Dynafit New Skis — Stoke and Broad Peak

Post by WildSnow.com blogger | January 18, 2010      

Dynafit’s 2010/11 ski line gets fatter and more “freeride” oriented with the addition of their 129/105/119 “Stoke” model.

Stoke skis, pair.

Stoke is named after Revelstoke, Canada, with design influence by Greg Hill. Available in 164, 173, and 182.

Along with the now classic and well liked Manaslu and Seven Summits models (among others), this year we are treated to Dynafit’s first “freeride” width plank. This ski’s design was influenced by well known ski mountaineer Greg Hill and the needs of skiers in areas such as Revelstoke, Canada, where consistent dumps of loose snow make wider planks an extremely useful tool for ski alpinism. Combine the 105 mm waist width with Dynafit’s lightweight construction, and you get a ski that is said to handle well, but only compresses the scale with 1550 grams for the 173 length (not verified).

If the production Stoke skis can stick to this weight, that’ll put them in the class of a K2 Baker SL or Dynafit Manaslu in terms of surface area vs mass, which could make this a superb choice for human powered sliders who want something in a freeride width.

Dynafit Revelstoke Stoke skis.

Dynafit Revelstoke Stoke skis march together, Euro style.

How does the Stoke ski? I’m not qualified to evaluate a freeride board as I don’t ski other skis of that width enough for perspective. But I quizzed a few of the guys at the Dynafit event who were used to that type of ski. They had no complaints. Some pointed out that a wide ski with less sidecut than some other freeride brands/models is a bit different (both pro and con), and that you do notice the lack of weight. Overall, everyone sounded pleased though some wondered if it could use some rocker. My take is that not all skis need rocker, and it can of course be detrimental to a skis hard snow performance, so let’s not make a god out of it.

If you’re looking for wider backcountry skis, pay attention to the Stoke and try to get on a pair when demos are available next winter. To that end, we’ll attempt to test a pair this winter in varied conditions, and do a real review. But meanwhile, we may have a winner that could even be a game changer such as the Manaslu.

Stoke ski construction.

Stoke ski construction includes carbon fiber and quite a bit of lightweight core material. Beyond exotic materials, however, Dynafit tells me that what makes a ski lighter weight is just being careful with how much resin gets left in during the molding process, along with not going overboard on the amount of glass fiber (using some carbon helps, as you get strength with minimal weight increases).

Dynafit Stoke skis detail.

Stoke skis detail includes the Greg Hill and Canadian reference.

Beyond these being a super interesting develpment, the burning question is will we still see Greg Hill on Goode carbon skis, or only on his imprimatur plank? We’ll be watching.

Dynafit Broad Peak skis.

Dynafit Broad Peak skis.

Dynafit’s other new ski, the Broad Peak (112/74/96 in 167 cm), is Stoke’s opposite. Built for edge hold when you encounter conditions such as white ice during ski descents of big peaks, the ski is still said to handle varied conditions, as a board of this sort would have to.

My take is that the Broad Peak is a quiver ski. You’d own it if you want something that’ll help you survive steep icy terrain you might encounter during spring ski descents and that sort of thing — or if you’re heading out for a quick blast up and down Broad Peak before your morning espresso. Available in 149, 158, 167, 176, weight will be just over one kilo per ski — another reason this might be the choice for gargantuan climbs.

Dynafit skis, the full lineup.

Dynafit skis, the full lineup, from left to right: Stoke, Manaslu, Mustagh Ata SL, Broad Peak (green design), Nanga Parbat, 7 Summits and 7SSL, red Guide ski being held up, Haute Route Plus, yellow is some sort of special edition (probably the SAR ski), white race ski.

Shop for Dynafit skis.


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


70 Responses to “Dynafit New Skis — Stoke and Broad Peak”

  1. Lee Lau January 18th, 2010 11:30 pm

    Greg will be only on those skis. But he’ll still be fast

  2. Bar Barrique January 18th, 2010 11:47 pm

    I’m using a set of Goode 95’s, and, I’m a happy camper. These skis do look nice though, what is their turn radius?

  3. gillesleskieur January 18th, 2010 11:52 pm

    Goode has disapered from Greg’s web site, as a sponsor, for a few months. so i guess only Dynafits… isn^t the red ski the Guide?

    Thanks lou!

  4. Josh Briggs January 19th, 2010 12:20 am

    Hi Lou,

    Do they the mounting plugs appear as far back as on the manaslu? That mounting position really didn’t work for me (see my comments on your manaslu review)– it felt way too far back on the ski.

    I’m not certain mounting plugs are the way to go– unless you can put in enough of them to provide a variety of position options, like a race plate– as it eliminates the ability to mount according to one’s own preferences.

    (Yes, I am aware that you can simply drill elsewhere on the skis… but to me, that defeats much of the purpose)

    What about torsional rigidity on the new sticks? That was my other issue with the manaslu… soft flex was expected, but it was really torsionally mushy too.

    Same dynafit skin system?

    Thanks for the posting.

  5. Euro Rob January 19th, 2010 1:42 am

    Doesn’t the new Broad Peak intersect with the Nanga Parbat a bit?

  6. Dimitar January 19th, 2010 1:43 am

    Stoke will have to compete, not with Baker or Manaslu , but with G3 ZenOxide – which is clearly (for everybody who skied them) the leader of the class of fat&ultralight skis at the moment. Miraculously some skis are never mentioned on this website…. :angel:

  7. Verbier61 January 19th, 2010 2:08 am

    looks like the broad peak might overlap with the nanga parbat… or not?

  8. RHSMan January 19th, 2010 3:08 am

    They are exciting sticks! I can’t see myself actually wanting a wider ski than the Manaslu’s here in europe BUT I bet they are fun!

  9. Kevin January 19th, 2010 9:39 am

    It’s interesting that I’m in the Kootenays this winter and I’ve yet to see anyone on Zen Oxides or any of the lighter ski options. I’ve seen one pair of Manaslus and that was at the ski hill.

    Most of the guys up here seem to have no trouble lugging their Gotamas, Megawatts, Justice, Pontoons, (you name the big freeride ski) around all day. Some of them use Dynafit bindings though.

    Makes me wonder if, at least in this part of the Selkirks, the wide Dynafit Stoke will be popular?

    Maybe the guys on the light gear are just way further out from the trailhead than I get. :whistle:

  10. Mike January 19th, 2010 10:06 am

    Now that you mentioned it, I don’t know anybody in the Whistler area under 40 using Dynafit’s. But I didn’t learn anything til 40 anyway!

  11. Mark W January 19th, 2010 10:18 am

    Pretty cool concept. Bet they’ll sell well.

  12. Lou January 19th, 2010 10:45 am

    It’s not a miracle we didn’t mention the current g3s. A short time ago they were all very heavy, and I haven’t paid much attention to them since then. Their PR person should have bothered me if they have something wide and light, but I’ve never heard from anyone. I’m not a mind reader and don’t have three of me to keep track. Thankfully, you guys leave comments and that gets things moving, so thanks even with the sarcasm (grin).

  13. Lou January 19th, 2010 10:51 am

    Kevin, once a few guys figure out they don’t need to lug as much weight, you’ll see a change. It just takes time, and as I’ve always said, Dynafit bindings are not for everyone. They require a bit more intelligence and athletic ability to use.

  14. James January 19th, 2010 11:21 am

    Ya, Lou’s right. I’m from the Kootenays and light gear is just starting to be deployed here. Though many of us aren’t rockin’ it yet, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who has made the switch to light-weight stuff and doesn’t love the benefits. Now, with more availability and options in light stuff (Dynafit, BD, G3, Trab) I think you will see it take off. Especially now, with a poster-boy like Greg Hill, to help market the stuff. I guess there is still a certain machismo to being able to put in 3000m days with 6kg on each foot but that will pass.

  15. Lou January 19th, 2010 11:25 am

    Verbier, my take is that the Nanga is very stiff and the Broad might be a bit more forgiving. But I don’t pay much attention to those skis as they’re way too narrow and specialized for most WildSnow readers.

    And yeah, the red ski is probably the guide ski. They had a SAR ski there as well, so I’m probably mixed up.

    Speaking of the guide ski, the Dynafit ski product manager said they did a survey of guides and found they do about 40% of their skiing on the piste, and wanted a ski that would support that. Hence, the guide ski is pretty specialized….


  16. Jon January 19th, 2010 12:03 pm

    These look really similar to this year’s Prior Husume, 124-102-112, rocker, and claimed 3300g for the 175. Little heavier like the Zen Oxide but made in this continent which I think is a huge plus.

    What do people think about buying skis/gear made overseas? Now that US and Canadian companies are making light skis its definitely going to be a deal breaker for me

  17. L.A.U. January 19th, 2010 3:27 pm

    Would they mind also making skis for taller people, i.e. like 185/187 cm long?????

    At least things seem to be moving a little bit…..

    And I do agree that a very light ski will not downhill ski like a heavier ski…..less stable, flexible, etc….they have to find the right balance.

  18. earle.b January 19th, 2010 3:54 pm

    Movement has a new ski in this same range. Some info over on ttips about it.

    Paul Parker Jackal 136-105-124 available in 170, 177, 185, 192

    3.12g for pair of 177’s.


  19. Karl January 19th, 2010 5:05 pm

    How does the Stoke compare to the Manaslu, in terms of flex? (stiffer? softer?)

  20. AJ January 19th, 2010 7:42 pm

    the red one is the guide ski, the yellow(ish) one is the SAR ski

  21. Cam January 19th, 2010 8:45 pm

    My initial reaction is that 129mm is too narrow for 105mm underfoot. And secondly, why on earth would you name a ski after someone and a place that almost all of us have never met, skied with or skied at? Some places, such as Broad Peak can obviously inspire us and instantly infer a certain, marketable image, but Revelstoke, Greg Hill or Paul Parker? Can Dynafit really be that gullible?

  22. Cam January 19th, 2010 9:02 pm

    129mm is too narrow for a 105mm waist. Lack of side-cut is not where the market is at, nor is naming the ski in honor of Revelsoak or Greg Hill. Maybe next year.

  23. Lee Lau January 19th, 2010 9:08 pm


    “Gullible” – what a strange use of the word. Would you care to expand on that?

  24. Kel January 19th, 2010 10:06 pm

    Broad Peak? Are we all supposed to know where that is?

    Yah, RevelSTOKE! Looks sweet 🙂

  25. alyn January 19th, 2010 10:26 pm

    Not sure or your location, Cam, but around these parts, the “shaped” or “carving” ski is not where the market is at. The dimentions of the Stoke, look to be ideal for skiing the big mountains and deep snow that they were ment to ski. Spooning, wiggle turns down a nice slope is not where the market is headed. Maybe next year?

  26. Stano January 19th, 2010 10:50 pm

    Cam, Greg Hill is quite well known.

    I agree that he is not Tiger Woods but he has a very respectable name due to his accomplishments…and he is becoming more known in Europe now too.

    If a big fat mountaineering ski is named after a person than who else than Greg.

    Just go to Revelstoke one day and you will see what skiing is about. And it’s not just powder but the lines that get skied are amazing.

  27. Stano January 19th, 2010 10:51 pm

    Sorry for the comparison to Tiger Woods 🙂 that was baaad

  28. James January 19th, 2010 11:01 pm

    Did Greg Hill steal your girl?

  29. Kyle January 19th, 2010 11:58 pm

    I was actually pretty excited to see the lack of side cut, ya maybe the market isn’t there yet…big whoop. Someone has to be first, and after skiing the Manaslu (not much side cut either) I can’t help but think how fun these new boards would be.

    Bar – this season i’m on a pair of carbon 95’s, for me at least no comparison to the Manaslu. Especially in variable snow the word “sucks” comes to mind. Planning to be back on some Dynafits skis next season.

  30. Peter January 20th, 2010 2:11 am

    Oh, over here in Scandinavia and especially the flat country of Finland Greg Hill is well known. The top three ski mountaineers a few friends and little me can remember is Lou Dawson, Andrew McLean, and G. Hill.

    Revelstoke is the place we dream of in our wildest powder dreams.

    The Stoke ski looks awesome and does seem to have the nice Dynafittish straight measurements. Skied the 187 Manaslu last season and loved it. Switched over to BD Zealots, because I need a stiffer ski. I weight 215, which really bends the Manaslu too much…

    Hope that the Stoke would be a little beefier, anywayz I’ll continue dreaming about it;)

  31. Ptor January 20th, 2010 4:09 am

    Us tall guys always get the short end of skis, ha, ha. 182 that’s ridiculous for the longest ski in a line. Also if it ain’t got rocker, you ain’t gonna totally rock out, for uphill performance as well. It’s called efficiency and that in combination with freedom of foot movement, overrides the gram geeking in overall energy expended.
    But that’s awesome for Greg to have a signature ski. More people should know him if they already don’t. If he keeps trying to ski 2 million vertical this year, he won’t have time to steal nobody’s girlfriend.
    Sorry Tiger, golf is not a sport untill your time counts with your score.

  32. Ben W January 20th, 2010 9:17 am

    Add me to the members of the big-sidecut-is-a-hindrance camp. The dimensions look great. Are the edges wafer thin like the Manaslu’s?

  33. alyn January 20th, 2010 10:02 am

    If I remeber, the edges were a bit beefier than the manaslus, but the big improvement over the manaslu is the sdewall construction. Looks slolid unlike the flimsy angled edges of the Manaslu. They are very prone to danage…

  34. Lou January 20th, 2010 10:27 am

    Yes, Stoke has a real, beefy, sidewall that is specifically intended to make the ski more resistant to edge impact damage.

  35. Ben W January 20th, 2010 10:59 am

    That is good news. What about camber?

  36. Dave J January 20th, 2010 1:37 pm

    Is there really a right and wrong in terms of sidecut? Isn’t it more just about personal preference and skiing style? Personally, I prefer deeper sidecuts (love my Karhu Team 100’s and Armada JJ’s), but I’ve demo’ed much straighter skis (Pro Riders, Megawatts) and fully understood their appeal too.

    On TetonAT.com the radius of the Stoke is listed (in a catalogue picture) as 23m for the 182……… seems pretty turny for the intended purpose, but perfect in my opinion. Too bad I just bought new skis!!!!!

    Cam… if you actually understood the market……. actually, if you were even part of the market, you’d be well aware of Revelstoke, Greg Hill and Paul Parker. And even though you’re not gullible enough to believe it, I can assure you, the Revelstoke/Golden/Rogers Pass region of BC is the center of the universe for ‘tour for turns’ skiing.

  37. Tony January 20th, 2010 2:56 pm

    90% or more of my ski time is spent on a skin track. Skinning on a ski with a lot of sidecut sucks. Big time. If you enjoy having to force the ski to track straight, or using downhill-style angulation in order to keep full edge contact while moving uphill, then good for you.

    Always fun to watch some clown on shaped skis trying to skin across a sunny firm south facing slope. Even better if there’s a bunch of rocker and he’s high-centering at the same time. And even better yet – if he has the BD split skin and the only point of contact with the snow is the slippery plastic center part. Good times.

    All this crap about personal preference, skiing style, where the market is at, yadayada makes me think that not too many people here are spending enough quality time on an uptrack.

  38. Dave J January 21st, 2010 11:11 am

    Hey Tony….. 40 days a season, averaging 5K’ per day skiing in the Canadian Rockies and Selkirks backcountry, I enjoy my fair share of ‘quality’ uptrack time too.

    Never been bothered skinning with deep sidecuts (even on crusts), I guess I’m just not that overly sensitive. Really wide waists and rocker definitely don’t help, but aren’t worth whining about either.

  39. Zeb Pike January 21st, 2010 1:07 pm

    While I realize this is a sort of “first impression” post, it would be nice to know how the Stoke compares to the Fischer Watea 94 and Watea 101, two skis that seem to have similar construction.

  40. Jski January 22nd, 2010 3:08 pm

    as for lengths , they need a 188/87…..but they sure have a nice flex and the core construction looks beautiful but how bout some love for the big guys?? as per whistler, guys want FAT skis with light bindings , 110 mm plus preferably. that’s b/c we are all hard core, the skiing universe revolves around us and we gotta ski lots of PUG. a lightweight sub 100 mm ski is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.

  41. John February 15th, 2010 5:19 pm

    I took a test ride on one of my kids pair of 187 Manaslus this weekend and crushed an edge/sidewall in 2 places. Anyone have a mismatched pair (1 in great shape) of ’09 187s that they would be willing to part with?

  42. Felipe February 23rd, 2010 12:38 pm

    Hi Lou,

    Have you seen/skied during your Euro trips any Hagan skis?

    I have a pair of Dynafit D510 skis, which I think they are easy to ski, but feel a bit soft for hard snow. Now I have been offered a good deal on a pair of 170cm Hagan TX-C skis (100/72/90), pretty light at 1270 grams each (Tour Expert series).

    I am an intermediate skier and use to ski on hard snow, with long climbs, so I like the slim waist and light weight, but I am not sure about ski quality or if it is an easy to ski model. What can I expect from an “expert” mountaineering ski??

    I dont have much experience with skis, and there is no much info in the web about the brand or this ski model (written in english, at least), so any help will be appreciated.

    Thanks for your help.

  43. Lou February 23rd, 2010 1:02 pm

    Those skis have a good reputation for what you describe.

  44. Marc March 5th, 2010 11:19 pm

    Lou- regarding the “GUIDE SKI”- Dynafit MUST be interviewing Euro guides, because around these parts we ski 100% OFF PISTE! Along the same lines, for a FAT (112) ROCKERED and LIGHT (less than COMBAs) ski check out PW Gear’s LHASA POWs… unreal! They are ALL I have been skiing this year!

    BTW Cam – you don’t need side cut for powder!

  45. Marc March 5th, 2010 11:20 pm

    Correction – PM Gear, not PW…

  46. Mark W March 6th, 2010 7:15 am

    Marc, how light is “light” for the Lhasa Pows?

  47. John March 16th, 2010 9:19 am

    As the Chief Ski tester :biggrin: and buyer for my family, I can say the Stoke is an incredibly turny ski for such a straight sidecut.. It does have very durable sidewalls (tried it on the rocks :w00t: ) compared to the Manaslu, in fact it seems to be quicker edge to edge then the Manaslu. Holds well on refrozen crust and floats in the pow.

    Binding inserts seemm to be placed well and like to be driven from the shins.

    About the same weight as the DPS wailer 105 Pure Carbon, but more turny.

    So it could be a single quiver ski in my book. 😎


  48. JerryWasnatch March 20th, 2010 12:56 am

    Do the Stokes have matching Dynafit Speedskins like the Manaslu or the 7 Summits?

  49. John March 20th, 2010 1:27 pm
  50. Mike March 25th, 2010 12:16 am

    Anybody want to suggest a length for the Stoke? Right now I’m on a 180 BD Verdict, which seems to measure an actual 182 and is plenty big. With the length, stiffness and sidecut, it can sometimes be a handful but goes fast, floats pretty well and plows through most everything. On the other hand, I’ve demoed a Salomon Shogun, which seems pretty nimble at that length. I’m 5’11” and around 140.

  51. Christian October 6th, 2010 12:47 am

    There is one new Dyanfit ski that I do not see here: the Guide XL. Seems to be the Mustagh Ata with a different build. I love the Mustagh Ata SL as an allrounder in changing conditions – so I would be glad to hear any on tour comparisons….
    Link to the ski below. (http://www.vpg.no/Avdelinger/Produkter/Ski/Ski/Topptur-/telemarkski/Dynafit-Guide-XL-161cm–118502.aspx)
    Would also be happy to hear any news on the wide (130mm) stoppers. I cannot find these for sale in Norway:

  52. Doug G. November 23rd, 2010 9:59 am

    Lou, do you know how much the Fischer Watea 94 weighs in a 186?

    I’ve searched for stats, but can’t find anything.


  53. Nick March 28th, 2011 3:28 pm

    Lou – comment here on an old thread, so not sure if you check these (but it was the most appropriate place). Have you had a chance this year to ski some Broad Peaks? I would be curious how it handles, as well as the Se7en Summits (or even the Mustagh ATA SLs).

    I ski the 182 Stokes for virtually all touring, and I love them for powder, crud and variable snow. But the lack of sidecut has me worried about late spring Sierra skiing, in particular frozen corn if the sun doesn’t come out. I am starting to debate picking up a super light traditional shaped ski in like around a 80 waist that can edge well and handle the hardpack (but still smoothly glide the corn with no effort). FWIW – I am 6’3″ and 190 and a pretty aggressive skier.

    I was wondering how the Se7en Summits compared to the Broad Peaks.

  54. WasnatchJerry March 28th, 2011 3:50 pm

    I ditched my stokes for boards with more sidecut. I tried the G3 Fevers and the BD Drift. Fun skis fer sure. That said I lament my Stokes and will likely saddle up a pair with the new Dynafit bindings offered next year.

  55. Nick March 28th, 2011 3:58 pm

    @ WasnatchJerry – Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE my stokes. Light, great flex and a VERY fun ski for touring.

    Having said that, the drawback will likely be hardpack/hard pre-melt corn, etc… as there is little sidecut in the ski. I am keeping my Stokes for sure, but may bargain hunt for something with more traditional sidecut in a lighter weight and smaller waist for traditional spring skiing and mountaineering in the Eastern Sierra.

    The Se7en Summits, etc… all seemed to fit the bill on paper, but I was curious how they actually skied.

  56. Christian March 29th, 2011 1:16 am

    For touring I actually prefer less sidecut when the conditions are hard – makes skinning icy traverses feel so much safer. Going down more sidecut is more fun, I think, but maybe less safe….
    The Broad Peak skis lively – with a very short 3d radius.

  57. Lenka K. March 29th, 2011 3:06 am

    Sidecut vs. width

    In my experience, the width is the problem in frozen&bumpy conditions.

    On my Amaruqs (88mm waist – obviously NARROW by American standards 🙂 ) I have to apply much more pressure to hold the edge in the said conditions than I ever did on my old Shuksans (79mm waist).

    And I’m with Christian on the sidecut.

    Lenka K.

  58. NIck March 29th, 2011 2:31 pm

    Christian, Lenka –

    Thanks. You both make good points regarding less sidecut for skining and I also agree. It feels good on the Stokes in particular with how much effective edge (and skin) is in contact on steep traversing slopes. However, when it gets icy/hard, I usually have ski crampons on anyway so it is kinda an irrelevant point.

    My question was more geared towards the downhill portion. The lack of sidecut on the Stokes (and their width as Lenka points out) seems like a hinderance when skiing hard snow. Basically, they don’t really carve hard snow well (not surprising, it is not their intention).

    So I was looking for a narrower ski with more sidecut for spring skiing in harder snow and corn. Hence my search for something like the Broad Peak, Se7en Summits or Mustagh AT SLs.

    Christian – have you skied the Se7en Summits or Mustaghs? Any comparison to the Broad Peaks?

    Lou – any thoughts on the above?

  59. Nick March 30th, 2011 12:56 am

    Lou – nevermind on the above. I actually used that little thing called the “Search” function and found endless debate about my questions above 😉

  60. Christian March 30th, 2011 1:23 am

    Currently I only have the Mustagh Ata SL (187) (as a touring ski). I used to have the much more carved and slimmer Volkl Snowwolf. I have skied, but do not have the Broad Peaks.

    On the shaped Volkl Snowwolf’s I had to use ski crampons quite a lot, on the mustagh ata’s I still haven’t used them – I can use skinning technique to compensate…and that is way more efficient. I mostly do my own skin tracks, I am sure I would use crampons on icy steep skin tracks.

    Regarding the going down. The mustagh ata sl, and ideed in the length I have them, is quite a straight ski, with a long turn radius. They carve semi-long turns, but need a lot of input to carve short turns – the volkls were much more fun to carve. The mustagh ata sl is above all a great compromise, it is stable at speed and handles a lot of different conditions. The volkls were great, but had a “speed limit”.

    I am considering buying the Broad Peak, as it was a great ski to link short carved turns at lower speed, and also because they are light. I would probably go for the size I tried: 167. For me this would be more of a mountaineering ski, or a summer touring ski with some snow-less approach and skiing on glaciers. The added complexity of having another touring pair is what is holding me back.

    (If you follow the following link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chilmersen you will see two videos of me skiing the mustagh ata sl. The Jotunheimen video is from my first weekend skiing them. The conditions where variable with different degrees of breakable crust. The Norefjell video (from 3:36) show me and two other skiers. I am first skiing the mustagh ata. skier number two skis k2 hardside, and skier 3 skis some tradisjonal euro-style blizzards …adding the links so you can evalute if you care for my advise. On both videos I ski with a lot of safety margin…)

    I haven’t tried the seven summits or the seven summit sl…but they get good reviews.

  61. WasnatchJerry March 30th, 2011 9:08 am

    Fantastic post/video. Thanks/Skol.

  62. Christian March 30th, 2011 1:41 pm

    Thanks. 🙂

  63. Nick March 30th, 2011 2:09 pm

    Christian –

    Thanks for the lengthy input. Honestly, I really don’t think I can go wrong for either of the selections I noted (MASL or SS) for my intended use. Ultimately, I can get a much better deal on the SS, so I think I will go with those merely on account of price 🙂

    Cool videos!

  64. Nick March 30th, 2011 2:47 pm

    Ha – well I am getting the MASL as I was able to get them at a lower price very close to the SS. And after further discussion with some Sierra folks who have skied both, I think the 88 waist will fit the Sierra spring a little better and my skiing style!

    Very excited. The Stoke and MASL should turn out to be a great compliment touring setup.

  65. Gentle Sasquatch March 31st, 2011 8:03 am

    Hi Lou,

    I hope you don’t get tired of these questions but I would appreciate your opinion for choosing skis. I am 230lbs, 6ft, I can ski anything groomed and I do well in deep snow if I have short and turny ski’s. I don’t care for downhill speed at all, I’m more interested in making it down in one piece and having fun doing it. My back doesn’t take kindly to jumping anymore – well it’s the landing that is the problem actually ❗ . I am slow going up but step by step I get up to any of the New England Peaks (eventually)… I am looking at the Dynafit offerings and I am trying to match them with New England snowpack. I plan on using these skis 10 % at a resort (4 times per season) and 90% on backcountry hiking trips so that would include mostly 6″ to 12″ inches of snow, crust, some powder, some ice, dense trees… so I’m thinking ski’s that are very light to help me with the uphill, skis with tighter turning radius and most width to help me stay on top of the white stuff as much as possible. The best I have been able to determined would be either Mustagh ATA or Broad Peak. The Broad Peak looks great but I’m a bit concerned about it’s width. The Mustagh ATA is wider. I think 178cm in length only because I like shorter skis but based on my numbers I should probably be looking at 180+

    Should I instead look at a different brand? The lightweight of Dynafits and the skin attachments are very appealing to me. …

    Your thoughts?

  66. Lou March 31st, 2011 8:16 am

    Sasquatch, if you like “shorter” skis, yes, the 178 length class will yield that feel for your weight and height/leverage. I’d go for the wider ski if I were you, as it’ll be more of a quiver of one in my opinion. As for the resort days, that few makes it clear you are getting a backcountry ski so yes stick with the lightest stuff you can find and Dynaift is a good choice. The Dynafit skin attachment works great, I love it, but beware the skin tail attachment metal thing doesn’t hold up well to abuse so keep your eye on it. Nothing is perfect, but good stuff and highly recommended.

  67. Christian March 31st, 2011 8:38 am

    My father really likes his BD Drift – seems like a ski that would suite you…but the edge grip could be better. But, if I have understood east coast conditions correctly (i.e. harder snow), I would go for something around 85-90 under foot.

  68. Jonathan Shefftz March 31st, 2011 8:45 am

    The Drift for a New England quiver-of-one would be a really poor choice. The Broad Peak would be great on the up, but we have lots of conditions here that would benefit from more width. In the Dynafit line-up, either the Se7en Summits or MASL would be good compromises for New England.

  69. Nick March 31st, 2011 11:36 am

    Gentle Sasquatch – In my endless debate between the MASL and SS, I would note that given your size, I would think the 88 waist would be a better quiver on one ski. However, I understand the SS to be slightly stiffer (in particular in front of the foot and in the tip of the ski).

    So the SS may handle East Coast conditions a little better. However, given your size, I don’t think you would have a problem engaging the edges on the MASL (and it is not a really “damp” ski by any means – plenty of girth for its size/weight).

    Jonathan S skis the East Coast and I think his two recommendations above seem well.

    I view the Broad Peak as a highly specialized ski that would handle ice very well, but not really handle variable snow (Crud/crust) or soft snow very well.

    PS – if you are going BD, I think the Aspect would serve your purpose much better than the Drift. K2 Wayback is also worth looking into.

  70. Christian March 31st, 2011 1:28 pm

    See that the drift probably isn’t the best advice…but, at least it is a turny ski with a 100 waist! 😉
    In the Dynafit line-up you also have the Guide XXL, that is supposed to be a slightly stiffer MASL. Next years Baltoro also seems promising.
    I love my MASLs, but turny is not the first thing that comes to mind. It is a great touring ski, as it can handle anything thrown at it, from blue ice to deep powder, is good for skinning and it isn’t catchy. Also love the skins – nice to be able to remove them with the skis on, even with the 187 length I have.

  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