Back to School '14Back to School '14


There's no resisting the lure of glistening, untouched pow. Come.

Similar to the Dynastar Cham 97, the ultralight Cham High Mountain 97 Ski would be considered the hardcore cousin who doesn't believe in chairlifts or trams. You may mock the high-mindedness, but you know cousin gets deep, untracked, pristine, crowd-free, face-shot-spewing runs. Don't get mad; get out.

  • Levitation profile combines rockered tip, reverse sidecut at tip and tail, and traditional camber underfoot for float, easy turn-entry, and supreme edgehold
  • Sandwich construction with vertical sidewall gives tenacious grip and balanced power
  • Lightweight paulownia super wood core with fiberglass laminate is durable, superlight, and stable
  • 97mm waist is wide enough for deep pow and crud, yet plenty agile for quick turns
  • Mid-size radius sidecut gives you all-terrain versatility: easy turning and high-speed stability

Share your thoughts

Review Summary
2 4
2 3
1 2
0 1

What do you think of the

Dynastar Cham High Mountain 97 Ski

? Share a...

Write a review

No file chosen

Rather attach a photo from another website?

Rather attach a photo from your computer?

  • Product review:
  • Share a video
  • Share a photo

How familiar are you with the product?(Optional)

Only jpg, jpeg, png, gif or bmp files please.


Here's what others have to say...

Unanswered Question

Has anyone skied the Cham HM 97 with a...

Posted on

Has anyone skied the Cham HM 97 with a tele binding (Axls)? Interested in feedback on how they ski free heel.

5 5

A great all around ski!

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

This ski is amazing! I live in a ski area and have been on the hunt for two winters for a new "do it all" ski. Having been telemarking for the past 10 years I was not sure exactly what I wanted? At 5'10" and 170 lbs and an expert skier I often fall between sizes in the 178- 185 range. I have recently been on the Nordica Patron 185 and 178, Nordica Hell and Back 177, Nordica Hell and Back Steadfast 177, Kastle FX 94 176, Black Diamond Justice 185, all of these skis did some things very well but did not do all things well. I have recently purchased the Dynastar Cham HM 178 and mounted some Dynafit radical ST bindings, 1cm forward of center. I have been on all types of snow from 6 inches of powder, to refrozen hard pack. The 178 size is perfect for everything but the fastest of speeds and when in the tight trees it is amazing! At the recommendation of a dynastar rep the bindings were mounted 1cm forward of center. This ski initiates a turn quickly and the tail will release when the ski is kept flat, effortlessly. When more angle is applied to the edge it holds very well. The tips float the ski through powder and do flap a little on hard pack, but that is to be expected. To be fair, the Cham does not carve like the Hell and Back or float like the Patron, but it does everything so we'll that it can be overlooked. The width of 97mm under foot combined with the flex pattern of the HM is a great combination for all conditions, try a pair and enjoy.

3 5

Cham 97 HM Variable Performance

  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

I skied these as a demo at Alta in late January under challenging conditions and found them to hold edge very well, and to be easy to swing through bumps or down steeps. Purchased the skis with Look Pivot 14 bindings and skiied a couple of days at the Canyons under powder/chopped powder/groomed conditions. When in fresh powder, these skis are phenomenal riding effortlessly through different turn shapes. They also float nicely through chopped powder. When in hard bumps or on hard pack, I am finding that the tips flap quite a bit. It suggests you need a really solid forward stance in hard conditions. They are not as stable as other boards I have skiied with 107-110 mm underfoot in variable, hard conditions. I am 6 ft-175 lbs and skiied these in the 172 cm length.

which size do you recommend for a young...

Posted on

which size do you recommend for a young lady who is 5"2 ,110# and used to be a competitive big mountain skier? 172 or 178?
I'm planning to use them for groomer, powder and backcountry as well.
I am now riding on 178 S7.

Best Answer Responded on

Hey Ayla,

I am your size and and advanced, female skier.
I am 5'3" and 120 lbs.
If it were me I would go with the 172, simply to save on weight in the backcountry. You are obviously going to get more stability at speed on groomers on the 178, but I suppose it will just come down to what factors are important for you.

Speed or weight? As a competitive mountain skier, you will obviously have no trouble on the 178cm, but this will come down to weight and performance for you.

4 5

Nice Ski!

At the prompting of my local ski shop I ran through a couple sets of skis trying to determine what my next set would be. I did demo skis for 3 full days and during that period skied on 6 different sets.

I'm a moderately aggressive skier with quite a bit of experience. I typically don't ski the groomed runs and will look for bumps or trees or deep backcountry pow.

When I got to the Dynastar Chams, I was really impressed. The 87 was fast and flicky. It carved well and I could bounce through bumps with relative ease.

I then went to the standard 97s. Loved these skis but could really feel the additional weight and bump skiing presented some challenges as the swing weight was clearly heavier. Get them on the groomers and they railed like a GS fast fast.

Next, I spent half a day on the standard 107s. The softer the snow the better they were, however your fore to aft balance better be dead on with these skis as you've really got to use the shovel to start the grab of the edge of the ski, and it does take a touch more work to get them on edge and carve around as they are 107 mm wide. As one would expect, kinda tough to work through a set of bumps, but I did try.

Lastly I went to the 97s but the HM version. It's nearly as light as the 87's (1800 vs. 1600 grams) but a bit wider for fluffy days but much lighter (1800 vs. 2300 grams) than the standard 97s. What a great all mountain ski! It busts the crud pretty well, it floats in the trees when needed, and I can power it down the bump runs with decent confidence and when it's fluffy I can float.

I mounted these up with Pivot 14s and the combo seems to be rock solid. Let's see what happens by the end of the year, but so far I'm digging these boards! If you can demo a set, go for it, you might these to be your next slidey sticks!

I have cham 107 High Mountain in 184 length...

Posted on

I have cham 107 High Mountain in 184 length for resort skiing and love it. I'd like to get the cham 97 High Mountain for backcountry only but not sure on size. I'm 6' and 157lbs. In BC I normally ski around 178. But wondering whether I should get 178 or 184. Since the cham 97 184 is the longest, I assume I'd want the 178. Does 97 hm ski similar to 107 cham hm?

Best Answer Responded on

I would say they ski similar, as the profile is somewhat common between the two skis. I noticed the 107s really excel in the pow. The 97s (to me) appeared as the best all mountain ski, and I selected them as they were nearly as light as the 87s, but 10mm more underfoot. I'm able to flick these skis (172s) in the bumps pretty well and when the snow gets really fluffy soft, they are even better.

I'm only 5 10, but a pretty decent skier, and I stuck to a 172 as I wanted something a touch shorter for the trees and bumps.

If you can ski a 184 in your resort, I'd suggest you can handle the same length in the backcountry, hence a 184 in the 97 would be fine. To be sure, find somebody who's got a demo set.

Weight on the 178 Cham 97 HM?

Posted on

Weight on the 178 Cham 97 HM?

Responded on

Hey Mike, these weigh 1800 g/ per ski. (3.96 lbs per ski)

Responded on


5 5


These boards, combined with the TLT Radical FT Bindings, make the most insane, one quiver, Shasta dominating BC set up imaginable.

Responded on

I have the exact same set up. Dream set up that is :-)

The Dynastar website lists this as having...

Posted on

The Dynastar website lists this as having the same weight and same radius as the Cham HM 87 (1590g/ski and 16m). This can't be right given that the Cham HM 107 is 1970g/ski and 20m (22m at 184cm length on this site). What is the weight and radius of the Cham HM 97? I would likely ski on 172 cm.

Best Answer Responded on

Finding ski details is a bit of a boggle. The 97 HMs are 1800g. The turn radius for the 172s is 14, The the ski I have.

I found some info here:

Cham 87s
166cm 172cm 178cm 184cm
RADIUS (in meters)
13.0 m 14.0 m 15.0 m 17.0 m

Cham 97s
166cm 172cm 178cm 184cm
RADIUS (in meters)
13.0m 14.0m 15.0m 17.0m

Cham 107s
166cm 175cm 184cm 190cm
RADIUS (in meters)
15.0m 17.0m 20.0m 22.0m

4 5

Cham97 High Mountain skis

This are a great all-around ski. Enough side cut to carve great turns on groomers, yet wide enough for all but the deepest powder days, all in a light weight package for BC days. Use them 50/50 resort/BC as they are my only alpine setup and they work great in both. Scarpa Pegasus Boots: A great BC boot at a price that does not break the bank. Good width in the boot, as I have at least 13EE sized feet and these have been comfortable without and extra boot work(heat molding/blowing out any areas). Not super stiff so very comfortable all day, but not going to make any world cup carves on the groomers however. Overall I have been very happy with these boots. Marker F12 Bindings: Very happy with this binding set-up, used on my only alpine set-up that sees 50/50 BC and resort use. They have been plenty strong in bounds(6?4? 210lbs) yet a very versatile light BC setup .