Dynastar M-Tour 99 F-Team Ski

I skied the Mythics until there was hardly a base left. The Mythics had too small a turn radius and such wide shovels I often found myself standing only on the tips and tails. The tip rise was a bit ridiculous, too. Regardless, hardly a day went by that I didn't pick the Mythic.

MTour 99 has fixed all of this and the ski is more damp. I can't tell the difference between these and skis in the 1600g category

For what it's worth, Skimo weighed their 178s at 1320g -- mine are 1440 and 1450. Big difference!

I had 177 Mythics and got the 178 MTours. I am going to replace them eventually with the 170, no need for the extra length in these beasts.

I also skied the Volkl Rise Beyond 96, supposedly also 1300g in the 177. They don't even come close to the performance of the MTour.

I usually give a little eye roll when Skimo says "quiver of one" but yeah, this is my only ski. It rocks!

I purchased these skis as an objective ski because on paper they seem to balance uphill and downhill performance in a way that is second to none. On snow I can confirm that they feel great. They are nice and light for the skin track but puch much harder than their weight would lead you to believe on the way down. They ski soft powdery snow with ease but still maintain an easy to turn nature when the snow gets hard, icey and variable. I've entrusted these skis to accompany me on the haute route traverse as well as other steep couloir objectives this spring including a climb up the N ridge of Pfeifferhorn and descent of the NW couloir (pic attached). The only thing that disappoints me is the durability. The colored base material is much softer than other skis I've owned and seem to acquire deep scratches and gouges much easier than other skis. I wish Dynastar would have prioritized a better base material instead of trying to integrate a fancy graphic on the base that uses softer plastic. Secondly I've had significant chipping of the side walls. After returning from most objectives, I've discovered chips in the black sidewalls that expose the fiber wrapped wood core. The top sheet has been undamaged as well as the metal edge so it almost seems like the sidewalls have been cracking/flaking off for an undetermined reason? Anyway, it seems that after every trip I'm mixing up another batch of epoxy, mixing in black pigment powder and patching the sidewalls. The repairs look good and are easy to perform, it's just quite annoying to do patch work every trip. I wish I could rate these skis higher but it seems like I will need to replace these within just a few seasons. Too bad because they really ski great.

Is the 170cm too short for a 6’0 180lb person (who already has powder touring skiis) to use for fast and light winter peak bagging and spring conditions?

Have 10 or so days on these and am enjoying them so much I grabbed a used pair for a rock setup. I'm a relatively new skier so take this review fwiw, but in snow ranging from tracked powder, light crust, windbuff, supportable and medium density powder these have inspired confidence and goaded me into skiing more aggressively. They feel natural in soft snow: easy turn initiation, steady at speed & good float. Freeriding seems to be their happy place.

I haven't skied them in deep fluff. Soft chop is easily absorbed though navigating tight trees can be tiresome. On groomers they feel like lightweight touring skis, but still track well.

Main takeaways for me so far: they're damp, fun to drive in powder and light. Don't see any glaring weaknesses so far and don't feel the need to grab a wider ski on the average storm day.

Where is the recommended mount point on the M-Tour 99 (relative to center or from the tail for a specific length)?

I got the plum guide bindings to go with the Dynastar M Tour 99 at 170cm quick question on mounting the bindings is there a recommendation on what the best position would be for an intermediate/ advanced skier. Thanks

How does the m-tour 99 compare to the backland 100? I've also eyed the BC Navis. But it's heavy. I'm looking for a spring ski to cover steep skiing and ski mountainering in april/may with the odd chance of gravity assisted freeride. It should be able to handle everything from deep powder to variable/crud, and firm in the steeps. I'm 190 cm/6.3 and come from a 184 cm, which feels too short in powder. Hence, I'm attracted to the backland 100' in 188cm. But which ski performs best across my needs - and which ski is most fun?

Tried the mythic but was only good enough in pow-one dimensional...now I m thinking giving dynastar a second chance.
Have been through Hannibal 96 way too planky and backland 95 too woody and no bouncy. Keep an explore 88 for those long spring ones.
My old qst 99s with kingpins are fun but heavy and less all around backcountrish.
As you can tell with a plethora of boots 1000-1500 grams.
How about the under-radar Hagan boost 99 you don't offer?

My experience using the Dynastar M-tour 99 ski has been very positive. Having used it a few times in both the California Sierras and Utah, I can say that the ski's lightweight construction makes it a great choice for uphill travel, while its 99 width allows for easy navigation through powder. I was also impressed by the fact that the ski doesn't feel too light when going fast, which made it great for all-around skiing. Overall, I would recommend this ski to anyone who enjoys backcountry skiing

Awesome ski. Performs well in a variety of conditions and can be used as a quiver of one though might want to go narrower for very late season tours. No weight penalty compared to the M tour 90. Unlike its predecessor (Mythic 97) you do not need to size up with the ski. Compared to the Zero g 95 a bit less edge hold but skis better and more fun in most other conditions.

Hi! Looking at the M-Tour 99s for a midwinter touring ski in the PNW that can handle a variety of conditions. Also looking to take it to Denali next summer. Any thoughts if these are the right skis or if I should be looking for something else? My other touring ski is the Dynafit Blacklight 86 for long spring objectives so looking to go wider

Hey
I've been skiing the Elan Ripstick 96 for couple of years as all-round skis (resort, touring, powder). I found them quite good on hard packed slopes but I am looking to change them now.

How do you compare them with the Dynastar M-Tour 99 2023version and the new Backland 95. Which on are the most versatile ?

Thanks
Hadrien

Any insight on binding retention? Doesn’t look like any reinforcement underfoot? Wondering if suitable for a tele mount…

I am interested in M-tour 99, is the skis suitable for all round, hard/soft, mix? And I want pair them with ATK binding, any recommendation. Also do your shop provide free binding mount service if purchase skis and binding together?

Thanks

Hey, I am looking at replacing my Blizzard zero g 95 because they are quite beat, I loved them and I am hesitating betwen replacing them or try an other skis like the M-Tour 99, I have also in mind the Dynafit speed or the Black light 95. I am 1,70m and 70 kg, some people said to take the M-tour short, I skied the blizzard 1,70m, my days are usually around +2000m. Any opinion ?
Thank you

Hey all! So I'm looking to replace my ZeroG 85's with something that is still pretty light for long objectives, but a bit wider and looser for late spring variable snow when the ZeroG's would get hooky feeling on the steeps. Wondering if the M-Tour 99 in a 178 (vs 185-190 in my regular skis) would fit the bill given its rocker and some taper. Also presumably easier to throw around and slash vs being pretty locked in on the ZeroG's? Thanks!

Hi guys - any high levels differences in downhill performance from the mythic? Looking at these long days and spring skiing.

I have the Dynafit TLT 8 boot and the dynafit ST radical binding. I’m 5’6” and am deciding between the dynastar m tour 99 and the dps pagoda tour 94. I’m an intermediate skier. Thoughts on the differences between the 2 skis and also on whether I should get mid 160cm vs 170? I ski in the Adirondacks. Thank you!