Dynastar has a lot of great new skis to review--the 108 is definitely on the list! In our experience on it this winter, we found it to be smoother and quieter than the previous version, but not quite as peppy or energetic.
This is a review I've been really looking forward to. Haven't watched it yet, but I have a feeling this may be my next pair of skis. Thanks in advance for a great review (I'm confident it will be awesome).
Where do you think these new 102 and 108 ripsticks really differ from the playmakers? Obviously directionality but any other main performance differences?
The tail reactivity is the biggest difference. I skied the Playmaker 101 in the 188 and it felt a lot more like a Rustler 10 in that they loved making longer, rounder, and more drawn out carves while easily pivoting sideways. Ripstick 102 and 108 are easy to drift and smear when the snow is soft, but you do get that extra snap and pop out of the tail that creates a more energetic feel. Other than that, I can't tell much of a difference in the front 2/3rds of the Ripstick 102 vs. the Playmaker 101.
Thanks for this review - answered nearly every question I have. Digging the ski, a little perplexed on sizing. 175 to 182 skips over every length I’ve owned recently. 180 was my sweet spot snd coming from a 177 ranger fr 102 and planning to use this in tight spaces - trees/chutes in BC. You state that the ripstick skis short - Would 182 be the move?
I do like when you say reactive because I can relate to that.. You mentioned the Mantra 102 and I demoed that.. It was a long day and I had demoed another pair of skis before the Mantra 102 but I did not really push the ski.. It sounds like both skis aren't reactive.. How would you say the Ripstick 102 compares to the Bent Chetler 100?
The 2025 Bent 100 is more consistent in flex from tip to tail and slightly more stable and sturdy than the Ripstick 102. Even with the more directional tail of the Ripstick, I do not find that it stands up to stronger or more aggressive skiing as well as the Atomic.
How woudl you choose size for these ? Being around 180lbs i tend to ski 10 c longer than my heihgt for directional skis, but for that kind of skis what would you recommend ?
This is a good thought. We did not move the bindings at all on this ski. I'm not sure how that would affect heavier skiers like me since I'm likely going to push right through the flex no matter what.
Wouldn't making the RipStik line lighter, softer and thinner make it more of an overlap with their Rupstick tour ski? I owned a RipStik 88. Pretty soft ski already imo....am I missing something?
You are not missing anything. We do not feel that the new Ripstick skis are moves towards higher performance and greater stability. They are easier to turn at various edge angles for more skiers. The lighter weight does bring the touring capabilities more in line with the Tour series which has not sold well at all in the North American market at least.
Hopefully we do a good enough job with the chapters so you can scroll to the parts that are of more interest to you. Since this is a full review of the ski, we certainly want to make sure we do our due diligence and cover as much as we can. When we release our ski test videos sometime this August, those will be more concise and pointed--about 5-6 minutes each.
Just needed to stop by and say I love the longer form videos 30 minutes is perfect
Another quality review by the crew @SkiEssentials. Loving the breadth and technical deep dive provided by Jeff and Bob. 👍👏❤
Thank you guys for the review! It’s great as usual! 👍🏻
Are you going to review updated the M-Free 108 with HC 2.0?
Dynastar has a lot of great new skis to review--the 108 is definitely on the list! In our experience on it this winter, we found it to be smoother and quieter than the previous version, but not quite as peppy or energetic.
This is a review I've been really looking forward to. Haven't watched it yet, but I have a feeling this may be my next pair of skis. Thanks in advance for a great review (I'm confident it will be awesome).
Hope you enjoy it!
Where do you think these new 102 and 108 ripsticks really differ from the playmakers? Obviously directionality but any other main performance differences?
The tail reactivity is the biggest difference. I skied the Playmaker 101 in the 188 and it felt a lot more like a Rustler 10 in that they loved making longer, rounder, and more drawn out carves while easily pivoting sideways. Ripstick 102 and 108 are easy to drift and smear when the snow is soft, but you do get that extra snap and pop out of the tail that creates a more energetic feel. Other than that, I can't tell much of a difference in the front 2/3rds of the Ripstick 102 vs. the Playmaker 101.
Would love to see you guys do a full review of the new Ripstick 88!! Cheers
We'll work our way through the new Ripsticks for sure! Already done with 102, 96, and 96 Black Edition. 88, 102 Black Edition, and 108 left to go!
@@SkiEssentials the most extensive Ripstick coverage on the planet! Lol
Thanks for this review - answered nearly every question I have. Digging the ski, a little perplexed on sizing. 175 to 182 skips over every length I’ve owned recently. 180 was my sweet spot snd coming from a 177 ranger fr 102 and planning to use this in tight spaces - trees/chutes in BC. You state that the ripstick skis short - Would 182 be the move?
I believe so. They still ski a bit short even if they now measure true. The light weight and flexible nature contribute to this character.
I do like when you say reactive because I can relate to that.. You mentioned the Mantra 102 and I demoed that.. It was a long day and I had demoed another pair of skis before the Mantra 102 but I did not really push the ski.. It sounds like both skis aren't reactive.. How would you say the Ripstick 102 compares to the Bent Chetler 100?
The 2025 Bent 100 is more consistent in flex from tip to tail and slightly more stable and sturdy than the Ripstick 102. Even with the more directional tail of the Ripstick, I do not find that it stands up to stronger or more aggressive skiing as well as the Atomic.
How woudl you choose size for these ? Being around 180lbs i tend to ski 10 c longer than my heihgt for directional skis, but for that kind of skis what would you recommend ?
I think going slightly higher than head high makes sense in these new 102's. They don't ski long, that's for sure.
If you want to ski these with more tip would mounting -1 or even -2 help 🤔 did you play with the demo bindings mount point?
This is a good thought. We did not move the bindings at all on this ski. I'm not sure how that would affect heavier skiers like me since I'm likely going to push right through the flex no matter what.
Wouldn't making the RipStik line lighter, softer and thinner make it more of an overlap with their Rupstick tour ski? I owned a RipStik 88. Pretty soft ski already imo....am I missing something?
You are not missing anything. We do not feel that the new Ripstick skis are moves towards higher performance and greater stability. They are easier to turn at various edge angles for more skiers. The lighter weight does bring the touring capabilities more in line with the Tour series which has not sold well at all in the North American market at least.
Like the ski review videos and like the hosts, but those Ripstick 102's look like water skis. Make sking great again--bring back skinny skis!
Yeah good for ice skiing
That’s what an elan primetime is for
If you put a pair of 102's together, they are as wide as a snowboard. But if they make users happy, more power to them. @@powderskier5547
Guys, love your reviews, but PLEASE TIGHTEN IT UP and try to keep each one to 15, 20 minutes TOPS! 30 minutes plus is brutal.
Skip to what you’re interested in
Hopefully we do a good enough job with the chapters so you can scroll to the parts that are of more interest to you. Since this is a full review of the ski, we certainly want to make sure we do our due diligence and cover as much as we can. When we release our ski test videos sometime this August, those will be more concise and pointed--about 5-6 minutes each.