faction la machine mini (99) first look

[@robclark46036]

Hi, do you have thoughts on the Dynafit Free 97 vs the la machine? Cheers, love the channel, hyped for winter 24/25 may pow jesus smile upon you

[@thicccboyztv]

@@robclark46036 thx bud, the free is a beefier ski. Itll be stiffer and damper but not extreme. The free was based on the beast which was designed by a 4frnt designer if memory serves so it's definitely designed to be a skiers ski first, and uphill secondary. The machine mini is more of an in between- little lighter, little lower speed limit. I've not skied the free but based on what I know from folks that ski it and the fact that it's heavier is that it will be damper and stiffer (I have hand flexed it). Neither will be particularly demanding but dynafits have generally hooky noses that require a little more attention in funky snow compared to the machines which have a straighter shovel. The free design though has probably the least hooky shovel of a dynafit, however, and isn't extreme.

[@pprokop1982]

Im 5’11 (181cm) and 200lbs/ 92kg. Which size should I get? The 177 or 183? Thank you in advance. I’m rather a conservative skier not a speed deamon.

[@thicccboyztv]

Depends on usage. For using light 2 buckle under 1300 g skis or emphasizing agility and easy to turn then 177 would be fine. Or to have a higher speed limit or use with bigger boots then i would go with the 183cm. Overall its a pretty easy going ski and you wouldnt have a problem with either, just depends if you prefer speed or agility, and id also say go 183 if you intend on using more in soft snow given your weight. The floatation of the 177 will obviously be less. And keep in mind the 177 measure about 175 and the 183 measure about 181. No wrong choices.

[@pprokop1982]

@@thicccboyztv I'd be skiing in Radical Pro boots, that's more of a beef boot I guess. Condition mixed 70% back country variable snow 30% inbounds skinning up in the morning

[@ColoradoGooner]

Intermediate/advanced skier in southern colorado - first touring ski curious your stats and what size you’d recommend for me. 5ft 8 160 (171 or 177) it be my only backcountry ski. Thank you!

[@thicccboyztv]

171 unless you are powerful, or want more stability at speed. Neither would be demanding but 171 would be more friendly on the up and skintrack. You could handle the bigger size though, just not necessary for how most people ski in the backcountry. And most beginners in the backcountry want a livable ski for the uptrack before they start prioritizing the down. Also depends on boots. Light boot 171, middle to heavy boot 177

[@marynowany20]

Hi, any initial thoughts on the new Dynafit Ridge 95 and Tigard 97? Both have lots of rocker and similar turn radius to the Mini

[@thicccboyztv]

@@marynowany20 I have not skied either. Based off my experience with dynafit in the past and reviews that I've seen. I suspect both to be stiffer and less easy going. Of the two that Tigard is going to be the higher performer as far as free touring is concerned, but I've heard the ridge is good. It's just more of a general do everything ski instead of a heavier free touring type. Although they might have the same stated radii, dynafits tend to have more pronounced distinct shovels that I've found to have a hooky sensation in variable snow. I found the machines nose profile to do significantly better those types of conditions. So in other words the machine is going to be not as stiff, better in variable conditions, and less demanding overall, and because of that will not have as high of a speed limit in good snow.

[@marynowany20]

@@thicccboyztv any chance on video on your experiences lighter/narrower rockered skis? I'm planning on buying something like this for the season, currently leaning towards the Mini, but it would be nice to hear some thoughts on the topic in general, as this is quite a niche :D

[@thicccboyztv]

@@marynowany20 The only other ski I have experience with in this realm is heritage Labs bc90. I typically don't find a use case personally for narrow rockered skis. For true all snow type skiing having a little extra width is just a nicer platform and helps to smooth out the irregularities of funky snow. Also more supportive to land on. I only wanted to make a video on the machine because it surprised me. I would place the BC90 in the same category but I felt like it's width was even more prohibitive. Essentially if I'm already near 100 mm I might as well just go 110 and be able to have fun more conditions.

[@danielgrazioli1601]

hi! nice vids - ever tried the zero g 95? how do they compare to la machine in your opinion? thx

[@thicccboyztv]

@@danielgrazioli1601 The zero g95 feels more hooky and less playful. It's not a "fun" Ski. However, it is lighter and stiffer by memory. So if you want your ski to be more demanding but reward you for solid technique and saving you a few grams then it's the way to go. The faction is definitely a nicer ski to have in variable conditions and is not going to punish you like the zero will. Although the zeros have apparently gotten easier over time.

[@danielgrazioli1601]

@@thicccboyztv thank you! very kind of you 🙏

[@karolkucharski6801]

0:39 I think the weight 1450 is for 183cm. 177 is 1390 grams.

[@thicccboyztv]

Perhaps company stated. Real world skimo.co measured 1455 in 177 and 1490 for 183, in the mini. Generally due to natural variation skis will vary within 50g tolerance for good production processes, and I've measured some that have close to 100g disparity between two of the same skis for factories with less tolerances.

[@tjb8841]

Did you get any more days on this? Or maybe you just ditched it when the Heritage labs models became available in similar widths?

[@thicccboyztv]

Yeah I've been trying other things. Still liked those skis tho!

[@tjb8841]

@@thicccboyztv Were you able to get them out on any firm snow? Do you find them confidence inspiring for both skinning and skiing on hard, frozen snow? I’m considering these for my wife. For her spring, purely ski touring ski (no lift served). Looking for something easier to pivot in trees in slush or powder than what she has now. But, still need to handle ice as well. We ski slow, so speed doesn’t matter, just control, ease and predictability.

[@thicccboyztv]

@@tjb8841 it depends on what you mean by confidence inspiring. They are incredibly predictable, so very confident in that regard. But they are still light so I would not say that they are confidence inspiring in regards to trying to ski fast in those types of conditions. But for typical Backcountry skiing where people are just trying to negotiate such conditions then they are excellent. Skinning is no problem with them

[@tjb8841]

@@thicccboyztv thanks, yes, totally willing to slow down in tougher snow conditions.

[@tjb8841]

“If you downsize a ski for soft snow, we can not be friends” 😂 Problem is, most people of slightly more weight or height are using 185-190cm skis for soft snow, and this only goes up to 183cm…

[@thicccboyztv]

True, but why on earth would u ski a 99 for soft snow! The mega (109) goes up to 190, and the new massive (117) goes up to 191 and the max (126) comes in 192.

[@tjb8841]

@@thicccboyztv I suppose that depends on your definition of ‘soft snow’. For me, 183 just seems so short, for anything except true hardpack, and in that case, why would you need a 99 mm, heavily rockered ski. Where I thought this ski would shine is in that Allround spot. Maybe a few inches of powder, maybe corn. Like last March, I skied 5 days hut to hut in Italy. Full on spring conditions. Lots of frozen stuff in the mornings, corn or shallow left over powder when timed right, but 3 times we had no choice but to ski nasty deep mashed potatoes. I call that soft snow, but perhaps for you folks in the PNW that’s not what you think of with “soft snow”. I maybe missed it, but how tall and heavy are you?

[@thicccboyztv]

I'm 185cm 6'1 and 200lbs. In general for the reasons you described (end of day mank) I like a middle 100s (105-113) summer spring ski and also like rocker to deal with snow imperfections often found in those conditions, in true powder and open terrain I ski a 192cm 132mm. However I like loose and surfy feeling skis. In general I'm only downsizing and using skis like this when I'm doing very long self supported multi day and specifically using light boots (which is rare). In all other cases I'm hauling big long widish skis, even in summer. So for my normal skis , I would be on the 190 109 underfoot mega. The extra width and rocker helps with float on mank and overcooked corn and still skis fine on ice. In volcano season here I use a 191 volkl v werks katana in 112 and sometimes a 186 bmt 109. I'll take the increased mank performance over a carvy feel anyday.

[@tjb8841]

@@thicccboyztv aha, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining that. And yes, I also prefer to choose the ski to make the worst parts more bearable. The good snow is already fun!

[@tjb8841]

@@thicccboyztv good food for thought! That describes my skiing preferences to a T. Thanks, I will be reconsidering my quiver.

[@rokzadravec2246]

Hey what poles are you using? Good videos, keep it up 🤙

[@thicccboyztv]

Black crows furtis

[@paulandrews3984]

Been on the mtour 99?? I have been really enjoying it but wondering about others

[@thicccboyztv]

I personally have not I was deterred when my friend who is much lighter than me broke a pair in a few uses. Just conjecture based on Mass but I would assume that it would not track as well or pivot as well due to the fact that it is lighter and also has more visible sidecut. If a pair managed to fall in my lap though I would give them a try and I am interested in the mtour108 that is coming out this year

[@marynowany20]

Does this ski have some camber, or is it full rocker?

[@thicccboyztv]

It has a small amount of camber. The original was designed to not have camber but the actual production models have small camber