2019-2020 Dynastar Mythic 97

Brian Lindahl reviews the Dynastar Mythic 97 for Blister Review
Ski: 2019-2020 Dynastar Mythic 97, 184 cm

Available Lengths: 171, 177, 184 cm

Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 182.8 cm

Stated Weight per Ski (177 cm): 1450 grams

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski (184 cm): 1512 & 1523 grams

Stated Dimensions: 133-97-113 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 133.5-96.5-111 mm

Stated Sidecut Radius: 17 meters

Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 85.5 mm / 10 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~4.5 mm

Core: Paulownia + Carbon Fiber Laminate

Base: Sintered

Factory Recommended Mount Point: -11.1 cm from center; 80.3 cm from tail

Test Locations: Arapahoe Basin & Colorado Backcountry

Days Skied: 11

[Note: Our review was conducted on the 17/18 Mythic 97, which was not changed for 18/19 or 19/20, apart from graphics.]


Dynastar calls the Mythic 97 a “high-performance free-touring ski for committed backcountry skiers.”

It seems like more and more ski manufacturer are putting forward their version of a “high-performance free-touring ski,” but the actual on-snow performance of such skis can vary quite a bit.

So where, exactly, does the Mythic 97 fall in this growing category?

Shape & Rocker Profile

The shape of the Mythic 97, inherited from the outgoing Cham series, is pretty dramatic — despite Dynastar calling the rocker profile “moderate.” The Mythic 97 features a large amount of tip splay (2.0 – 2.5 cm more than we typically see on a ski of this width), a fairly deep rocker line, a significant amount of traditional camber underfoot, a very subtle amount of tail rocker, and heavily tapered tips and tails.

Compared to similar skis in this width (e.g., the Black Crows Camox Freebird, Salomon Mtn Explore 95, Blizzard Zero G 95), the Mythic 97 has a lot of tip rocker and splay, and it’s heavily rockered tips represent a significant contrast to the ski’s very subtly rockered tails. This is an interesting combination, and is the reason for a few of my questions further down.


For many skiers, Dynastar might be best known for making some rather iconic heavy and stout skis (e.g., the Legend Pro Rider series.) But the Mythic 97 certainly swings the other way.

Of course, this isn’t Dynastar’s first touring ski — the Mythic 97 shares a very similar shape with the now-discontinued Cham High Mountain 97, though, at a little over 1500 grams, the Mythic 97 is significantly lighter than the Cham High Mountain 97 (stated weight of 1800 g).

So yes, Dynastar is right to highlight the “ultra-lightweight construction” of the Mythic 97, and to note that the Mythic 97 was built for “long ascents.”

Compared to the rest of the “free-touring” ski market, the Mythic 97 is on the lower end of the weight spectrum. Here’s how the Mythic 97 compares weight-wise to a few other notable skis in this category:

185 cm Blizzard Zero G 95: 1353 & 1376 g
184 cm Dynastar Mythic 97: 1512 & 1523 grams
184 cm Salomon Mtn Explore 95: 1507 & 1595 g
184 cm G3 FINDr 102: 1560 g per ski (stated weight)
178 cm Black Crows Camox Freebird: 1661 & 1664 g
186 cm Line Sick Day Tourist 102: 1720 & 1747 g

But while it’s light, the Mythic 97 isn’t some super lightweight noodle — its flex pattern is quite stout…

Flex Pattern

Handflexing the ski, I’d sum up the flex pattern like this:

Tip: 6
Front Half of Shovel: 7
Back half of Shovel / Front of Toe Piece: 8-9
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel Piece: 9
Tails: 9-8

The primary thing to note is that the shovels of the Mythic 97 are much softer than the rest of the ski. The flex through the tail is quite stout, and really only eases up in the last ~10 cm of the ski.

The flex from the tip through the shovel moves through a large range of stiffness. While some skis are only significantly softer at the very tip, the Mythic 97 get progressively softer from the middle of the ski through the entire shovel.

Primary Questions

The Mythic 97’s shape raises a few questions:

  1. The ski’s large amount of tip rocker / splay means that it should float well, but when paired with the softer flex in the shovel, we’re curious to see how the tip / shovels will perform when transitioning in and out of different depths and densities of powder?
  2. The subtle tail rocker, stiffness, and traditional camber underfoot seem to point to a ski that will have a strong preference for carving rather than slarving and sliding / feathering turns. So we’ll be interested to see how that plays on snow?
  3. How will the heavily tapered tips and tails affect the Mythic 97’s performance in chopped-up snow? And when carving on firm snow?

And when it comes to the weight of the Mythic 97:

  1. How well does the stiffer flex pattern work with its relatively low weight?
  2. Dynastar claims that the Mythic 97 is a “high-performance free-touring ski,” but how does its stability compare to other touring skis, particularly those with a bit more mass?

Bottom Line (For Now)

The Dynastar Mythic 97 is a lightweight, sub-100mm-wide ski with a ton of tip splay, seemingly making it a very interesting option for those who want to tour on a narrower ski even in deeper snow. But how then will this ski perform in firmer conditions? We’ve already started getting some initial time on the ski, so stay tuned for our Flash Review and full review.

NEXT: On-Snow Update

10 comments on “2019-2020 Dynastar Mythic 97”

  1. I’ve been on the Mythic for the last season and have been pleased with it. Every ski is a compromise and the Mythic allows you to tour a moderately wide ski without the weight of a freeride world tour ski. Also it’s pretty good on hard snow too, but it will never be a GS weapon.

    In new or old untouched snow the ski is simply a blast as the massive shovel gives me the same feeling as my volkl twos but with more bounce. In Iceland in 12″ of untouched pow I could follow the guide’s euro wiggle, or could let the skis run at 3x the speed and pop me out of the snow between every turn.

    On piste the ski carves well, as expected given its short radius. Just lay it over and round it goes. As the speed increases to fast, on hard surfaces the massive tip can start to bounce, or the skis will chatter if you jam on an edge. Generally though it’s not a problem if you keep smooth.

    On moguls and chop I really like the ski as the flex, radius and big tip work together to smoothly lift over things, rather than spearing into lumps. This probably saved me in fog at Davos when i failed to realize that the smooth red run back to the village turns into a fully bumped up black. After a few brown trouser moments I let the skis run and got down a bit faster than prudent.

    Only downside to the skis is that the topsheet is thin, and after 3 days of skiing with my kids they look like 5 year old skis.

  2. Mythic 97 is a very good touring ski. Light enough, good float, poppy in corn, not a total noodle. I’d agree it prefers to be carved on 2D snow rather than being slid around.

    The only place I didn’t like them was crusty or punchy, difficult snow. No ski is perfect here, but some are better than others. I personally found them catchier than some other comparable skis (BMT 94, Zero G 95) with all of the sidecut in this type of snow.

  3. Hi,

    If I plan to ski European backcountry (human powered), in spots like Chamonix, Zermatt and La Grave . Why should I get the Mythic 97 instead of the Wailler 112 Tour 1. They weigh about the same, have similar turning radii, but the Wailler gives me a lot more width underfoot. Is the Wailler tour 1 that bad on firm snow, that it is worth sacrificing ~15mm underfoot? I acknowledge that there is not a lot of Utah powder in Europe but last season gave me hope and u felt like my 98mm skis were too skimpy.

    My compromise idea is to go for the Wailler 99 A, but that feels like a heavy ski for the width.

    • Hi Rob,

      Disclaimer: I haven’t skied the Wailer 112 Tour 1. The Mythic 97 does just fine powder – it’s got pretty massive shovels. For Europe, I’d lean towards a more substantial ski than something in the Tour 1 construction. I personally wouldn’t make the Wailer 112 Tour 1 my only touring ski, but it probably be great in a 2-ski touring quiver.

  4. What length would you recommend in these?
    I ski the soul 7 in 180 and find that the perfect length. I thought the 188 was definitely too long for me. I liked the old Cham but felt it ski’d a little short at speed and was in between sizes on that one too. I’m 5’11” 160lbs.

    I appreciated the comparisons to the freebird. I’m looking at one of these two skis for my crud / ice day ski. Already have the Backland 107 for powder days – that tail hook! :( The better length options on the freebirds may tip the scales.

  5. What is the difference between the Mythic 97 and the Legend 96? I have the latter, which I use as my patrol ski, but am looking for a touring setup to replace my old tele gear.

  6. I am deciding between the Line Vission 98 at 171 cm and this Dynastar Mythic 97 or the Head Kore (all in similar sizes and an under boot measurement of 98-105. Which would you choose? I really want a light ski that I can also do huge GS/SG turns on groomed and still have moderate speed fun in powder. We usually take two trips out west (pre-covid and I am getting ready for next year’s season). Thank you.

  7. Hi, a friend of mine just lost one of his Mythic 97 on a skitour. He utterly loved these skis, and of course, Dynastar is not making them anymore and the M-Tour looks quite different. He’s lightweight but very fit and with a “poppy” skiing style, currently preparing the mountain guide training course (up to 3000m ascent days…) and well, he really enjoyed his Mythics and it was his one-quiver ski so inbounds too. He would mount Tectons on them again and skis with Maestrale RS.
    I never got along with his skis, so I’m in trouble recommending him anything. What skis would you recommend for him?
    Thanks, Dietmar

Leave a Comment