Dynastar 8800

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Dynastar 8800

Postby gregk » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:30 pm

I'm currently on a 75 waist (Head Monster) - love the skis, but would like a second pair of skis to compliment what I already have. Not an extreme skier (maybe a 7 on a 1-10 scale), but would like to be more adveturous in the deeper crud and powder. Would the 8800 possibly fit that void? Others?
gregk
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:13 pm

Postby RadRab » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:29 pm

Bs"D

I have the 8800 @ 178cm.
It is a very sweet powder ski and a great crud ski. It is also very stable even at very high speeds on the soft pack groomers and quite light and maneuverable (therefore also good in tight spots in the powder).

But, it is not as good a carver and doesn't hold on hardpack the way those who have skied (I haven't yet) the im88 claim it does. It is almost useless on ice.

As long as you will only use it in those situations where it shines, it is a good choice. In theory, it should be better there than other more versatile designs. I have heard that the im88 is a little too stiff in the shovel for powder and is not as good there as something like the 8800 - even though its dimensions still make it relatively good.

Since the Monster 75 that you have can handle all of the moderate powder left over on mixed transition days, you can "afford" to have a ski like the 8800 and save it only for those days when you should not encounter any hardpack.

Good luck.
RadRab
 

Postby Max_501 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:07 pm

I've only heard great things about the Head IM88 all over the mountain (powder, crud, groomed, you name it).

I skied the IM88 in 3 feet of powder and the the shovel seemed fine to me.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Postby RadRab » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:54 pm

Bs"D

Max, I'm sure it is fine like I said considering its overall dimensions, but have you skied other more dedicated designs to compare it to - like the 8800 - to see if they are more than fine?
Again, I haven't skied it yet - and do plan to in Feb. - but based on the 88's construction, it makes sense to me that it should be less good. It may be much better on the groomed, but that's not what Greg is missing. It may even be better as a high speed big mountain powder plank - but that is not what Greg is up to.
For regular resort powder skiing, I don't think that I am jumping on the 88 bandwagon so fast. Again, like Greg's 75, my Supershapes take care of the piste and moderate powder on transition days. For a relatively pure powder day, my 8800 may be better. John has specified the 8800 as a possibility and I have answered him honestly. And, that comment was made by someone who skied the im88 in powder, sells Head skis, and opinioned that it was less good compared to others like the 8800.
Interestingly, he suggested that if someone was looking for a versatile powdwr ski that was better in powder but still good on piste, he recommended the Mojo 90.
If I get a chance to ski the 88 in real powder, I may come back singing a different tune. But, you should realize that besides the theory based on construction, flex, and sidecut (the very things that make it versatile/better on piste), there have been different views on the 88 expressed than have been heard here.
I have been questioning this point since the end of last winter when HH first started raving about the 88. Again, I'm sure that it is amazing if you want to consider the ratio of on and off piste together. But, as far as in the powder alone - the issue for many - it may be a different story.
By the way, I asked Peter Keelty straight out: "You write that the 88 has superior float etc. Have you actually skied it in the powder, can you confirm that it is truly great in that consideration alone, as good as more dedicated designs?" His answer was: "Well no, I haven't actually skied it, but I have to believe that with its wide overall dimensions that it will float well". To beg to differ with the so called "guru", width, and even float, is not the whole picture. [I know he admits that his reviews are not really his own, and that they are a composite of multiple cards from testers. But to make such definative statements and rate a ski the "Ski of the Year", maybe you should have skied it yourself also.]

Of course there could also be some influence of "to each his own", as in what he already owns (8800 etc.). :wink:
RadRab
 

Postby Max_501 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:18 pm

RadRab wrote:For a relatively pure powder day, my 8800 may be better.


Heh...well therein lies the problem. You get a few runs in pure powder and then its all tracked up. At that point you want a ski that is a bulldozer.

BTW, I have skied dedicated powder boards like the Atomic Sugar Daddy. For resort powder skiing I prefer the IM88. For Alaska I'd probably take the Sugar Daddy (I think it was 99 under the foot).
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Postby RadRab » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:32 am

Max_501 wrote:
RadRab wrote:For a relatively pure powder day, my 8800 may be better.


Heh...well therein lies the problem. You get a few runs in pure powder and then its all tracked up. At that point you want a ski that is a bulldozer.


Max, this is an excellent point. I have been stressing for a while the problem of the morning (or first day) deep powder vs the afternoon (or next day) mix in of hardpack. But, there is also the issue of cut up/crud to consider.
The truth is that the 8800 is excellent in the crud. That consideration was part of my purchase of it. When I theorize and repeat others experience that the 88 is stiffer in the tip, I don't mean to say that the 8800 is soft, because it isn't. It is no Pocket Rocket noodle.
But, the im88 is probably even more of a bulldozer. Again, it is a matter of trade offs because the 8800 is still probably better in the powder, but this does bring to light an additional area where the 88 might be measurably better, besides carving on hardpack.
I have my work cut out for myself. Would like to demo:
im88; Mojo 90; Volkl Mantra.
The practical problem is getting enough time and powder days to judge them all fairly/fully. If I lived in ski country and skied as much as some of the guys here, I would definately get to the bottom of this - but, ironically wouldn't need to because I would just own a larger quiver, and could even switch mid-day depending on the legistics of residence or base set up. But, considering reality, I also might just stick with the stick I "own".
RadRab
 


Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests