As the true all-mountain width in the Alp Tracks line, the 94 is a daily touring machine. With a crazy light yet robust construction, the AT series of skis are sure to gain some converts to the Swiss ski movement. The Alp Tracks 94 is part of a limited hand-made ski series whose build-process involves squeezing fiber layers around a Karuba wood core. The result is an impressive weight-to-performance level. The 94mm underfoot ski has a lightly rockered tip and a tail that releases easily, making it easy to ski in soft and mixed conditions. The variable thickness edges cut into harder snow and the ABS sidewalls add impressive hold. The Movement Alp Tracks 94 is a great one-ski quiver for North American ranges.
- ABS Shock Absorbing walls underfoot smooth rough patches.
- Unique VA-Tech tips have rubber & glass to absorb vibration.
- Bindings are secured with a Double Plate Reinforcement area.
- Forest-friendly certifications were achieved with the wood cores.
- Tour Edges vary in thickness along the ski, a hard trick to pull off.
- Hard P-Tex 5000 is impact resistance and skis well even waxless.
Update 2018/19: Just a graphics change.
Update 2020/21: Movement replaced this ski with the Alp Track 95.
|Lengths (cm)||169, 177, 183|
|Weight (pair)||2200g 
|Turn Radius||18m 
|Skin Fix||Tip loop, flat tail|
|Profile||Rocker tip and tail, camber underfoot|
|Shape||Rounded tips, medium sidecut, flat rockered tail|
|Construction||Carbon wrapped half-cap with mini-sidewalls|
|Core||Ultralight Karuba wood|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Usage||Powder laps, spring skiing, you name it|
|Notes||Mini sidewall adds edge grip and dampness|
|Bottom Line||Best one-ski quiver?|
|Compare to other High-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
I bought these skis a year ago and they've been my primary touring ski since, I've put about 50 days on them. I've skied several volcanoes on them: Mt Hood, Mt Adams, Mt Saint Helens, Mt Bachelor. I've skied every possible kind of PNW snow imaginable on them from schmoo to chunder to ice to powder to hot pow to corn to corn chowder.
These skis are fun, easy to turn (they practically turn themselves), and they are surprisingly solid for how light they are.
I'm 5'4" 150lbs and I see the 169cm, with Black Diamond Helio 200 bindings, and Atomic Backland Ultimate Boots.
I had an opportunity to ski movement alp tracks 94 184cm and they were definatly too long. My previous backlands 85 170cm were too short. Is it really such a big difference 174 and 177cm that you recommend me to size down?
What about stability of movements? Will heavier Session/Vertex be more stable than light Alp Tracks? How big is a difference in stifness and grip in hard/icy conditions?
How about Ski Trab Mistico or Maximo. They look quite simillar. Will they be softer? What they would ski better and what worse? I have considered also zero G but I heared they are not so pleasent to ski due to thair construction.
Which of these 4 skis will be the best and the worst for pow conditions? Are you able also to compare these skis to backlands? It would be a great reference for me and tip to choose a perfect pair of skis.
I would say that the Session or Vertex skis, given their greater mass, will probably feel a little more stable/planted on hard snow than the Alp Tracks, and can ski at higher speeds on piste and in variable conditions. However, the Alp Tracks 94 (and the Alp Tracks series as a whole) has exceptional edge hold on hard snow, so that wouldn't be a disadvantage compared with the heavier skis. The Ski Trabs you mention have less sidecut, so will feel even more competent on steep, icy terrain. The Mistico is a stiffer, more responsive platform that utilizes Trab's proprietary 14-layer Aramid construction, while the Maximo is a more forgiving wood-core ski that feels like a traditional classic-touring ski (similar to your Backland 85s).
The Alp Tracks 94, with its rockered tip and significant sidecut, is a blast in powder and loves to make wiggles (but can also get up to speed under the guidance of a competent skier). I would say it's my top pick among the skis discussed for pure soft-snow conditions and long midwinter days lapping the goods. Really, it's hard to pick a ski that's "bad" in powder, but the stiffer, more cambered Mistico (or the Blizzard Zero G 85/95) will take a lot more input to make turns than a more progressively-shaped, rockered, and softer-flexing Movement offering. If you want the ski most similar to your Backland 85, go for the Maximo!
Don't hesitate to shoot us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org with other questions! Cheers!
I ask all of the questions in public because I know how helpfull and valuable can be such the comments for others. I hope you don't mind. I would like to ask the last question (at least at that moment). I understood that Alp Tracks will be a little bit less stable than Session/Vertex/Maximo. Considering that the feeling of stability on hard snow is very important for me (and for my psyche :D) I would go for Session/Maximo because as you said Mistico can be a little bit more difficult in pow. You have mentioned also the K2 Wayback88 - could you compare them with Session/Maximo ski and help me in "the final choice"?
In general, the Movement skis (whether in the hand-laid carbon Alp Tracks layup or the damper woodcore Session/Vertex layup) will be a little more “turny” than the Trab Maximo/Mistico. If you want to go for a ski that evinces maximum stability when at speed and railing turns through chundery snow, the straight tails and damp feel of the Maximo is perfect. However, if you want a more powerful turning sensation and like your skis to come around faster than a Justin Timberlake pop song, the more aggressive sidecut of the Vertex will be more your style. (I would rule out the Session just because it’s wider and a little more freeride-oriented, less comparable to the touring skis we’ve discussed).
The decision for you may come down to which boots you are using on this ski. If you’re on a two-buckle touring boot like a TLT8 or F1, or a “race plus” boot (Backland Carbon, Fischer Travers, etc), the Maximo will pair nicely. If you’re on a beef boot like a Maestrale or a Hoji, the Vertex will be a more powerful platform to pair with the stiffer boot.
The Wayback 88 is also a terrific ski, don’t sleep on that one as an option! With K2’s Pacific NW heritage the Wayback really excels in messy, tricky snow but is also a blast in powder. Compared with the other skis the Wayback falls somewhere between the predictability of the Maximo and the verve of the Vertex. It also comes in a nice in-between 174cm length which splits the difference between the 169-171cm and 177-178 options.
We are not offering the Vertex 84 for this season. It's a narrower platform so less versatile as a powder ski than the skis we have discussed.
I'm an expert telemark skier at 195 lb and 6'1" with over 35-years of doing tele turns. I still like to ski the flex of a ski in 3-dimensional snow and I like to do short radius turns. I'm writing because I'm really interested in the Alps Tracks 94. I mostly ski on 186cm Black Diamond Drifts (the softer 1st generation) and the BD Carbon Aspects both mounted with Dynafit Super light toes and Teletech cables. I live in Idaho and ski mostly powder and usually in the trees. For tree skiing I love the Drifts as they turn at slower speeds and they are smooth flexing throughout so if I end up on the back ski ducking tree branches they roll right out of it, but they are not light - at approximately one kilo heavier than the Alp Tracks. I was looking for a lighter all mountain ski when I bought the Carbon Aspects which I enjoy at higher speeds in open terrain (which almost puts them into light weight on piste skiis), but I find that they want to stay in a turn which is not good in tight trees and they like a little more speed to initiate the turn.
As a telemark skier what I'm looking for is: an even flexing (front and back) ski that will initiate turns in 3-dimensional snow at slower speeds, and that is light for touring, and that floats well but still has a little edge hold for spring corn. I also usually like a longer ski for flex but now many of the 180cm plus skis are often stiff and maybe for even heavier skiers. What is your recommendation for me in regards to the Alps Track 94? And what size also?
I still plan on using my Drifts for early season low snow years. But I would like to have a lighter ski for all mountain powder and trees to fill in my quiver. I just want it to fill in closer to the Drifts than the Carbon Aspects. THANKS Carl
I don't consider myself a great skier so it is a good thing these skis seem to ski themselves, so far in multiple types of powder whether embedded deep in or floating along the top of very firm windblown. All I have to do is think about turning through the gladed areas and it just happens. Bottom line I think is that they make me a better skier and I am having a blast with them.
The ski is stupid light. Unlike other light skis its not chattery or floppy or noodly or weak. It feels very balanced and neutral, and stiff enough to hold an edge on steeper stuff without becoming harsh. Playful and easy to turn would be good ways to describe them.
They are NOT a ski for terrible snow. I tried them at the resort a few times and only in piked crud do you notice tha their weight can be a downside. Still, they're more than enough width for breakable crust and other inevitable backcountry scenarios. Pair these with a pair of lightweight bindings like the superlite 2.0 and be happy.
Not sure exactly which size you're looking for the mounting location on, so I'll assume the middlest length, the 177cm. Both skis, the 84 and 94 in a 177cm length use a mounting location that's 98cm from the tip, about 9.5cm back from true center. There are a handful of manufacturers that we routinely urge to mount slightly forward/back from their mounting location and boot choice factors into that a little bit, but for the most part the mounting locations on the Alp Tracks line are perfect.
The AT 94's replaced my Movement Logic 167cm skis (87 width), which I loved dearly and had no problem at all "staying in the front seat" or making tight turns. I use Sportiva Womens Sparkle boots and Dynafit Speed Mtn bindings.
I am giving up on the Alps Tracks and would like your advice on a replacement, superlight, not too expensive (no DPS), ski, probably in the 87-88 width. I own Hagan 75 skis so 84 seems a bit narrow for the quiver. All the descriptions of your skis in the 84-88 range seem pretty similar to me. I need help on what would be a better ski --- different length/surface area? Smaller radius? Softer flex? Semi rocker instead of full rocker?
I’m wondering what’s the effect on the performance and which ski would be the best for me.
I’m 145lbs at 5”80 and maybe the softer ski would be better for me. Also the bigger rocker appears al little more comfortable to ski.
I’m looking for an ski which can handle all conditions at ski mountaineering and floats weel at powder snow.
The Alp Tracks line is definitely built for the light 'n fast backcountry skiers and ski mountaineers though. They handle that way, they pair with those boots really well, the surface area to weight ratio screams efficiency, the flex pattern wants to be skied from the center of the ski like how lightweight boots drive skis, and the bases are rock solid compared to most other skis in this weight category so it all depends on what you're looking for out of your skis.
I thought it was on sale yesterday? Skins?
Will you be carrying Movement products this winter?
I ordered a pair of Movement boots from you last fall and enjoy very much...
How compared to the Zero G?
The AT94 in a 183cm weighs 1230g/ski. At the moment I don't have an equivalently sized ZeroG 95 to measure against, so instead I weighed the AT94 and ZeroG 95 in a 169cm and 171cm, respectively, just to get a close comparison and frame of reference. Tip to tail cord length on the AT94 169 and ZeroG 95 171 are almost identical actually, so the direct comparison is even closer than I had originally thought, which is great news! The AT94 169cm weighs 1125g/ski and the ZeroG 95 171cm weighs 1215g/ski. That's only a 90g difference per ski between the two, but I would guess in the longer lengths around 183cm, you'd be looking at over 100g, possibly 120g per ski.
P.S awesome video!!
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.