Dynastar Sultan 80's or 85's

[MR. evil]

looking to purchase on of these two ski's next week and mount them with some Marker Barron AT bindings. I don't do any BC stuff yet but want to. Anyway, both skis get great reviews and I am having trouble choosing. The 80 is a little softer and apparently is better on hard pack but still good off piste. Being softer it would probably also be better in the bumps. The 85 has been getting awsome reviews, but I am worried that it might be too much ski for me and might not be as good as the 80 in the bumps.My ego is telling to get the 85's while my head is telling me to go for the 80's

FWIW I am 6'-0" tall, 185 to 190lbs, athletic and I would say I am an advanced intermediate skier.

 

[deadheadskier]

I would go for the 85. You have bump skis yes? The 80 might be lacking in the other more likely conditions you'll encounter in BC.......pow, wind packed, crud, heavy corn......

I also wouldn't worry about an 85 waist in the bumps at all.

go wide my friend

 

[powbmps]

I would think the 85 as well. What length are you looking at?

 

[bvibert]

Knowing nothing about the ski I'd say go with the wider option, especially if you're setting it up as a BC ski. Who cares how it handles hard pack or tight bumps? You have other skis for those purposes, correct?

Just my opinion, of course I know nothing about BC skis or equipment.

 

[MR. evil]

I would think the 85 as well. What length are you looking at?

172 or 178 for the Sultan 80's
168 or 172 for the Sultan 85's

Its not just a width issue, the two models actually have different construction. The 85's are a fully laminated ski while the 80's are a partially laminate / cap constuction ski. The tips and tails on the 80's are cap construction with the middle is laminated construction. The owner of my local shop told me the 85's are much stiffer.

 

[riverc0il]

168 seems given your specs, IMO. 172 vs 178 may be a matter of preference. Size aside, I have yet to try these two skis out but from what I understand the 85s have metal and the 80s don't which would account for why the 85s are stiffer than the 80s. I am not sure you are comparing apples to apples here. Folks may say "go fatter" but I say go fatter within the type of ski you want. You can go fatter without going stiffer by looking at other skis than the 85. That said, I do not know how they compare, but the 8000 was hardly a stiff ski though who knows what a layer of metal and 5 more mm's would do. The combo of the cap/vertical sidewall of the 8000s is something I won't ever go back to but as I have mentioned in the past, that may have been too much weight for the ski rather than a defect.

Bottom line would be if you want to go fatter but don't want to go stiffer, you are not comparing apples to apples with your two choices. And on the touring tip, I toured with 79mm 8000s for the last few years. Sure, I am looking for something 100mm underfoot to replace them. But I toured them for years and I was fine. How often are you going to be breaking up trail for a foot of fresh? Or are you going to be doing something more packed down like the Sherbie for Tucks or the like?

 

[Rambo]

At demo day I tried the Dynastar Sultan 85 in 172 length for 4 runs and I absolutley loved them. At 16 meter turning radius they came around quick. They did both short and long turns easily. They exceled at both low and high speeds. They were wide enough to float in the softer snow and carved the ice well. They did not seem at all too stiff. They had a nice medium flex. Not sure how they would do in bumps but at 172 they seemed very quick and nimble. I liked the sultans better than the Fischer Watea 84 and Elan 888 which are also awesome wider all mountain skis.

 

[bvibert]

168 seems given your specs, IMO. 172 vs 178 may be a matter of preference. Size aside, I have yet to try these two skis out but from what I understand the 85s have metal and the 80s don't which would account for why the 85s are stiffer than the 80s. I am not sure you are comparing apples to apples here. Folks may say "go fatter" but I say go fatter within the type of ski you want. You can go fatter without going stiffer by looking at other skis than the 85. That said, I do not know how they compare, but the 8000 was hardly a stiff ski though who knows what a layer of metal and 5 more mm's would do. The combo of the cap/vertical sidewall of the 8000s is something I won't ever go back to but as I have mentioned in the past, that may have been too much weight for the ski rather than a defect.

Bottom line would be if you want to go fatter but don't want to go stiffer, you are not comparing apples to apples with your two choices. And on the touring tip, I toured with 79mm 8000s for the last few years. Sure, I am looking for something 100mm underfoot to replace them. But I toured them for years and I was fine. How often are you going to be breaking up trail for a foot of fresh? Or are you going to be doing something more packed down like the Sherbie for Tucks or the like?

His advice = much more valuable that mine...

I still wouldn't put much weight into how a ski performed on hardpack or big bumps if I was looking for it to be used primarily as a BC ski though...

 

[air0rmc]

I have the 80 and love them .I'm 5'6" 162lbs skiing it in 165cm w/mojo12's on center .I originally purchased the 8000 leftover to save some cash ,and was told that it is very close to the sultan 80 's feel .I found it to be nothing like the 80 and swapped it for the 80 .I then had the opp to demo the 85 and it was very close to the 8000 ,just a tad shorter turn r with the same flex and bulldozer like characteristics in the tracked out rough ,lots of fun .I did not notice the extra width at all ,but I did notice that it was beefier and stiffer .I hiked a hill with my 80's .The conditions were 6-10 " of new wind blown with a 1/4 to 1/2 " frozen crust on surface ,some spots were total 1" thick ice .The 85 or the 8000 would have done much better in my opinion .I would say the 80 is the best all around inbounds ski for intermediate to advanced ,BC or advanced to expert level 8000 or Sultan 85 aybe even Mythic R for more width .Hope this helps some .I am done for the season due to Tibial plateau fracture and blown ACL sustained yesterday .The 80 is that much fun......good luck you will be happy either way

 

[puckoach]

I recently purchased 172 Sultan 85's, after two days of riding demo's. Kept going back to them. I would suggest you do the same. I don't know where you are from, but I went thru Pete at Rogers in Lincoln, NH. Demo $ are deducted from the purchase price.

While I am a huge fan of internet/forum research, often one persons opinion gets repeated as a fact, by quite a few other posters. I'm not being criticial of anyone that posted to this thread. But, on another forum, in the case of this ski, the repeat was "it's for smaller guys". Although this is not incorrect, it's not fully accurate, as I'm 5'10" 245.

What does appear accurate, is that the 85 is getting great reviews by a number of people. Especially people that work at the shops. The afore mentioned Pete has his own pair. (Not a big guy)

Personally, I found the all mountain Sultan 85 to be truly all-mountain, varied conditions. It tracked well toe to heel, and was happy on a cloudy "Facemask" day, as well as on a sunny a windbreaker day. BTW, as you might imagine, at my size, I'm not a bump guy....

Try them out !

 

[gmcunni]

Tim, demo day this saturday @ Okemo. Dynastar is on the list of vendors to be there.

http://okemo.com/okemowinter/ourmou....asp?action=view&id=2319&date=3/6/2010#events

 

[MR. evil]

I ended up getting some Elan 888's with some Marker Baron bindings. Skidmarks over at Suburban Sports hooked me up!

 

[puckoach]

Short update. Was on the Sultans today at Loon. Day started with over night frozen, going to soft spring, then too sott by 1pm.

Ski was awesome on all !

 

[Keith]

Hey, I'm 5 10, 180 lb. I bought the 172 length, 80's this November. I'm getting good carving results in morning icy conditions. Good powder float as well. I'm happy