Altai Kom skis

[alpendrms]

If it helps at all...it appears that Mountain Gear in Spokane has them in a 174 length. Had they existed when I bought mine, I probably would have gone with this length...just because I'm used to longer skis, and certainly they would pair with my height and weight even better. However...I'm still very happy with the ones I have.

http://www.mountaingear.com/webstore/Ge ... 241908.htm

[lilcliffy]

As much as I try to get it, I think these are something I'd have to try first before buying. I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around these. lilcliffy, what are you seeing that I'm not? (with all due respect to alpendrms).

(just got back from an awesome tour on fresh snow- might be able to start catching up on all these posts!)

Why am I so interested in the Kom?

That is a good question…why is the Kom interesting at all when we have skis like the Epoch/Annum; S-98/S-112/S-125; BC110/BC125; or even the Vector BC/Charger BC/V6 BC?

The Kom has a number of attributes that interest me:
• Loads of width underfoot
• Rockered tip
• Traditional single camber underfoot
• Old-school raised tips for breaking trail

There’s something about this ski….I really want to test it…

First and foremost I see it as a Nordic mountain touring ski that offer some serious downhill/climbing performance.

But I am also interested in the Kom’s XC kick & glide performance in deep snow….

I currently use a 195cm Annum for XC skiing in deep, soft snow-but as pleased as I am with the Annum- it is only 78mm underfoot. I bet even a 165cm Kom would offer better flotation than a 195cm Annum….

There just seems to be something different and interesting about the Kom to me…

It has a unique profile for a Nordic ski (124-98-119mm). Fat for a Nordic ski? - sure is…but it lacks the trendy parabolic sidecut…At 98mm underfoot, the Kom is wider than even the 180cm Voile Vector.

The sidecut on a ski like the Vector makes sense to me- it is not really a powder ski- it is an “all-mountain” alpine touring/telemark ski, with enough torsional strength and stiffness to carve it up on dense hardpack.

Any Nordic ski that has a tip as wide as the Kom is clearly designed for deep powder snow. What has puzzled me for years is why all of these Nordic skis designed for the pow have extreme sidecut…

A powder ski does not need extreme sidecut- it needs flotation- and having extra width underfoot makes a huge difference in terms of flotation.

In the pow- open, rockered tips/tails make a bigger difference when it comes to turning efficiency than sidecut.

Checkout the profile in this extreme powder ski the “Depth Hoar” (167-143-160mm):
https://www.skilogik.com/skis/rockerrocker/depthhoar

Extra width underfoot not only gives you better flotation in the pow- it also gives you better traction for both climbing and kick and glide.

The effective flotation of current Nordic skis like the Eon (83-62-70mm), the S-88 (88-68-78mm) and the E-109 (82-60-70mm) is very poor due to the lack of width underfoot. At an appropriate length all of these skis should have decent flotation- but it is lost due to the lack of width underfoot- lost in order to make them “easy-turnin”.

Unlike skis like the Vector BC- the Kom was designed to be a Nordic mtn ski…I think it is different- I want to try it!

[Woodserson]

What length would you think? It does look like they are offered in a 162 and 174 on mountaingear.

I wish there were weight recs. The Altai website only advertises in a 162.

What kind of boot?

[connyro]

The Koms seem to be a bit heavier than the Vectors (6.4 lbs in 162 Kom VS 5.5 lbs 160 Vector.) I wonder if they ski that much different. I think the Kom may have a bit more camber underfoot than the vector, so it might glide better. The Koms have much more sidecut than the Vector, so I wonder if the Vectors will tour better too. The Koms almost $200 cheaper than the Vectors. If I didn't already own the Vector BCs, I would look very hard at the Koms instead.

[lilcliffy]

What length would you think? It does look like they are offered in a 162 and 174 on mountaingear.

I wish there were weight recs. The Altai website only advertises in a 162.

What kind of boot?

Length...for me I would want at least the 174...

Boot? Light plastic touring boot: T-4 or Excursion (I personally prefer the greater power of the T-4)

If I loved the XC performance in powder enough- it could be a long-term candidate to replace my 195cm Annums (which I have NNN-BC on)...but I would have to be rollin in cash to be able to justify that one to my wife! I'd probably have to break my Annums first or something...

[MikeK]

Any possibility of a review of the Kom?

See here:

http://www.hillpeoplegear.com/Forum/tab ... .aspx#9363

[Johnny]

The Koms are currently out of stock at Altai Ski... Once they're available again (in a few weeks), I should be able to buy a pair and write a little something about them...

[Woodserson]

Looks like Onion River is selling the KOMs in all three new lengths, but the Altai website itself still only shows one size, the 162. (Which annoys me-- the actually brand site should have the most up-to-date information)

http://www.orscrosscountryskisdirect.co ... -skis.html

How does one choose between the different lengths? This for me would have to be a try-before-I-buy ski, though I don't deny I'm very interested. I wonder how many lengths ORS will mount up. Almost worth a drive, if we get snow.

[Johnny]

Who said I was influential and powerful?

Not sure about the size either yet... I guess I'll decide at the last minute... If the guys originally made the ski at 162, I guess I would trust their expertise and go for that...

[lilcliffy]

I have had great experience with communicating directly with Altai (using the contact email on their website).

Nils has always gotten back to me promptly- and he knows his products and the context of using them!

Man- I hate this weak $CAN!!!! That price of $399.99 is incredible value!