M Free 108

[Montana St Alum]

I've been selling my old quiver....to buy a new quiver.

The long end of the quiver was empty as I sold my 185cm Armada JJ's (117 underfoot) and I've been on the search for a replacement.

I'm not quite sure if I've found them, but the best I could do based on specs and reviews is the Dynastar M Free 108, which gets reviews from Blister, Skis dot com and a few other places that seem to describe what I need.

If anyone has skied these, chime in!

My next shorter skis Rustler 10's in a 172 have been fantastic, particularly in the under 12-14" of snow regime including in bumps. I'm targeting 12+" days or heavy snow days in the Wasatch on these. They are about 7mm wider all along the length and 10cm longer, so I'm optimistic.

Comparing them to the Rustlers, lined up ski mount point to ski mount point and with green tape to ID the point at which rocker starts makes me think they'll have similar characteristics.

[Woodserson]

Oh yeah dude, that's looking awesome.

I love the tape visualization. I think these skis will work for you really well, you're getting the same camber and running surface and extra length on the ends for flotation (plus the width). Just don't hook 'em around any trees, but you have less that problem than out here in N.E.

They are not too stiff, I hope? Schmearability is important for this task, IMO. I bought, on your rec, the Rustler9's last year, sold them without even mounting them, and got the Pariah 97's instead which were almost the same but slightly softer with no metal, and they are goddamm perfect for me. If the R10's are your main squeeze then the M108's should be too, right?

Damn, that's a deep snow quiver. What is this thing you call snow?

[Montana St Alum]

I agree with the concern on stiffness, as they are a bit stiffer than the R10's...and the concern on trees!

From a thorough Blister review (I'm 5'8" and 160):
"Powder
Luke Koppa (5’8″, 155 lbs): If you like to slash and slarve your way through fresh snow, the M-Free 108 is one of the best skis I’ve used in this width.
As I’ll be repeating here, the M-Free 108’s defining characteristic is just how easy it is to throw sideways."
"Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, ~175 lbs): If you gave me a single word to sum up this ski, I would go with “loose” or “surfy.”
https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/ ... m-free-108

And this guy has reviewed other skis I've owned.
We seem to be on the same page quite a bit.


This will definitely be the "big day" powder ski for me.
Yeah, we have snow now, but we'll see if this is just a big tease!
Alta got 57" out of these storms. Unfortunately, they also have plenty of 60" rocks on the runs!

[Woodserson]

Why not get the 172 in the M Free? Just because of your longer Aramadas and past experience? Just the extra width alone would give you extra float over the R10's and the stiffness wouldn't be an issue if you're biting fingernails over it. You could nail down both sizes, mount one up, and return/resell after you try the one you think will be best. I do that all the time. Sometimes I lose a hundred bucks but better to have the other ski if the original plan doesn't pan out.

With all due respect to Thom & Skis.com I feel like those guys are horoscope writers. Everything they review just fits everything I'm looking for on every ski with a little bit of mental acceptance. "You future looks bright with clouds" kind of stuff.

(Blister = legit though)

[Montana St Alum]

I went with the 172 R10's for powder over bumps and they are absolutely brilliant in that respect to about a foot of new snow. For big days, the bumps get pretty flattened out and there are other areas that I go to anyway. I actually think this length will be about perfect and I may include some Cat skiing. 172's just wouldn't be enough for that. I had the J's in the 175 and the 185 and the 175's were definitely not enough ski even at 117 underfoot on the 2.0's.

I'm not too worried about the stiffness. On the Atomics, I really liked the stiffer CTI's. The Dynastars are a little stiffer than the R10's, but not dramatically. I loved the JJ's, but as they've evolved, they've done so away from the original super loose way in which they originally skied.
Anyway, I sold some stuff so I'm heading down to Freeheel Life to get some M 3.0's installed on them. Probably the kiss of death for snow and Covid lockdowns, huh?

There's no question skis dot com are in the business of sales!

[Woodserson]

Oh nice! This is happening! Looking forward to the ski report.



And yep you ruined it for everyone, now.

[Montana St Alum]

Well, I have a couple of days on the M-Free 108 in a 182cm.
26.5 Tx Pros, Meidjo 3.0's mounted boot center over recommended mounting position.

So far I'm pretty stoked! The length is fine for my height and weight on groomers, so far.
I was a bit concerned at just under 5'9" or so and 160 pounds I figured the length would be perfect for floatation, but I wasn't sure about groomers or hard pack. There even were areas that are about as close to ice as we get out here and they were completely composed.

They are surprisingly quick, edge to edge, and you can get just about any radius turn out of them. They store energy and rebound with a rewarding amount of "pop"! Again, that may be the stiffness.

As a test, I was out for two days prior on my 160 cm Rossis that are 82mm underfoot. Going out today, I expected these to feel really damp, sluggish and kind of hard to initiate into a turn. And, I didn't expect them to crank a carved turn.
But, I ended up getting all sorts of unsolicited compliments on my skiing today - even from a couple of racer dudes carving GS turns out there on alpine gear.

I also expected to get the torque feedback into the boot that you get more on a wider ski.
The connection between the skis, Meidjos and boots is always so solid.

I did get that feedback at the boot sole to some extent, but nothing like I expected. The skis feel heavy and solid in a fast carved GS turn, but in short connected turns, they were pretty awesome, and felt lighter once I engaged them on edge and allowed the ski to do the work. They're pretty stiff, but they didn't seem to require effort to overcome the ski; they just dug in and turned. I expect the stiffness + the weight will push through chop like a Humvee.

I haven't gotten them out in powder and of course that's what I got them for; those foot+ days that I'm hoping for. If they are as "slarvy" as reported to be, I'm thinking these will be a great replacement for the JJ's!

We'll see.

I started this in the wrong forum though. I guess it should really be in Ski reviews.

[Woodserson]

Sounds like you made a good choice! It's always nice when it comes together like that, I love that dancey feeling on short turns and then like rails on longer turns, it's definitely the sweet ski that can do both. When you get the dump I'm sure they are going to SLAY.

You're on the TX PRO, right? (ah nevermind, I see you have it in the review)

I almost pulled the trigger on some Line Sakana's on ebay the other day, but the fact that I have yet to ski my F.B. Exile 106's stayed my hand. That, and the Blister review that showed they actually weighed more than Line advertised, and consequently, more than the Exiles. So there.

It's obvious I need to go skiing and that I am filling a hole.

Seriously intrigued by the Manti as a "going out west need 1 ski to do it all" ski. Any reports on your end?

[Montana St Alum]

Seriously intrigued by the Manti as a "going out west need 1 ski to do it all" ski. Any reports on your end?

The Voile' Manti is exactly the kind of geometric design that I tend to gravitate toward! Early rise combined with that gradual tail rocker just seems to work perfectly for the way I ski. It gives it a shorter "quickness" feel on groomers and more float as the rest of the ski gets supported by powder. And at 102-105 underfoot, I think it would be a better single ski quiver choice than the M-Free 108. I also really dig the graphics! Like, REALLY! And I think the rounded tail would help to prevent it from hanging up in bumps. It reminds me of a toned down version of Armada's Elf-Shoe which I think would also let it release easily in the deep stuff.

I'd be interested to see what they recommend for the mounting point. The M-Free has it 7.5mm back from center, I think, and that keeps it right in line with my other 3 sets of skis, proportionately, so transitions between skis feel seamless. It just removes one variable. My sense is that as the recommended mounting point moves aft, the speciality of the ski morphs more toward deeper powder and a bit away from a more generalized application.

Here, Taylor at Freeheel Life talks about the Manti. I would differ from him just a bit regarding the ski though, in that he describes it as have significant camber. Looking at it, it doesn't seem to though.




If my math is right, looking at the mount point on a 181, it's boot center 96.1mm from the tip. That puts it pretty far forward....which I do tend to like.

[Woodserson]

Funny... listening to Taylor about the Bishop...

I do not like flat tails
I do not like lots of camber
I want lots of early rise

He and I are diametrically opposed here. I want a ski with some pop, so some camber is ok, but I want shmearability so I can release the turn quick. I want big tips up front so back ski doesn't dive. I tend to stay neutral/fwd in powder, I ski powder like I used to ski it in the 80's with 203cm Authier Slalom skis. No backseat arm waving, powering the back of the cuff, no way. Neutral or driving, I can't have tip dive, The tip has to come up on its own.

I've personally the handled the Manti, legit ski, feels like how I would want it, maybe a touch too stiff for me, I'm on the fence. Less stiff in the tail than the original Vector but about as stiff as the UltraVector, so I would agree with Taylor here. I think a PRO and a M3.0 would make this a winning! combo for me on out-west trips.

I've not handled the Bishop, but everything I've read and now this video tells me I would hate it.

I'm not 26 years old and full of power anymore. I need a supportive ski, but something that's going to work with me, not buck me off and chatter out my fillings and trigger my gout. (joke on the gout)