Men's FIS SL Skis?

[ScotsSkier]

Maybe they are different........t from the pictures the Dynastar is obviously much shorter!

 

[SkiSpeed]

Third pair of boards in, Rossi topsheet. Usually, we see Mikaela on the Dynastars but as others have pointed out, same board, different graphics.

 

[Swede]

Now is the time to be on the glaciers ...

 

[razie]

Third pair of boards in, Rossi topsheet. Usually, we see Mikaela on the Dynastars but as others have pointed out, same board, different graphics.

Yah, no, totally, the Dynastar is the ski to be on! The fundamentals are, and it's really just basic physics here, that the black topsheet absorbs more fotons, thus more energy goes into the ski, especially when compared to the Rossi, so the rebound on the Dynastars is fenomenal!!!

If you think that in a course, half the turns face the sun (when provided by the course setter) it's clear that a Dynastar is faster by X/2 and some differentials I am now too distracted to be looking for!



p.s, There are some naysayers, all comfortably saying from wherever their viewpoints are, that the Rossis have the edge, because the fotons bounce off them, so they push the edges more into the snow. They're wrong!

 

[oldschoolskier]

I wish like’s could have emojis, sometimes a like just needs that little extra.......SO.......


LIKE

 

[dj61]

View attachment 31574 View attachment 31575
Easy to see that the top construction is different as is the overal shape. The global dimension are in fact the same as some other posters have mentioned.

I stand corrected: they are identical. From the horse's mouth:

The only difference between the Dynastar and the Rossignol WC FIS SL skis is the top sheet. For more information, feel free to contact our U.S. offices directly at [email protected].

Thank you! The Dynastar Team!

 

[James]

Yeah product illustrations can be pretty bad. The worst at showing shape was hart. They posted some weird looking sidecuts to some of their carving skis. The Stryker comes to mind. The real ski looked nothing like the picture on their website.

 

[MJski]

I know this forum was posted months ago but, I just wanted to let everyone know I made the move on a pair of Dynastar SL skis for a smoking deal. Less than $550 for the 2016-17 skis and 10-18 rockerflex bindings. Thanks to everyone who posted.

 

[BGreen]

Yah, no, totally, the Dynastar is the ski to be on! The fundamentals are, and it's really just basic physics here, that the black topsheet absorbs more fotons, thus more energy goes into the ski, especially when compared to the Rossi, so the rebound on the Dynastars is fenomenal!!!

While I can't fault your thoughts @razie, you can't deny that Rossignol has cooler hashtags (#bandofheroes), and that should carry some weight. Further, Dynastars look like Halloween where Rossignols look happy, and you can easily get bindings, boots, pants, jacket, gloves, poles and ski bag to match, so people will think you are a big deal.

 

[Burton]

Based on @razie's formidable science, and the fact that the black Dynastar's--although more difficult to color coordinate as @BGreen points out--are quite slimming, I went ahead and got a pair of the 2017/18s with the rockerflex 15s. I'm considering attaching headlamps to my shin guards to rain even more fotons down on these black-body leaf springs.

 

[SkiSpeed]

Can't go wrong w/a race ski that re-brands their series under the heading Speed. Go Dynastar!!!!

 

[James]

I was doing OK until this: I'm a weight freak. I love light equipment

FIS Slaloms with plate and binding are among the heaviest skis out there. They feel heavier than my 192cm Stockli Stormrider 95 with Pivot 18- hardly a light setup!

But, light or heavy, they all fall at the same rate! It's the narrow and short platform plus sidecut that can be dicey on landing.

Love the '16 Blizzard Fis Sl's. Wish they didn't change to all black despite the increase in photon absorption.

 

[Eleeski]

I got the Head SL race skis from @ScotsSkier . Spectacular skis. I was worried because I had rented Head SL skis as the standard quality rental in Switzerland a couple years ago and wasn't impressed. I'm not sure exactly what is different but I am very impressed with these skis. They are quick, responsive, lively, stable and grippy. I was surprised at how well I could turn a smooth wide radius turn. Rocked the firm bumps nicely. Everything I wanted in a ski for the firm days. (I'm saying thanks to @ScotsSkier a lot but once again, thanks.)

I'm a weight freak. I love light equipment.

I can quote myself!

They are quite heavy. One might weigh more than both my Goodes together. They did have a nice light feel on the snow despite the weight. Which makes me wonder - couldn't one make these skis lighter with the same stiffness and damping? There are a lot of material choices to work with. The original successful build took the easy heavy materials to craft a wonderful ski. Reengineer that with some exotic materials and the weight could drop with the same characteristics. I wonder if the original awesome skis started the acceptance of a heavy ski because the flex and rebound was right - even if the weight was irrelevant?

If the heavy ski works so well and weight is irrelevant, why go to the work and expense of making it work light? Because my legs got tired! And I was not remotely tempted to throw a 360 - or even a daffy. The weight takes some of the fun away. Would if a proper light ski might be a race advantage (especially in a Masters race)?

I'm offering to bring the boron fibers to the Head factory to create a light version of my new skis.

Eric

 

[Swede]

If there was any advantage in making them lighter, it would have happened already. It is a purpose built race ski, much like a F1 car it is built to do one thing. Being airborn is never a good thing in racing — you are faster on the snow. That a FIS SL is a very fun ski in certain conditions for a (fit) tourist skier is a sweet side effect.

 

[James]

Likely the Swiss SL ski had all sorts of tuning issues. Plus boot mounted too far back.

So the boron fis sl now costs $2k?
You also forget it needs to handle impact from a gate. Gs skis might be the target.
Light stuff + hdt (Renoun) + metal.
Metal is just goodness in those skis.

The plate and binding is where one could shed some pounds. Well, now were at $3k..

 

[SkiSpeed]

SL skis are tanks underfoot. They feel heavier to me than GS boards. Also, all they want to do is turn, quickly....what's up w/that!?

 

[François Pugh]

The heavier the ski, the greater the ratio of gravity (force increasing your speed) to drag (force slowing you down), and the faster you will be able to ski, provided you have the skills to control the ski.
Edit: forgot to add smiley; it's funny because, strictly speaking, it's true even though the disadvantages (need more force to accelerate it) outweigh the advantages.

 

[Philpug]

SL skis are tanks underfoot. They feel heavier to me than GS boards. Also, all they want to do is turn, quickly....what's up w/that!?

Some people are very busy and don't have all day to ski and need to make a days worth of turns in one run.

 

[Eleeski]

If there was any advantage in making them lighter, it would have happened already. It is a purpose built race ski, much like a F1 car it is built to do one thing. Being airborn is never a good thing in racing — you are faster on the snow. That a FIS SL is a very fun ski in certain conditions for a (fit) tourist skier is a sweet side effect.

Every racer has learned and become familiar and comfortable with heavy skis. Optimizing a light ski will take some style changes. So the absence of light skis at high level racing is not surprising. Who would want to take the chance to field a different ski? Although Bode did it with shaped skis...

Regarding keeping the skis from getting bounced into the air or off line, it takes just as much energy to bring a ski back in control as it does to move it out of control. With the right skillset and strength, the light ski may spend more time in the ideal arc. The path is controlled by the skier - not the rut. (I find my ultralight Goodes work really well in chopped up crud - where conventional wisdom says they should suck.)

@François Pugh 's point about weight helping by force of gravity, nobody adds lead to their skis. Add the weight in the gym by adding muscle to get your advantage. A slalom ski needs to change direction quickly not bomb straight down.

@James has a point. While boron is not that expensive, it is difficult to work with. A light ski might be more expensive. Add the technology and materials for a light high DIN binding and the price gets uncomfortable.

I build ultralight trick waterskis for competition. I judiciously use Boron, carbon, Kevlar and exotic resins. Not in a clean room, but surreptitiously in my airplane hangar. They cost more in labor than materials - wait, I don't pay myself - but still true. There is no magic in the materials, but certainly in the finished product and results! There was a day when "heavier = better" in waterskis. No longer.

I wonder if someday we'll be there in SL race skis?

Eric

 

[James]

Is there any sense with making a light ski with a heavy plate/binding? Such a combo could be worse. Race bindings are quite beefy. Like Din 20, 32. Lots of metal.