Dynafit Blacklight 95 Ski

I'm interested in these skis, specifically the 165mm . I have Plum Yak bindings (the blue ones), is it possible to mount these bindings on the Dynafit Blacklight skis?

Hi. I'm considering this and the Locator 96 (I'm 195cm, 83kg naked weight and a decent skier - I assume this would be the recommended length). On paper both have similarities: tip/waist/tail measures are very similar; radius very similar; both have some tip rocker and a bit of camber. Differences seem to be the lack of tail rocker on the locator and then a slight difference in weight. My question is mostly related to the latter: for the ~80g difference in weight, do I get a ski that will likely be significantly more capable in sub-optimal conditions? Then, how do they compare on a "forgiving & playful" vs "needs a strong driver" perspective? Thanks for your help!

My typical use case is 1 to 4 laps at my local ski mountain, Monarch. The typical lap is a skin up and a ski down on either groomed terrain or ungroomed terrain that is within or near the resort boundaries. The skis I have today are Icelantic Nomad 188 cm 109's mounted with Dynafit Radicals and Black Diamond Climbing skins. These skis are hopeless on the groomed or firm ungroomed terrain I frequently ski down. They are also heavy on the way up. These dynafit's look like they might offer a nice combo of a bit of float when things are soft and much better edges when things are not. With that in mind, what size would you suggest? I am 6'2" and 175-180#, in socks-with pack, boots and clothes. I was thinking the 178 cm, but see some folks that weigh as much as I do going shorter.

6' 190lbs. I value highly maneuverability considering potential for couloirs and high-consequence terrain, but I'm also not small and I'm intentionally getting 95's instead of 85's for float power. I'm intermediate/advanced and plan on doing some >50 milers with these. After looking through the comments with the skis "skiing longer" and the various size suggestions, I'm a bit confused Looking for a size recommendation! Thanks.

I have two pairs of Blacklight 95. 172 ‘s with Marker Alpinist 12 bindings for two years and the 178’s set with Dynafit radicals. Im a lifelong skier for 62 years at 200 lbs and 182 cm. The 172’s were intended for mountaineering and long spring tours while the 178’s were intended for winter side country tours.

The 172’s have seen the most use including many inbounds days in the PNW in all conditions

These are powerful skis and the fact that they support my size and skiing style in a short length is a testimony to that. Very stiff longitudinally, they ski like a race ski on firm snow, launch out of deep snow, hop turn effortlessly and stealthily wiggle through trees. Despite being light they maintain dampness at speed even at short lengths. And of course excel on the skin track. Some of the dampness is due to the alpinist 0 gap binding which resists the rebound of the tails. The longer 178 cm skis with the traditional dynafit bindings are a much rougher ride.

They have taken some time to dial in but overall are great mountain tool with a high speed limit.

Hi there, I just skied the BlackLight 95 178 for the first time.
I noticed that with the binding mounted for having the boot center on the recommended line of the ski make a super long tip and very short tail.
Is it common to mount the binding +1 +2 or even more to compensate?
I just compared with my Salomon Q105 and to match the % tip/tail I would need to do +4.5 cm forward to have the same ratio.

I am a new splitboarder turned skier and looking for a touring setup that will last me a minute. I’m intermediate at best right now and am looking for a ski that can handle all the conditions we get in the PNW (ice, groom, soft snow, occasion powder). I’m wondering if this ski will be a good option for someone still learning or whether it’s above my pay grade? I’d like something I can grow into a little but want to still be able to use it.

Looking at the blacklight 95's and wondering what the construction/technical differences are between the 2021/22 closeouts and the current model.

Been skiing the blacklight 95 as my daily driver in Summit County, CO for three years. Very light and tours very well. I use an F1LT, which is well-paired to the ski, in my opinion. The tails are very flat and stiff, meaning these skis don't ski powder effortlessly. They can be a lot of work and are not really that floaty. After roughly 200 days on these skis, they are delaminating and i will be retiring them. They served me well. If I were to buy them again, I would make them a spring mountaineering ski. There are more fun options for powder, even in the same weight category.

Looking for a lightweight all around ski to match with hopefully a pair of Kilo boots. Leaning towards the Blacklight 95 or Backland 95. Any thoughts between the two?

I have the 2021-22 closeout version, mounted with ATK Revolution WC bindings, driven by La Sportiva Stratos V boots. At ~150 lbs, I went with the 165cm length, with some trepidation over float adequacy. However, sure seems fine so far!

Granted, I have used them for only two outings with a total of ~10k vertical feet. Yet that has included a big range of conditions: wind-scoured ice, some weird (yet supportable) crust, perfect powder, very heavy powder, and powder in between the prior two categories. The ski was wonderfully enjoyable in the inherently enjoyable snow, and coped well with the inherently challenging snow (or snow-like conditions).

Overall, this ski is sufficiently light, floaty, maneuverable, and stable to replace many other models in my quiver.
(Although of course I won’t be thinning out my quiver despite that!)

The included picture would show the skis if not obscured by some of that inherently enjoyable snow.

Hello - My current daily driver is the Atomic Backland 107 but I am looking for a lighter, narrower ski to take that quiver slot (with the Backland 107 becoming my powder ski). Would want something that is suited for longer missions, firm / variable snow surfaces, and perform well in spring conditions as well. Feel like the Blacklight 95 could fit the bill but would be curious your recommendations? I am 6'2" / ~160lb and expert skier. Thank you!

How would this ski compare with the Blizzard Zero G 95?

I've been using my Arcteryx Procline AR boots with demo setups for the last couple months and am thinking about buying a pair of these and mounting superlight 150's. Is that enough boot/binding for the ski? I'm 6' 1, 160 and a semi-aggressive teenage skier. The procline's have had some issues with bigger skis (185 Navis Freebird for example) and i'm worried the blacklight's might be too stiff.

Any input appreciated!

Like a lot of us I've been skiing Dynafit skis for a while as my back country choice. I really liked the earlier versions of the Cho Oyu (88 under foot) and the later Denali, 98 uf. I've put a lot of miles on both skis. I thought the Denali was a better ski/more forgiving IMO and still very close in weight to the Cho. That said I skied the Chos in a lot of places they were never designed for and always enjoyed them. Even when the Cho was letting me down. Not the skis fault. Just a poor choice in gear for that situation. Since the Denali came out it has been my go-to ski. I still like the Denali a lot. Although some were supposedly known to have problems with durability. I have yet to see it in my own Denalis. Both Denali and Chos models are long gone from the marketplace. Dynafit has marketed the newer Blacklight series as "race" gear from my perspective. Right or wrong I simply ignored the narrow versions because of the marketing. I've always found the 90/100 uf a good place for my own skiing. When the 95 Blacklight showed up I was intrigued. I bought a pair and then ended up unable to ski last year. But I have been on them early and often this season and am impressed. They weigh almost to the gram the same as the older Denali. Just a few grams heavier than a Cho or Nanga Parbat. Which makes the 95 a truly LWT ski. Sadly, looking round, still few reviews on the BL skis or 95 in particular. Our entire season here is pretty much everyone else's spring season. A combo of corn and ice generally. Soft snow is really scarce past a day or two after a storm. The 95 is a better ski on ice than the Cho or Denali, which is saying a lot. The BL 95 is a solid performer in any kind of packed snow (think, well-groomed resort snow) or the melt freeze cycle of corn. The 95 has been a great ski so far, even on glare ice, for what it is, a super light mountaineering ski. A decent ski in chopped up day old resort powder. The 95 is a solid ski underfoot with all the good attributes of the Cho or Denali from what I have seen so far. They do ski a little longer than the previous generations of Dynafit. A lot less rocker built inot the 95. A good change on this ski for my own skiing. But the 95 does seem to be a sweet spot on the previous designs. All the good (light weight/no longer hooky in weird snow) and none of the failings (there weren't many) of the previous generation of Dynafit skis. I like the BL 95 a lot. Enough to say that I would rather ski the BL 95 than either the Cho or the Denali in any snow condition. That surprises me. Enought to bother with a review ;) FWIW I am skiing them with Dynafit toes and Plum 170 heels, the old green TLT6 Ps, no power straps and the green tongues. I would not want a lesser a boot on this ski. The combo is pretty good. I'm using a 178 for my ever day ski and a pair of 172 for my mountaineering ski.

How does the Dynafit Blacklight 95 compare with the old Scott Powd’air? I mostly ski powder in the trees but often get dropped off on wind blown ice (which, frankly, makes me nervous). The Scott specs are very similar and also made with carbon. Thank you.

What gets the nod as the looser ski, which the higher comfortable speed limit, and which is damper between this and the m tour 99.

I hand flexed this in shop and it seemed absurdly stiff like not in a good way. From what I may gather the m tour 99 seems to fit my bill better? I thought the BL 88 was better than it should be on paper as in, it didn't ski as harsh and as unforgiving as the flex would suggest... Dynafit has always felt pretty locked in for me rather than loose. And that's not good in funky snow.

Hi,
I'm a damn good groomer. I tried touring skis many times, but I wouldn't call myself an expert in this department, yet I can handle tough situations. Looking forward for some challenges + improvement and these Blacklights seem good for me. I'm 173 cm tall, weight: 78 kg. Have La Sportiva Spectre 2.0 boots and I just can't figure out the size of ski I should buy. 178 looks good, but is it really? Can you advice me, please?

I've skied these 4-5 times now and am pretty pleased with them. They feel really confidence inspiring in tricky snow conditions (Unfortunately that has been the reality of the past week here in the PNW) and much easier to ski in heavy wet glop than my other skis. Very easy to ski at high speeds and then throw sideways, but don't feel terrible holding an edge on icy steep slopes. Feel really good about my purchase. Possible caveat to this review: I have spent most of the past couple winters skiing skis ~800-900g, so if you're coming from an alpine set up you may have different feelings.

I recently tried the Blacklight 88 and was blown away - they are the most confidence-inspiring skis in the weight class I've tried. I love how damp they are and easy to control (I think partially due to the minimal camber). I generally prefer skis with a longer radius and see that the 95 version is somewhat straighter, with a minimal weight penalty. Does it share the rocker profile and pivot-on-a-dime nature of the 88?