in all other situations the lightness of the mythic is the real bonus , as Jim says in the trees and where you need a bit of speedy manouvering and maybe a bit or air to get over things they are effortless . you mentioned control , and i feel i am the boss of the mythic not the other way round 🙂

  103. Lou Dawson 2 February 12th, 2016 7:54 am

    Apparently the Mythic is a real winner. Thanks for adding to the kudos Neil! Lou

  104. Rick February 17th, 2016 5:42 pm

    Bob ( if you’re still around, or anyone else who cares to chime in ) since you sized up from the 171 to the 177 with your weight at 130lbs, are you primarily still running that length ?
    I ask because I’ve been burned a couple times in the last few years going with what turned out to be too short on a couple pair of skis.
    I ski South Central Alaska backcountry exclusively, no resort. Very little tree skiing at our latitude, mainly big wide open slopes/chutes. I like to ski aggressively and like quick turns, but also like to occasionally open up to bigger Super G type turns as well.

    Me, I’m 5′ 8″ 155 lbs out of the shower with a ready to ski weight ( backpack, boots, bindings, etc ) of right around 180 lbs +-.

    My current goto ski is a 184 V Werks Katana mounted +1 and am really liking them a whole whole lot but want to go to a lighter, narrower waisted pair for longer days.

    The two skis on my short list are the Volkl BMT 94 and the Mythic. The caveat with the 94 is the jump from 176 to 186 with both of those measuring pretty true – wish they built that ski in the 180/84 range.

    I do have access to a demo pair of 176 BMT 94’s mounted with Dynafit rental bindings and may well be able to satisfy my Volkl question with those, but the Mythic is still leaning to being my first choice with their availability of the 184.

    So, for Dynastar’s given sizing, do you feel they ski short relative to their size or pretty much as advertised size wise ?

    Thanks in advance !

  105. Bob Perlmutter February 17th, 2016 10:59 pm

    Hi All, sorry I have been absent for awhile but Jim and company have been doing a bang up job answering a lot of your Mythic questions. Glad to hear so many positive comments. Emily, the Mythic and Cham 97 2.0 share the same profile and dimensions. The primary difference is the construction and there fore weight as well as orientation with the Mythic geared to the backcountry and the Cham 97 2.0 geared to the ski area. Given your preference towards the backcountry then I think the Mythic makes more sense. You and I are pretty close in size so I think the 171cm is not out of the question. One suggestion would be to mount the 171cm at +1cm from the primary mount line. I did the same with my 177cm Mythic and they engage into the turn much better and track better considering my smaller stature relative to the longer length. Rick, that might be a consideration for you with the 184cm Mythic given your experience with the V Werks. I have not skied the BMT yet but Lou has nothing but very good things to say. I hope this helps.

  106. Lou Dawson 2 February 18th, 2016 7:17 am

    Thanks Bob, only problem with the BMT for touring is it’s above average in weight for a “touring” ski. Otherwise it is indeed quite versatile provided the rider likes the feel of full wall-to-wall rocker. I still use mine quite a bit even though I’ve got skis that are significantly lighter. As for Mythic, my take is that anyone trying to choose between it and the Cham for ski touring might as well go with Mythic, that is unless their “touring” involves a lot of cable riding and return routes that require doing things like frequently skiing down big European resorts, such as happens in Cham… in that case it’s a toss up?

  107. Rick February 18th, 2016 1:32 pm

    Thanks Bob, you too Lou !
    I’m headed out now to go pickup the pair of BMT 94 176 Demo skis to take ’em for a spin this afternoon – I’ll *report* back later.

    Also it turns out one of the shop employees over there has a pair of Mythics in a 184, but I won’t be able to give them a visual because he’s not in today, but I may very well run into him today down in the Pass 😉

    The shop does though have a pair of 177 Mythics on the wall that I certainly will check out while there picking up the 94’s ..

    Cheers All !

  108. J.L. February 26th, 2016 5:13 am


    My Mythic camber problem, which i mentioned earlier, is starting to solve. There are faulty pairs on the market (at least in Europe, possibly webshops are selling display pairs. Dunno.). Be careful. I have had three pairs of Mythic now, two pairs are faulty and one pair is fully working. There are visual differencies between these pairs:
    1) faulty pair has glossy top sheet instead of matt top sheet
    2) metal laminate under the binding is different shape. Fully working pair has an arrow shaped ending towards tail and faulty one’s laminate has straight ending.
    3) there is dramatic difference in camber amount. Faulty pair has only about 5mm of camber (skis together) in room temperatures which twists into reverse camber in winter temperatures. Fully working pair has around 15mm (skis together) of camber.

    In the end, I got fully working pair straight from Dynastar. They didn’t question anything and were very helpful but somewhat shortworded. I Don’t know if they know that there are faulty pairs on the market or not. No one has asked me to send faulty pairs back so at the moment I have full rocker Mythic for deep pow days too. 😀 I skied the faulty pair in (many) different type deep (deepest 60cm/24inch) snows in Pyrenees mountains last week and I have to say it worked very nicely, I have no idea if this was due to reverse faulty camber or not…

    I haven’t skied the fully working version yet, but I’m going to do ski touring in Alps in week or so. I will report how the camber version feels. I have no doubts that the ski will work excellent.

  109. Lou Dawson 2 February 26th, 2016 5:42 am

    Hi J.L., thanks for the comment, I’ll keep an eye on the Mythics we have here. Lou

  110. emily sullivan February 26th, 2016 9:59 am

    J.L., can you clarify how to measure the camber? I’ve just received my Mythics and haven’t mounted them yet. I read your comment and went over to look at mine… and the camber looks extremely underwhelming. I’m assuming you mean sandwich the skis, bottom to bottom facing each other, and measure the gap between them? If so, it looks like I might have a faulty pair…!?

  111. Jim Milstein February 26th, 2016 10:16 am

    All this fuss got me to check the Mythic camber. My pair has non-glossy top sheets. For what it’s worth, they are the best skis I’ve ever skied on. The “camber” or space between, bottom to bottom, is small, maybe 3 mm. This after 50 days of skiing on them.

    Given two pairs of skis with equal longitudinal stiffness, differing only in their “camber” by 12 mm (divide that by two) and skied on by a person weighing, say, 150 pounds, how could you tell the difference? It might make a very slight difference in skiing shape and pressure on ice or bulletproof snow, but in soft snow, the difference would be of no consequence.

    Let’s not get carried away!

  112. emily sullivan February 26th, 2016 10:27 am

    I guess my concern was if the camber reverses like JL said. Not interested in a full rockered ski. You’re right though, Probably silly of me to worry. but it was a big purchase for me 🙂

  113. neil tilley February 26th, 2016 12:04 pm

    hi emily , the camber should only be 2mm to the flat , therefore 3-4mm would be the correct gap between the two skis placed base to base . get them mounted up and get out on them , they are literally the most versatile ski I’ve ever owned 🙂

  114. J.L. February 26th, 2016 1:20 pm

    I don’t want to make anyone unsure about their purchase and beging to make doubts. If you feel that ski is good, then it is good. Period. End of story. 🙂

    But, this is very very very interesting.

    I got my latest pair straight from Dynastar and it has more camber than the previous ones. I have two pairs (new and old) without bindings in my hands now and, in room temperatures, old pair measures 6mm base to base of camber (3mm per ski) and the last pair straight from Dynastar has 18mm of camber base to base (9mm per ski). I took both pairs outside to -1°C (30°F) and let them be there for an hour. And.. even the new ski twists. New pair’s camber measurement base to base is 12mm (6mm per ski) and old one is totally flat. I can also confirm that I have third pair and it works excactly the same as the 3mm camber ski does. They both have more shiny top sheet than the latest pair with bigger camber. And different shape of metal laminate under bindings.

    When i got the newest pair from Dynastar, they replied me: “before sending it (skis) to you, we checked it to be sure you will not have the same issue.” I begin to think they know this issue and have changed the camber amount to deeper camber so the ski doesn’t go flat and above in any temperatures.

    I know this doesn’t matter if ski is enjoyable and makes people happy. I actually hope that I didn’t notice this in the first place at all… I just happened to notice it under my feet and felt that ski was surprisingly unstable for camber ski on slopes – going flat while not carving. That’s when I noticed that ski was twisted and was full rocker. It was pretty cold during that day, around -15°C (5°F).

    I have spent quite a lot time with this whole matter already and I don’t have a sure feeling anymore about what shape this ski _should_ be in the end. 😀 At the moment I feel that my new pair has a bit too much camber for soft snow situations 😀 Hopefully these are just numbers and it doesn’t matter that much in the end. I have several other skis too so I will ski hard whatever the Mythic camber is 😉

    I will report what my feelings are with this “cambered” version of Mythic after I have skied properly with it.

  115. Rick February 26th, 2016 8:53 pm

    An update on my Feb 18th post @ 1:32 PM..
    So I took the BMT 94 176cm boards out for a spin that day. Conditions had changed from 3 days earlier to being wind effected, not slabbed, just stiffened a bit with a definite base effect. The 94’s climbed well and skied OK, would’ve been much better had the conditions been the same from 3 days earlier. But I’m finding sub 180cm is just not for me. As I mentioned I wished Volkl would’ve made these in the 180ish range instead of the 10cm jump from 176 to 186.

    Over the years my previous experience with sub 180 skis were 1st generation Voile Carbon Surfs – wound up turning those things into a dartboard trying to find the sweet spot with the bindings, gave up and gave them away.

    Next, I think, were a pair of 1st gen Karhu Jak’s – lifeless, dead ski, sold ’em.
    Moved from there to the 1st gen Manaslu – pingy darts, light, but seemed to have a mind of their own, did not like those – sold ’em.

    Prior to all those, I ripped a pair of 204cm RD ( Elan ) Heli Dogs for quite some time – fun lively, while at the same time relatively damp ski.
    After those I migrated to the 1st gen Atomic 10EX in a 184cm. Skied those for several years. ( The Voile’s, Karhu’s and Manaslu’s intermingled during my 10EX days ) Very powerful, damp metal ski – mach schnell !!! Still have these only pulled the AT bindings a few years back, put resort binders on, but they just gather dust as I’m just not into the resort thing.

    After the 10EX I went to the 1st gen Coomback in a 181cm and have been skiing those primarily to present with the exception of a pair of Volkl Nunataq’s in a 178.

    The Nunataq’s were hard to come to terms with and have pretty much been regulated to the wall until reading here about about the current Nunataq’s with the revised boot center mark. I remounted those last week, moved the bindings forward, have not been out on them but am looking forward to it.

    Then there are my current 1st gen 184cm Volkl V Werks Katana’s mounted +1 ( Bat Blades! ) These things are unreal ! For an advertised radius of 23.5 these are surprisingly quick, but when you want to punch it they fly, climb well too for being a bit heavier ski but right in there with the Coomback in that regard.

    Now back to the Mythic. My shop which have a pair of 177’s on the wall I just couldn’t bring myself to commit to another pair of sub 180 skis. And since Dynastar USA is out of stock for the year I ordered the 184’s last week online, hoping I don’t have this mystery camber issue you guys are bringing up.
    Looking forward to the lighter climbing weight for longer approaches/days, but at the same time hoping they’re not too light/pingy.
    Still undecided on the mounting point but may very well go +1 as I have on my Katana’s.

    Speaking of camber ( sorry this is so long winded ) but I did not mention a pair of my skis from a waaay long time ago, a pair of prototype Tua Magnum Sauvage, white top sheet with graphics/white bases. I cannot remember the length but I think they were in the 190 range.
    Those things had the camber of a double camber touring ski, massive, with a pretty radical sidecut. Graduated cracked edges from tip to going solid edge underfoot, back to graduated to the tail. Absolutely outstanding backcountry ski ! You could crank the tightest turns you could imagine then seemingly put turns inside of those turns. But if you wanted to straight-line they were also unbelievably stable.
    I pulled the bindings off one day to make a drilling template to mount another pair of skis with the same brand of binding ( Petzel’s back then – Hello Dick Jackson 😉
    and discovered the top sheet was cracked from edge to edge under the toe.
    I called Chouinard and they told me they’d send me the production version and did. Purplish top sheet sans cracked edges, and waaay less camber and sidecut – totally different ski, and to me not in a good way.
    I called Chouinard back and begged and pleaded for another pair of prototypes but they’d only built a 100 pair, no more to be had 🙁 , sold the purple pair and moved on …

  116. J.L. February 27th, 2016 5:48 am

    Hi again. More news.

    Here are more observations of “two versions of mythic”
    With pictures.

    I’ve made several new test sinside/outside temps and the new ski shows stable characteristics the more I do the tests.. It has settled to 15-16mm camber (ski to ski). Old one (6mm camber ski to ski) keeps having it’s own life…

    Anyway, here are the visual differencies (with pics)
    —- Faulty (in another words: the one that twists to reverse camber/full rocker) is always on the left side. —-

    1) Top sheet is more glossy on faulty one.

    2) Binding reinforcement laminate (metal sheet under binding area) is different shape. Straight endings on faulty one and arrow-shape endings on stable one

    3) Different guide graphics for binding drill bit diameter. Faulty one has 4.1mm whereas stable one has 3.5mm.

    4) different camber amount. I don’t know what to say about this. Which one is wrong and which one is right? 🙂 (Left one has 6mm ski to ski (this ski reacts to temperature and goes to flat and over to reverse camber the colder the weather gets. Right one has 15-16mm and seems to be more stable.) Whatsoever, difference is dramatic to begin with.

    Drill bit diameter difference (plus the laminate shape difference) possibly tells us the fact that binding reinforcement plate material might has been changed.

    I’m totally unsure at he moment what the ski camber SHOULD be. There’s no official info anywhere. People with just few millimeter camber are extremely happy with the ski. Be happy, don’t worry, just ski and smile. 🙂 It might be one helluva lucky flaw that makes the ski as it is.

  117. atfred February 27th, 2016 10:09 am

    Going down memory lane, remember the Olin Selkirk? 195 cm, 75 mm underfoot – my first “fat” ski!!

  118. See February 27th, 2016 12:55 pm

    This low/high camber Mythic issue is another example of how reviews and demos can be of limited value (imo), along with the difficulty of getting the right ski, in the right size, with the right bindings, on the right day, etc.. I generally don’t buy high end/price skis so if I get a pair that doesn’t work for me, I just chalk it up to experience, and pass them along to some one who may like them better. I’ve been happy with most of the skis I’ve used over the years, although some of them took some getting used to. However, I like to try and figure out how shape, flex, construction, etc. determine ski performance, so I’ve usually got a pretty good idea about what I’m looking for without demoing.

  119. See February 27th, 2016 1:03 pm

    And I usually buy skis without bindings, so if they don’t seem right when I get them in my hands, I can return them.

  120. Rick February 27th, 2016 3:43 pm

    I definitely remember the Selkirk. Back in the Olin daze I had my eyes on the Olin 3’s and 4’s, primarily the 4’s but never sprang for any.

    Going into my way, way back time machine my skis were;
    Hexcel Hexcelerator’s
    Hexcel Blue Ice – Phenomenal skis on the boilerplate days back when I was in the Pacific Northwest. Besides the normal full length edges the Blue Ice had secondary edges in the sidewall on the middle 3rd of the ski – ice carvers !
    Hexcel Sundance. All my Hexcels were mounted with Spademan bindings driven by wax injected Hansen boots.
    My last pair of Hexels were the Ultra, by that time I’d permanently relocated to Alaska.
    My first AT rig was a pair of Fischer Tour Lites (?) with Tyrolia TRB bindings, bindings with essentially rubber bands pretending to be AFD’s – knee shredders. And IIRC the cores of that particular super light, super squirrelly ski consisted of resin impregnated corrugated cardboard.

    Bunches of other resort oriented skis;
    Atomic Red Sled 207cm
    Atomic Super G 223cm
    RD Giant Coyote 215cm … etc etc …

  121. atfred February 27th, 2016 5:45 pm


    lots of nostalgic memories, along with a few nightmares! ( and we haven’t even mentioned boots!)

    Equipment today is sooo much better, I think.

  122. See February 28th, 2016 12:25 pm

    On the subject of obsessive ski inspection: I just received a pair of skis that looked good in terms of specs, etc. for my intended use, but which none of the local shops I checked carried. All seemed good except when I did a basic hand flex. Sometimes the ski felt soft but ok, sometimes too soft.

    After checking the flex a bunch of times, I began to think that one ski was significantly softer than the other. I put on a “blindfold,” flexed both skis, and was able to correctly identify the softer ski 10 out of 10 times. I actually tried the test about 15-20 times and picked the same ski as the softer one every time. It got to the point where I could usually tell which ski I was flexing before I even tried the other one.

    FWIW, the stiffer one weighs 1.2 oz more, and the serial numbers match. I don’t think it really matters what kind of skis they are because, having only checked this single pair of skis, I don’t think the sample size is big enough to generalize.

  123. See February 28th, 2016 12:25 pm

    Not Mythics.

  124. emily sullivan February 28th, 2016 1:27 pm

    JL- my skis have a shiny topsheet and they read 4.1mm drill bit diameter. very interesting…. the only reason I haven’t skied them get us because my bindings have yet to arrive. very curious to see if they twist like yours!

  125. Rick March 2nd, 2016 3:49 pm

    My 184 Mythics just showed up from Asogear in Ontario Canada.

    The drill spec is 3.5 ..

    Camber measured at the front boot centerline’s a tick under 14mm.

    Both flex evenly ( if there’s a difference I can’t detect it )

    They have the pointed mounting plates.

    Now my only dilemma is whether to go +1 from the forward mounting point as I’d prefer not turning any of my skis into dartboards.

    When mounting my 184 V Werks Katana’s I went +1 and do not have a single reservation for having done so – decisions, decisions …

  126. Jim Milstein March 2nd, 2016 5:48 pm

    Rick, I ski the Mythics in S Colorado and mounted them using the primary boot center line. They skied great. Then I switched boots from the Sportiva Siderals to Atomic Backland Carbon Lights, which have a much shorter sole. The result was to move the boot center line maybe four mm forward. Didn’t feel a difference from that. The difference in boots swamped the centerline change. Still ski great. Greater even!

    Yesterday I skied slabby breakable wind-damaged snow above tree line and made round turns, no falls. Also had fun in prime glade skiing. Nice skis.

  127. Rick March 2nd, 2016 6:25 pm

    Thank you Jim – great points of reference on the two different boots !
    My two boots are the La Sportiva Spectre with a 304mm sole and my trusty crud bustin’ Garmont Radiums with a 305mm sole. And even though there’s only 1mm twixt the two I always use my Radiums when mounting my bindings but primarily ski the Spectre’s and adjust the binding heel accordingly .

    Tip to tail tape pull on my 184 Katana’s is 182.5cm with the same tape pull on the 184 Mythics being 181.5cm.

    At +1, on the Katana’s, to the tail is 78cm.
    Primary mounting mark on the Mythics to the tail is 80.5cm.

    At those dimensions I think I’ll be just fine going with the primary mounting mark on the Mythics. ( I wasn’t going to compare those dimensions ’til later this evening but your post accelerated that thought process 😉 )

    Thanks again for your input, much appreciated !

  128. Lou Dawson 2 March 5th, 2016 2:08 pm

    Hey all, I’ve been out on the Mythics a bit in conditions that vary from hard piste to slushy powder in the trees. I concur with Bob, Jim and others that these are exceptional skis. In my opinion their strength is as an all arounder. While they don’t hook up on hardpack the way some of my other test skis have been doing, the Mythic combo of width and a nice flex is beautiful in softer conditions. I would definitely travel with these as a quiver of one. Thanks again to Bob for the review and to all of you for your excellent comments.

    FYI, I finally did add them to our weight/surface chart. It’s right up there in the good zone, below average in weight.


    Bob’s testers weigh 1422 grams per ski, 177 cm.

  129. Rick March 5th, 2016 5:46 pm

    Thanks for the Mythic update Lou, I’ve not mounted mine yet but probably will in the next day or two. I’m currently *trying* to get myself psyched on burying myself in my taxes, and with the new weather system rolling into the Kenai Mtns now’s a good a time as any 😉

    On an update on my remounted, regulated to the wall, dusty Nunataqs, I did get those out for the first time since remounting this last Thursday on some very nice settled powder >>> http://www.cnfaic.org/site/observations/tincan-ridge-hippy-bowl-cfr/ … totally different ski, much more *athletic*, cranked out some very nice turns !
    But since skiing them last, that and prior to the remount, I’d added some B&D risers under my Plum Guide toe and added some Plum stomp blocks at the same time, all combined a big fat plus !! Sweet boards indeed.

    Great info to be had on this forum – Thanks, and keep it up !

    Oh, and I wanted to clarify one more thing; when I mentioned above the straight tape pull lengths on my 184 Mythics and Katanas, the Katanas are 182cm not 182.5

  130. Ajkrame March 24th, 2016 3:31 pm

    I am pulling out the Olin Selkirks this very week…have as pair with a Tele setup that I am taking out for the first time in a decade. Was one of my quiver setups back in the day.

    Expect a lot of heads to turn in my direction with a “WTF?!? face.”

  131. VT skier April 28th, 2016 10:45 am

    My 178 Nunataqs have been my “go to” BC ski for last few winters here in Vermont. Predictable, good float in deeper snow, not too heavy on the skin track with Verts and my Spectres.
    They even ski the resort well, great carving ski when making some turns before a tour with friends.

    For spring, corn snow and steeper, narrow icy terrain, I like my Cham 97HM in a 178. Also setup with Verts. Sounds like the Mythics have the same stiff tail I like on the Chams but lighter. An amazing, versatile ski, just not the float of the Nunataqs..

  132. Rob June 2nd, 2016 8:58 pm

    Hi Lou thanks for all the information on your site. I have just taken delivery of some Mythics & Kingpins from Canada for our Australian season. Looking up this review for mounting information I find that I have the 6mm camber pair with 4.1 drill bit diameter as described in J.L.’s post of February 27th. Maybe that’s why they were on special!
    Question is what should I do… if anything. Other posts have been complimentary for what seem to be the same “faulty” skis. I want to use them for Aussie touring and was hoping they could replace my overseas pair for Japan or North America. I’d appreciate any thoughts you or other owners might have.

  133. J.L. June 10th, 2016 7:32 am

    Hi all!

    It’s me, who started of this faulty-pair-conversation in the beginning.

    During the last season I ended up skiing with both pairs (with the same binding, same position) in slopes, also went touring with both of them and skied variety of snow styles. With skinning, I would say that more camber is slightly better, naturally. No surprises there. Also more-camber-version has a bit better top sheet, considering snow collect. In deep/soft snow, I didn’t notice any difference between different cambers. In slopes it seems that more camber works slightly better. Nothing drastic. In the end I would say that difference is very very very small between these skis. But it is there. Anyway, they are both Mythic and I like them.

    It is a very good ski, no matter what camber you have. Only complain comes with icy crust, and I can say Mythic (in general) doesn’t handle it at all. All the other conditions, beautiful ski: it handles deep, soft, new snow, old snow, and cruising in slopes. I’m really digging it.

    Anyway, my tech told me that there was no metal coming out with the drilling with the new version, so it seems that Dynastar have have changed the binding reinforcement material to something else than (metal) they used before. I never got official explanation for this matter, but this has been changed for sure. Also the top sheet has been changed. For a bit better, in my opinion. I also got info that all Mythic skis manufactured for the next season are going to be this 3,5mm drill guide, so called “non-faulty”, versions.

    I can confirm that older pair (“faulty”, 4.1 mm drill guide) 6mm or less (depending on temperature) camber lived throughout the whole season and the new pair (3,5mm drill guide) approx 14-15mm camber stayed stable.

  134. Lou Dawson 2 June 10th, 2016 8:42 am

    Thanks for dropping by J.L, super useful info. One thing to remember about drilling skis is you can always do a test hole using the 3.5 mm bit, and if you encounter metal or a super hard mount plate, you can step up to the 4.1 bit. Lou


  135. Jim Milstein June 10th, 2016 9:38 am

    I agree with J.L. that the Mythics are not good on hard surface snow but are happy on everything else. My experience with them is a long season and seventy-seven backcountry days in the southern Rockies.

    Once I had the Mythics the Dynafit Manaslus, good skis, were forsaken.

  136. Eric P February 8th, 2017 6:08 pm

    Thanks for the great commentary. I’m looking for a quiver-of-one touring ski for Alaska, and specifically the Chugach. I come from both an alpine and nordic racing background. Would the Mythic be a good option for that, or should I bump up to a wider ski?

  137. Jim Milstein February 8th, 2017 6:25 pm

    Despite being a rather stiff ski, both lengthwise and torsionally, the Mythics are great in soft snow. The stiffness makes them very lively and responsive. I ski the 171cm length and do not like going mach schnell with them (5’8″, 142lb). No surprise. But given the need to ski tight trees from time to time, that’s the length I need. These guys can turn tight when so directed. I hate getting impaled on dead branches.

    Wider skis weigh more and can carry more snow on deck. The Mythics have a 133mm shovel and a bit of early rise, which helps keep them on top of the snow. They are satisfactory for me in the deep southern rockies snowpack of the Wolf Creek Pass region.

  138. Eric P February 9th, 2017 4:11 pm

    Thanks Jim! I’m leaning toward the Mythic with a Dynafit speed radical binding as my setup. Just picked up a pair of second hand Dynafit TLT-6’s. I’ve been touring on frame bindings, a 2000g ski, and alpine boots up to this point – definitely looking forward to a lighter setup!

    Thanks again for the quick response!

  139. Jim Milstein February 9th, 2017 5:58 pm

    Your proposed gear, Eric, will be radically different. You will enjoy the change uphill for sure; I hope the same applies downhill.

  140. Emily Sullivan February 28th, 2017 8:35 pm

    Hi J.L.-
    Revisiting this old thread. So I’ve skied my Mythics all winter and I’m confident that I have a faulty pair. We’ve had a lot of below 0 days in Montana this winter… and somewhere around 10-20 F, my skis reverse their camber as well. On warm days they are great for carving but it frigid temps it’s totally sketchy. They flip, and the only part of my ski touching the snow is just below my boot. My friends have checked them out as well and agree. My skis also match your defect pair in the top sheet. Dynastar is being less than helpful even though i have sent them a bunch of photos. Your photos are no longer accessible to me (bandwidth exceeded?) so I was wondering if you might be able to post them again, or else email me at emelex (at) mac.com. That would be most helpful. Thank you!!
    Best, Emily

  141. Jim Milstein March 2nd, 2017 5:20 pm

    At last, conditions where the Mythics did not rule! The Wolf Creek Pass region just got about three feet of snow and, unconsolidated, it was too much for the Mythics yesterday. They stayed on top only when the slope angle was 35º or more. Otherwise, I walked downhill, sullenly kicking my skis to the surface and wondering whether snowshoes would be better. Today was much better as the snow consolidated and got faster with warmer weather. This has been the only time in over a hundred days on the Mythics that I had wished for wider skis and an expensive wax job. Actually, I did a bit of field waxing with some almost expensive wax.

    The thought may occur, was this guy crazy to be skiing steepness right after a three foot storm? Perhaps, but there was no evidence of instability, natural or otherwise. Surface sloughing was minimal. All terrain was well below treeline and unaffected by wind. I left some deep tracks–like a snowboarder’s.

  142. Andrew March 20th, 2017 3:15 am

    I’ve been running Mythics + Vipecs + Backland Carbons since January. Bought based on the reviews here (and to a lesser extent Blistergear), so thanks to the reviewers and comment posters, especially JP Vallone.

    In order to prepare for a touring trip in Iceland in April, I’ve been using the Mythics as a daily driver on piste, uphill, bluebird days, pea soup, powder, bullet proof artificial snow etc. Overall I’m really pleased with the skis as they do everything I want, apart perhaps from imitating a GS ski on hard pack, which is probably asking too much.

    In Swiss heavy powder and carved up chop (I dream of 3′ of powder) they absolutely rock, with a nice bouncy feeling for those Swiss ski tourer wiggly curves, but enough beef to let them run through heavy chop, even in bad light when you have to rely on legs and skis rather than turning.

    Only bad thing about them is that the top sheets quickly get damaged. After using them for only 3 days to teach my kids to ski (bad idea I know), they look like my 3 seasons old Volkls.

  143. Jim Milstein March 20th, 2017 8:37 am

    Speaking of Mythic top sheet damage, yesterday I discovered a new way to do it, borrowing an entry from the Snowshoer’s Book of Errors (a very short book). My Vipec crampons are generously wide and can land on the opposite ski’s shovel with a long stride.

  144. Lou Dawson 2 March 20th, 2017 8:48 am

    Jim, I’ve had that problem with ski crampons as well, not pretty!

  145. Jack April 17th, 2017 12:00 pm

    I”m thinking of purchasing a pair of Mythics. The ski sounds wonderful. Does anyone have any facts (or strong opinions) on: 1. the real hinderance of the black top sheet and 2. Has Dynastar fixed the miraculously changing camber problem?
    Thanks so much. Projected use: East Coast backcountry and possible Haute Route.

  146. Andrew April 17th, 2017 2:12 pm

    Well, the white bits if the topsheet do get less snow sticking. But the black is not exactly sticky and physics says that on a powdery skin track snow will fall on your ski. When it does I found a few hits of the heel bounced most of it off.

    For a non mid winter HR if you are a strong skier then the narrower white Mythic 87 would be probably better for the hard snow you will now get (and wider than most Swiss use), and 87 will only be significantly worse if you get deep, setting concrete type snow. Buy fast as it’s black for 2018.

    3 days into the Iceland trip and skis are still good.

  147. Jim Milstein April 17th, 2017 2:42 pm

    Jack, I agree with Andrew about top sheet icing. Top sheet color should not be near the top of the list when choosing skis. As for the “camber problem”, I can’t see how any normal skier could tell the difference one or two mm of camber could make, but I’m an insensitive brute.

    Skialper says this year’s Mythic is significantly different from last year’s (better!). Does anyone have personal experience with the change, if any?

  148. Geewilligers April 17th, 2017 3:24 pm

    Jack, I have the Mythics Bob so expertly reviewed in this article (2015/16?). Was able to get out and ski them on a number of slides in the Adirondack Park this season – could not have been happier. The turning radius is nice and tight for our narrow trails, the shovels are wide enough to get you up on top of any powder you are lucky enough to encounter, and they are stiff. In short, for out here they rock. Also, no icing problems through March.

  149. BJA April 20th, 2017 12:19 am

    Lou, or anyone else, able to speak to what the mythics will look like for 2017/18? I finally gave in to a local shops recommendation recently and rode some Cham hm 97’s they had because that’s as close to a mythic demo I can find. I know Dynastar revamped their alpine ski line for next year, but the guys in the shop were unsure if the mythic was included in the retooling. I liked the cham hm 97 but since I was demoing bc skis at the resort they threw me on next years Legend that they got as a prerelease, and I can say that the new profile was impressive, just not sure it would be as impressive for a touring rig. Hopefully someone can chime in with some details of next years changes.

  150. atfred December 11th, 2017 4:48 pm

    Hi Lou,

    I’m getting ready to transfer some Dynafit Vertical ST bindings from the Dynastar CHAM 97 to the Mythic 97, and was wondering if there is anything special I need to be aware of when drilling into a ski with carbon layers, like the Mythic.

    Also, do you know if the same screw lengths will work in the Mythic, as they do in the CHAM?

    Thanks much for your advice.


  151. Lou Dawson 2 December 11th, 2017 6:35 pm

    Hi Fred, you need to measure the screws and compare to measured thickness of ski, relate back to the Cham 97. Drilling the carbon isn’t any big deal, just be careful as with any non metallic ski not to apply so much pressure the drill depth stop eats into the topskin. Tap holes and use good quality epoxy. Let me know how it goes! Sounds nice! Lou

  152. atfred December 12th, 2017 7:57 am

    Thanks Lou,

    I think I’m going to have a good shop do it this time. These skis are pretty expensive – even on sale!!


  153. jeremy allyn December 22nd, 2017 11:39 am

    RE: Mythic camber issues…I’ve had Mythics as my primary BC skis since Dec. 2015 and this season have noticed the camber change. Wading through all the comments, I’d say they change camber similarly to what others have experienced. When warm, standing base-base, they have 5mm total camber (I can’t recall if they had more when new). When cold they have 0 camber…totally flat. Lately I’ve been feeling they ski a bit “dead” and guess the camber has something to do with this. I reached out to Dynastar and got a prompt response back from an “after service manager.” His take is that many skis change camber slightly based differential contraction across the ski lay up and that the Mythic exhibits this more so than others. When I asked if the construction has change for 2017-18, they said no. I’ve absolutely loved these skis and think they’re some of the best and most versatile I’ve ever had (been BC skiing for almost 30 years) but when I think about it, I’m not totally satisfied with Dynastar’s answer. Perhaps I’m just uneducated about camber change? I’ve always considered a skis camber to be a fairly fixed part of a ski’s DNA like shape, sidecut, length and weight. Obviously skis bend and the camber will flatten over the life of a ski, but to change over hours? That strikes me like a design flaw.

  154. Jim Milstein December 22nd, 2017 5:16 pm

    A couple of mms of camber change per ski (base to base measure is double) should not be noticeable by any but the pickiest, most sensitive skiers skiing on hard snow. I, luckily, am an insensitive brute and try not to ski on hard snow.

    Just completed a day on the Mythics skiing fine, dry snow. It was great!

  155. jeremy allyn December 22nd, 2017 10:44 pm

    I hear ya, Jim. Zero camber is zero camber, though. That’s a very different situation than a change from 6mm to 3mm, or 8mm to 4mm, or whatever. When a ski is marketed or sold as having “traditional camber” and goes to zero when the temps hit 30F, then something is wrong with something. Clearly it’s the lay up and construction of the Mythic…something that Dynastar is even admitting. Feels disingenuous to me and completely out of the norm from every ski I’ve ever skied on. Would love to hear from a working ski builder or engineer on this…mainly out of curiosity, not because I’m fishing for new skis from Dynastar!

  156. Jim Milstein December 23rd, 2017 7:22 am

    What is more important, a ski’s numbers or how it skis? Try to keep in mind why we ski.

  157. Lou Dawson 2 December 23rd, 2017 9:51 am

    When I was a child, I used to hang my climbing gear rack on the wall in my bedroom and just stare at it, but I always eventually used it! I did the same thing with skis, though I was more into the overall look of the skis and didn’t recite the sidecut numbers to myself over and over again (smile). Of course, when skis had no sidecut the numbers didn’t mean much… Lou

  158. atfred January 14th, 2018 6:31 pm

    Hi Bob, a mythic question:

    I am in the fortunate position of having two (2) 171 cm mythics (long story).

    One pair I have mounted on the standard line, and, at 160# 5’11”, find they work very well for me as backcountry skis.

    I’ve been thinking of mounting the second pair for resort use, and was wondering what the effect of going 2 cm behind the standard line would be. Besides better flotation, do you think the ski would be a bit more stable at the somewhat higher speeds of resort skiing?

    Just wondering what you thought.

    Thanks much,


  159. Max November 2nd, 2018 4:37 am

    This is the other ski on my shortlist of three to match with the Shift MNC binding and Atomic XTD boots, for a 50/50 travel friendly quiver of one. The other ski’s are Head Kore 93 and Black Crows Camox Freebird. To be tourable I have limited my selection of ski’s to under 3000g / pair and for versatility a width between 88mm and 97mm. The challenge is whether any of these lightweight ski’s are truly fun to ski at speed on groomers. Judging from reviews it seems only Head Kore has this capability.

  160. cseilern January 20th, 2019 1:57 pm

    Has anyone tried using 100mm crampons on the Mythic 97? I know the in theory it should work, but just wanted to make sure in case theory is to all it is cracked up to be. Thanks!

  161. Jim Milstein January 20th, 2019 4:51 pm

    Should work fine, cseilern. On the advice of BD I used the Traxion cramps to fit ski waists 101mm – 115mm, and I regretted it. Assuming the ball of your foot is at or close to the ski’s waist, a 100mm crampon will fit. If it does not, encourage it with a bit of bending. Sometimes violence is the answer.

    I am currently using a 97mm cramp on a 96mm ski, and it is perfect.

  162. Cseilern January 20th, 2019 11:09 pm

    Thanks for that @Jim

Anti-Spam Quiz:

While you can subscribe to comment notification by checking the box above, you must leave a brief comment to do so, which records your email and requires you to use our anti-spam challange. If you don't like leaving substantive comments that's fine, just leave a simple comment that says something like "thanks, subscribed" with a made-up name. Check the comment subscription checkbox BEFORE you submit. NOTE: BY SUBSCRIBING TO COMMENTS YOU GIVE US PERMISSION TO STORE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS INDEFINITLY. YOU MAY REQUEST REMOVAL AND WE WILL REMOVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITHIN 72 HOURS. To request removal of personal information, please contact us using the comment link in our site menu.
If you need an emoticon for a comment just copy/paste off the following list, or use text code you might be familiar with.

:D    :-)    :(    :lol:    :x    :P    :oops:    :cry:    :evil:    :twisted:    :roll:    :wink:    :!:    :?:    :idea:    :arrow:   
Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after approval. Comments with one or more links in the text may be held in moderation, for spam prevention. If you'd like to publish a photo in a comment, contact us. Guidelines: Be civil, no personal attacks, avoid vulgarity and profanity.

  Your Comments

  Recent Posts

Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube


  • Blogroll & Links

  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version