Ski: 2024-2025 Moment Commander 92, 182 cm
Test Locations: Taos Ski Valley, NM; Crested Butte Mountain Resort, CO
Days Skied: ~12
Available Lengths: 170, 176, 182, 188 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length (straight-tape pull): 180.6 cm
Stated Weight per Ski: 2050 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2063 & 2094 grams
Stated Dimensions: 131-92-113 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 130-91.5-112.5 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (182 cm): 18 meters
Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 50.5 mm / 20.5 mm
Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: 8 mm
Core Materials: poplar/beech + titanal (2 layers) + carbon & fiberglass laminate
Base: carbon-infused sintered UHMWPE
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -9.9 cm from center; 80.4 cm from tail
Boots Used: Lange Shadow 130 LV, Atomic Redster CS 130
Bindings Used: Tyrolia Attack 13
Intro
The ~90mm-wide class of all-mountain skis is an interesting one, spanning from options that are basically piste-specific skis that have gained some girth, to some that actually feel more at home off piste than on it.
Moment’s addition to this nebulous group, the Commander 92, is particularly interesting since it’s the narrowest ski to come out of Moment’s factory in quite some time, and it’s different from the rest of their ski lineup in other regards, too.
We’ve now had multiple reviewers testing the Commander 92 over the course of a full season, so it’s time to weigh in on where, exactly, it fits into the narrower all-mountain category.
First, we’ll cover the design details and backstory, starting with our video with Moment CEO, Luke Jacobson, from our 2024 Blister Summit:
Construction
The Commanders (92 & 102) feature Moment’s burliest core construction, with a poplar / beech wood core, two sheets of titanal metal, and a tweaked version of their “Carbon Fiber Hybrid Composite Structure” to complement the skis’ metal layers and dense wood cores.
As with all Moment skis, the Commander 92 is made in their factory in Reno, NV.
Shape & Rocker Profile
The Commander 92’s blunted tips / tails and top sheet graphics might make it look like an outlier in its class, but strictly looking at its shape and rocker profile, it’s not wildly out of the ordinary.
The Commander 92 features a little bit of early tapering at its tips and tails, but it’s quite subtle and it has a pretty long effective edge overall. Its rocker profile features a bit more tip and tail rocker than some of the very traditional options in this class, but the Commander 92 features a lot less rocker and more camber than pretty much all of Moment’s other skis.
Flex Pattern
Here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the Commander 92:
Tips: 7.5-8
Shovels: 8.5
In Front of Toe Piece: 9-10
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel Piece: 10-9
Tails: 8.5
This ski is pretty stiff from tip to tail, but not quite as stiff as our pair of 182 cm Commander 102’s. Overall, the Commander 92 is a strong ski, and it’s pretty consistently stiff (rather than having tips that are much softer than the tails).
Sidecut Radius
The 182 cm Commander 92’s stated sidecut radius is 18 meters, which is reportedly an average of 3 different radii blended throughout the sidecut of the ski.
Mount Point
At -10 cm from true center, the Commander 92’s recommended mount point is right around what we’d expect for a decidedly directional ski.
Weight
The Commander 92 is heavier than average for its size, at about 2080 grams per ski for our 182 cm pair. That said, there are plenty of skis in its class that come in at pretty similar weights.
For reference, here are a number of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for some notable skis. Keep in mind the length differences to try to keep things apples-to-apples.
1605 & 1612 Romp Zorro 89, 182 cm
1694 & 1733 Parlor Cardinal 90, 178 cm
1711 & 1712 Majesty Havoc 90 Ti, 178 cm
1735 & 1754 K2 Mindbender 90C, 178 cm
1783 & 1809 Head Kore 93, 184 cm
1810 & 1828 Armada Declivity 92 Ti, 180 cm
1820 & 1867 Kastle Paragon 93, 177 cm
1821 & 1838 Stockli Stormrider 95, 182 cm
1824 & 1835 Black Crows Serpo, 180 cm
1833 & 1849 Shaggy’s Brockway 90, 180 cm
1852 & 1866 Peak 88 by Bode, 184 cm
1854 & 1863 Salomon Stance 90, 182 cm
1880 & 1887 Blizzard Rustler 9, 180 cm
1894 & 1919 RMU Apostle 96 Ti, 184 cm
1900 & 1908 Atomic Maverick 95 Ti, 180 cm
1915 & 1937 K2 Mindbender 89Ti, 182 cm
1917 & 1961 DPS Wailer 90, 184 cm
1933 & 1977 Line Optic 88, 184 cm
1946 & 1968 Salomon Stance 96, 182 cm
1952 & 1958 Renoun Endurance 88, 184 cm
1952 & 1964 Folsom Cash 93, 185 cm
1960 & 2004 Kastle MX88, 181 cm
1980 & 1981 ZAG Mata Ti, 178 cm
1981 & 1991 Faction Dancer 2, 182 cm
1999 & 2060 Line Blade, 181 cm
2008 & 2015 Folsom Spar 88, 182 cm
2008 & 2043 ZAG Harfang 96, 182 cm
2024 & 2035 Nordica Enforcer 94, 179 cm
2047 & 2056 Blizzard Anomaly 88, 182 cm
2047 & 2082 4FRNT MSP 91, 181 cm
2053 & 2059 J Skis Fastforward, 181 cm
2063 & 2094 Moment Commander 92, 182 cm
2072 & 2094 Wagner Summit 91, 182 cm
2077 & 2096 Line Blade Optic 96, 184 cm
2138 & 2163 Blizzard Anomaly 94, 182 cm
2165 & 2186 Wagner Summit 97, 182 cm
2178 & 2195 Volkl M6 Mantra, 184 cm
2220 & 2224 Moment Commander 102, 182 cm
With all the specs and details covered, let’s get into on-snow performance:
FULL REVIEW
We started testing the 182 cm Commander 92 right as the 23/24 winter was ramping up, and then we continued to log time on it, all the way through closing week. It’s become a ski that many of us enjoy, so here, we’ll work to help you figure out if you might feel the same, or if you should be looking elsewhere.
Groomers / On-Piste
Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): There are many perspectives / angles from which you could look at the Commander 92’s on-piste performance (and how it performs elsewhere).
On one hand, it’s probably the most piste-oriented ski Moment has produced. On the other, there are plenty of comparable skis from other brands that are more piste-specific than the Commander 92. Then, add on the fact that ~90mm-wide skis vary a lot in their designs and what they are optimized for, and context becomes important.
So, with all that in mind, the main point is that I very much enjoy carving the Commander 92 on a variety of groomed slopes. It is not the most engaging, most precise, or most locked-in ski in the class of ~90mm-wide all-mountain skis, but it’s no slouch.
As I alluded to in our video with Moment from the Blister Summit, the Commander 92 is definitely the best on-piste ski I’ve tried from the brand. Most of their skis are a lot more rockered and wider, but even compared to the previous Commander 98, the Commander 92 feels notably more secure on edge while carving firm snow, more energetic coming out of turns, and generally more exciting on piste.
Within its class, the Commander 92 falls somewhere around the middle in terms of how it balances on-piste precision with off-piste maneuverability. Focusing on the former, that means it’s not lightning-fast in terms of turn initiation and not the best option for truly carving ultra-firm groomers. But apart from some bulletproof spring-morning corduroy, I never had any significant qualms with the Commander 92’s edge hold. It can carve very firm snow when you put in the work.
On that note, the Commander 92 is a strong ski. It’s not as burly as the Commander 102, but between its flex pattern and not-super-tight 18-m sidecut radius, the 182 cm Commander 92 requires some input from its pilot to get it on edge and carving across the fall line. I’d still call it pretty versatile in terms of turn shapes, from short GS ones to near Super-G arcs. But, especially if conditions are quite firm, the Commander 92 needs some force to bend and get its edges dug into the snow.
The good news is that, once you do that, the Commander 92 returns the favor with abundant rebound. And, while it’s not super narrow within the whole ski market, the Commander 92 does feel pretty quick edge-to-edge, even compared to other skis around the same width.
Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, ~175 lbs / 178 cm, ~80 kg): I don’t have much to add beyond what Luke has said here, and I agree with him. For those looking for the most precise, best on-piste carver in the ~90mm-wide category of skis, I don’t think this is your ski. But keep reading. Because, given where I think this ski does really shine, I’d say it offers more-than-adequate on-piste performance.
Moguls, Trees, & Tight Terrain
Luke: Overall, the Commander 92 isn’t a particularly easy ski in tight, off-piste terrain. But I’ve still had a lot of fun taking it into those zones. Again, context.
Jonathan: Ok, I’m going to start barging in a bunch here. I love that Luke wrote, “Again, context.” Yes. 100%. So I’m going to interrupt with a bit more, since Luke is going to mention what we would call some ‘easier-going’ skis in the ~92mm-wide category, and I want to make sure that folks coming from the heavier, stiffer, burlier end of the spectrum get the context they’ll need here. Focusing on that ‘bit more demanding’ end of the spectrum, I found the Commander 92 to be easier, less demanding, and more fun than some of those skis. Again, context.
Luke: There are lots of skis in this class that are easier to release and pivot, more forgiving if you get backseat, and/or have lower swing weights (e.g., Salomon QST 92, Line Blade Optic 92).
Jonathan: True. And most of those skis are a lot less capable / composed at speed than the Commander 92.
Luke: But if you look at the ~90mm-wide skis that are fairly similar to the Commander 92 in terms of flex pattern, shape, rocker profile, weight, mount point, etc., the Commander 92 feels like just as capable an off-piste tool — if not a better one — than a lot of those skis.
Jonathan: 100%. There are great reasons to go with lighter, softer, easier-going skis if that suits how and where you ski. But if you prioritize stability at higher speeds and a planted feel, then the Commander 92 offers advantages, while still not-at-all approaching the most demanding end of the heavier / stiffer end of the spectrum.
Luke: The Commander 92 feels least ideal in really big, firm moguls lacking in obvious rhythm. In those, you have to be pretty precise with how you ski it, driving its shovels and dynamically lifting its tails to free them up, all the while making sure to avoid keeping your weight over those tails for too long.
Of course, most skis can feel like a handful in those sorts of bumps, and the Commander 92 is notably more approachable / less demanding in more “normal” moguls that are a bit smaller and more spaced out. All the technique notes I just mentioned still apply, but the margin for error increases as you have more time and space between each bump to get ready for the next one.
Jonathan: Totally agree with Luke, and just want to add that I quite like the Commander 92 in moguls.
Luke: Largely because of its strong flex pattern, I found myself skiing a bit less dynamically on the Commander 92 than I might on a softer and/or lighter ski (particularly in bigger moguls). I love to work through bumps in a borderline frenetic fashion, with tons of last-second slashes and airs, but that inevitably includes some less-ideal body positioning, and the Commander 92 isn’t very forgiving of that.
So, instead, I found the Commander 92 very intuitive when dialing my speed back a touch and focusing more on linking turns in a fairly fluid manner, rather than hacking and hopping my way through a set of moguls. It’s less that the Commander 92 feels “sluggish” — its swing weight never felt like a burden to me — and more that I don’t feel like pushing my luck as much on it as I might on a more forgiving, more forward-mounted alternative.
I think my main point is this: for some skis in this class (especially directional, metal-laminate ones like the Commander 92), I ski a few bump runs on them and then never feel the need to again, due to them being very difficult to predictably release / skid or really quick to punish mistakes. The Commander 92 isn’t one of those skis. It requires more precision and better technique than many of the softer, more rockered all-mountain skis on the market, but with that caveat in mind, it can still be a very fun ski to take into tighter off-piste terrain.
Jonathan: At my height, weight, and however bad or good I am at skiing, the 182 cm Commander 92 hits a sweet spot for me in moguls. If we are just going out to ski moguls all day, I probably wouldn’t grab it, because I could probably think of some other ski that would work as well or I might slightly prefer it. But then again… maybe not. And the bigger you are and / or the stronger skier you are, the more I think you will find the Commander 92 to be fun in bumps — especially when compared to the category of stiffer / heavier skis in this class.
Firm Chop & Crud
Luke: In the grand scheme, I think the Commander 92 is a solid choice when conditions are rough and firm, but that comes with some caveats.
If we’re talking about, say, chalky steeps that haven’t quite warmed up all the way, or end-of-day groomers littered with pushed-around snow, the Commander 92 is great. It’s precise on edge when you want to link carves, doesn’t get knocked around super easily, and lets you push it very hard when you feel like it.
Now, as the crud gets deeper and/or more variable in texture, I start to wish for a wider ski (e.g., yesterday was a sunny pow day and you go out first thing the next morning after the chop has warmed and then refrozen a bit).
The Commander 92 hasn’t felt “hooky” to me in these conditions in the same way many similarly narrow skis can, but I still appreciate more surface area if I’m running into bigger / deeper patches of cruddy snow. Those conditions are where I’d start reaching for Moment’s Commander 102 or Countach 110. In shallower crud, the Commander 92 feels more practical.
Jonathan: This is the thing I probably love most about the Commander 92: that lack of ‘hookiness’ in steep, technical terrain. I know I bang this drum a lot, but that’s in part because we spend a good bit of time in steep, technical terrain. And skis that do hook up and whip you across the fall line when you aren’t expecting that… well, that can lead to throwing you out of balance in spots where you really, really don’t want to get thrown off balance.
Skiing steeps in Taos and Crested Butte, the Commander 92 felt just planted enough, with just enough tail rocker and just enough of a stable platform that, in shallower snow and steep terrain, it felt quite ideal to me.
And yes, if the snow starts getting deeper and punchier, then I’d be happier to be on a wider platform. Still, if I had to be on a ~92mm-wide ski in deeper and punchier conditions, the Commander 92 would be damn near the top of my list of skis for this.
Luke: One noteworthy aspect of this ski is that, while it’s on the heavier side for its size, I wouldn’t say the Commander 92 offers super “plush” suspension. It doesn’t feel harsh, but it also doesn’t absorb / mute out every little vibration coming from the snow.
Jonathan: Luke and I discussed this quite a bit. He’s right. But there’s quite a bit of nuance here. For me, to be clear … I quite like the suspension of the Commander 92. No, it’s not the “most” plush ski I’ve ever been on, but as Luke describes, it offers good suspension while also providing what is, in my mind, a nice degree of feedback re: what the snow under your feet is like.
Luke: The Commander 92’s high-speed stability is closely linked to the skier who’s driving it. The Commander 92 doesn’t offer an inherently glued-to-the-snow ride that just lets you chill out as the ski absorbs each impact from the snow. But since the Commander 92 is pretty stiff (and not very light), I found that I could ski it about as hard as I’d want in most firm conditions. I just had to drive it through patches of rougher snow to keep it slicing through them, rather than bouncing off them if I shifted my weight centered or backward.
In sum: I think the Commander 92 can be a great ski for when conditions are firm and cruddy, but it does require a certain level of technique and aggression from the skier to perform at its best.
Jonathan: That’s all fair. If we’re talking about the absolute “most” stable skis in off-piste conditions, my top 5 or top 10 list would probably not include any skis this narrow. But here, we’re not worried about the most stable skis — and the Commander 92 certainly isn’t the most stable ski Moment makes. But the Commander 92 is, in my view, a ski that offers nice stability in combination with excellent versatility in a not-very-demanding package. It’s a combination that won’t resonate with all skiers, of course, but I think it’s an outstanding combination for the right skiers.
Soft Snow
Luke: This isn’t a ski that was designed with soft snow as a big priority, but it’s generally fine in these conditions for what it is.
Jonathan: Yep. See what I wrote above.
Luke: In soft but shallow snow, the Commander 92 is pretty easy to pivot around and isn’t quite as quick to grab / get hung up as some other skis around the same width. But once there’s more than about 5” / 13 cm of new snow, I’ll be wishing for something wider and more rockered. For its class, I’d call the Commander 92 about “average” when it comes to how well it floats and how maneuverable it feels in softer conditions.
That said, the Commander 92 can be a lot of fun when there’s a coating of soft snow over a supportive base. In that scenario, I can basically just ski it like I would on a firm day, but the ski feels more maneuverable when I want to slash it sideways, and the snow adds a degree of forgiveness since the ski isn’t as quick to dig in if I get slightly off balance.
Mount Point
Luke: -10 cm seems like the de-facto recommended mount point for most directional skis these days, so the Commander 92 has plenty of company in that regard. On its recommended line, the Commander 92 (expectedly) has a strong preference for a forward stance where you keep your weight over its shovels and off its tails, for the most part.
Now, on skis like the Commander 92, I often spend at least one day with their bindings bumped a bit closer to center, mostly to see if doing so makes them feel more intuitive to me without creating significant drawbacks.
On the Commander 92, I ended up preferring this approach, with the ski mounted about +1.5 cm from recommended (roughly -8.5 cm from true center). There, it was easier for me to maintain a balanced but still forward-biased stance, and I didn’t notice any significant compromises in terms of how the ski initiated and finished carved turns, how punishing its tail felt, etc.
I think most folks who will get along with the Commander 92 will get along fine with its recommended mount point. But going forward a cm or two is also a viable option if you often prefer skis with slightly less-rearward mount points.
Jonathan: Yeah, I like the Commander 92 on the line, but if I was mounting my own personal pair, I probably would drill it at -9.
Perhaps a more helpful thing to say: if the Commander 92 is, in fact, a good fit for you, I highly doubt that mounting on the line or going 1 or 2 cm forward will radically affect your opinion of the ski.
Length
Luke: Understandably, Moment makes it clear in their copy surrounding the Commander skis that these skis are very different from the rest of their lineup, and as a result, some folks may want to size down on the Commanders.
For the Commander 102, I definitely agree (see our Flash Review of the 102). But on the Commander 92, I don’t think it’s a case where everyone should size down — it depends on your particular background and how you’ll be using this ski.
Jonathan: Agreed.
Luke: The Commander 92 excels on firm snow and its soft-snow flotation should be a low priority for most people, and that’s a reason to potentially go a bit shorter. It’s also a strong, fairly heavy, minimally tapered, and minimally rockered ski — all additional factors that can make a ski feel longer than its on-paper length might suggest.
However, in terms of how long it feels on snow, I wouldn’t say the Commander 92 is a big outlier within the class of ~90mm-wide, directional, metal-laminate skis.
For reference, I’m 5’8”, 155 lbs (173 cm, 70 kg) and I typically prefer skis in the ~90mm-wide all-mountain category in lengths ranging from 175 to 185 cm. The Commander 92’s lengths sit on either end of that range, and I think I could get along with either the 176 cm or 182 cm version of this ski.
If I skied at a place with generally lower-angle groomers and I’d mostly be using the Commander 92 on very firm days, I’m pretty confident I’d prefer the 176 since it should be a bit easier to bend and get on edge. But at Taos Ski Valley and Crested Butte Mountain Resort, the 182 felt like a pretty good length for me, despite those two mountains’ abundance of tight, steep, and technical terrain. Provided you have experience with comparable skis (strong, directional, minimally rockered, etc.), I don’t think the Commander 92 is a big outlier in terms of how long it feels on snow.
(Check out our GEAR 101 video and article on ski length for more on the factors that contribute to how long a given ski feels when you’re actually skiing it, and why you might want to size up or down on a particular model.)
Jonathan: For me personally, I’m not at all tempted by or intrigued about going shorter or longer. I’m getting along great with this 182 cm Commander 92.
Who’s It For?
Luke: The Commander 92 warrants a close look if you’re an advanced or expert skier who wants a firm-snow-oriented ski that’s precise and lively on piste while still being capable in off-piste terrain.
This is a true “all-mountain” option, but if you’re going to take it into big, tight moguls, know that it is not a very maneuverable or forgiving ski if we’re talking about the entire spectrum of ~92-mm wide all-mountain skis. It requires good technique to pilot through tight terrain and a bit of force to bend into tighter turns on piste, but people who acknowledge those aspects and ski it as such will find the Commander 92 to be a versatile tool.
If you want a ski that’s forgiving, super nimble, playful, or easygoing in general, this isn’t the ski for you. It’s also not some ultra-damp monster truck that stays composed at speed all on its own. But a lot of experienced directional skiers could appreciate the Commander 92 on and off piste, especially if you like a stiffer ski that’s more lively than super planted and “dead.”
Jonathan: I’m just here to say one more time that I quite like the Commander 92 in moguls :)
Bottom Line
Past generations of Moment’s Commander series tended to blur the lines between traditional, directional skis and modern freeride ones. The latest Commander 92’s role in the market is clearer — it is a precise, strong, and stable ski for directional skiers who value those traits in their narrower all-mountain skis. And while you could call its design fairly “traditional,” the Commander 92 still bucks convention in a few regards.
The end result is a ski that excels on firm snow, whether that means laying down hard carves on piste or slashing down a chalky bowl, and does so with a rare combination of high-speed composure and energy.
Deep Dive Comparisons
BLISTER+ members and those who purchase our Digital Access Pass can check out our Deep Dive comparisons linked below. Not a member? Become a BLISTER+ member today or get our Digital Access Pass to get access to this and a LOT more, including the best worldwide Outdoor Injury Insurance, exclusive deals and discounts on skis, personalized gear recommendations from us, and much more.
Deep Dive: Moment Commander 92
We compare the Moment Commander 92 to the Moment Commander 102, Blizzard Anomaly 94, 4FRNT MSP 91, Blizzard Anomaly 88, Nordica Enforcer 94, Folsom Spar 88, Wagner Summit 91, Salomon Stance 90, Renoun Endurance 88, K2 Mindbender 89Ti, Peak 88 by Bode, Armada Declivity 92 Ti, J Skis Fastforward, Folsom Cash 93, Stockli Stormrider 95, Black Crows Serpo, Head Kore 93, Parlor Cardinal 90, & Volkl M6 Mantra.
Blister’s Flash Reviews and Deep Dives are accessible to those who purchase one of our paid subscriptions
To get our comprehensive Deep Dives and our initial, unfiltered reports on new gear, become a member and receive many other services, deals, and discounts.
If you’re already a member, please log in.
(If you’re already logged in and a member in good standing and seeing this message in error, please refresh this page in your browser.)
Really excited to see the review of these, and how they compare to other skis ~90mm!
Has anyone skied these, and have thoughts?? I have a pair that I’m about to mount up.
Very interested to hear more. I just bought a pair of 23 declivity in 180 length (got for about $380) that I have not touched yet because I am waiting to hear more about these first. These seem to be stiffer and I am mostly curious to see how they perform off-piste in tighter areas (East Coast).
Excited for the full review! Luke- would love to hear your feedback on the 182 length for your size given Moment’s comments in the product description about sizing down (like you I ski 184s in the DW and WCs ) and also the more rearward mount point compared to the more forward mount points of the other Moments mentioned above. Cheers!
Yep, I’m curious about those things as well. So far, the 182 cm Commander 102 feels like the right size for me, but I’m curious to see if I feel like the 182 cm Commander 92 might be longer than I need / want, given that I’ll likely be using that sort of ski on firmer, shallower conditions where I have less need for the flotation and big-turn composure of a longer ski.
I have a pair of these. Just got back from Park city Utah skiing for four days. These commander 92s are my favorite skis I’ve ever been on. I am a predominantly frontside skier. These skis are damp and absolutely rip groomers. so fast and so much fun to ski! Headed to Vail in two weeks and can’t wait
A question for Luke, since I know you reviewed both: How would you say these compare to the 182 cm Faction Dancer 2? There seem to be similarities in construction, shape, rocker/camber profile, weight, and flex (though the Dancer 2 seems to have a softer tip and shovel). How close are these two skis in terms of performance?
I have the 182 cm Dancer 2s mounted on the traditional line (I started them on the “progressive” line and have inserts at both positions). I love their agility and size especially in bumps, but would ideally like a similarly agile, similarly sized ski that offers a bit “more” power and integrity. Does the 182 C92 fit that bill?
I’m 5’10, 220 lb, and ride on Raptor 140s (16 deg lean) or Tecnica Cochise 130 with pretty beefy spoilers depending on what I’m doing. I have what I’d describe as a “modern racing-derived technique”, about 40 days/season. I ski a fair amount of bumps, but the limitations of my 52 y/o knees mean that I mostly make GS turns with lots of gap-scooting as opposed to bashing straight down the zipper line.
Hmm, I hadn’t thought much about the Dancer 2 but, in hindsight, the Commander 92 could be a good fit for what you’re describing. Compared to the Dancer 2, the Commander 92 feels a bit more precise overall (tails not quite as easy to release / slide) and a bit more substantial in terms of its flex pattern, swing weight, and high-speed composure. But I’d say they’re very much in the same ballpark in most of those regards, so if you mostly wish the Dancer 2 was a bit stronger and a bit more stable on firm-ish snow, the Commander 92 seems like it’d be a very good contender.