-
Powder Journal
Share Stoke and Obs, Raise Money For Charity. - Write an Article
Everyone has a story, tell it here. - Add a Photo
It doesn't count unless you take a picture - Add a Video
If you get gnar with no video, did you really get gnar? - Add a Route
Help build the only interactive backcountry ski atlas - Add an Event
Let us know about any hoot-nannys and shin digs.
-
Powder Journal
2010 Dynafit Stoke Skis | Reviewed On: February 13, 2010
Gear Reviews>>Skis>>Fat>>Dynafit Stoke SkisBy powderjunky
THE GOOD
The Dynafit Greg Hill Stoke skis are everything you want in a touring ski. Its not super heavy, its not super light, it has a little bit of rocker to help with powder, but more importantly breakable crust. They have great edge hold, and a little bit of sidecut, but not too much to make edging in firm, bulging couloirs easy. The sweet spot is right on the balls of your feet. The Stokes are not soft but easy to control.
THE BAD
The Dynafit Stokes, compared to a lot of skis these days,may be too narrow for some, but the only real negative thing I can say is there is no way to attach the skis to your harness for crevasse travel.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
I tested the Dynafit Stoke skis on firm pack and they were very agile and stable. If a ski skis this well on crap, you know it will dominate in the soft stuff. If you are looking for a one quiver touring ski, this is it. Its got rocker, its not heavy, but not wimpy ass flimsy. Nothing Black Diamond is coming out with next year even compares to this. It was very easy to get into rhythm with this ski from the start. They are more agile and a little softer than the k2 coombacks and ski similar to the fischer wateas.
Best in Test
AVG USER ADVICE
Solid
| TESTING LOCATION | Winter Park, Co |
|---|---|
| TURN RADIUS | All types, short and quick and big and long |
| FUN FACTOR | Off the charts |
| LIGHTWEIGHT | 4/5 |
| CRUD | 5/5 |
| HARD PACK | 5/5 |
| POWDER | 5/5 , only can assume |
| BINDINGS | Dynafit | |
Gear Reviews>>Skis>>Fat>>Dynafit Stoke Skis
| AVG PRICE | $799.95 |
|---|---|
| LENGTHS | 164, 173, 182 |
| DIMENSIONS | 164(128-104-118) 1470g, 173(129-105-119)1550g, 182(130-106-120) 1645g |
| WEIGHT | (164)1470g, (173)1550g, (182) 1645g |
| MATERIALS | wood, bamboo, fiberglass, carbon |
| ROCKER | Yes |
 |
VERDI CTS | Solid | $630.00 |
|---|
That's Our Opinion. What's Yours?
Harvey wrote on 02/17/10 at 10:48:41 am pst:
Can't wait to get these skis!
n/a
Darryl McDaniels wrote on 03/01/10 at 4:33:19 pm pst:
Are these skis a good choice for urban jibbing? Rails, staircases, etc.
n/a
powderjunky wrote on 03/01/10 at 5:48:24 pm pst:
@Lee
I got to test these in some pretty crappy conditions. My judge of a good ski is if it handles well in the crap. In my experience, anything skis well in powder, give me two pieces of weather treated plywood and they will ski good in powder. Powder is easy, I want to know how a ski does in less than ideal conditions, and this ski does just that, it skis great in poor conditions. Please feel free to add something useful to the review, that is why we have comments here so anyone who has used these can tell us their opinion and contribute.
@Darryl,
I wish I knew, I am way to uncoordinated for urban jibbing. My guess is that if you want a jibbing ski, dynafit ain't it.
n/a
Jack wrote on 03/03/10 at 9:52:16 pm pst:
Thanks for review. Helped me a lot, and agree pow is easy.
n/a
Russell Simmons wrote on 03/07/10 at 07:04:08 am pst:
How do these skis handle ice? I ski a lot at Mt. Ararat, and as you probably know, the conditions there tend to be pretty skimpy as far as deep powder.
n/a
powderjunky wrote on 03/07/10 at 3:45:58 pm pst:
Russell,
I would say they handle pretty good, I don't ski ice very often, and as long as you keep the edges sharp you would probably be okay with these. But you might want to ask folks in your area what ski is best for the real icy conditions.
n/a
Rick Rubin wrote on 03/07/10 at 5:34:51 pm pst:
Which length of the Stoke did you try, and did you have a chance to weigh the skis? I'm curious whether the manufacturer's reported weight is accurate. I'm a pretty lightweight guy, and keeping my gear light is important to me for the uphills. Thanks - really like the review.
n/a
Thomas Bailly wrote on 03/19/10 at 8:57:31 pm pst:
There is no need "to attach skis to your harness" for glacier travel. just thread a loop of 3mm cord somewhere on your boot( buckle, tongue, whatever works) then clip a tele leash to the toepiece of your dynafit binding. If you fall in a crevasse, you can unclip your skis, they stay hanging to your boots and use foot prussik to ascend out.
A comparaison to Manaslu or FR!0's would be appropriate. Thanks.
n/a
Dumb Swede wrote on 03/26/10 at 9:11:29 pm pst:
I just bought this ski and I think it is pretty amazing. I have been looking for a lightweight set up that has more girth underfoot. I have seen negative comments about the sidecut (or lack there of) but I like a straight ski for touring. I found this ski a dream during the ascent (I have them paired with the Vertical FT12s). During descents I have had the chance to ski it in knee deep powder and it was a dream, good float. For a lightweight ski, it performed decent in a pretty serious sun crust. I had them in bounds and while this would never be my go to ski at a resort, I would have have no issue skiing this ski all day.
Solid
whatever wrote on 06/30/10 at 1:33:06 pm pst:
Thanks for the review. I skied the Haute Route Plus this year & was really impressed, but it's such a narrow ski that it's a bit exhausting in deep or thick snow. I'm thinking the Stoke might be the ticket.
I agree with T. Bailey. Just use leashes for glaciers.
Make something along the line weaker than your knees, though--you want it to break away in an avalanche. I clip the wire tele-leash to a breakable loop of thin accessory cord around the connection between tongue & boot shell.
Wild Snow has additional suggestions.
n/a
Stoke Review wrote on 12/10/10 at 6:03:49 pm pst:
Check out this review on Cleansnipe.com
