2024/25 ski comparison and reviews? Ski from 102 to 107 under foot.

My preferred touring and everyday ski width (touring and lifts) until this winter has been just under 100mm.   98mm and 95mm more often than not.   But I also know the advantages of a wider ski (up to 138mm under foot)  in the right snow conditions.   The skis in this comparison are what I have been using in the 102 to 107 range to date and my thoughts on the manufactures and ski designs.  As always YMMV (your milage may vary). 

I'll be adding my impressions here on each ski, as my ski season winds down and I get time over the next few weeks. 

The short version?  The most succinct differences in how this batch of skis performed for me was generally defined by turn radius, and the amount of rocker on each skis.  Again, for me, the more rocker in the ski, the shorter the ski seems to ski.  The less rocker the more a ski seems to ski to the length it measures. What does surprise me is weight didn't make a big impact on how much better or worse the ski performed.  But weight was clearly noticeable to me as the conditions deteriorated.  Swig weight on your feet does matter.   Good snow conditions generally make any ski stellar.  For me, bad snow conditions are sure to make an unruly ski more apparent and a stellar ski design easily noticeable.

Charlie Bosco ripping Black Crow  Atris, on the Valley Noire. 

Black Crow 

Nevis Freebird, 173.4cm, 102mm, 19m, 3# 10.3oz / 3# 9.4oz  

Corvis Freebird, 176.2cm, 107mm, 21m, 4# 2.4oz / 4# 2.80oz

 

 La Sportiva 

'23 Tempo, 179cm,  103mm, 18m, 3# 14oz / 4#

'25 Tempo, 179cm,  103mm, 18m,   3# 3oz / 3# 4oz

Skinning on the '23 version of the Alps Tracks 106.

Movement 

'23 Alps Tracks, 177cm, 106mm, 19m,  3# / 3# .02oz. 

'25 Alps Tracks, 178cm, 106mm,  21.5m,  2# 14.5oz / 2# 14.oz

I bought both the older model and the newer model Alps Tracks late last season. And it was an internet comment that really got me wondering just how much different the new version might be from last year's version.

But frankly what I was really looking for was the widest ski I could find that was @ or under 3# per ski.  The Dynafit Denali's had simply spoiled me @ 98mm under foot and 2# 12oz per ski at 176cm.  The Denali will ski literally any snow condition I can ski.  Even as It is not an easy one to  replace no matter what anyone wants to say about the latest and greatest.

Gear reviews | Dynafit Denali | PowderGuide

The big indication they were different is the turn radius.   The '23 version is @ 19m.  The newer version is at 21.5m.   Less rocker on the '23 106 and more rocker on the '25 106 than the original  Denalis.  And that is pretty indicated how each Alps Tracks would ski.  The '23 holds an edge better, and is more stable everywhere.  The '25 is more playful and even with a 21.5 radius still quick under foot.   Both are very light weight and a pleasure on the ski track or on your back.

"Who prefers a more precise ski?" That would be me, thanks ;) And without a doubt '23 106 is a very precise ski. I was able to ski some of my best runs of the year (technically most difficult for snow and terrain) on the '23 version of the 106. I really like the ski. Being mounted online which is pretty far forward helps that ski IMO. No question the older ski, even in a 106 width, is scalpel in bad snow and on steep terrain. I can't say enough good things about the ski. Either version is way more solid than it should for the weight at speed. The newer version is surfier, and releases a lot easier. The older version, because it has an almost flat tail and little rocker reacts better at some speed. You need to be on top of that ski. If you are, the ski will pay dividends for sure. This year's model? It is mounted 2+ cm back from the previous ski. Which had me concerned when I was mounting. But, in for a penny in for a pound on Movement's skis. A bit more rocker was added to tip and tail on the '25 version. A hand flex test tells me the tail is a bit softer as well. Overall, I'd say the new ski is a little softer over all as well.  Not a noddle but softer than the previous year. Frankly none of those changes were giving me high expectations over last year's Model. Turns out there really are times a ski company improves a ski, instead of just changing the top sheet. Almost but not quite dramatic in the 106's comparison. I've skied slush, powder, some nasty mank, both wet and dry in both. Loved the newest 106 everywhere I have skied it. May be a bit more than the earlier version. I simply love the newest version.  Really a fun ski to skin with and even better to carry. I've skied some glare, spring ice and some hard freeze-thaw, in bounds, spring ice. None of that was any fun but the skis managed well enough. This is a very, very forgiving ski. Much more forgiving than the previous version of the 106. I like them both. But the new version just takes less effort and is simply more fun for me to ski. In the world of lwt 100+ touring ski, both are outstanding pieces of engineering. I was wondering if I would ever find a ski as light as, or lighter than, the Dynafit Denali-Dhaulagiri series? I have no doubt in my mind that I found, better skis than either, which is saying a lot for width, weight and versatility. And that is saying something in my book. I grew up on old school Rossi GS skis from the 80s. Boards you could rip around on at 35 or 40 mph with not too much effort. My Slopes phone app says the 106 is good for 35mph, no issues, and big smiles ;)  Pretty much 40mph being my max on any ski on a typical day of lift skiing. I typically like making lots of turns these days. But really fun to have a ski that seems capable of doing both without having to tightly crimp your toes in either venue. This makes a really fun ski for me!

DPS 

'25 Kaizen, 179, 105mm, 18m, 4# 2.7oz / 4# 2.3oz 

Leashes again? Really?!

 "I want to retain my ski.  Way, way less worried about unknowingly skiing in avi terrain."

 DB,  May -11-2014

Cold Thistle: Straps or brakes?

Since I wrote that I have spent a lot more time watching grass grow and shoveling manure than skiing.  And even less time skiing terrain that I actually worry about loosing a ski.  But I still do fall down on occasion, even on easy terrain while simply skiing on piste.  Or as we know it here in NA "at a ski area" as "on piste".

In that 11 year's time, I have seen some things and heard even more.   One of the best and most astonishing to me was putting on my skis in the parking lot getting ready for an easy hour plus tour into a hut.  I am seldom willing to spend the money for a guided trip, so this was a rare occasion for me.  But I was looking forward to the skiing the terrain, spending time in the American version of a hut (a yurt in this case) if for no other reason than there are so few huts s here to choose from.

Anyway, back to the parking lot 2 years ago.  A guide walked by and told me, rather bluntly, to remove my ski leashes, as "We don't allow them for safety reasons."  My first thought was....."WTF?  Really?" but I bit my tongue and complied.  Stashing my leashes in my pack.  Obviously, there will be no discussion with der leader.

The trip was uneventful and easily forgettable other than that conversation.   The proposed "extreme ski week" turned into a basic skimo class for ice axe self-arrest and how to move on steep terrain with your newly acquired crampons and the guide's suggested 45cm ice axes. 

What I did find amusing, when looking at what was an inspiring, and technical ski decent across the valley was the story of the 1st decent a few years earlier by the then owner of the guide school.  Turns out he took an inconsequential fall on the lower section of the face and then the resulting 15 mile ski out, on one ski.  Funny to me that no one thought that an opportunity to rethink "what was allowed". 

Sometimes people learn slowly...very slowly.  And have lots of time to reconsider their decisions.  Sometimes you don't.

This Spring while skinning up to the col on the shoulder of the Grand Montet, I watched a ski go by us, doing Mach 1, into a crowd of skiers on piste below us.   An expensive day out or could have been for any number of folks.  The loss of a ski hopefully the least of it.

Then there is the current published thought, from a good many IMGA guides, that brakes are better everywhere.  Better only because you are safer, with your skis and leashes, less likely to trap you in an avalanche.  Mind you it is the same fellows that don't recommend an air bag because they aren't warranted in "normal skiing".  But avalanches are normal skiing?  Saying nothing at all of skiing in crevassed terrain and the likelihood of a fall into a crevasse might well mean a lost ski. 

Always happy to have the conversation about avis while winter climbing or doing patrol work and tossing bombs.  Seen lots of avis in both.   I try to stay out of avi terrain while doing "normal skiing".   Conversations about helmets, air bags, beacons, and leashes seem appropriate to me even today.

10 years ago, there weren't the amount of tech bindings being skied in resorts in Europe compared to the numbers now. An even fewer in most of North American currently.  Tech bindings on full size alpine skis even more rare.   And when you do see them, almost always with brakes.

In Europe on the other hand, I saw as many brakes on touring skis and I saw skis, with neither brakes, or leashes.  The skiers using the always available option of locked toes.   I've skied a lot on locked toes and race heels.  I have always used leashes on that set up as well.  Redundant no doubt but I like the added security of always retaining my skis, if I can do my part.   Even while not liking I have to bend over and clip the leash to my boot.  It seems so uncool and slow having to do that.

Skiing off  Punta Helbronner @ 3,462m in Italy, April of '25.  A Blue Ice, Choucas harness, on me and stainless cable leashes, with a mini 

biner on my skis.

Not anywhere I want to lose a ski.   Below?  On crevassed terrain, 7 miles from a decent coffee.

Warm feet? Do I want a Double or Single boot?

 Or maybe better asked, "How to avoid this?!"

This is the Internet.  So, the following is basically a "rinse and repeat" of earlier info posted prior.

I'll get to the boot question in a minute.  But if you have never had cold feet, feel free to skip this one.  Cold feet have been a reality for me since my very first outdoor endeavors, literally starting in the 3rd Grade!   That was a long time ago and I have learned to manage cold feet for the most part, even after some serious chemo induced neuropathy, but warm feet are still an ongoing process, decades later.

I can barely remember now, crying from the pain in my feet as a 3rd grader, and twenty years later the pain of having to walk off Mt Rainier in cold mid-winter condition in only my socks.  My feet swollen and frost bit from a bad bivy on top of Liberty Cap and unable to wear my boots once my feet unthawed.

I like technical gear and those discussions.   But let's start this conversation with some basics that have little to do with the gear you buy.   This part is free, just needs to be installed on your hard drive, located between the ears, and is worth more than any pair of boots.

Been a while since I have made a serious blog post.  But if you can make use of the search function here, in the content are some comments on staying dry to stay warm. 

It took me a long time to figure out a lot of my cold feet issues are/were caused by wet feet.  I now suspect my feet naturally perspire more than the next guy's.

VBL socks and antiperspirants can help there.   I have used both to good effect.  I have climbed a lot in some very cold conditions, (-40C and elevations up to 22,000ft ).   I've only had minor frost bite once, that winter in Mt Rainier in 1976.   

Bottom line on wet feet?  If your socks get wet from sweat your feet will eventually get cold.  You can protect the insulation in your socks with a VBL (but they tend to slide around some) or by using a good dose of rub-on antiperspirant.    I like antiperspirant and a thin sock, relying in the boot for insulation.

More on the boots shortly.

You need to know the source of the problem before you can solve it, right?   So, no wet feet!

That is a good start.  A number of reasons I can now list as to why I froze one of my feet on Rainier.  All, but one, were trivial mistakes by a rookie.    The same mistake, most make, is the culprit almost every time.

Dehydration.

Get dehydrated and tired in cold weather and you are very likely to become a frost-bite victim.  Simple as that.  Both dehydration and physical exhaustion are pretty much a part of winter alpinism.  Do your part.  Stay hydrated, and go out physically fit.

Fitness?

No one wants to be a mouth breather.  And not everyone is Colin Haley.  If you can climb as fast as Colin, you might get up the Cassin, unharmed, in single boots.  If you plan of belaying all the mixed pitches and stay a couple of nights out on the Cassin, best to take a good pair of double boots and enough fuel (which means bringing a stove) to stay hydrated.  

Colin wasn't the only one on the mtn that year (2018) in singles.

"5) Better gear.
Compared to my previous attempts, my crampons, ice axes, helmet, umbilicals, and clothing were all lighter weight. Also, this time I carried single boots rather than double boots, and no stove."

Cassin Ridge Speed Solo – Skagit Alpinism (colinhaley.com)

Common sense once you figure it all out.

The black set of toes above?   Not mine thankfully.  And I wasn't on that particular climb.  But it was one of the coldest nights I have spent in the mountains sitting in a tent below them. They had an open bivy.  Temps lower than the climber and his gear were prepared for.  But I'd guess it was the dehydration and wet feet (from hard climbing all day) that were the real culprits.   It wasn't fitness or a gear issue IMO.   

Look closely at any climbing frostbite injury and very likely something similar will jump out as the cause.

Cigarettes?   Not an uncommon suggestion. Nicotine is indeed a vasodilator.  Best to do some more reading on the subject if that is the answer you prefer.   I'll stick with dry feet and a better water intake :)

"Vasodilators dilate arteries and/or veins. This results in increased blood flow and lowered blood pressure. Vasodilators are commonly used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension) and heart conditions."  

"Hello friends with terrible toe circulation, have any of you tried a full double boot and found it to be significantly warmer than a lighter tech option?" BM

Not an uncommon question.

Still, I don't think it is the right question on how to solve "cold feet".

Good hydration, dry feet, and right up there, as the "most important" basis for warm feet, is boot fit. If the boot doesn't fit well you are simply screwed from the get-go.

Almost everyone will find one brand of boot a better fit than another brand of boot. The boot you may have your heart set on (and your pocketbook) may be the worst boot for your feet. A smart buyer will use the Internet and their credit card to order in every boot that you think will do the trick and rug test them all for fit. Simply return what you know won't work and sort the rest in the comfort of your own home. The results may surprise you.

Dry feet? Check.

Manage your fluid intake? Check

Perfect boot fit? Check

The perfect boot? Ya, not so much ;)

A few have used fruit boots on Polar Circus. No need really, as the climbing isn't all that difficult. I've used double boots there several times in cold weather and really light weight tech boots there in nice weather and Spring conditions. 8hr suffer fests in the cold or 4hr romps under blue skies. Pick your poison for the boot and the conditions.

But that is what alpine and ice climbing are all about, right?

A lot of difference between "perfect" conditions and a bad day out.

Photo is from a few winters back. A bunch of us were trapped on top of the Midi in a storm. Notice what the locals are wearing for boots. I was the only one waiting for the tram the next morning, in single boots. And very glad I didn't have to spend the night in the loo again in singles.

Technical ground in double boots? Sure. But every ounce on your feet eventually adds up to pounds on your back.

If I can stay warm, I will always choose a lighter boot. The cost of the wrong choice may be steep.

"You must ask yourself, is it $1000 total, or $100 per toe?"  JJ

Last but not least.  How many pair of boots do you own?   For a long time I owned a pair of mtn boots and a pair of rock shoes.  It was all I could afford.  

These days I own 4 different pairs of mtn boots.  All sorted by weight and warmth.  Overdone?  Sure.  But having warm and dry feet, and the least amount of weight/bulk on my feet makes the $ spent per toe worth it to me.

My "old" double boots (the Scarpa 6000 I wrote about below) are still working fine. But there are a few new ones I'd love to try.   But up front, the boot needs to fit your foot and your use, not mine.  Good luck!

Cold Thistle: True Love!.... Scarpa 6000 mods

Cold Thistle: Why a double boot?

And finally, all viable, modern options, to extend your comfort level of your own boots.

Lenz socks

Thermrup insoles

chemical toe warmers

FS Dynafit Blacklight boots size 29.

 FS New (unworn/unmolded/hang tags intact) Dynafit Blacklight boots, size 29, $600 shipped CON US. Venmo or Pay Pal if you pay the fees. Neat boot. Lighter and stiffer than a TLT6P Just not a good fit for my feet.

Movement's, "Alp Tracks", series of ski, plus 1

A meter of new snow!   The 2021/22 Movement 106 in its element.  

15 years ago Dave Goode, in Provo Utah, was making carbon fiber skis that still have yet to be surpassed for weight.

Ten years ago Dynafit did a run of very light weight touring ski that covered 3 different widths from  78mm to 98mm underfoot.  For what they were, all of them still skis exceptionally well for their width and weight as a touring skis.  And IMO all are still exceptional skis by any standard.

Here are some numbers for comparison:

The Nanga Parbat 80mm

171 x 80mm    Nanga Parbat 1052g

The Cho Oyu 88mm

174 x 89mm    Cho Oyu         1180g

and the Denali 98mm

176 x 98 Denali 

1299/1259 = 1279g average

1294/1305 = 1300g average 

Ten years on now, the general touring skis have gotten wider and overall lighter for the most part.  But few have match let alone surpassed that run on the earlier Dynafit skis for the weight compared to the width under foot.

Movement's skis for 2022 and 2023?  Construction?

• ULTRALIGHT CARBON
• wood core, ultralight paulownia
• DOUBLE PLATE TITANAL
• BASE SPEED
• RACE EDGE

Tour width skis available in the men's specific ski?  (Thy also have women's specific skis in similar

widths)

Weights listed are actual from my own skis.

This ski has a slightly different construction.  More on it coming shortly.

Race Pro 77.

77mm  838/828g per ki

833g average on my pair (161)

85mm

2022 version

968g (161)

This is a ski I took on a local 20 mile ridge traverse.  I'd done the traverse before on 65mm x 161cm race skis.  My day sucked because of that choice in skis.  Snow was really wet and the majority of the traverse is flat or slightly uphill until the last 1000 ft drop.  My race skins failed mid trip.  Life got old fast.  I ended up walking in knee deep, wet snow, for much of that trip.  The skkis were too skinny and the skins simply sucked.   This time around I used Movement's clip attach skis, which were great even after, literally, dozens of transitions.   It was an outstanding combination for that particular trip.  Nothing I  own was going to make it any better than the Movement 85.    That traverse is a lot better with no snow, on a mtn bike :)

90mm

1030g (162)  This is a ski I don't own.   It was a tossup between the 85 and the 90 underfoot.  The "on sale" price point made that decision for me.

95mm

1108g (161cm)  Short and stubby, intentionally.

98mm (2023/24) version

1273g/1275g per ski (178cm)

1274g average for my pair, which is outstanding.

This is the ski I bought to replace my aging 176cm, Dynafit Denali.    The Denali was listed as 131-98-116, 21.5m  and weighted in at a1290g.  The 98 is listed as 126-98-124.  20.5m radius and came in at  is 1270g.   So the two skis are very close.  A little less side cut, and hopefully, a little less hooky on the Movement in bad snow.   We'll have to see if they ski good enough to justify carrying the extra 1 pound in ski weight over some of my lighter 161cm ski for Spring and Summer corn.  I once thought so and skinned on a pair of Huascaran to Camp Muir.  Huascarans were a full 2.5# heavier than either of the two LWT skis.  For a run ski down from Muir to the bridge very fun, but a really dumb idea to carry an extra 2.5# on your feet..anywhere...if you can help it!  I expect the 98i to be just as much fun as the 2023 106mm version, just in a bit less ski in overall weight.   I'd guess it to be every but the ski the original Denali was and a good bit more playful and forgiving.  Which should equate to an outstanding b/c touring ski. More to come on that choice and why.

106mm (177cm) 2022 version 1340/1335g

2023/24 version 1296/1283g

When I went looking for a new ski in Jan. of 2023 it wasn't like I needed a new pair of skis.  The ski inventory in my shop is embarrassing in its selection.  But some of them are getting a little long in tooth if not by technology, then by use.  

At the start of the pandemic, I had sent a deposit for what I had hoped would be a fun 4 or 5 days of steep skiing.  It took a couple of years a change of ownership before that deposit was finally honored.  Turned out it was the biggest ski season in decades and the snowpack to match.  I've never left home with the avi danger so high in the back country.

But that trip or at least the promise of that trip sent me looking for a new ski with at least the weight and surface area the older Dynafit Denali.  

The Denali has been my go-to ski for a while now.  It had replaced my much-loved Cho Oyu that I have spent even more time on.   The Denali was a bit more forgiving, and I liked the added 10mm under foot, both of which bettered the Cho.

I have skis going from 65mm under foot, all the way to 138mm under foot.  Usually more than one and between them a number of great skis that overlap on width.  The Denali is 98 under foot.  It was replaced by the Dhaulagiri @ 95mm underfoot.   And eventually replaced again and again with a few tweaks by the Dynafit to arrive at the Blacklight 95, which is the current, touring oriented, 95mm from Dynafit.

I bought and skied on two different sized 95 Blacklights.  Although the BL 95 is close in weight,  IMO it is no Denali when it comes to how they ski.  A decent ski sure.  But nothing to write home about either.

So the search continued throughout the winter.

Skimo Co. in SLC generally has a great selection of back country skis and, more importantly to me, reliable data.

Movement Alp Tracks 106 - 2021/22 (skimo.co)

What they offer IMO are very reliable descriptions of how the skis actually perform.  I would prefer more in hand reviews that a J. Peterman catalog of fantasy writing.   The best I could hope for on reliable data was what the end users were commenting on in Skimo's Q&A section.  Even then I found some of the comments totally at odds to my own from actual use.

Which in turn got me to write about my experience with a number of Movement skis here.

The 106 was my first Movement ski.  So the conversation really starts here.

There was some back and for the between SKIMO comments and perspective buyer's comments on the two versions of the 106.  Which made me favor the "more traditional style 106 from 2022.  Flat tail, a little stiffer maybe and a less "fun" ski by what I would consider "modern" standards.   I think the "less fun" comment is spot on when compared to a dbl rockered, twin tip style, modern freestyle ski.  The Praxis GPO is a classic modern, and really fun ski.  DPS 112RP is different yet but another.   Both are also a good bit more under foot @ 112/116mm and weight well over 9# for a pair.  The Movement 106 comes in 3# lighter for a pair.

So not the best comparison.  The 2022 version is not the best for shape as a comparison either.

Don't get me wrong I really like the 2022, Movement 106 version.  But it has its place.  And it is not the 2023 version.   I skied the 2022 version in all sorts of snow.  And it would be a great all around ski for me as is in soft snow conditions.

But playful it is not.  You have to work the ski.

The 2023 version with pronounced twin tips and a slightly softer flex is flat out a better soft snow ski.  And at least in the two pair I ski, the 2023 version is a bit lighter.

Everyone very likely has one run that stands out from the 2022/2023 ski season.  I have a couple of them.  Both on the 106.  And earlier winter run made me think the 2022 version was one of the best skis I have ever skied on for size and weight.  Same run, in similar conditions, 2 months later convinced me the 2023 ski was without a doubt the best lwt "mid fat" ski I have been on.   I am stuck on that conviction even now.  The 2023 version is simply an easier and more forgiving ski in soft snow than the 2022 version.

That said, I'd still carry the 2022 version to ski off Rainier, early season.

Which such a quiver of sizes to choose from it is fun to pick and choose what width and length of ski you might want for your own adventures and the time of year.

There is no doubt that the Movement ski line up really are good skis.  Isay that  even when not focused on ski weight.  Every Movement ski I own skis exceptionally well.   But the reason I bought them is their weight.  It is the weights specs that first grabbed my attention with Movement.  The weight alone has continued to hold my attention on this width of ski.

I wrote this comment on the 106 first, but I'll try to give some perspective on the other with ski widths as well before I am done.