Free 2-Day Shipping on Orders Over $50* – Limited Time Only

From long-approach tours to slack country slayage, Dynafit’s new carbon-reinforced, bamboo core Stoke Ski offers up shreddy, smeary radness—minus the weight its girthy profile would normally suggest. The Stoke’s early-rise tip enables quick and smooth-as-butter turn initiation, and eliminates the high-step routine while stomping out skin tracks in fresh deepness. The combination of paulownia, bamboo, carbon, and fiberglass in the Stoke’s construction creates a super stable surf platform, but saves you a few yo-yo laps worth of energy with its strategic use of materials. The Stoke’s metal-reinforced tip and tail put your skins on lockdown, and increase the ski’s life.

  • Reviews
  • Q & A

What do you think about this product?

Have questions about this product?

Stoke the fire within

  • Familiarity:I've put it through the wringer

Simply put these skis are awesome. So light, yet so powerful. I personally look for a ski with around 105 underfoot for various reasons and it seems so does the backcountry machine himself Greg Hill who Dynafit designed these skis for and with. Most impressed with the dual side-cut where you can make big GS turns by riding the sweet spot or you can finish the turn more aggressively and carve quick slalom turns and zipper your favorite stash. Did I mention how light they are :)

This is a nice light weight fatty!

    The weight is right and it isn't a super fat ski so it makes a great touring ski. But it is already a little dated technology and was on release. Not enough rocker imo. Also typical of Dynafit not a lot of side cut either which can be a good thing. Check out Dynafits newest offerings if this one interests you.

    Light and solid

      These are my go to deep powder ski when I want to get into the backcountry and not bring the kitchen sink. I'm 5'10, 154lb and ski the 173s. They have been great all season. Not the best for hard pack or crust but in the Wasatch I tend not to ski too much of that as is. They are paired with some Stoke Speedskins, FT12s and Titans.

      Pretty good ski!

        Have had many days this winter on the the stokes, moutned with the FT 12 bindings. Super light weight combo. They have held up well from the steep and deep to the ice of the North East. A Light weight and responsive ski. Overall I am pleased with my purchase.

        Seem nice, but be warned!

          I have had quite a few clients on these skis this winter, but have seen at least 3 pair where the inserts have failed resulting in loose bindings not staying on in the field. Be warned about the inserts! Seems like this is a good touring ski for light people with light boots, I have noticed good strong skiers, with heavier boots easily over powering this ski, but if you have some light TLT 5s to match up, and want to slay endless pow and nothing else, this could be a good option.

          That would be me, got a brand new pair from Dynafit but I am worried about the inserts for next year. Might see if I can get some better inserts for them and not the crappy plastic ones. Anyone with experience of changing them?

          I'm 6'3'', 170lbs. on Quadrants and FT 12s, and I've pulled out a binding on two separate pairs of Stokes, skiing on mild groomers! I noticed that, with the last pullout, the inserts appear to be in what appears to be a foam section of the core. I love Dynafit bindings and the TLT 5s are amazing, but there is no way that I am skiing this ski anywhere near the backcountry. I'm debating on BD and Volkl. I would have expected better from Dynafit, but the Stokes are a huge disappointment!

          While I did not have a binding pull out of the insert, I did have one insert strip out completely during use. When I went to check the binding screws, they were loose. When I backed the screws out, the plastic insert unthreaded with the screw. I liked the idea of this ski, but will look for something without pre-drilled holes that are plastic. For what it's worth, I'm 6'0" 175lbs.

          Tidy

            First used these skis last weekend on a 4 day North Cascades yurt trip. The Stokes handled everything from crappy crust and variable snow for the first day, through some great powder skiing conditions as 27cm of new snow fell. I've got a pair of Manaslu's and while I like the light weight, they were always a compromise in tricky snow. The Stokes power better through all of this, and are still pretty light. In both cases I appreciate the Dynafit Speedskins - they attach well and are easy to transition to downhill without taking the skis off due to the tip rather than tail attchment. I'm 6' / 200lbs and found the 192cm Stokes a great length.

            Super stoked

              These are fun. A combination of a powerfull ski and a light ski that blew me away. Really a light ski that blasts through the crap and doesn't get squirley at speed? Powder no problem and to be expected. Icey garbage was pretty easy too. I tried on a sunny frozen day with no new snow, and they owned the groomers. Mocking big turns and quick snappy turns too are easy. The tail design is sweet you can check speed fast if needed. Really designed well and can handle any snow condition you will encounter. I'm in love. I got the whole package titans boots, tlt bindings, and the stokes. The ski/boot/binding combo is perfect! Me: 6' 2 225lb aggressive skier who goes faster than I should with a big smile on my face. I don't like skinny skis at all. I live in the PNW and ski the white mud. They do great, don't have to ski in the back seat at all. Floaty and fun. Go for it you are in the market.

              Update! several mega powder days in a row and I love them even more. easy to drive through all conditions. seriously a great all around ski. pow to traverse to wash out groomers, frogels they can do it. they sweet spot is the ball of my foot. feels perfect! love the early rise tip...

              Stokes in Utah

              Using the Stokes on my daily tour. I have them paired with Vert ST binders and TLT5 Performance boots. This setup has worked very well both in the resort and in the backcountry.

              I also have a Manaslu setup (178cm with same binders and boots) and they are a little more playful in tight trees but don't have the stability of the Stokes at higher speeds.

              Stokes in Utah

              Stoke the Fire

                Best to get a review on here other than Greg Hill's. :)
                I am one of the last Mohican's to get away from the narrow touring ski. I did not like the idea of using up 1/3rd of my pack space with touring skins.
                Let me tell you it is well worth the lost space. This Stoke ski is by far the best powder ski I have ever skied on, in 35 years of BC touring, that is forever for some of the kids out there.
                I got the 182's late last spring and skied Mt Adams, skied great, but they were to short for me (6'4"-210# aggressive skier). I waited and waited and got the 191cm. Sold the 182's. The rocker reduces the running length for me by at least 5cm.
                That is the best move I ever made the 191's shine for a guy my size. Even touring the kick turns are easy, easy, easy.
                The turn radius is very subjective to the conditions. These can place the tightest of turns on a powder face and dash through the tight trees with ease. Or for the new schoolers they can open them up and not have a problem at all.
                I have found them to be pretty solid on the carve-able groom, the tips shake a bit, but don't effect the ski experience. They really load up in a turn and pop for a wide board! They hold an edge on the ice too, but become more squirrelly in the tips when real firm snow is being tamed.
                I have them matched with FT's and BD Quadrant boots. I have used the Scarpa TX-Pros (NTN Tele) even on this rig and they tour great and ski fine in powder.
                The weight of the setup is 2# lighter than my 88 waist skis. I put Ascension skins on these and they climb like a goat, but lack the glide on the flats and small downhill shots. I would love to compare mohair to these and see the difference.
                The insert system is a little fickle. Even hand/finger tightening with a Pozi-3 I had issues with one of the front screws turning into a spinner. Errr...

                Don't hesitate if you are on the fence between the Manaslu or the Stoke. The Stoke will not let you down.

                Getting Stoked about the run!

                Getting Stoked about the run!

                After skiing on these a couple seasons now I think they ski great in Pow and slush corn, but lack any inbound capability on any hardpack...especially ice. In both those conditions they skip around everywhere. Keep looking if you want an all around ski. I would if I didn't spend all my money on these boards!

                Great binding system, but...

                  I wanted to buy 173 Stoke but it appeared that the Dynafit guys decided that if you have smaller feet you have to ski with 162??? My boots are 279 mm and the smallest possible drilled holes are for 284mm boot... Really sad that this great system is worthless in this case. The same with the Manaslu model and the "women" skis from Dynafit.
                  What a shame.

                  I ski Karhu, and while not pre-drilled, I find them to be a great touring ski. The Storm BC is one I highly recommend. Have you tried calling Dynafit about this issue as well to see what they can suggest (maybe they can prefab you a different set up)? I have the skis (stoke) at home and will edit this when double check the drill points on mine.

                  You can still mount your bindings outside of the pre-drilled holes as long as you stay inside the metal “Titanal” plate reinforcing. (Keep in mind that this will void your warranty). If you want more information go to Wildsnow.com for a discussion of this same topic with the Manaslu skis pre drilled holes.
                  http://www.wildsnow.com/1457/dynafit-manaslu-binding-holes-mounting/

                  Get Stoked

                    We designed this ski with the aim of creating a light yet powerful ski, 106mm in the waist for good flotation but not so large that you cannot deal with the wide variety of snow conditions found in the BC.

                    Great weight for climbing up, the first day on the prototypes I climbed and skied off Mt-Blanc, a 12000 foot day. The descent was floaty and awesome. The slight tip rise keeping the ski cruising.

                    The skin system is tight and awesome, it has yet to let me down.

                    You will enjoy many, many wicked lines on these skis.

                    Greg, do you mind sharing what length Stoke you're riding? Just curious... do most touring up at Rogers Pass and have seen you on the hill a few times. Thanks for helping Dynafit with this design and good luck with your trip to AK.

                    Is the Stoke setup to work with the Radical...

                    Is the Stoke setup to work with the Radical line of bindings or the Vertical / Comfort line? There is the 5th hole in the middle of the toepiece, but I can't tell if my Speed Radicals will actually mount up.

                    Best Answer

                    Hi Omar-

                    The new Radical only has 4 holes, with the rear ones in same location as all other Dynafit bindings. The front holes are the same distance apart as all other Dynafit bindings, but are located 12 mm forward of the old hole location. So, they will absolutely work in one position. If you want to mess around with the positioning on the ski, you may need to drill a pair of holes in addition to using two of the insert holes for the toepiece. Dynafit suggests in their labeling that they don't warranty for mounting using inserts for the Radical series, just the Vertical FT/ST/Comfort. That being said, the blogger community has written quite a bit about the Radicals with inserts and consensus seems to be yes, as long as you're cool with the one mounting position that fits the pattern.

                    I am 217 and strong skier. As anyone knows...

                    I am 217 and strong skier. As anyone knows form skiing in France, the top can be icy then empty out into incredible powder but once you drop onto the Glacier, it gets tight and icy again. I am considering buying these skis but am curios about pulling a binding especially in a no fall situation. Is this really an issue? I am not going to drop $800.00 for a ski that I am worried about killing myself or having to ski one ski down a mountain.

                    From the backcountry website, it looks...

                    From the backcountry website, it looks like the Stoke requires a dynafit binding, is that correct, or could I use other AT bindings (Black Diamond/Fritschi, or Marker?)

                    How does the durability of the dynafit...

                    How does the durability of the dynafit speedskins compare to the BD ascension skins?

                    Dynafit Speed skins are mohair - Ascensions are nylon. Mohairs have much shorter/thinner plush, weigh less, fold up smaller, and glide easier. That said, they will not climb as steep, nor will they last as long as an ascension skin. I have yet to encounter a skin track so steep that the Stoke+Speed skin had any trouble, so other than the durability - the Dynafit skins are superior to the BD ones in every way for my use.

                    These are apparently the lightest ski (for...

                    These are apparently the lightest ski (for their dimensions) out there, was wondering about durability if compared to something similar (I.E. Völkl Nunataq, Sidestash) the stoke have a layer of graphite but is this enough to take the odd rock hit? I have heard that the Nunataq have very thin bases and yet they ares still heavier than the stoke.

                    how are these on steep icy descents? can they cope or are they unstable?

                    Full disclosure: Dynafit rep here. Durability is very good, but a ski this light won't take extreme abuse the way a heavy ski with layers of metal will. No problem with the odd rock hit, etc. As far as steep icy descents, that may depend on speed and the skier. They feel great making hard, quick turns down anything, but if you open up the throttle on the firm they can get a little loose. Use for what they are designed for and they are the best tool out there!

                    honestly these suck for anything but pow(my opinion). really these have rather poor duribility and i hate the bases. These definately are not stable and for steep ice? they will suck. You mentioned the sidestash, those rock and have far greater performance than these on anything. I'd check out the sidestash or hardside if I were you. You might not be able to cope with the stoke on steep icy decents. Check out the sidestash, coomback or hardside, you wont be dissapointed with those skis. In my book these are some of the worst skis out there, and kinda expensive for what you get too.

                    Anybody out there mounted the Stokes with...

                    Anybody out there mounted the Stokes with Hammerheads or Axls?

                    The Stoke is not a good candidate for tele bindings because it doesn't have a reinforced binding area, only the insert system for tech bindings. This saves weight but it means that sooner or later you'll inevitably rip your tele bindings out. If you do decide to try and mount them up, make sure you mount within the silver titanal plate. As has been pointed out, this will void your warranty.

                    Hi. I need some length advice. I'm 6 ft,...

                    Hi. I need some length advice. I'm 6 ft, 185lbs and an aggressive skier. I normally ski volkl mantra 194s with marker duke bindings for my all mountain resort off piste day set up. I want to buy the stokes for a lighter weight multi day touring/ski mountaineering set up and don't know whether to go for the 182s or get the longer 192s. Any advice? Will the 182s feel short? Thanks

                    Debating between the Coomback and the...

                    Debating between the Coomback and the Stoke. I'm going to mount this with a Dynafit binding for a pair of Titans for my backcountry set up. Thoughts?

                    Also, I'm 5'10" 168lbs and an aggressive skier. Any thoughts on size for either ski?

                    Thanks

                    Best Answer

                    These are two very similar skis and you can't go wrong with either for touring. The Stoke has the Dynafit skin system, which is pretty trick, so if you go that way, get the skins as well. The Coomback is perhaps a little more of a surfy/powder ski whereas the Stoke is similar, but a bit more of an all-arounder.

                    In either ski, if you are using them exclusively for touring, go a bit shorter on the length. For mixed resort/bc, a bit longer.

                    If you get the Stoke, use your complimentary Backcountry.com goat sticker to cover up Greg Hill's name. ;)

                    Can't you point me to some mounting...

                    Can't you point me to some mounting instructions? I understand that you can hand mount with a posidrive bit (no drilling), but the screws that came with my verticals don't seem like they will bite into the inserts to get started.

                    I have a pair of Scarpa F1 randonnee AT...

                    I have a pair of Scarpa F1 randonnee AT ski boots. They are pretty light weight. Would I be crazy to ski the Stoke with this boot? Do I need a beefier boot?

                    I need a length recommendation: I am...

                    I need a length recommendation: I am advanced skier 5'9" and 190 pounds

                    For your weight I would go for the 182. At 5'9" you could be short enough for a 173. I would go for the 182, though, since you'll be enjoying deep powder with these sticks, and longer will be better. The rocker tip will also make the ski feel slightly shorter- most pronounced on hardpack. Rocker allows you to go for a longer ski, so I would choose 182. It definitely won't be too long for you, but you might find that the 173 sinks tips too much. However, if you don't think you'll be skiing huge pow, and like lots of tight turns and tree runs, the 173 would be good. Enjoy.

                    Best Answer

                    If you are going to be doing mostly touring on them, I'd go shorter (173). If you are doing some resort and some BC, go a bit longer. I'm 5'10" and 143 lbs and I like a 167-174 ski for the backcountry. If I was to get these for touring, I'd go 173.

                    Does this come with skins? Otherwise doe...

                    Does this come with skins? Otherwise doe BC.com sell the dynafit skins (I don't see them)?

                    Can anybody make a length recommendation?...

                    Can anybody make a length recommendation? I'm a little under 6' and a little over 140. I feel like with the rocker and reasonably short radius, plus what I assume is a fairly soft flex, I should be on the 182s, but as skinny as I am, I'm hesitant to go for the longest length of any ski. Also, do Dynafits measure pretty true to size?

                    Definitely go long. 182 will be great. With rockered skis, you can go longer. Dynafits run true, and aren't going to be longer than you think. Go for long skis. Early rise and rocker mean that you can finally get the sticks you need to land big drops and float the deep snow. Longer is better.

                    I am 6'0 170 pounds and just spent 8 days touring on the 182 stoke. I thought they would be too short but they where perfect. The stoke is not soft and can ski like a big mountain ski. I did find the length to be an issue in the air but I just need time to get used to the short tails. I also might try mounting the bindings a little forward and see how that works.

                    I am 6'0 170 pounds and just spent 8 days touring on the 182 stoke.  I thought they would be too short but they where perfect.  The stoke is not soft and can ski like a big mountain ski.  I did find the length to be an issue in the air but I just need time to get used to the short tails.  I also might try mounting the bindings a little forward and see how that works.

                    is there any way you can mount tele bindings...

                    is there any way you can mount tele bindings on this ski?
                    in particular axls

                    The inserts are Dynafit only, you will have to drill mount around them. It is suggested that any mounting holes only be placed within the titinal mounting plates (sliver plates where the inserts lie)- You may be able to use a couple of the existing insert holes as long as they line up with the bindings perfectly. But, I'm not 100% sure if the Axls' do or not, you will have to play with it.

                    *Using non-dynafit bindings does void the manufactures warranty.