2016-2017 Dynastar Powertrack 89


(Click on images to enlarge.)

Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
2014-2015 Dynastar Powertrack 89, 186cm



Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
Dynastar Powertrack 89



Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
Dynastar Powertrack 89 – Tip Profile



Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
Dynastar Powertrack 89 – Tail Profile



Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
Dynastar Powertrack 89 – Topsheets



Review of the Dynastar Powertrack 89, Blister Gear Review
Dynastar Powertrack 89 – Bases


36 comments on “2016-2017 Dynastar Powertrack 89”

  1. Hello,
    Looks very interesting for what I am looking for!
    Could you tell me what kind of ski design will perform best off-piste when snow is still soft but without pow, like when it has not snowed for several days and every inch of the mountain has already been skied?

    I feel stiff tail (like what I have on my old salomon xwing fury) is not a good thing but I still want a supportive tail. Any advice?

    Thanks for all your reviews!

  2. You sound like a good candidate for the Bonafide or Bushwacker. The Blizzard flipcore has a wee bit of rise for a medium amount of splay, the tail is there when you need it, but releases almost before you tell them to.

    I have a pair of Bones that love to drag tails in berms, sides of cat tracks, and bumps, they are a bit demanding until you move the boot center forward 1cm or less, then they are a playful stable ride unmatched on the market IMO.

    These Powertracks look very similar and I’m hoping to get a pair of the 89s this fall.

  3. I demoed this ski last week. Out of the 9 pairs I tried, I felt the powertrack 89 skied the best. It had snowed two feet over the previous week so there was a lot of fresh powder on the trails. Given the width of the ski it was surprising how well it handled in the fresh snow.

  4. I found some Powertrack 84 for sale for $500.

    This would have to be the best value on a new ski, the savings account approaches critical mass to seize those 84s before Backcountry comes to their senses.

  5. You mention in your post:

    “For me personally, if this was going to be part of a 2-ski or 3-ski quiver, I would probably opt to have a sub-90mm ski be more of a dedicated firm-snow ski…”

    Do you have any first-hand experience or initial impressions of a ski like the Head Titan? Presumably it’s far more of a groomer-oriented and firm snow ski than this one, and in turn more stable at speeds. Do you suppose the Titan would have the same snappiness in and out of turns that the Dynastar has?

    • Hi, Aaron – I don’t have 1st hand experience with the Titan. But the tips and tails of that ski are basically the opposite of the Powertrack 89, and I’m willing to bet a whole lot of beer that the Titan doesn’t have nearly as much tip rocker as the Powertrack. As for “snappiness,” I can’t comment, because I’d have to be able to compare the flex patterns of the two skis.

      My understanding is that the Titan is a pretty stout ski, and if you wanted to build a ski that optimizes carving performance, you would give it a shape that is pretty similar to the Titan. You would not heavily taper the tip and tail, like the Powertrack 89’s – Dynastar’s aim was to design a true 1 ski quiver to handle everything. Versatility / all-around performance in firm and soft snow was the goal. Anyway, sorry that I can’t answer your question more specifically.

  6. Thanks for the (as usual) insightful review. A couple of questions–first, the measured dimensions differ quite a bit from the stated dimensions, is this some indication of quality control issues, changes made to design mid-run, something else? Also the weight difference ski to ski does seem to be noticeable, again, should we suspect some quality control issues? Second, sometimes you read something and think you understand it, and suddenly you realize you do not! What is this “huge sweet spot” that is mentioned here (and in other reviews)? I now know I THOUGHT I knew what this meant, but do not! Does it refer to the wide range of pressures, angulations and weightings you can give this ski while still having it perform optimally, or does it refer to the range of conditions and terrains that the ski is appropriate for, some combination of the two, or something else? As always, thanks!

    • Thanks, Eric. I definitely wouldn’t call the differing stats an issue of quality control. I should have said this in the review, but the Powertrack 89 looks and feels like a really well built, solidly built ski.

      As for the weight differences, etc, it’s a good question and a big topic, so I’ve decided to move it to our ‘Topic of the Week’ column and respond at greater length there. (You can find that series under the “Features” section on the nav bar.)

      As for “sweet spot” – it means that the ski is not sensitive / overly sensitive to body position and balance. So if you get back on your heels, the ski still offers a forgiving and supportive ride rather than punishes you for being out of position. Other skis will punish you if / when you really get on the shovels – the tails tend to wash out. But a ski with a big sweet spot will let you ride it forward, centered, or from a bit of a heel-weighted position. In short, big sweet spots make skiing really easy. Skis without big sweet spots can be super fun, too – but for different performance reasons: e.g., either they are too stiff to tolerate backseat skiing (but they come with very high speed limits) or they are too soft to allow you to drive the shovels (though they are super easy to trick and spin.)

  7. I had been skiing on 186 Dynastar 66 skicross since 01 and loved them but was looking to get into something a little shorter with the newer technology. Last season I picked up the Rossi Experience 88 mostly due to all of the rave reviews but wasn’t loving them, except in the deeper snow. Not sure if it was just too different/wider than what I was used to or just the way I like to ski but the Rossi’s were not as quick turning edge to edge as I was hoping. I grew up east coast skiing with a tight parallel form and like to bounce between lots of quick turns to wide sweeping carves and then maybe in and out of the trees. I know I need to change up the tight style a bit with the wider underfoot but the Powertrack seems like it may be a better fit. Would you agree? If so, I hover around 205lbs, could I get away with something less than 180? Also looking at the Blizzard Brahma. Thanks!

    • Hi, Derek – as I write in my review, I would not down size this ski. I think there is no particularly good reason to – these skis are quick.

      So at your weight, I think you should be looking at the 186 Powertrack, but I suspect that you might prefer the 180 Blizzard Brahma over the 187. But I’m not sure that I can make more specific recommendations with confidence. Would be great if you could demo the Powertrack and the Brahma, and I’d be interested to hear which you preferred.


    Bring back the Legends!! The last series 105s were dialed like no other.

    I don’t want to ski a Cham (pun intended).

  9. Jonathan,
    I’m looking for new skis. I currently ski Rossi S3s as my everyday ski. I’m an expert with a race background. I use the S3’s to ski lots of zipperline bumps and trees in VT and all over out west, with the exception of really deep pow. They’re decent on these surfaces and can even carve ok. I recently read the reviews for the Atomic Theory and Dynastar Powertrack 89. How would these skis compare to the S3? Do you think one would be better for me in the bumps and trees, and generally out west than the S3 I’m currently on? Is there something else that comes to mind you think might work? Possibly one of the K2 shreditors? Thanks!

    • Hi, David – I’m hopefully going to be getting a bit of time on the Theory next week, but haven’t yet. But for a directional skier, I can pretty easily imagine that you would like what the Powertrack 89 has to offer over and against the S3. I.e., the S3 will clearly feel a bit surfier and looser than the Powertrack 89, but the 89 can be driven harder than the S3, and finishes turns more cleanly and more powerfully than the S3 — the S3 is easy to bend and fun to carve, but as I recall (it’s been a while since I’ve been on it) I needed to stay more centered on the ski, while I can ski the Powertrack centered or really drive the shovels.

      As for bumps and trees: the Powertrack is substantial and quick, and has more tip rocker than the Theory. I can’t imagine that you’d really dislike either ski in bumps and trees … and I really shouldn’t speculate beyond that. (Except that I am tempted to say that I don’t really believe that you’d prefer the Theory to the Powertrack … but again … haven’t skied the Theory yet.)

  10. How would you compare the top end of the powertrack 89 to the kendo? Sounds like the powertrack might be a little more nimble but how do they differ at speed?

    • Hmmm, good question. I haven’t been on the Kendo in a while, but given its design, I’m inclined to think that it would have the higher top – it doesn’t have a heavily tapered tip, and I highly doubt it has as much tip rocker as the Powertrack 89. On smooth, clean groomers, the difference would not be very pronounced, but as those groomers get roughed up, I suspect that the Kendo would hold together better. As for off-piste soft chop or firm crud, I think the issue is less about which ski has the higher top end, and more about skiing style: when skied centered and dynamically, I was pretty impressed by how hard I could push the Powertrack 89s. The Kendo would probably better tolerate a more forward, driving stance in those off-piste conditions. Finally, I think you’re right to assume that the Powertrack will feel a bit quicker.

  11. Jonathan,

    Thanks for all the detail in your answer. Can you comment on the metal laminate in the powertrack. I’m alway a little hesitant with a ski with metal in the bumps….

    Thanks again for all the info.


    • Hi, David – I’m not quite sure what your question is – are you worried that these will feel too stiff? Too slow / sluggish?

      Now that I’ve been putting more time in bumps on the 184 Salomon X-Drive 8.8 and the 187 Blizzard Brahma, I’ll try to get some time again on the Powertrack and say something more definitive here. But right now, I’d say that the Powertrack is FAR easier and quicker in bumps than either of those two skis. And while I tend to like skis with metal, I’d say that this is one of the easiest / least demanding “metal” skis out there – perhaps comparable to the 180cm Blizzard Bonafide, which I regard as a fairly substantial but quite easy bumps ski.

  12. Hi Jonathan, Thaks a lot for the review on the powertrack 89.
    One quick question. I’m 179cm and 165 lbs. Which one should I buy? The 179cm or the 186cm lenght?
    I like to do GS turns allthough some time also like doing shorter turns.

    Thanks again, Carlos

    • Hi, Carlos – I honestly think you could go either way. I’ve been skiing and writing more than eating, so was probably weighing 170-175 when I put time again on the 186 Powertrack at Taos. As I wrote, I have no interest in going shorter. Having said that, our bootfitter Charlie Bradley has been skiing the 179 and enjoying the ski, so I think you would find the 179 to still be substantial while also being even more conducive to shorter turns than the 186. But the faster and harder you like to ski, and the more advanced you are, the more I would encourage you to move toward the 186, because you won’t need these skis to be quicker. They’re already quick.

  13. Great review, and much appreciated. I love skiing the moguls at Mary Jane, but spend a lot of time on steeps on Aspen Mountain, and some on the bowls at Vail. Sounds like the perfect 1-ski quiver for me. I am 5- foot 9-inches, 150 pounds. Would you recommend the 179 or the 186, or any other ski to consider instead?

  14. Been reading through this thread. I just picked up a pair of the Powertrack 89’s (179 cm) and love them. Extremely nimble and fast skis on the hard pack. Quite stable as well. Haven’t had them out in other conditions yet but feel they will be good skis for all conditions. I’m 160lbs, and about 5’9″. I like to ski fast and hard with lots of turns and carving through the terrain on the groomed runs. This will be 80% of my skiing. However I wanted something that could deal with chop/crud and pow as well. I’ll let everyone know when I get back from Fernie in March.

  15. Great review. I considering this ski for an all mountain East coast quiver (NH, VT, ME, Cannon, Killington etc). I am 5’10” 190lbs, a bit older but still fit! I would say I am a good intermediate who likes to go fast on the groomers, steep cruddy stuff but still needs to learn the trees and bumps more. The other ski I was advised to look at is the Head Venturi or Blizzard Bushwacker a bit wider but maybe a bit more forgiving as no metal. Wondering what you think between the two or if there are others to consider as well.

  16. Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the great review. Couple of fairly quick questions:
    1) Did you ski these with a standard binding (Look or otherwise) or with the Fluid System (integrated with SPX 12) that they can be bought with?
    2) You mentioned the recommended mount point was -6.5 cm from ski midpoint. Do you mean forward or towards the tail? Some reviewers have mentioned that the manufacturer mount point is more forward than most skis on an equivalent length. Did you ski it at the recommended mount point? Did you wish it was further back or would you recommend getting the Fluid system to be able to adjust the binding position?
    3) I realize you said you would never wanted to downsize this ski. I am 6’1″ (183 lbs body weight) and an aging expert skier who prefers off-piste but would use these as a western daily driver. Normally I like skis in the low 180-184 cm although I have narrower skis in 178. Would there be any benefit for going to a 179 rather than 186 length for me or would you recommend against it?


  17. Hi Jonathan,

    I am looking for a do-it-all ski, good on grooms but not out of place in the trees, moguls or powder. At 5’10” and 155 lbs, I demoed the Brahmas in 173 and 180 sizes and found the 180 was too long. If I am a 173 Brahma, what size would I be on the Powertrack 89? I get to ski in CO, CA and OR; between the Brahmas and PT89, which would be the best choice?

    Thank you!

  18. Hi, great review and threads. I have the Dynastar Outland 2013 and it’s been a fabulous all mountain ski and looking to pick up a pair of the PowerTrack 89’s. I currently have a 172 cm in the Outland, and wondering if I should stay with this length or go up to a 179? I’m 5’9″ and around 160-165 and although not an overly fast rider, ski technically for all mountain use from teaching and clinics to riding in the NW and Midwest ski areas. Appreciate your thoughts.

  19. I got the power track 89’s about a month ago and have been very happy with my purchase. I think this review is very accurate would like to add my own observations, which are redundant but I think would make me not choose these for a 1-ski quiver. I would probably go to something a bit wider for a one ski quiver like a Blizzard Bonnified or Volkl Mantra.
    1. If you have any wider options this is not the ski you take when there is >4″ of fresh snow. Due to their narrowness they cut right through the snow to the base and you miss the smooth butterieness of the soft snow. My other skis a set of 186 Line Influence 105’s are way more fun on fresh snow days.
    2. If you like to rip corduroy they skis are fantastic. Just freaking fantastic. You can pretty much make any kind of turn you want at any speed desired and they just perform. Like the review said they are very quick edge to edge so lots of loading up the ski and using it’s energy to pop into the next turn.
    3. Finally they are very easy to ski, I have had no learning curve and was instantly comfortable on these skis on my home mountain skiing familiar terrain. I was worried that the tail would be overpowering but it has not been and the skies feel very well balanced.

  20. Great review! Curious whether you think this ski is appropriate for lighter weight advanced intermediates or whether the PT84 is a better fit. Thanks.

  21. This ski really lives up to it’s reviews. It is a ski you can ride all day long with hardly any fatigue. So easy to turn….crank it up or bring it back and it performs well either way. These may be my favorite skis ever!!!!

  22. Hey Blister! I’ve got a question about mount point for the powertrack 89, since I just picked up a pair of Legend x88 186cm which from what I can tell are the same/very similar to the powertrack, right down to the -6cm from center mount point. I’ve skied these a few days in hardpack to 3-4″ of chopped up crud, and I’ve got this feeling that the ski would feel better mounted slightly further back. For carving in hardpack no issues with the mount point, but as the snow gets rougher I was getting the feeling that the shovels were deflecting/folding a bit when skiing with a forward stance, more so than the moment meridian 107 187 that I also ski (same -6cm mount point), but then found the tails hooking up when skied from a more neutral stance. I was thinking that moving the mount point 2cm back or so would give the front of the ski some more stiffness and power without too greatly reducing how nimble the ski is. What are your thoughts on this skis mount point?


  23. Hi Max, I have the 179cm Powertrack 89s, and found I liked them much better mounted about 1-2cm back. I also felt like the tips were folding up a bit when skiing hard on roughed up groomers. Also, I am a big mogul skier and found the tails hanging up – I was getting very frustrated at first with getting shot out of the line at Stowe. I moved the binding backs another 1cm, and problem completely solved – I now love these skis in bumps and trees. The change -1cm made was night and day for moguls, especially for the tight lines we get in Vermont.

Leave a Comment