[pics] new dynastar twin

Either they put the bindings on backwards or those things are fucked up. The tips are shorter then the tails, and narrower. It looks re-god-damn-diculous

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

If hate were people, I'd be China.
 
its been a long time coming. good work dynastar.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~

Capital City Rider

Dragons Lair

I don't condone this.
 
I get the feeling on this site that people will like anything new no matter what it is. Personally I think these new releases whether it be the 'foil' and this ski look mediocre if not even lamer then past skis.

 
I forget the dimensions but I know they are slightly wider than the Scratch BC but narrower than the Pistols. They look pretty sweet. I'm guessing they are mounted they way they are becuase someone was trying them out switch in the powder.

I think rails in general are just a phase. - Anthony Boronowski

*NWFT*
 
^ doesnt look that fat, im gonna say around 80, and they do look like they are mounted backwards

______________________
yeah funkin right kid
shut the funk up
 
nooo they are not mounted backwards. they are mounted correctly. yet slightly forward mount. and the tail is wider than the nose by 3mm, and the waist is 89-91 mm, i cant remember exactly.

_________________________

just ski.
 
SWEET!!!

Minor Threat Trailer

Peter: When you go on a cruise you need to build up a base tan.

Chris: But I heard that in tanning booths you can get something called Melenoma

Peter: Don't worry son that's just fancy talk for sexified.

Member 957,647,789,468,952,001,657
 
okay we get it, everyone thinks they are mounted slightly forward, or backwards, u dont needa say it anymore. how bout we wait and see when they come out instead of guessing...and sweet skis by the way

 
^novotony...can you shed some light on the mounting question. Those do look forward of core center, for a fat ski I guess I don't see any advantage to that mounting point.

Smuggs kicks ass

Fat skis, Tight trees
 
with that mounting (and maybe the persepctive) they look quite fucked up

___________________________________________________

A view on the downfall of the US by 221: 'godzilla man. he's gonna show up and shit will hit the fan.'

ellermann -> i hope you realize you just threw yourselves a birthday party online. just think about that for a little while

Ryan V.G

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

Dragons Lair
 
Ok have any of you who say they suck actually ridden them? I rode them for most of last year and all summer, granted I hit no rails on them, and they where awsome. Just providing another point of view. And yes those looks sick.

 
Nice graphics, I think I would clip in with my heal in the toepiece. Fatter tails and forward mount seem unnecessary.

 
i like the old look

member#13687

'i just rented good will hunting , how is it?'

'lets put it this way, even matt damon cant make it suck.'

'matt damon? hes in con air right?'

'yes , yes he is.'
 
Can somebody who actually knows something about these skis answer this question...Are those mounted forward of core center?...and if they are, what's the advantages of that?

Enough of this, 'they look cool' 'they're gay' 'buy lines'...lets get some real info

Smuggs kicks ass

Fat skis, Tight trees
 
wow. those graphics are a big disapointment. anyway, they look awesome, even though they look just about unridable mounted like that.

.CCR.

impact
 
the mounting on those skis is gnarly. backwards..? ..super forward mount?

sick looking though.

------------------

Formerly known as jibEmpyre.

'skiboards look horrible on rails, they do however looking amazing over 15 foot tables.'

-mommy on snowlerbladlerering
 
I think the pic in freeskier is the other way around (which looks correct to me) I wouldn't want a ski with a fatter tail than tip.

The brake bending is really good those look like wide brakes on a p18.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top