Lightest Skis on the Market: Backcountry-Focused Models Compared

The lightest production skis right now sit in the 900-1,300 gram range per ski (170-176cm length), and they’re almost all touring-specific carbon builds from Salomon, Atomic, Blizzard, and Dynafit. If you’re skinning uphill for your turns, weight is the whole game. If you’re lift-served or dropping cliffs, these skis will punish you. Fifteen years of hauling gear up ridgelines has taught me where the weight savings pay off — and where they’ll get you hurt.

Why Ski Weight Actually Matters

Every pound on your feet costs you more than a pound in your pack. Weight at the extremities costs roughly 4-6x more energy than the same weight carried on your torso — I’ve felt that math on my own quads plenty of times. Shave 500 grams off each ski and you’ll notice it by lap three of a dawn patrol day.

Lighter isn’t free, though. Carbon layups that shave weight also cut dampness, torsional rigidity, and edge hold at speed. A ski that feels incredible on the tenth switchback of a 3,000-foot skin can feel like a wet noodle on a firm, wind-scoured descent. That’s the trade-off. Deal with it before you buy.

The Lightest Skis You Can Actually Buy

Atomic Backland 85 UL — 1,190g (178cm)

Lightest ski in Atomic’s touring lineup, and one of the lightest full-length skis you can buy without going custom. Atomic stripped the core and went full carbon backbone to hit this number. I’ve run these on 20-mile traverses in the Wasatch and they climb like they’re not even there.

At 85mm underfoot, they’re a dedicated ski-mo and long-tour ski, not a powder ski. In anything heavier than 6 inches of fresh, they get overwhelmed fast. This is a spring-couloir, big-vert, minimize-suffering ski.

Check Price on Amazon → (paid link)

Salomon MTN 86 — 1,290g (178cm)

Salomon’s MTN line has been the benchmark for lightweight touring for almost a decade, and the 86 is the sweet spot. It’s not the absolute lightest ski here, but it’s the best blend of low swing weight and real descending performance I’ve tested in this category.

I ran a pair for two full seasons in the Tetons — over 60 tour days — and they held up better than skis 300 grams heavier from other brands. The C/FX construction (carbon and flax) adds just enough dampness that you’re not getting rattled on refrozen crust at 3pm.

Check Price on Amazon → (paid link)

Pair these with a lightweight tech binding — the Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0 is a sub-300 gram binding that matches the ski’s philosophy.

Blizzard Zero G 85 — 1,300g (180cm)

Blizzard’s Zero G series has quietly become the go-to for guides who need one ski to do everything on a multi-day objective. The 85 is their lightest width, built with a full carbon layup over a paulownia wood core.

What sets it apart is torsional stiffness relative to weight. Most ultra-light skis get twitchy on hardpack because tip and tail flex independently under load. The Zero G 85 resists that. I’ve taken these into technical couloir terrain in the San Juans where control mattered more than raw weight savings, and they didn’t fold.

Check Price on Amazon → (paid link)

Dynafit Broad Peak 88 — 1,340g (177cm)

Dynafit basically invented the modern ultralight touring category with the original TLT skis, and the Broad Peak 88 is their current flagship for going far and fast. It’s a bit heavier than the Backland UL but noticeably more forgiving in variable snow — the extra 150 grams buys you real stability.

This is the ski I recommend for a first hut-to-hut trip. You don’t want to feel like you’re on toothpicks by day two, and you don’t want a 1,700-gram resort ski slowing every transition either.

Check Price on Amazon → (paid link)

When Ultra-Light Actually Matters

Weight savings compound over distance and vertical, not over a single lap. If your day involves:

• More than 3,000 feet of skinning per outing
• Multi-day traverses where every gram in your pack and on your feet counts
• Ski mountaineering objectives with technical approaches
• Long spring corn-harvest missions covering serious mileage

…then chase the lightest ski you can afford. The Backland UL or MTN 86 will save your legs and your schedule.

If your day looks more like a 1,500-foot lap repeated five times off a lift, or you’re skiing aggressive, chattery, wind-affected snow at speed, the weight savings stop mattering and durability starts mattering more. I’ve watched ultra-light carbon skis delaminate after a hard season of resort abuse that a heavier all-mountain ski shrugs off without complaint.

The Durability Trade-Off

Carbon fiber is strong in tension but brittle under repeated impact — rock strikes, hardpack landings, the stuff that happens on every ski day eventually. I’ve had two pairs of ultra-light touring skis develop core shots and edge delamination faster than comparable metal-laminate skis in my quiver.

It’s physics, not a knock on any brand. Less material means less margin. Budget for a shorter lifespan on carbon skis — think 80-120 days versus 150-200 for a heavier build — and baby the edges. Don’t skimp on a good edge tool and wax kit if you’re running carbon hard.

My Actual Recommendation

For most backcountry skiers, the Salomon MTN 86 is the answer. It’s not the single lightest ski on paper, but it’s the lightest one that won’t compromise your descent when conditions get technical. I’ve put more days on this ski than any other touring setup in my quiver over the last three seasons, and it’s earned that spot.

If you’re training for or attempting long ski-mountaineering objectives — Rainier, Denali approach skis, serious vert-count days — go with the Atomic Backland 85 UL and accept the descending trade-offs. You’re not buying this ski to charge. You’re buying it to survive a 6,000-foot day and still have legs left for the summit push.

Don’t buy ultra-light skis for resort days. That’s the mistake I see most often: skiers get seduced by the spec sheet and end up with a ski that can’t handle groomer speeds or chunder. Match the tool to the job.

FTC_DISCLOSURE