Movement Alp Tracks 106 - 2021/22

Is anyone able to provide a meaningful comparison to either the Zero G 105 (older edition, which I understand is a bit stiffer than the newer one) or the Backland 107?

I have many 100s of days on the Zero Gs and recently got a set of the Backlands to replace them.

I tour 100+ days a year — and most of the winter my skis are 115-120 under foot. While 105 used to be a powder ski, it's now something I use for longer days/higher peaks/situations — steep/firm (but edge able) snow is possible if not likely.

The Zero Gs were pretty versatile. In crust/crud, they demanded to be skied fast to come alive and break through (at least the older version did, in my experience) — but DEEP in the backcountry there are situations where charging is not the right move.

I bought the Backlands in the hopes they would ski powder equally well as the ZG105 (if a ski @105+ cannot ski pow easily in 2024, something's really wrong), but perhaps be a little better at crust as slower speeds. It's mostly true (only a handful of days on them thus far.... at least if one pressures the tongues).

The weight of these Movements, however, is really tempting! I know physics comes into play. Am I delusional that these could be a replacement for the Backlands (that I just bought)? Did I make a mistake?

In my quiver this ski is for lesser pow days and longer tours (12-15-20 miles), where I may encounter some firm snow, some wintry pow, a bit of crust, and some near spring/low elevation mank, like today.

I have skis 95 & narrower but honestly never use them... unless I'm skinning up a resort or maybe some mid-spring day where I'm hoping to time the corn just right (=easy skiing.... any ski will do).

Love to hear opinions... and figure out if I made the wrong purchase and need to get these. :) Thanks!

FWIW I used to ski the Zero G Tour Pro exclusively, but now find myself on the Zero G Peak Carbon every day. Figured I'd be swapping back and forth depending on the day/objective... just doesn't seem to happen. :)

I am not sure 5 days with only 100K feet of vert on the down would rate as abused. But enough to comment on the performance and quality of the ski I think. First few days were skinning in a true blizzard. Not a lot of down. Too nasty to ride a lift and then have to ski blind in the white-out. I was having a lot of fun skinning in 3 to 4 feet of fresh snow. It has been that way for the entire week with refills nightly. "Fun" being relative, I guess. Skinning that required goggles is always an interesting experience. Movement's mohair skins on a 106 ski make even that kind of trail breaking actually "fun". But skinning, in still skinning. The down when I finally could start adding up some vertical? I'd put this ski in with my DPS skis for a category. Call them powder skis for sure. They aren't even that much fun on new corduroy unless it is soft. If not soft you instantly know you are on a carbon ski. Not in a good way. I'm guessing they would be fun on corn. Just no fun on frozen corn, again a guess. Might even make a comparison to a DPS 138 as a forgiving and fun ski, in nasty soft/chopped up snow of any sort. With the emphasis on soft. More fun than a DPS 112 RP and more versatile, I think. That is some praise if you have skied the 138 in deep snow! There is an actual tail to use on the 105 as required-when needed. On untouched snow? Oh my! For sure not as a versatile in all snow conditions as a current Dynafit 95 or the older Denali or the Dhaulagiri, but not as demanding as any of the three either and way, way more forgiving in terrible snow conditions. No diss to the three Dynafit skis. All three are still favorite everyday ski for me. I love all of those skis. The Movement 106 is more fun than the DPS 110 tour if you like to make lots of turns, don't mind a reasonable speed limit (my GPS says 25mp is certainly comfortable) and carry "nothing" on the skin track. This ski really makes me want to try out the current model year of the 106. But then, I am happy with a more traditional ski profile. The 106 is a very sorted ski if used in the right place. I have a number of dbl rockered, both Big Mtn and Powder, skis. The 106's build is a nice compromise for my own use. I some ways it reminds me of both the old Dynafit Hauscaran and the current Praxis GPO in how they ski. Two other great skis around 115 under foot. But the big difference here is the Movement 106 with race bindings comes in at 6# 12oz. Makes them 3# lighter than those two with race bindings and 2+# lighter than my DPS 110 Tours with the same race bindings. (I use a Dynafit Speed SL toe and a Plum 165 heel). I mounted the 106 on the arrow as suggested. It is modern, forward mount. Same mounting point as the old Dynafit Huascaran. May be even farther forward that the suggested, current DPS 110 Tour mount point. But 5 to 6cm forward of the current Dynafit 95 or older Denali in a 176. Not that the forward mount hurts any in the ski track. It makes life easier for sure on a fat ski. Just a heads up on what you're getting into. Me? I think the 106 is an amazing ski. It does exactly what I wanted and more. Which was, "help me ski some terrible snow conditions". It does all that in a spectacular fashion. They are a basic black ski in color with green highlights. But for me, they look to be "ruby slippers". I couldn't be happier with the ski/binding/ski combo.

Before I buy them, anything tricky about mounting these ski? I have the standard drill bit and a factory jig? Thanks!

Anyone care to compare this ski with the older Dynafit Denali?

I am strongly considering these skis as right now my only ski is the ski Trab magico. My question is, do you think my boot is beefy enough to drive a larger ski like this? I am on the Fischer Travers CS Boot. Thanks!

I heard you guys already have a pair of next years version of these you've been skiing, is that right? How do they compare?

Movement alp tracks 106 ski- Im looking for the boot center mark- there is only one arrow mid ski on the left, amid some numbers. is this small arrow the boot center line? seems likely but want to be sure

I've had these for about a month and a half and have used them probably 10 or so days. I'm 5' 10" and 160 lbs, and I got the 177cm length of the 2019/2020 version. To match the absurd lightness of these skis, I mounted mine with ATK Trofeo bindings, which are also sold rebranded by Black Diamond (Helio 180) and Hagan. Mine are mounted at the factory recommended point.

On the uptrack, these skis are a dream. They're just incredibly light, especially considering their substantial width.

On the downhill, too, I'm very impressed by these skis. I've skied them in a wide range of conditions: bottomless powder, sloppy mashed-potato slush, chattery melt-freeze crust, inbounds crud, and icy hardpack. Here in the pacific northwest, I find that I frequently encounter many of these conditions throughout a single day, so versatility is important to me. These skis handle that variability admirably. In soft snow, which is where they shine most, they offer excellent floatation. Being so light, I was unsure of how they would handle crud, but here I was pleasantly surprised what a smooth ride they offered. Similarly, I was surprised by how easily they handle harder or icy conditions. Overall, I find that these skis are playful and forgiving. For reference, my previous touring ski was an older Trab model with a 79mm waist and a traditional camber; the contrast with these Alp Tracks, which are hugely more forgiving, is night and day.

Wonderful skis!

I've got some spare BD skins. Will the BD skin tip loops fit over these tips okay?

Just got the AT 106 in 185 cm length to augment my AT 100 in 177. I've only had 3 days on them because the snowfall has been so heavy the last 2 weeks they closed the backcountry in the National Park where I live. But I did ski enough for a comparison. Very easy to ski with a TLT8, very maneuverable even at speed in dense trees and small glades; slightly more input required than with the 100s--both require very little input over a centered stance. The platforming is really more noticeable in crud, sastrugi, etc.--float like a butterfly but sting like a bee. As the writeup said: going fast in powder and crud! I have the Hagan Core on the 100s and the Core 12 pro on the 106s. Difference in weight is hardly noticeable, a little more effort, noticeable, in skinning probably due as much to larger skins (both have Contour wall-to wall).

Sweet sassy molassy, these things are neat. I have coveted a pair for a long time as seemingly the ultimate “big” ski for big days. While I’ve only been on my 177’s for two days I’ve skied a wide variety of conditions including upside down, warm, wind affected new snow; outstanding surfy graupel; wind board; and sun crusted powder. They make the difficult snow easier to ski and they plane up to go fast or slash turns on good snow. I’m finding the turning radius a little shorter than I anticipated, but they don’t squirrel out if you want to let them run longer. I mounted them -2 cm from recommended and I’m happy with that. Plum R170, Salomon x-alp. I’m 6’2” 155# and could definitely enjoy the 185 but I think the 177 will be more versatile with the soft boot and more appropriate for longer days.

I've put about 75 days on a pair over the past 2 years and have been very happy with them as my daily driver. The ski pow and steeps really nice and are light enough to take just about everywhere. They're definitely light and can get bucked around in chop, but any ski at this weight will. I consider them a perfect daily driver for the Wasatch. I'm 5'7" and the 177 is just right.

Initial impressions: Ordered these a few weeks ago and we finally got hit with a decent storm. These skis rip. I mounted (actually skimo.co mounted, thanks!) with a Plum Race 170 and paired with a fischer travers. They are more playful than I thought they'd be, and are SUPER easy to ski. I've also skied a bit of chunder on them and they do quite well for their lack of mass. I'm 5-10 170 and went with the 177, super happy with the choice. I also ski the alp tracks 84 on lean days. I can't say enough positive things about Movement skis.

Hello. I am just getting into touring this season in the Tahoe area. I am 6', 170, aggressive skier. Not jumping off large cliffs, but everything else. I would am looking for a 1 ski backcountry quiver.

I am wondering if I should go for the alp tracks 100 or 106? If the 106 should I got for the 177 or 185? I don't mind the extra weight as much, but am hesitant about losing maneuverability in tight spots with the longer ski. At the resort I ski a shreditor 112 at 179 length.

I am also wondering if the movement is the right 1 ski quiver backcountry ski. I am also considering the backland 100, hannibal 106, and camox freebird. My concern with the alp tracks is that it won't be super playful.

These skis don't seem to have a flat groove at the back for the skin clip. Is there any risk of the skins coming loose at the back during a day of skinning? My biggest concern is that the rounded back might cause the skin clip to easily slide left or right.

Just bought the 106 from you. Where are most people mounting the bindings? The mark for boot center seems a little forward.
Thanks, Steve

I see these have a titanium plate in the mounting zone... Would the warranty on these skis be voided if mounted with a tele binding? Many carbon skis cannot handle the focused forces but with a metal plate in there... I'm considering this ski if they are green light for a tele mount.

I'm 5'8 170. I have 94 alp tracks in 177, and I'm thinking about the same for the 106's. Thoughts?

I just got some 185cm Alp Tracks 106s a few days ago, mounted them with Plum Guide toes, Kreuzspitze GT heels, left the factory tune alone, and took them to Mammoth Mountain to test them in the 2+ feet of spring snow they just received. I'm skiing them with Alien RS boots. These are just initial impressions and I'll try to post more after I get some more days on these things in their element. I wasn't sure for a minute if I wanted the size 185 or 177 at 6'0'' 175 lbs, for use as dedicated backcountry long-range powder seekers. Normally 185 would be a no-brainer for powder but its always nice to save a little more weight and fit in tighter spaces if you don't give up too much float. After some good advice from skimo.co (basically that they are not super demanding skis and I couldn't go wrong either way), I decided to embrace the quiver role and try the 185 for max float. When I first unpacked and flexed the skis I thought they hand-flexed very stiff underfoot and in the flat-ish tails. Uh oh... a super light, super stiff ski. It brought back memories of trying the Blizzard ZeroG 95 in dense chunky snow, which I thought were a bit unfriendly, though great on hard pack. On snow, I was thrilled to find the Alp Tracks to be surprisingly friendly, eager to turn but predictable, moderate flexing, and fun! They have a happy flex, not harsh, not wimpy, and not terribly stiff either. They make a really good pairing with the Alien RS boots. The tips have some early taper and a good amount of rocker, similar to the DPS Wailer 112, but less pronounced, and the Alp Tracks have a much more present tail (yet still easy to release) than my old and beloved Wailer pure carbon 112s and 99s whose biggest fault I think is their tail-less feel on steeps. This combo helped the Alp Tracks not deflect as much through the soft but heavy crud and avi debris that basically covered the upper areas of Mammoth Mountain while I was testing these skis. In fact, they did shockingly well in these conditions, and not just for a lightweight ski. They also were great on steep chalky stuff, and not bad at all on some bulletproof panels that started showing through under the new snow. The behavior and feedback from the Alp Tracks on hard pack was much better in my opinion than what I've experienced with the DPS Tour1 skis I've demoed a few times (which I feel are great skis but a bit harsh on firm), and better even than my pure carbons, but not quite as good as the Alchemist build (which is in a very different weight class of course). These skis aren't meant for hard pack obviously, but its nice to find out they can handle it well enough. I can't speak to durability yet, but these are by far my favorite lightweight skis I've tried in terms of downhill feel. If you're on the fence on size, I'd say go up. They turn easily, and swing weight is practically non-existent. I can't wait to get them into some real powder in the middle of nowhere.

I'm currently on the wailer 112 rp2 pure 3 in a 185 cm. looking for a backcountry quiver of one ski that is a good bit lighter. Im torn between this ski and the tour1 wailer 106. I ski mostly in colorado's front range and summit county, so we get a decent amount of pow, but I also love ripping couloirs and spring corn harvesting. any insight on which ski is a better choice? thanks!