Skimo Co

Dynastar M-Tour 99 F-Team Ski

$849.95 $679.95

In Stock & Ships Today

Free shipping

Dynastar aimed for the perfect on-snow feel with their favorite line of Touring skis. The M-Tour 99 is built with the Hybrid Core, which is Paulownia wood for rebound and energy mixed with Polyurethane sections for damping and a smooth flex. The result is a great all-around touring ski that can float in powder and showboat on hard snow. Using Adaptiv sidecuts, the 99s are easy to manage into turns and don't lock you into the turn. Directional rocker means you can stay above soft snow while enabling accurate steering. Dynastar is about the only ski company using Basalt fibers wrapped around its core, improving the feel over glass or carbon while keeping the weight down. If you're looking for a do-it-all backcountry ski that you can ski with confidence, look no further than the Dynastar M-Tour 99.

  • Hybrid Paulownia / Polyurethane makes for a damp-yet-light core.
  • Basalt fibers wrap the core and add torsional rigidity and energy.
  • Directional rocker is surfy and easy to initiate turns in deep snow.
  • Adaptiv sidecut is a medium radius, easy-to-steer geometry.
  • Full sidewall construction enhanced durability and edge hold.
  • HD sintered bases offer some rock protection with great glide.

Update 2022/23: New topsheet and base colors, plus an "F-Team" affiliation have been added to this ski.

Lengths (cm) 162, 170, 178, 186
convert to ounces
1160g [162]
1245g [170]
1320g [178]
1395g [186]
Weight (pair) 2320g [162]
2490g [170]
2640g [178]
2790g [186]
Sidecut   125-97-115 [162]
126-98-116 [170]
127-99-117 [178]
127-99-117 [186]
Turn Radius   15m [162]
18m [170]
20m [178]
22m [186]
Skin Fix   Rounded tips, flat notched tails
Specs Verified All except 178
Profile   Moderate rocker, camber underfoot
Shape   Shorter radius with big rounded tip
Construction   Sandwich with fiber torsion box
Core   Paulownia / PU
Skimo Co Says
Usage All around backcountry skiing
Notes New version of the Mythic
Bottom Line Excellent powder and carving skis in one
Compare to other High-fat Skis

Related Products

$749.95 From $499.95
$1694.95 $1179.95
$239.95 From $199.95
$749.95 From $524.95

Questions & Reviews

Jordan D (downright abused product)
I skied the Mythics until there was hardly a base left. The Mythics had too small a turn radius and such wide shovels I often found myself standing only on the tips and tails. The tip rise was a bit ridiculous, too. Regardless, hardly a day went by that I didn't pick the Mythic.

MTour 99 has fixed all of this and the ski is more damp. I can't tell the difference between these and skis in the 1600g category

For what it's worth, Skimo weighed their 178s at 1320g -- mine are 1440 and 1450. Big difference!

I had 177 Mythics and got the 178 MTours. I am going to replace them eventually with the 170, no need for the extra length in these beasts.

I also skied the Volkl Rise Beyond 96, supposedly also 1300g in the 177. They don't even come close to the performance of the MTour.

I usually give a little eye roll when Skimo says "quiver of one" but yeah, this is my only ski. It rocks!
Comment on this review:

Andrew S (used product regularly)
I purchased these skis as an objective ski because on paper they seem to balance uphill and downhill performance in a way that is second to none. On snow I can confirm that they feel great. They are nice and light for the skin track but puch much harder than their weight would lead you to believe on the way down. They ski soft powdery snow with ease but still maintain an easy to turn nature when the snow gets hard, icey and variable. I've entrusted these skis to accompany me on the haute route traverse as well as other steep couloir objectives this spring including a climb up the N ridge of Pfeifferhorn and descent of the NW couloir (pic attached). The only thing that disappoints me is the durability. The colored base material is much softer than other skis I've owned and seem to acquire deep scratches and gouges much easier than other skis. I wish Dynastar would have prioritized a better base material instead of trying to integrate a fancy graphic on the base that uses softer plastic. Secondly I've had significant chipping of the side walls. After returning from most objectives, I've discovered chips in the black sidewalls that expose the fiber wrapped wood core. The top sheet has been undamaged as well as the metal edge so it almost seems like the sidewalls have been cracking/flaking off for an undetermined reason? Anyway, it seems that after every trip I'm mixing up another batch of epoxy, mixing in black pigment powder and patching the sidewalls. The repairs look good and are easy to perform, it's just quite annoying to do patch work every trip. I wish I could rate these skis higher but it seems like I will need to replace these within just a few seasons. Too bad because they really ski great.
Comment on this review:

Question from Rs s
Is the 170cm too short for a 6’0 180lb person (who already has powder touring skiis) to use for fast and light winter peak bagging and spring conditions?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Rs,

Too short would be subjective, but I do think that most people your size would prefer the 178cm length. This ski does not have a particularly long tail, so it will not be too hard to kick turn, and will ski better for you in the 178cm. This ski has a lot of tip rocker as well, so I would say there are potentially better skis to downsize if that's what you want to do. All that said, it would be totally skiable. It would probably just feel a little short if you go to open it up, or in deeper snow.
Answer this question:

Matt (used product a few times)
Have 10 or so days on these and am enjoying them so much I grabbed a used pair for a rock setup. I'm a relatively new skier so take this review fwiw, but in snow ranging from tracked powder, light crust, windbuff, supportable and medium density powder these have inspired confidence and goaded me into skiing more aggressively. They feel natural in soft snow: easy turn initiation, steady at speed & good float. Freeriding seems to be their happy place.

I haven't skied them in deep fluff. Soft chop is easily absorbed though navigating tight trees can be tiresome. On groomers they feel like lightweight touring skis, but still track well.

Main takeaways for me so far: they're damp, fun to drive in powder and light. Don't see any glaring weaknesses so far and don't feel the need to grab a wider ski on the average storm day.
Comment on this review:

Question from Alex
Where is the recommended mount point on the M-Tour 99 (relative to center or from the tail for a specific length)?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Alex, In the 178cm size, the recommended mount point measures 77cm from the tail.
Answer this question:

Question from Naren
I got the plum guide bindings to go with the Dynastar M Tour 99 at 170cm quick question on mounting the bindings is there a recommendation on what the best position would be for an intermediate/ advanced skier. Thanks
Answer from Jeff
Naren, The raised marks on the ski is the recommended mounting point. And that is what Skimo recommends to mount at.
Answer from Narendra M
Thanks Jeff - very helpful as always.
Answer this question:

Question from Rune
How does the m-tour 99 compare to the backland 100? I've also eyed the BC Navis. But it's heavy. I'm looking for a spring ski to cover steep skiing and ski mountainering in april/may with the odd chance of gravity assisted freeride. It should be able to handle everything from deep powder to variable/crud, and firm in the steeps. I'm 190 cm/6.3 and come from a 184 cm, which feels too short in powder. Hence, I'm attracted to the backland 100' in 188cm. But which ski performs best across my needs - and which ski is most fun?
Answer from eric
Hey Rune - Thats a loaded question on which is more fun. They both are, but for what it sounds like you are looking for I think the M-Tour 99 is going to be the more powerful, able to ski all conditions the best out of the two you mentioned. The M-Tour has a pretty flat tail compared to some so it will ski a little longer. Look at the Armada Locator 96 for another strong powerful ski that will ski all conditions well with similar weight.
Answer this question:

Question from Simon x
Tried the mythic but was only good enough in pow-one I m thinking giving dynastar a second chance.
Have been through Hannibal 96 way too planky and backland 95 too woody and no bouncy. Keep an explore 88 for those long spring ones.
My old qst 99s with kingpins are fun but heavy and less all around backcountrish.
As you can tell with a plethora of boots 1000-1500 grams.
How about the under-radar Hagan boost 99 you don't offer?
Answer from Jeff
Simon, We think pretty highly of this ski.
It is updated from the Mythic 97, see Brett's detailed description below for the differences.
The very rockered tip makes this ski powder like a wider ski. The Basalt wrapped core makes it damp and torsionally rigid so skis the firm conditions too. Actually rips inbounds.
I like the Hannibal 96 too, but it is rather Traditional, the M 99 is more fun.
Answer this question:

Nils A (used product a few times)
My experience using the Dynastar M-tour 99 ski has been very positive. Having used it a few times in both the California Sierras and Utah, I can say that the ski's lightweight construction makes it a great choice for uphill travel, while its 99 width allows for easy navigation through powder. I was also impressed by the fact that the ski doesn't feel too light when going fast, which made it great for all-around skiing. Overall, I would recommend this ski to anyone who enjoys backcountry skiing
Comment on this review:

David S (used product a few times)
Awesome ski. Performs well in a variety of conditions and can be used as a quiver of one though might want to go narrower for very late season tours. No weight penalty compared to the M tour 90. Unlike its predecessor (Mythic 97) you do not need to size up with the ski. Compared to the Zero g 95 a bit less edge hold but skis better and more fun in most other conditions.
Comment on this review:

Question from Cara
Hi! Looking at the M-Tour 99s for a midwinter touring ski in the PNW that can handle a variety of conditions. Also looking to take it to Denali next summer. Any thoughts if these are the right skis or if I should be looking for something else? My other touring ski is the Dynafit Blacklight 86 for long spring objectives so looking to go wider
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Cara, the M-Tour 99 is a great wider all around ski. It's still fairly light, which you'll enjoy on longer tours, while maintaining enough weight to not get knocked around too much on chunky snow or crud, especially as compared to skis pushing that 1kg mark. The high 90 waist width has proven to be a good performer in both deeper / softer snow as well as harder conditions that you might encounter. Good ski for unknown conditions!
Answer this question:

Question from Hadrien
I've been skiing the Elan Ripstick 96 for couple of years as all-round skis (resort, touring, powder). I found them quite good on hard packed slopes but I am looking to change them now.

How do you compare them with the Dynastar M-Tour 99 2023version and the new Backland 95. Which on are the most versatile ?

Answer from Tristan M
Hi Hadrien,

The Dynastar M-Tour 99 F-Team has a sizable rocker. Compared with the Ripstick 96, it will be an easier ski to pivot, but less effective edge means the turn radius will be shorter. Also, as a heavier ski, I would anticipate the Ripstick 96 being more damp in variable snow conditions as compared with the M-Tour. The M-Tour 99 is a great midwinter ski, but will not be as good as other ski options in firmer snow conditions.

As for the Atomic Backland 95, this ski has a medium turn radius, and is quite versatile. It has enough float for deeper snow, and is fairly easy to smear in a pinch. This ski will not quite be as energetic as the Ripstick 96 exiting a turn, but it is well adapted for a wide range of conditions. .

If you have further questions, feel free to reach out to!
Answer from Hadrien H
Thanks Tristan for the answers.

Any good ski recommendation for light pair that is good on hard slopes and touring ?
Answer this question:

Question from Tim
Any insight on binding retention? Doesn’t look like any reinforcement underfoot? Wondering if suitable for a tele mount…
Answer from Will McD
Hi Tim, the F-Team has a layer of Basalt wood over the less dense Paulownia/PU core. While not as solid as titanal, Basalt still makes for good binding retention and I wouldn't be concerned about using a telemark binding on this ski.
Answer this question:

Question from Zesheng H
I am interested in M-tour 99, is the skis suitable for all round, hard/soft, mix? And I want pair them with ATK binding, any recommendation. Also do your shop provide free binding mount service if purchase skis and binding together?

Answer from Will McD
Hey Zesheng, thanks for the question! While the M-Tour may not have the weight and dampness compared to some other skis in the category it does have characteristics that most folks would say work well in just about any condition, which makes for a super fun and enjoyable ski.

As far as bindings go for ATK there are a number of good options! If you wanted a fairy beefy full-featured binding the ATK C-Raider 12 has been a super popular choice for a number of folks. But if you are desiring a lighter and brakeless set up the ATK Kulaur 12 LT Binding still has some elasticity built in while being just hair over 200 grams in weight!

With the purchase of both skis and binding, we do offer a $15 Mount.
Answer this question:

Question from Jojo
Hey, I am looking at replacing my Blizzard zero g 95 because they are quite beat, I loved them and I am hesitating betwen replacing them or try an other skis like the M-Tour 99, I have also in mind the Dynafit speed or the Black light 95. I am 1,70m and 70 kg, some people said to take the M-tour short, I skied the blizzard 1,70m, my days are usually around +2000m. Any opinion ?
Thank you
Answer from Zak M
Hey Jojo, thanks for the inquiry. Seems like you have a number of different potential ideas so let me do my best to try and address a few. The M-Tour 99 would be a considerable step up in weight and soft snow performance compared to the Zero 95, and while you might sacrifice a bit of weight on the up and overall hard snow performance the M-Tour 99 is an incredibly fun and very well skiing ski.

Out of the skis that you mention above the Dynafit Blacklight 95 would be probably the most similar to the ZeroG 95. Overall the Blacklight 95 will have a bit softer flex pattern compared to the ZeroG 95, while also having a fair amount more earlier rise tip rocker. With that being said, you could say that the Blacklight 95 would be a bit more friendly in a more variety of snow conditions while still be an incredibly light and nimble ski on the up.

Feel free to give us a shout at for anymore ski questions!
Answer this question:

Question from Scott R
Hey all! So I'm looking to replace my ZeroG 85's with something that is still pretty light for long objectives, but a bit wider and looser for late spring variable snow when the ZeroG's would get hooky feeling on the steeps. Wondering if the M-Tour 99 in a 178 (vs 185-190 in my regular skis) would fit the bill given its rocker and some taper. Also presumably easier to throw around and slash vs being pretty locked in on the ZeroG's? Thanks!
Answer from Jeremy L
Hi Scott. You are fairly correct in your assessment. I think that this ski is going to behave exactly as you want it to and almost anything is going to be easier to throw around than those Zero G's. Feel free to reach out with any more questions.
Answer this question:

Question from Rob Sjolander
Hi guys - any high levels differences in downhill performance from the mythic? Looking at these long days and spring skiing.
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for your question, Rob. I would say the feel between the two is going to be similar, however, Dynastar has made some improvements to the M-Tour 99 which will make it better than the Mythic on the down. To start, Dynastar added basalt stringers to the ski, which will offer a more damp feel, especially in variable snow conditions. They also tweaked the sidecut a bit to give the M-Tour 99 a slightly longer turn radius which helps with stability at speed compared to the older Mythic (the turn radius is still relatively short when compared to other skis, though). Overall, while both have a surfy feel and are super fun in soft snow the M-Tour with its additions make it the better performer in hard snow. Please let us know if you have any other questions!
Answer this question:

Question from Elizabeth Bouchard-Hall
I have the Dynafit TLT 8 boot and the dynafit ST radical binding. I’m 5’6” and am deciding between the dynastar m tour 99 and the dps pagoda tour 94. I’m an intermediate skier. Thoughts on the differences between the 2 skis and also on whether I should get mid 160cm vs 170? I ski in the Adirondacks. Thank you!
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for your question Elizabeth! Both are excellent skis and would serve you well. The Pagoda Tour 94 is the heaviest of the two and will have the best downhill performance due to this extra heft. The Pagoda also has a slight tail rocker compared to the flat tail of the M-Tour 99, so it will be easier to release the tail to scrub away speed. The M-Tour 99, as the name suggests is wider underfoot, making it the better performer for deeper snow. It is also ~170g lighter per ski, which is beneficial for those big vertical days. Overall, if you value performance on the down, go with the Pagoda. If you are after something that is still fun to ski, but a little easier on the legs, go with the M-Tour. In terms of sizing, the 162 (M-Tour) or 165 (Pagoda) would be what we recommend! Please let us know if you have any other questions!
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: M-Tour 99

Follow us on social media

View full screen version