Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Troublemaker demo

profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
I just demoed the Dynastar Troublemaker. 2 things about it. I demoed the 175.

1) It feels better in the air than any ski I've ever skied. It has SO MUCH pop, I was launching 5-10 feet further with those on than with any other skis I have tried. In fact, the first wall I hit in the pipe, they launched me so far that I landed right in the middle of the flat-bottom. Despite their relatively large size, they were never too heavy to move around in the air, they spun well, and there was something about them landing. I didn't sketch a single landing, they just glued themselves to the snow every time. I hit several large tables and a 15-foot pipe with them, and they were just unbelievable there.

2) The bad news is that they SUCK all-mountain. They are quite slow edge to edge, turning is a chore, not a pleasure. They feel really damp, and incredibly stable, but they just didn't have any energy at all in or out of turns. I was tired enough after 5 groomers to go back to the park.

So, my recommendation: If you can afford to have a freestyle-only ski or if all you do is hang out in the park, you need to have this ski. It surpasses any other twin-tip that I've skiied. If you can only afford one pair of skis, look elsewhere.

Eric Peterson
Freeski Specialist
Tyrol Ski and Sports
Rochester, MN
Feb 22 2003 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
vtrider
Posts: 1988 - Karma: 41
eric, when i rode them at sia onsnow at stratton i did the exact sme thing on my first pipe wall hit, launched into the middle. you just gotta get used to it then you can really boost out.


Matt~
Feb 22 2003 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
west
Posts: 5229 - Karma: 36
thats really weird...if they are stiff and have that much pop, and a big side cut you'd think they would be a sick all mtn. ski.....this makes me want to get pe's


...proud leader and kingpin of the FreeHeel Mafia...
Feb 22 2003 10:34PM
0 0
profile picture
petek
Posts: 8762 - Karma: 12
i really dunno whats all the fuss about the pe's i musta missed out on something\, besides the fact they look sick



its not where u ride, its how hard you ride it!
Proud member of the official NS Ogre team(name may be replaced)
Feb 23 2003 12:12AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
yea dude dont listen to him, he probably has wrong form while he skis.

-jon, skiing the ice so the other half of the country doesnt have to.

Hi, my name is Thergood I'm here because i have an addiction, I am addicted to marajuana.
..WHAT!! WEED! YOU HERE CUZ OF WEED??!?!
.Marajuana isnt a drug. I used to suck dick for coke,
..i seen him!
.You ever suck some dick for marajuana?
Feb 23 2003 9:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Flowsion
Posts: 1461 - Karma: 11
That really sucks, I hope dynastar updates them before next year or does some tweaking to them to make them better all mountain. Im gettin new park skis, but I want some performance outside of the park because my blue 1260s are nothin exciting out of the park. I was thinkin TMs because of the pop and the stiffness without any sketch, and the sidecut. It seems they would work well out of the park because of the stiffness. Everybody will say PEs would be better (and they may be), but all my friends have those already and I want something different.
'Cheerleaders are dancers gone retarded'
Feb 24 2003 9:08AM
0 0
profile picture
dyna-dogg
Posts: 162 - Karma: 10
the only reason they would suck all-mtn is if the person who skied them sucked or is a huge pussy - both of these seem to be the case here. I have heard nothing but great things about this ski for every kind of skiing.
Feb 24 2003 10:08AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
hahaha true dat i get mine this week with the matching bindings....hahahahahahahaha

-jon, skiing the ice so the other half of the country doesnt have to.

Hi, my name is Thergood I'm here because i have an addiction, I am addicted to marajuana.
..WHAT!! WEED! YOU HERE CUZ OF WEED??!?!
.Marajuana isnt a drug. I used to suck dick for coke,
..i seen him!
.You ever suck some dick for marajuana?
Feb 24 2003 10:47AM
0 0
profile picture
west
Posts: 5229 - Karma: 36
yah it seems kinda sketchy that a stiff ski with a big side, is stiff and has tons of pop would be a badd all-mtn ski. you'd think it would rock....i'm gonna demo before i believe this.


...proud leader and kingpin of the FreeHeel Mafia...
Feb 24 2003 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
Sean14456
Posts: 4792 - Karma: 38
skis are a completely personal choice, based a lot on technique as mentioned, im not saying anyones technique is bad, or that i am good, just when i skied the TMs i found them among the best, if not the best twin for all mountain, but again, skis will perform very differently based on technique and who is using them
________________________________________________________
Proud leader of OA-Support Group For Those Addicted To Oakley.

mCm 2002-2003.
Feb 24 2003 11:31AM
0 0
profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
I've skiied for 14 years and have a NASTAR handicap of 9. Three of my freeski-only friends had the exact same comments as I did. The one break I will give to 'em is that they WERE demo skis and probably not tuned too well.

I didn't get them onto anything more than groomers though, from what I felt there, they'd probably be pretty decent in 3'+ of snow. But for hardpack/cord, they held an edge pretty decently and were very smooth, but they were just really sluggish in transition. I prefer a ski with more energy in/out of turns, as would most high-level skiiers.

In comparison to other twins I've skiied:

vs. Skratch FS- Better everywhere
vs. 1080- Worse all-mountain, better freestyle
vs. 1260- Better everywhere except bumps
vs. Maverick- Much worse all-mountain, better freestyle.
vs. Mike Nick- Better everywhere
vs. Skogan- Slightly better in freestyle, worse on groomers
vs. Dynastar Candide- Much worse all-mountain, slightly better in freestyle
vs. Enemy- Worse all-mountain, much better freestyle
vs. Mad Trix- Much worse all-mountain, better freestyle
vs. V Pro- Worse all-mountain, better freestyle
vs. V Expression- Much worse all-mountain, better freestyle


Eric Peterson
Freeski Specialist
Tyrol Ski and Sports
Rochester, MN
Feb 24 2003 12:25PM
0 0
profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
That's supposed to be 3 inches of snow, not 3 feet
Eric Peterson
Freeski Specialist
Tyrol Ski and Sports
Rochester, MN
Feb 24 2003 12:27PM
0 0
profile picture
shawnm1260
Posts: 3219 - Karma: 66
i rode them at crystal mountain in washington and i thought they were sick all mountian i skied avy basin and north a couple of times with 10inches new and i fell in love with them.

on the down side both the public and the 1080 i think are better allmountian skis but this is def. top 3 in terms of twin tip's, i only hit to table in the park but there was lots of snow on them so i couldnt pop off to well but i could feel it was there for sure..... i will keep my pe's next year for all mountain and then get the 175 trouble makers next year for park for sure..
dope skis
Feb 24 2003 2:11PM
0 0
profile picture
dyna-dogg
Posts: 162 - Karma: 10
Well, I guess that's pretty much the end of it.
The 'Free-Ski Specialist' has spoken.
Feb 24 2003 4:01PM
0 0
profile picture
FreshCoast
Posts: 5602 - Karma: 34
Didn't you say something like they were a littleon the big side for you (I might of just misread your post)? Wouldn't that make them a chore for you on groomers? I think that might the problem, but you never know, I have never seen you ski and you are entitled to your own opinion.
________________________
Andrew

*Proud member of Newschoolers for Peace*
Feb 24 2003 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
dyna-dog

A lot of people have been waiting to demo these. So I gave my _opinion_ on them.

bum-

When I said large size, I meant width. They're pretty wide, I would venture a guess at 114-82-105.
Eric Peterson
Freeski Specialist
Tyrol Ski and Sports
Rochester, MN
Feb 24 2003 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
FreshCoast
Posts: 5602 - Karma: 34
Ok Cool, I must of just misread your post then.
________________________
Andrew

*Proud member of Newschoolers for Peace*
Feb 24 2003 8:37PM
0 0
profile picture
anomericas
Posts: 8237 - Karma: 61
they look aweseom
*******************
Accept no one's defitnition of your life: Define your self. Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
- Terrible One
Feb 24 2003 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Matty.
Posts: 9458 - Karma: 105
Do they have a bigger tail than the concept or is it still like 30mm which is fine just wonderin


~-~DyNaStAr Or NuTtIn~-~
Feb 24 2003 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
shawnm1260
Posts: 3219 - Karma: 66
its bigger i was skiing switch in 5 inches new... it was cool, and i think they are like the scratch 40-45 mm id guess
Feb 25 2003 12:13AM
0 0
profile picture
west
Posts: 5229 - Karma: 36
i still don't get it....stiff ski + big side-cut= energy in turns...i'm not saying you wrong or anything....i believe you...it just seems really weird that it's like that


...proud leader and kingpin of the FreeHeel Mafia...
Feb 25 2003 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
shawnm1260
Posts: 3219 - Karma: 66
dude i think they rip all mountain, i went up on them yesterday again at crystal this time it was hard packed powder. this is now 3 times on them in the 175 and 1 time on the 65. they are now in my opinion waaaay better than the 1080 but,.. the pe is still better all mountain, but the trouble maker is way lighter

my line up for all mountain twins ive rode is..

public 179
trouble maker 175
1080 181
ar5 180

ive got 3 days on each of those skis in varied conditions
Feb 25 2003 5:38PM
0 0
profile picture
WIfreeskier
Posts: 8125 - Karma: 65
Actually the waist on the Trouble Makers is 78, not 82.
REMEMBER: It's 10% equipment, and 90% rider.
Feb 25 2003 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
so sue me for being 4mm off guessing... I don't carry a micrometer



I know what I'm talking about... or something... damn alcohol

proud member of ns ogre crew

Feb 26 2003 12:42AM
0 0
profile picture
WIfreeskier
Posts: 8125 - Karma: 65
i know, i'm sorry, just thought people should know, because there is actually a pretty big difference in a 78 and 82 waist.
REMEMBER: It's 10% equipment, and 90% rider.
Feb 26 2003 6:21PM
0 0
profile picture
dyna-dogg
Posts: 162 - Karma: 10
I guess my problem with your original post is that you said they SUCK all mountain. I don't see how you could be that sure about it after a half a day or whatever. maybe you might say they didn't seem all that quick or something. But why say the SUCK?

I've heard way to many poistive things to believe that. But I'll post my own review when I ride 'em. Peace.
Feb 26 2003 10:15PM
0 0
profile picture
EmcEEmahEm
Posts: 466 - Karma: 10
That's cool, the more people we have on 'em, the more of an idea people will get of the overall profile...

When I said that they suck all-mountain, I guess I was looking from my own perspective. I like a ski that I can rip carves on. If you were just cruising groomers or powder, more laid-back, they'd be pretty decent, they're very stable and smooth. They were just the complete opposite of a quick, energetic ski, which is my #1 want in an all-mountain ski.


I know what I'm talking about... or something... damn alcohol

proud member of ns ogre crew

Feb 26 2003 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
CONCEPTskier
Posts: 144 - Karma: 10
I have some tm's, they are sick!!! They are the best skis i have ever ridden!!
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
Because Skiing needs a future
Feb 28 2003 8:54PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)