UKC

Hi!

Has anyone used the Dynafit Stoke ski? I'm considering getting a pair with Dynafit Vertical ST bindings. Mainly I'm looking for a ski; good for off piste, good for ski mountaineering/touring, OK on piste and fun in the trees. I do know that this is a lot to ask but I thought that it may be feasible... I've heard the Stokes piste performance is good, it just lacks on hard pistes because of the light weight (as you'd expect).

(Just in case anyone asks I am 5.10 and fluctuate between 72 and 75KG)

Thanks.

In reply to JonAA:

Ski will be fine: you need a much better binding>

In reply to top cat: Thanks for the reply. Could you explain why the bindings need to be much better?

In reply to JonAA:
The Stoke skis a little short cos of its early rise tip, so don't be afraid to go long. The 173 will make a nice mountaineering ski cos it will be light and easy to kick turn, but I'd be tempted to go for the 182 if you're not doing long, steep uphill days. I'd want something a bit more substantial for a general purpose ski that would spend a reasonable amount of time doing resort-based off-piste, rather than a mostly soft snow touring ski.

The bindings will be absolutely fine unless you're mostly using lifts.

In reply to JonAA: Can't comment on the ski but the Dynafit Radical bindings are significantly better than the Verticals. The heel raiser is much easier to use, the heel piece doesn't flick back to ski mode when you're skinning and the toe is easier to get on.

In reply to JonAA:

I would suggest that the Stokes are maybe not what you are looking for as an all-rounder. I was tempted myself, but after reading a lot of reviews it seems that they are pretty much a pure, lightweight (for the width) touring setup for soft snow. Sounds like they would be great if you tour in Canada/Utah (maybe you do?) but not a great all-rounder if you ski mostly in the Alps.

The light weight means they won't handle crud,cut up or variable snow very well and will lack the robustness required if you are using them to ski the lifts as well. Something around 95 mm underfoot would probably be a better bet.

K2 Hardside/BD Kilowatt (whatever the equivalent is these days, Revert I think,) Scott Crusair. I'm sure Movement and G3 all do good touring/all-round skis between 90-100mm. Check out Telemark Pyrenees, Facewest and Conrad Sport for bargains.

Dynafit skis tend to be more suited as a dedicated touring setup. Basically you need a bit more weight (i.e. skiability/robustness) if you want to do everything on them. I have the Vertical ST bindings as well, they're great.

In reply to mudmonkey5:

Oh, I also have the Radical STs as well. They are a bit more user-friendly but the jury seems to be out on robustness. I had to abort a ski tour at Col du Passon last winter and ski down 1400m with my boot lashed to the remains of the exploded heel piece with a sling.

Was replaced on warranty with no quibbles at all BTW. Strangely enough, I had been in a hut in the Vanoise a few months before and an old-timer guide was telling me he did not rate the design in terms of robustness.

In reply to mudmonkey5:
The Radicals have had quite a few issues (brittle raisers snapping, two different anti-twist mechanisms causing breakage of the heel unit, heel unit top plate exploding... any I missed?) but they are now in their 3rd or 4th revision so I'd expect the failure rate to be right down.

I was an early adopter of the Radical ST and had zero mechanical failures. YMMV. I use binding inserts and carry a spare heel though, just in case, but that's not necessarily practical for everyone...

In reply to JonAA:

I'm about 6 foot, and 70kg, and had the 173 Stokes with the Radical in BC last season, primarily as a backcountry setup.

I found them quite hard to drive, especially in firmer snow and found myself riding in the backseat a lot in anything soft. The friend I bought them off had a similar experience.

Some of that will be my skiing numptiness (last season was the first time in quite a while I've skied much) but I think the setup contributed as well.