# Dynastar 8000-8800



## marcski (Feb 12, 2008)

Like Quattro...I'm in the market.  I've skied both of these and still can't figure out which one to get and in what size. I know a few of you guys ski the 8000's, Rivercoil, Gregg..and others, what sizes do you guys ski on?  I'm 5'11"ish 190.  I've skied the 8800's (and this year the mythic ryders) in a 178 and a 172.  I think I liked the 172's in that ski best.  So, I'm thinking the 178's in the 8000's might be best since the majority of my days are out here in the east.....Any feedback?


----------



## Greg (Feb 12, 2008)

6' 1" and 165 lbs. My 8000s are 172 cm. I haven't skied the 8800 but it's my understanding that the 8000 is more lively and quick. I love mine on any sort of loose snow / powder and I can get them working just fine in the bumps.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

i'm just pondering what size underfoot to goto...an 88 or a 95/99 as my 2nd ski....my metron is 74 and awesome carving and decent in 4-5"....what would you jump to for your next ski if you were to have only a 2 ski quiver?


----------



## Greg (Feb 12, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> i'm just pondering what size underfoot to goto...an 88 or a 95/99 as my 2nd ski....my metron is 74 and awesome carving and decent in 4-5"....what would you jump to for your next ski if you were to have only a 2 ski quiver?



Personally, I don't ski deep powder enough to go any wider underfoot than my 8000s. Of course I said that about my AC3s too which only had a 74mm waist. It seems the consensus lately is much fatter is better so what do I know...? :???: :wink:


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

I know, its nuts, seems like the 70's are the new 90's.....i am seeing more and more guys using 95ish underfoot as an everyday EC ski....i just dont want any overlap in my 2nd ski as compared to my metrons at 74


----------



## bvibert (Feb 12, 2008)

IMHO, if you already have a ski with a 74mm waist and you want something bigger you may as well go big, 90+ is my vote...


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> IMHO, if you already have a ski with a 74mm waist and you want something bigger you may as well go big, 90+ is my vote...




Ding Ding Ding.  We have a weiner...er...um...winnner.  I want my second pair to be real fat with great shape...Mantras for a example.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

thats what i'm leaning towards....now to find a deal!!!


----------



## Greg (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> IMHO, if you already have a ski with a 74mm waist and you want something bigger you may as well go big, 90+ is my vote...





BeanoNYC said:


> Ding Ding Ding.  We have a weiner...er...um...winnner.  I want my second pair to be real fat with great shape...Mantras for a example.





SKIQUATTRO said:


> thats what i'm leaning towards....now to find a deal!!!



I don't know about that. My 8000s are only slightly wider underfoot than my AC3s but it's a totally different ski. Same purpose, but the Legend is much more suited to my style. I have to imagine that an 8000 or 8800 is going to be radically different than a Metron.


----------



## bvibert (Feb 12, 2008)

Greg said:


> I don't know about that. My 8000s are only slightly wider underfoot than my AC3s but it's a totally different ski. Same purpose, but the Legend is much more suited to my style. I have to imagine that an 8000 or 8800 is going to be radically different than a Metron.



Yeah, but it's so much cooler to say that you have 90+mm underfoot...


----------



## Greg (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> Yeah, but it's so much cooler to say that you have 90+mm underfoot...



Says the guy with the skinny bump skis with snakes on them...


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

Greg said:


> I don't know about that. My 8000s are only slightly wider underfoot than my AC3s but it's a totally different ski. Same purpose, but the Legend is much more suited to my style. I have to imagine that an 8000 or 8800 is going to be radically different than a Metron.



My new powder ski is a Scott Mission(89 under foot) only 4mm wider than my old Public Enemies(85).  However they float so much better .  I don't know what it is about them but they are far superior in the soft, but lacking on the hard pack compared to the PE.


----------



## marcski (Feb 12, 2008)

Hawkshot99 said:


> My new powder ski is a Scott Mission(89 under foot) only 4mm wider than my old Public Enemies(85).  However they float so much better .  I don't know what it is about them but they are far superior in the soft, but lacking on the hard pack compared to the PE.



How do you like those Scott's?  And are your other ones (not the missions) are they more of an all mtn ski?  I've heard just a couple of things about the scotts....all good...but too small of a sample to gather any consensus.


----------



## bvibert (Feb 12, 2008)

Greg said:


> Says the guy with the skinny bump skis with snakes on them...



I never said that _I'm_ cool, no argument there.  Someone asked me why my skis have vipers on them the other night...  I told her it was because I was a bad ass mofo! :lol:


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

marcski said:


> How do you like those Scott's?  And are your other ones (not the missions) are they more of an all mtn ski?  I've heard just a couple of things about the scotts....all good...but too small of a sample to gather any consensus.



Love them both.  The Mission is awesome in the soft, like I said earlier.  However it is just a bit too soft to let them run at high speeds at my weight.  They get a little bit unstable.

The P3 is a awesome all mountain ski.  Super stiff twin tip, that rip up the mountain real hard.


----------



## Greg (Feb 12, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I never said that _I'm_ cool, no argument there.  Someone asked me why my skis have vipers on them the other night...  I told her it was because I was a bad ass mofo! :lol:



No you didn't... :lol:


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 12, 2008)

marcski said:


> Like Quattro...I'm in the market.  I've skied both of these and still can't figure out which one to get and in what size. I know a few of you guys ski the 8000's, Rivercoil, Gregg..and others, what sizes do you guys ski on?  I'm 5'11"ish 190.  I've skied the 8800's (and this year the mythic ryders) in a 178 and a 172.  I think I liked the 172's in that ski best.  So, I'm thinking the 178's in the 8000's might be best since the majority of my days are out here in the east.....Any feedback?


The 8000 is my primary ski in a 178 (6'1" 210 lbs). I also have an Inspired which is the predecessor to the 8800 (same dimensions) and Mythic Rider (which has more shape). If you are interested in a 178 Intuitiv Big, I am about to unload a pair cheap once my freerides come off, so let me know. Cheap like $100-200 with minor base ware, no core shots just scrapes.

These are two completely different skis. Just check out the difference in shape profiles and turn radius. There are fatter skis than the 8800 that are easier to turn and swing around (I just bought one to replace it, in fact). 8800 rules on big open stuff, love them on Mount Washington. Not good in the tight stuff (from my perspective). Just too many compromises. Fun ski to let rip in natural snow, not a one ski quiver for the east.

I am surprised you are trying to decide between these two skis. What is your criteria, what are you looking for? A mid-fat or a powder ski? A quiver ski or a one ski quiver? Snappy quick light weight forgiving turns or a little more meat that prefers a little running room and more open spaces. Lots of possibilities here, but you are currently looking at skis in two different categories that are not related in terms of performance even if they are related in terms of construction and design.


----------



## marcski (Feb 12, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> The 8000 is my primary ski in a 178 (6'1" 210 lbs). I also have an Inspired which is the predecessor to the 8800 (same dimensions) and Mythic Rider (which has more shape). If you are interested in a 178 Intuitiv Big, I am about to unload a pair cheap once my freerides come off, so let me know. Cheap like $100-200 with minor base ware, no core shots just scrapes.
> 
> These are two completely different skis. Just check out the difference in shape profiles and turn radius. There are fatter skis than the 8800 that are easier to turn and swing around (I just bought one to replace it, in fact). 8800 rules on big open stuff, love them on Mount Washington. Not good in the tight stuff (from my perspective). Just too many compromises. Fun ski to let rip in natural snow, not a one ski quiver for the east.
> 
> I am surprised you are trying to decide between these two skis. What is your criteria, what are you looking for? A mid-fat or a powder ski? A quiver ski or a one ski quiver? Snappy quick light weight forgiving turns or a little more meat that prefers a little running room and more open spaces. Lots of possibilities here, but you are currently looking at skis in two different categories that are not related in terms of performance even if they are related in terms of construction and design.



I'm in these two categories (although these days, as some here have said, 95-100 are where the "fat" skis start, so while definitely different, I'm not so sure they're in two totally different categories...but be that as it may) because I'm curious as to what the 8800's (mythic ryder) feel like out here on some good grade "A" Vt. hardpack.  If they really won't be able to handle it, I'm more interested in 8000's.  I haven't skied the 8800's in the east.  Given your height/weight dimensions, the 172's are probably a better fit for me and I've seen some good deals on them of late.  

To answer one of your questions, I'm probably more interested in a one ski quiver at this point.  Especially since I'm going to be trying out my bro's tele gear this weekend.  And knowing my somewhat obsessive personality...and the fact that I'm spending some of my time on gentler terrain these days and in the near future with my daughters, I'll probably be in the market for a tele setup by next week.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 12, 2008)

Neither is overly good on hard pack and groomers (compared to other skis in the given class). Similar offerings from Volkl, Head, Elan, Fischer, etc. are better in the one ski mid-fat that handles both groomers and powder with aplomb (but still not without sacrifice of specialized performance).


----------



## madskier6 (Feb 16, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> i'm just pondering what size underfoot to goto...an 88 or a 95/99 as my 2nd ski....my metron is 74 and awesome carving and decent in 4-5"....what would you jump to for your next ski if you were to have only a 2 ski quiver?



I just pulled the trigger on a pair of Volkl Gotamas as my powder ski.  The waist on those bad boys is 105.  They ski so smoothly though that they don't feel that wide.  I will now have a 2 ski quiver that I like: Atomic Metron B5 for all mountain use & carving on most days & Volkl Gotama for powder days & spring skiing.



SKIQUATTRO said:


> I know, its nuts, seems like the 70's are the new 90's.....i am seeing more and more guys using 95ish underfoot as an everyday EC ski....i just dont want any overlap in my 2nd ski as compared to my metrons at 74



Fatter is better seems to be the trend these days.  There are certain limitations with skis that wide for your average East Coast day but many skiers seem to be adapting.  I picked the Gotamas because I really like the way they ski but also because there will be no overlap in my quiver.  To me, getting Volkl Mantras with what I already have would result in some quiver overlap.


----------



## NESkibum (Feb 16, 2008)

Jeff,
You are totally mistaken by saying that you would have an overlap with the Metrons and Mantras. They are two completely different skis!!!!


----------



## madskier6 (Feb 17, 2008)

NESkibum said:


> Jeff,
> You are totally mistaken by saying that you would have an overlap with the Metrons and Mantras. They are two completely different skis!!!!



I agree that they are two totally different skis.  I said there would be "some quiver overlap".  My point, which I didn't effectively convey in my post, is that I've got a frontside all mountain ski that I'm happy with in the Metron.  To add another ski to my quiver, I want it to be completely different: a powder specialist.  While the Mantra is more of a powder ski than the Metron, it also has some carving capabilities that I'm not looking for in a true powder ski.  The Gotama fits the bill for me because it is a true powder board that also skis well in other conditions.  It doesn't have the burliness that the Mantra has & it smears turns in powder & crud very smoothly.

Don't get me wrong.  The Mantra is a nice ski & if I didn't have the Metrons, it might be my daily choice for average East Coast conditions.  If I had both the Metrons & the Mantras, it's not clear to me which ski I would choose on a given day.  They have similar capabilities for me.  Yes, the Metron can carve better & yes, the Mantra can ski powder & crud a little better.  But their difference is not that great.  Since I can't afford to have 4 or 5 skis in my quiver, I want skis that clearly address the type of conditions that I like to ski in.  The Metron & Gotama do that for me.


----------



## Mildcat (Feb 24, 2008)

If anyone is looking for 8000's keep an eye on SAC today. I just got the daily email and there will be some on there.


----------

