Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

A few years ago, I was lucky enough to get my hand on a pair of barely used Dynastar GS 1984. At that time I did not realize how lucky I was, the skis where nice and long but I didn't see myself riding those ski. I tough those skis had nothing any of my ski didn't had. Let be honest, logically how could a 30+ years ski could compete with any ski with today technology? No wonder, they ended up in the garage, piling dust until me and Johnny had that crazy idea: the TeleTandem. On paper, this idea had everything to be a success; twice the strength, twice the weight, twice the brain, twice everything. In practice, it was a disaster. We ripped off a binding after only a few runs. They returned in the garage until this week. After recent rain episode in the northeast, I had nothing interesting to ski with so I decided to give the Dynastar GS a try.
This ski test had nothing to be a success, the ski haven’t been wax or tuned wince the late 80’s, I mounted the bindings randomly on the ski and the tips of the skis had scales on them (I used those skis to test my waxless matrix somewhere last year). I skied similar skis at a younger age and moved on to smaller and shorter radius skis throughout the years convince I was doing the right thing. I was wrong. Most modern skis are made of wood and fiberglass now, but back then polyurethane foam sandwiched by metal sheet was a common thing. The Dynastar has a incredible stiffness and super long edge contact. Its gives you grip on pretty much any type of snow and ice. God I miss those 2m+ ski length. It is stable, super fast, the only downside is that you need some ski ability to make it turn. Like Johnny says, the only reason why ski industry made modern skis shorter, with rockers and short radius I to make those puffy jacket skiers look good whatever their ski level.
I just can’t wait until spring to give those skis a try in the soft bumpy runs. Until then, I might be able to get my hand on a Head GTO 2012 200cm which would be the perfect compromise between 30+ years skis and modern technology.

Here’s the video of the ski test.


Enjoy!

Sweet... almost breaking the speed limit in the US!

That sort of experience tells us that there is no progress (not that much, not always) in the ski industry... Changes are more a matter of fashion... not always, but most of the time... It is not really dependent on scientific facts... Why should I not like to ski longer skis? Because Rossi, Volk and al are saying so, decide for myself?

While I'm sure that's a great ski, I don't think I agree that a GS racing ski is a matter of fashion. Sure the rules tend to blur the science a bit, but GS skis have gotten a lot better. In one regard, the amount of injuries has reduced DRAMATICALLY with more shape in GS. In fact some of the skiers think it is ridiculous to go back to the shapes and lengths they are currently using because of this.

I'd say the same thing as far as material science. That has come a long way since 1984, and particularly what is generally available to the public at affordable prices. Carbon fiber used to be a thing of NASA; now it is in almost everything high performance. Graphene promises to be the next great material in ski design.

Actual rules for GS skis
Min length 195cm
Min ski radius > 35m
Waist max 65mm

The Dynastar GS
207cm
Radius unknown but by the shape it is not very far from 35m
Waist 67 mm

This skis with a modern cosmetic could probably foul a lot of skiers (myself included). One of the main difference I see is that back in the days most skiers where skiing on race skis for everyday use, now no one has a FIS compliant ski for everyday use. Most people have a "Master" version of a race skis or high radius all mountain ski. Of course carving can be fun but bumps, jumps and woods can be very fun as well and doesn't require that much sidecut.

You are right Mike, carbon fiber is better than fibreglass for making skis, no one can't argue on that. Wood is probably better than polyurethane for a ski core. That being said, I'm not sure it changes a lot of thing on the overall performance. The base, the edges and the metal plates used in the rest of the ski haven't really change. Of course no one is stupid enough to race a 1984 ski and carbon fiber, titanium, aluminum 7075 t651 are way more fashion than fibreglass and 1008 steel. Anyone has a 2017 GS ski to lend me?:) I'm to cheap to buy one to see if it really worth it... My friend Johnny has a pair of almost brand new dh race skis (read 2011 race skis with 0.2mm edges remaining) but he is just not in a rush to mount them...

What I know from the materials is that they can make a stiffer ski with mass where they want it to give it the best frequency response for a certain course.

I'd be surprised if those skis were a 35m radius, they look more in the range of 50... do you have the dimensions?

And yeah, the rules you posted were the exact rules that the racers aren't crazy about. The data shows that injuries were a lot less in the era when they allowed more sidecut. The issue is these guys have to lean them over so far to get the ski to make the turns typical of a GS course that you are more likely to injure yourself. This is at least what I've read.

Not far from 87-67-77 using a dial caliper

I did not mesure the centerline but using CAD with an approximated centerline and using the 3 points technique it is giving me 100m radius

My very first downhill skis were Dynastar Omeglass IIs in 200 length - this was over 30 years ago. When the Dynastar Course SLs came out (late 80s-very early 90s), I always wanted that ski. Never got it cause I was a poor student. Makes me think mounting my old Dynastars might be fun, but then I think about what a beast those skis were.

thanks for keepin' it real!

cheers!

Bri7 I LOVE IT!!! My straight ski collection has been waiting to do precisely this! My wife had those Dynastar GS skis from circa 1984, in 185cm. I can't wait to try to tele them now! That video looked so much fun, I enjoyed watching you guys ski these old straight skis! Oh and by the way, that ski area and the snow looked lovely.

I think these Dynastars should do even better than my Karhu Jak 90s on the hardpack (these skis have told me many times that they were not born for this particular duty of hard icy "snow" but I don't have a better tele alternative ready to go).

I also have my big pink Dynamic VR17 210cm from 1990 as well as Volkl P9 SLC 207 cm from this era. Both of these skis were MAGNIFICENT in their time.

They are all heavy enough that I would mount them not for touring but for lift riding. It's hilarious to me that you guys mounted those with NTN! Such a juxtaposition of epochs and technology. Did you use inserts for easier removal and swapping of the bindings? I wish there was a cheap insert system...maybe a helicoil is what I'm looking for...to swap one pair of bindings amongst several pairs of skis.

Wow that's a nice quiver Anemic! The Dynamic and the Volkl are really nice skis too I wouldn't worry to much about inserts in those type of skis. First, the metal sheet is so thick in the Dynastar that the screws can probably be remove a few times and still be very solid. I such a hard time putting the screws in, it feel almost like I was taping the metal with the screw. Second, you are going to love those skis so much you will not want to remove the binding anymore

Of course, you could also buy a large quantity of broken NTN bindings on the internet and fix them during the summer and never worry about having not enough bindings