Review: 20/21 Dynastar M-Free 108, 192cm.

[DarthMarkus]

About me:
Age: 33
Weight: 190
Height: 6’0
Skiing style: generally ski a fairly neutral stance ~13 degrees for my boots. Lately I have been in a 15 degree boot though. I generally mount my skis a little further forward, especially on longer lengths - I like a quick turn initiation and I also like jumping off of things.
Skis I have liked: Blizzard Peacemaker & Gunsmoke, Dynastar Cham, LPR, PROTO, Menace 98, Scott Pure, Volkl Shiro & Gotama, Kastle MX108, Nordica Zero, Stockli Stormrider TT, Faction Candide 3.0, Rossignol Sickle.
Skis I have not liked: Rossignol S7 and all of that series, Blizzard Bonafide, Cochise (the 108mm one), Spur (1st gen), Armada JJ, TST, Icelantic Shaman, Pilgrim.

Construction & Dimension
Core: the M-free has a hybrid poplar and PU constructed core with a sheet of titanal underfoot.
Length: 192cm stated, 189cm actual
Weight: 4500g stated, TBA actual
Tip/Waist/Tail Width: 138/108/128mm

Locations (so far):
Copper Mountain, Winter Park, Steamboat, Taos, Alta, Snowbird.

Tune
I am including this section because I think it deserves to be addressed from some of the reports I have heard. For my first few days, I took the skis straight out of the plastic and put them on snow. It was, and still is, hard for me to really put my thumb on what felt strange in the beginning. It could have been the tune. It could have also been the amount of camber in the ski. It could also be that the ski has a fairly different construction. Regardless, I can say that with some time, I noticed it a little less - the ski felt sort of erratic and would hook up on small little contours in the snow. When I’ve felt it in the past it’s usually been because there was no detune, the bevel wasn’t correct, or the ski wasn’t flat. The fact that it started to go away with a little bit of time kind of makes me raise an eyebrow on whether the tune was actually the problem.

Long story short though, after about 5+ days and a new bevel, I can confidently say that the ski is a rockstar now. I ended up putting a 2 degree base bevel and a 0 degree side bevel on the ski. I did a fairly heavy detune ahead of the widest point of the ski into the tip, a moderate detune from the widest point to the end of the rocker, and a light deburring along the rest of the ski edge.

I think I might enjoy groomers a little more with something like 1 & 1, but that’s not really my intent with this ski. I’m very happy with 2 & 0.

Shape / Rocker
The Shape of the M-free is actually fairly different from it’s bigger brother, the M-free 118. The taper is less pronounced going into the tip and tail of the ski. The rocker profile is also fairly different from the M-free 118; the proto matches the shape of the rocker with the taper of the tip to a larger extent than the 108; the 108 has the widest part of the ski extend into the rocker quite a ways. Lastly, the camber underfoot is notable. It has a lot more camber than other skis in its class - the only ski I have been on that is in a similar class to this ski in terms of camber is the Moment Garbones & LPR… The last thing I will say about this ski is that if you were to take the dimensions from the Blizzard Peacemaker and increase the tip, tail, and waist by 4mm, you get the same dimensions as the M-free 108 - and that gets me very excited.

Flex Pattern
My own evaluation of this ski would be a 10 underfoot, 9 in front of and behind the bindings, a 8 where the camber of the ski ends, an 8 in the tail, and a 7 in the very tip.

Powder
This ski punches above its waist width. Surprisingly, at 108 underfoot, this ski still manages to handle a good amount of snow at a similar level that skis with 4-8mm of extra width do. I would attribute it to a few really big factors when considering this ski: 1) the rocker profile is quite extensive, boasting a much larger tip and tail splay than what has been typical for dynastar; 2) the shape of the ski does not taper as much as other skis, or even the M-free 118, which means the overall surface area on this ski is quite high; 3) the ski is very maneuverable, even in the 192, which means it can still smear, pivot, and slarve where a lot of similar skis in the same class may hook up more. I've skied in 8-14 inches - as long as you can get some speed or power behind the ski, the ski planes very well. There were a few times when I wanted something 115mm+, but that was usually on flat terrain and may have had more to do with the camber. Otherwise, as long as this ski has some momentum it smears, slarves, and planes as well as many of skis in the ~115mm category.

Steeps / Airs
I’m including a section for steeps because this ski deserves it, and because this ski is at home in these situations. The amount of camber in this ski means that when you do get it into steeper areas, the ski grabs into the side of the hill, and it also means when you want to burn off speed you can still scrub the tail back and the camber will do an adequate job of controlling your speed. Landing off of airs so far has felt kind of thoughtless. It doesn’t really require much thought, it just requires that you don’t get pushed back onto your tails. Otherwise the ski is very stable dropping 10-20 feet and it can probably handle more, but I haven’t gotten there yet.

Soft Chop
This ski is a lot of fun to ski through softer chop. It’s narrow enough that you still feel the snow underneath you more than a more strict powder ski would.

Firm Chop / Crud
The ski can still handle these conditions, but I have identified two factors that really dictate how the ski handles crud. The first is how much speed you have - if you don’t get this ski up to speed, it’s not nearly as predictable or fun. The camber doesn’t bend out of the ski as much and the ski likes to catch on the crud rather than blast through or over it. Which means flat spots with chunder can still be fun, but without speed I'll admit they're not my favorite.

The second is crud in steeper areas. This ski actually eats it up. I would argue it even makes it more fun. It has the stability to get it up to speed, and it also has the maneuverability to navigate around shark fins, obstacles, blowdowns, etc. or billygoat over a lot of it. I expected the ski to deflect a lot more than it does given the lack of metal in the tip and tail, but so far it's proven to do quite well. This could possibly be due to the PU in the construction?

Moguls, trees, tight terrain
One could argue that this ski is made for skiing trees. The rocker profile really allows this ski to pivot around corners and throw sideways when you need to scrub speed. Additionally, the stiff tail and the camber in the ski means you still have a very responsive ski when you need it. It also has the torsional strength to scrub speed and keep the ski on edge.

Moguls are also a blast. As long as you keep your weight forward (as you should in moguls), the ski responds better than a lot of narrower skis I have been on. I would say that it is on par with my pair of Menace 98s for moguls.

Groomers
Groomers did not come up as a thought when I was considering buying this ski, however, this ski is still a lot of fun on them. It is snappy enough and edgy enough that you can easily jump in and out of a lot of the side hits on the cattrack back, as well as rail some pretty tight turns if you just wanna rage down some steeper groomers.

Playfulness
This ski fits into the paradox of the quintessential “playful charger.” I have typically shied away from skis that claim to have this as they tend to be a bit of a contradiction in my experience. I think under a lot of circumstances it has been very difficult to achieve a ski that legitimately fits into both categories. What Dynastar has done very well with on this ski is blend the playfulness aspect into the rocker profile of the ski, as well as the the blend of interesting core materials - the result is a ski thats responds quickly and likes to pop off if you're willing to load up the tail. The charger aspect of this ski comes from an elongated shape that engages the tip & tail when you turn the ski over, an aggressive camber profile that is happiest when skiing faster, and the metal titanal underfoot - all blended together to make the M-free 108 a very capable charger as well.

[DarthMarkus]

Mount Point
This is a topic of debate for a lot of people. I think the long and short of it is that this ski can accommodate a variety of different preferences. This should probably come as somewhat of a surprise to those looking to get on this ski though. Dynastar has not had a big reputation for making skis that have a large grey area for the mounting point. If anything, I think it should further speak to the versatility of this ski.

I am currently skiing it at +2 from recommended. I can say that I’m very happy with my choice, but I can also say that I could see why one would choose to mount more traditionally. I would only offer a few considerations when choosing the mount point on this ski: 1) consider where the rocker in the tail ends - this was a big consideration for me, and I think I actually appreciate having a somewhat more elongated tail; 2) consider your skiing style and boots - I have been skiing in the Lange XT3 140s and it has a much more considerable forward lean when compared to my previous boot, the Tecnica Cochise 130. Although I can say I am still happy with my decision, I can also see why people may want a little more tip length in a boot like the XT3 140.

Length
The 192 has the maneuverability of a ski 10cm shorter than it, but also when turned over, still has a lot of engagement in the tip and tail of the ski. I would say that you should probably consider weight as one of the bigger factors for choosing size; unlike other skis in the M-free 108’s class, the camber profile of this ski is probably a bigger factor than other skis - ensuring that you can bend the camber of of this ski will result in a lot more fun. All that being said, I still think there’s a fair amount of preference involved. For myself, I think if I knew I was going to ski only trees, I might consider the 182 as an option, especially if I had other skis in my quiver that fill a similar spot as the M-free 108. Otherwise, I am very happy with the 192 for myself.

Big Take-Aways for Me
I have been looking for a replacement for my Blizzard Peacemakers for a while. I have held onto my Gunsmokes for a long time for the same reason - it has a very similar shape as the Peacemaker, just in a longer and oversized version. The M-free (138/108/128)) literally has the same difference from waist to tip/tail as the Peacemaker (134/104/124), only in a 4mm wider version in all dimensions. If you were to compare the rocker profiles and the camber against the Peacemaker/Gunsmoke, you would also see a very similar profile, with a bit more camber in the M-free 108. Strangely, the stated turn radius on the 192 M-free 108 is 1m shorter than the 21m radius on the 186 Peacemaker. This is likely due to the slight taper in the tip and tail of the M-free 108.

I skied the PROTO/M-free 118 last year and it was what prompted me to get the M-free 108. Although I was very pleasantly surprised to see the 108 come with a slightly different shape profile, I can see how others may wish to retain the tapered tip and tail of the 118 along with a more mellow tip splay.

The M-free 108 for me has blended a lot of the big mountain and race mentality I have learned to love about Dynastar with a more freestyle shape. Outside of the 6th Sense Slicer/Menace 98, that shape hasn’t come out of the Dynastar factory for a long time, and it’s very exciting to see it work harmoniously with a ski that lives up to the Dynastar name.

Comparison against other skis

MF 108 vs. Cham 107
First thing I would say is that the MF108 is quite a bit nicer to jump off of things. The Cham 107 had a tendency to punish you quite a bit for small mistakes coming off of airs. The MF108 has yet to wheelie out on me, and it's tail transitions nicely when burning speed coming off of an air without snagging up on chunder or moguls on the runout. Arguably a personal preference, I like the parabolic profile and camber of the MF108 quite a lot more than the Cham 107. The Cham was a monster for conquering steeper terrain and keeping your edges engaged, but it could also catch you by surprise if you tried to bottom out the ski between some contours in the snow - the tip & tail wouldn't peter out or flex through, it would just kind of bounce you into oblivion. the MF108 is a much better balance between edge control, camber, and a better release out of the tail.

The Cham was also a lot more specific in where it wanted to be mounted. As someone who typically goes forward, I went maybe +1cm on the Cham, and in hindsight even that may have been a bit much. the MF108 has a larger sweet spot allowing a good amount of fudge room on the mount.

Stability-wise. the the Cham was quite a bit more damp than the MF108. The MF108 is still very stable, but it doesn't have the added benefit of two sheets of titanal extending into the tip and tail. The result is that you may feel some flop in the tip, but underfoot the ski still stays very solid.

MF 108 vs. Rustler 11
As a Blizzard fanboy in the past, the Rustler series replaced two of my favorite skis, the Peacemaker and Gunsmoke. The Rustler 11 took a lot of what was loved in the Gunsmoke made it a little more soft snow oriented. Depending on your preferences, this was a good or a bad thing. The Gunsmoke was heavy, and in smoother, softer snow it was maybe a little overkill. The Rustler 11 took that in mind and smoothed out the camber as well as shaved off unneeded weight. One of the more common results from this was creating one of the better 50/50 skis out there. But what it left wanting was a spot on the podium for the "playful charger" category of ski that the Gunsmoke previously reigned.

All that being said, the Rustler 11 and the MF 108 deserve a new comparison with the Gunsmoke left out, even though the Rustler 11 evolved from it. One of the bigger differences between the two skis is the amount of camber. Where the Gunsmoke had a fair bit of camber underfoot, the Rustler 11 has a more smoothed out section, and they've made up for it with an elongated metal laminate. The MF 108 has substantially more camber, but a shorter metal laminate similar to the Gunsmoke. The Result is a more playful ski with a good amount of energy. It's easier to pop off smaller hits and get a lot of energy in your turns while on the front side. In my opinion this actually makes more sense in the MF 108 than the Gunsmoke. The width of the MF 108 makes it a more in-bounds charger than the Gunsmoke was. Exceptions might be places like Jackson Hole or Alta/Snowbird where there tends to be more snow, but I believe even in those locations, that comes down to a lot of preference.

[DarthMarkus]

Camber Profile. Over 8 days on these now.


Tip splay - decambered.


Tail Splay - decambered.


Heavier detune from red > tip, moderate from yellow > red, light/deburr from green to center.


Samesies.

[DarthMarkus]

Some Chutes to the lookers right off chair 2 @ Taos.



Chute 1 @ Steamboat.

[DarthMarkus]

Snowbird 3/18-3/19


Got these skis into what I would consider conditions and terrain that they're most at home doing. Snowbird presents a great opportunity to put this ski up against a lot.

Day 1/2 was spent in some 'meh' conditions. Pretty crusty and manky for most of the day, but I was also spending a good amount of the day girlfriend skiing, so we weren't gonna get too wild anyway. Regardless, I still got some opportunities to test the ski out in some sunbaked taters around 11am before the sun went and hid again. Similar other conditions, getting a little speed behind the ski allowed good control and the ability to skid through lots of different snow. As the sun went into hiding again, a lot of variable snow emerged, with a large majority of it being crusty taters. I would rather be on a ski with a longer turn radius and more metal for those conditions, like the stormrider TTs in my garage, but given the rapidly changing conditions between snow in the shadows, lower mountain, and variable weather, the m-free 108 managed very well. Crusty-crusts translated to a lot of vibration, but never lost control or felt like the ski couldn't handle it. The thing I noticed most was that the ski wanted to stay fall-line. It punished me more when I'd turn the skis perpendicular, but when pointed downhill and using the tails to scrub speed, the ski once again became predictable and fun. Moral of the story here is, even in crusty mank, keep some speed behind the ski.

Day 2/2 was a lot more fun. The sun came out and started baking the snow in mineral basin. Snow got really fun around 11-noon. The stuff up high wasn't turning to slush, but it was soft enough to make some good turns through the 5-day old sloppy seconds. In lower parts of the mountain, the snow was soft enough for some good landings off some airs. I made the mistake of assuming some of the cliffs on the alta side were soft enough for some nice cushy landings. Turns out I was wrong. I fully expected to go over the handlebars on the landing, but I think the generous amount of tip splay and a the amount of camber in the ski saved me; 1) from burying my tips on the landing, and 2) from folding the tips when I pitched forward. It was ugly but I was happy I didn't have to eat shit in addition to the rough landing. We eventually went back to the snowbird side and went back to some of the cliffs I was eyeing earlier in the day. Got into a pretty tight spot trying to weave my way into one of the smaller hits. Loss in momentum meant I couldn't turn my skis into the takeoff. After some self-doubt and existential thoughts I managed to billygoat into the takeoff. Money. These skis are awesome for navigating tricky, technical bottleneck situations - I owe it back to the camber, which plants you solidly onto whatever you're billygoating into. Second time around I had a little less hesitation and the skis carved into the takeoff just as well. Landing felt very organic, and no experience of tip five on the landing, even though I had my concerns. I hit one of the lower hits in mineral basin as well - much easier takeoff and equally as easy landing. Thoughtless really. Last run of the day I got overconfident and figured I'd try getting inverted off a hit I did the day prior. I misjudged the change in conditions, and overshot and over-rotated. Too much juice. I'll be out for a few days, but it was worth it. True to the dynastar reputation, the tails still punished me, though less than the Cham 107 would have. The tip splay in the tail is a lot kinder than previous skis, but where the camber ends is still very strong. Don't get backseat, don't land on your tails.

Ugly skiing at alta
https://youtube.com/shorts/u_bjsqeUtx0

Some cliffs in mineral basin
https://youtube.com/shorts/dzD8fsFE-xg

Wrecking myself on the last run
https://youtube.com/shorts/M-dFzjkqsj4

[Bandit Man]

Well done, DM. Thanks for the comprehensive review.

I like what you said about the weight of the skier being a consideration for the length to buy. I think you hit it on the head. I think the 192 could be quite the handful for a lightweight skier, but is great for someone getting close to the 180-lbs+ range.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[CascadeLuke]

Great getting all this rider input from mags. Sounds like a hawt ski I’m going to try.
Having issues opening your images. Maybe it’s me

[mr_pretzel]

Great review DM! Really enjoy it when people go really in depth.

Attachments are also not working for me

[glademaster]

Detailed review. Interesting tune as well. I wouldn't think to run a 2 degree base bevel on anything but a pure powder ski or a SG/DH ski if it was being prepped for a course with a lot of gliding. Is that something you do with most of your skis?

[DarthMarkus]

Detailed review. Interesting tune as well. I wouldn't think to run a 2 degree base bevel on anything but a pure powder ski or a SG/DH ski if it was being prepped for a course with a lot of gliding. Is that something you do with most of your skis?

I've done 1.5 & 0 in the past. Decided to try 2 & 0 this time and I'm pretty pleased with it. Like I said though, if I were to be on more groomers I would probably prefer 1 & 1. It was mostly done to try and iron out the skis feeling kinda wonky - it could very well have just been burrs on the ski, or it needed to get ironed out from skiing the ski. Who knows.

[2FUNKY]

Great review and echoes my take on this ski after several days on them in a variety of conditions.
Re; tune. Mine were fine out of the wrapper, I did detune the tips and tails just to the start of the sidecut. I did not notice anything wonky about my factory tune and don’t think I would want a 2deg base as they are plenty loose and pivot nicely yet can be put on edge for high g-force turns. Ymmv and all that.
One thing that really stood out in your review for me was this, Chop: ” The first is how much speed you have- if you don’t get this ski up to speed it’s not nearly as predictable or fun. The camber doesn’t bend out of the ski as much and the ski likes to catch and not blast through or over it”. This is so true and I read a few comments on how this ski has a top end, I absolutely think they are not getting this bish up to speed, once there they kill it. I have a feeling those who think that aren’t comfortable at true speed and therefore cannot appreciate this ski to it’s true potential. The tips do want to flap a little but the ski calms down right behind them to a smooth predictable ride.
Thanks for giving this ski it’s own thread as it’s well deserved.

[usdatele]

Thanks for the review DM! I've got about 20 days on the 192s and I absolutely love them. I mounted them at recommended and have felt the tails give out when skiing really backseat through a rocky crux- won't do that again! Juries still out on durability, but dang, they sure ski fun!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[DarthMarkus]

Some new locations. Some ski comparisons.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[glademaster]

I've done 1.5 & 0 in the past. Decided to try 2 & 0 this time and I'm pretty pleased with it. Like I said though, if I were to be on more groomers I would probably prefer 1 & 1. It was mostly done to try and iron out the skis feeling kinda wonky - it could very well have just been burrs on the ski, or it needed to get ironed out from skiing the ski. Who knows.

Yeah, to each their own, and if it works for you, then party on, Wayne. I've run 2 degree base bevels on big powder skis before, but even on those, I also ran a 2 degree side edge bevel, otherwise the edges were pretty much vestigial. I can't even imagine skiing something a 2 degree base and 0 degree side in anything but bottomless snow and mellow terrain.

[DarthMarkus]

Yeah, to each their own, and if it works for you, then party on, Wayne. I've run 2 degree base bevels on big powder skis before, but even on those, I also ran a 2 degree side edge bevel, otherwise the edges were pretty much vestigial. I can't even imagine skiing something a 2 degree base and 0 degree side in anything but bottomless snow and mellow terrain.

I'll be the first to admit it's probably personal preference. Do consider the turn radius on this ski vs something that's 25m+. I'd also consider the camber in this ski vs others. Dunno if I'd suggest other people go 2 base, 0 side either. It's certainly to each their own. I'm at my core, a very lazy skier though. From previous experience I have gone 2 base, 1 side. But I also remember needing to edge my skis more often. I lean on the side of consistency and laziness.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[D(C)]

The M-Free 108s are pretty tempting. I'd probably go 182 as I'm usually looking for stashes in the trees or skiing groomers when the snow is bad; I'm less interested in going fast through chop and bumps.

Just for the sake of keeping my eyes out for deals, what are some other similar skis I should consider? I'm looking for something with some backbone but that's easy to smear and break loose. My current favourite skis are Dynafit Meteorites (Beast 98s with heavier construction) and I just want something a bit wider, in the 105-110 range. I haven't been in the loop so much with new skis in recent times, but the Faction Prodigy 3.0 looks like a candidate. Anything else?

[undertow2]

It has been a while DC - I jumped on the MFree bandwagon and have not had a chance to get them out... For my sub 110 ski it has been the 189 Wren 108 that I dearly love but due to back surgery was in search of an easier going ski... Due to some glowing reviews I purchased Enforcer 104 Frees and it is a fun and easy going ski that will still get after it when needed... It can hold an edge and also can be thrown sideways with ease... Have skied spring cream cheese and up to 5” of fresh and it delivered a smile all day... Def worth a look...!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

Skied my 192’s today in 8-12” of heavy spring Pow with a nice firm base underneath. They floated well, pushed through the heavy piles as the day wore on and gave me several laps of amazing tree skiing with their slashy, loose tails being the highlight. I’m more impressed with this ski each time I ski it.

[Jaxson]

Hey BM good to bump into ya at Stevens today. Thread drift - really enjoyed my Praxis Lhasa Pows in the conditions today!

[VON]

It is tragic that the M-Free 118's longest length is 189cm (actually measures closer to 186.5cm)
Would love to get on these if they were a little longer.

[TAFKALVS]

It is tragic that the M-Free 118's longest length is 189cm (actually measures closer to 186.5cm)
Would love to get on these if they were a little longer.

I would like the mfree118 to move more in line with the mfree108 both in length but also shape, rocker, flex etc.

[D(C)]

Pulled the trigger on some 182s! Can't wait to get them on snow.

[CYJ]

If anyone's looking for a pair of 182s, Blue Zone Sports in Tahoe's got a smokin deal. Their 40% off code (springcleaning) seems to work for the already discounted price of 108s, as well as the rest of their '21 ski goods.

[phatty]

If anyone's looking for a pair of 182s, Blue Zone Sports in Tahoe's got a smokin deal. Their 40% off code (springcleaning) seems to work for the already discounted price of 108s, as well as the rest of their '21 ski goods.

Now that's a crazy price. Anyone looking for a 182 should jump on that. New for cheaper than most used skis.

[jackattack]

Good price on xt3 lv's too