Dynastar Cham 87s (2015 and later) womens skis

[everest8850]

Anyone demoed or have experience with the 152cm or shorter versions of this women's ski? The 2015 onwards model that had a tail rocker as well as a front rocker ( the 2013-2014 model ony had a front rocker). Especially with a view of using it as a light all-mountain ski with piste/BC mix in the 70/30 proportions. Thanks

 

[Tricia]

I skied it. It was a fun, easy ski to ski. But I only took it out for a few runs on a demo day.

 

[everest8850]

Thanks Tricia, can I ask if you skied the 152cm model? How heavy were you then, and what was the flex of the ski ( soft-med, med, med-stiff etc)?

 

[Tricia]

I didn't ski it in 152, IIRC I skied it in a 172, which is/was appropriate for my size.
I tend to ski something in the high 160's in length, but the Cham skis a little short.
I also recall that it kept s nice flex pattern as it went down in size because it didn't have a system binding plate on it.

 

[Philpug]

@everest8850 remember, these run really short. With the long extended tip profile, the 152cm skis more like a 145cm ski.

 

[cantunamunch]

@everest8850 remember, these run really short. With the long extended tip profile, the 152cm skis more like a 145cm ski.

I think he's still looking for something that is effectively a snowblade.

 

[everest8850]

hey guys - thanks for remembering my issues. Having second thoughts about a twin rockered, twin tip ski for a couple of reasons. Then I chanced upon reviews and specs of the Cham 87 ( 127-87-103). yes, short, medium flex ski at 152cm with a front rocker ( not sure how "big" it is) and a small pintail rockered tail; and a turn-y radius of 10m (!), not to mention 100-200grams lighter than the 141cm Head Ethan Too (yes - thats very "skiboard" like) I have been looking at.... It'd also have more float probably insofter stuff. WHo says smaller guys cant/shouldnt use womens' skis. Like i mentioned a few months ago - i;m learning to be a ski heretic in figuring out what might work with my disabilities..

 

[Analisa]

Hi! I skied the 2014 Cham 87w in a 152 both inbounds and bc. I bought them since I have some weird body geometry & muscle imbalances thanks to pretty severe scoliosis that caused some knee pain with other skis and thought the Chams would be easy to steer, but wide enough in the shovels to work off piste.

They were weird skis, but they worked really well for me for a while. They're stiff, but they're insanely easy to turn. The shovel at the tip of the ski is very pronounced, so they ski especially short.

I developed some weird technique on them, which made it a bit of a learning curve to transition to my next setup once I did some PT and figured out the right ski construction that worked for me, but I'm not sure if that was the ski design or the fact that I had gotten strong enough for something longer but didn't realize it and kept skiing them for longer than I needed to.

They're pretty light. I don't have the stats on hand, but the Cham 2.0 in 159 is 6.5lbs, so I'd ballpark ~6.3 maybe?

Happy to answer any other question about them!

 

[everest8850]

Thanks for sharing! Much appreciated....I think yours were the dark pink ones(?) with a flat tail, The 2015-17 models ( white with pink and purple lines) had a slight rise to the tail and that changed the handling a bit apparently. Odd how a "stiff" ski can be so turn-y; esp when the dimensions are similar to large radius type BC skis. Must be the large "fat" shovel and short base and the pronounced front rocker. Both my calves dont function and my right leg, in addition, as "foot drop" - so, my fore-aft control is sucky. I find it hard to turn skis ( I was mostly on a 1400gram, 161cm Salomon Q90 last season) and to get my weight forward. Hence the quest for a mid-fat, shorter (read: turn-y) ski. I'm 5'8" and about 155lbs - so i could fit on womens skis. Most mens skis dont go below 160cm in length. How did it to in the backcountry ( both uphill and downhill)?

At 6.1 lbs or 1380grams per ski, that isnt heavy but it isnt light either for a 152cm ski! I have a 163cm Fischer Transalp 88 (admittedly a dedicated BC ski that's 1100grams), No matter, since I'll be on front side 80% of the time.....

 

[everest8850]

Hi! I skied the 2014 Cham 87w in a 152 both inbounds and bc.

They were weird skis, but they worked really well for me for a while. They're stiff, but they're insanely easy to turn. .....[snip]
They're pretty light. I don't have the stats on hand, but the Cham 2.0 in 159 is 6.5lbs, so I'd ballpark ~6.3 maybe?

Happy to answer any other question about them!

Hey - thanks for posting a reply. It's a bit strange since the Gear Institute's long review described them as "softer"skis; and one LevelNine ski tech mentioned they are of similar stiffenss to the Rossignol Smash 7 ( which I'm also looking at - and thats a more common ski that has several reviews as a 'buttery'/softer flex ski). , so I guess this is a subjective area - also maybe because if you are a lighter skier, you might get a different sensation? Im 5'8" and 155lbs.....

 

[everest8850]

@everest8850 remember, these run really short. With the long extended tip profile, the 152cm skis more like a 145cm ski.

Thanks Phil. I struggled with a fairly flexible Solly q90 this year at 161cm, worse with a stiff but light Fischer Transalp 163cm touring ski , so I’m going the take it a big chunk down lengthwise.... I liked the feel of the 78-80 cm wide Solly XT enduro 800 (155cm) I tried a few years back... so still experimenting with lengths, and widths and flex .... Not looking for speed and don’t need much float presently, just a playful, easy to turn ski on the typical softer groomers you get in Japan , and some side country . The Cham 87 might be the trick for a not too heavy guy like me at 155lbs

 

[Analisa]

As for stiff vs. playfully flexy, they sit on the stiffer side of the spectrum (compared to something like an Armada ARW or Trace), but soft enough to sit with the rest of the 80-something, intermediate-friendly and accessible to beginners lineup.

I haven't skied the Smash 7, but I've demoed the Sky7 W, which is supposed to be a little stiffer, and in my opinion, they were softer than the Chams. They're both easy to ski, but the Chams were stiffer with a shorter turn radius vs. a longer radius and softer flex on the Smash.

 

[everest8850]

Thanks Analisa - I've bitten the bullet and have gone with the Dynastars. Level Nine Sports had one on sale for $299 They were much harder to find at a reasonable price in the 152cm length than the more commercailly available Smash. I hope I dont regret NOT having taken the Smash 7s instead.....hahaha. One more thing ( and please PM me if you think it more appropriate to do PMs) what was/is your weight and skiing style? - im trying to connect the dots here on your user experience and realise that personal size/height/style/weight counts for a bit as well in terms of the subjective ski experience. Thanks for all your help.

 

[everest8850]

I finally tested the 152cm Dynastars in Hokkaido on several insanely good powder days, both on groomers and some side country and they ski sweet! Didnt regret making a decision to try womens skis in this instance. Skiing better than I have ever done since making a comeback to skiing some years back. The skis were cruisy and did ok in boot top powder too. Thanks Tricia and Analisa for your first person inputs as well as all the other helpful comments... Here's a one and half minute video of my trip -