Kom or Excursion 88 good all around BC ski's?

[12gaugesage]

I have guide/annums and Koms.

I also just had a fun day with a group of four guys who all had the hoks, and while I was on the Koms, I got to observe and try the hoks. It was funny to see how much the choice of ski/skoe determined the terrain they sought out. The hok climbs like crazy so their lines up were mostly too steep for the Koms. The hoks also don't glide that well so they looked for very steep areas to just get and keep some momentum. The hoks are so short that they could manoeuvre through super tight hemlock stands. The combined effect was mostly past the limit of the Koms - or certainly of me on the Koms. The terrain demanded that they did a lot of jump turns and skidding, leaned back, truncated tele and parallel turns.

To a snowshoer the hoks may seem like a ski, but at least to this skier, they seemed a bit more like snowshoes.

Koms really are and act like a smooth, fast gliding, floating, carving, and true ski compared to the hoks. They float nicely in soft snow and pivot and can bite in on harder snow.

The Koms do feel like they shuffle more than kick&glide compared to the the longer, narrower, lighter and more nimble feeling guide/annums . However, when you get to your turning slopes, the Koms are more fun than the guide/annums.
.

Thanks for the response, it helps a lot. I have been very curious about a 1:1 comparison to the Hoks. What size Koms are you on? I am drawn to them because they are very much an elongated Hok, with a waxless base. Probably a great play ski for the rolling backwoods terrain and up and down fun runs that are so accessible to me, but you make me wonder if they lose some of the easy climb ability and tight woodland turnability that the Hoks provide, without a whole lot of gain in the k&g/touring department.
Do they glide on the flats much better than the Hoks?

Boy the Annums come up every where I look, gotta be the most ubiquitous BC ski.

This is difficult.

Thanks again

[The Lovely Bear]

[rongon]

I wonder how different a pair of KOM skis is to a pair of Vector BC...

[12gaugesage]

Damn, S112's for $240, and S98's and Traverse 78's available at 25% off, all locally. I must have imagined the 88's. Im so tempted, I hate this.

I question the float of the 78's, leery of the 98's for touring efficiency, and the 112's at 190cm are longer than Id like for a woods "play" ski, not being a great turn ripper yet. But a good deal is a good deal...

Those 78's are so close to the 88's, but also close to my Spider 62's which submarine way too much on unpacked snow....
They (78's) would probably be better with nnnbc than the 88s...
Im dying inside, and snows melting. Im gonna go kick around on my spiders and sort this out...

[Lo-Fi]

Thanks for the response, it helps a lot. I have been very curious about a 1:1 comparison to the Hoks. What size Koms are you on? I am drawn to them because they are very much an elongated Hok, with a waxless base. Probably a great play ski for the rolling backwoods terrain and up and down fun runs that are so accessible to me, but you make me wonder if they lose some of the easy climb ability and tight woodland turnability that the Hoks provide, without a whole lot of gain in the k&g/touring department.
Do they glide on the flats much better than the Hoks?

Boy the Annums come up every where I look, gotta be the most ubiquitous BC ski.

This is difficult.

Thanks again

It all depends on what and where you want and can ski. It's very personal and specific to your particular circumstances.

I have the 162cm Koms and 175cm annums, and I wouldn't want anything narrower and less turny, or hok-like, for the kind of skiing I seek, in the finite number of skiing days, I now find myself keeping track of, I have over the rest of my probable life!

I also have some karhu 10th mountain/ Madshus epochs that I've concluded I'll probably never ski on again because they just can't deliver the kind of ski experiences I love.

Sorry for the video re-posts, but just to illustrate that nothing less than the Annums or Koms could ski the kind of terrain and conditions I have most accessible to me and frequent, and thus enjoy:






Hoks are cool and they'll do steep & tight like no skis can do. They just don't seem "ski" enough for what I happen to like.

And if I'm touring, looking for turns, they'll be the kind of turns that will be best served with annums or, more likely, kom type skis, and I'll accept their limitations for kick & glide.

I'm curious what you'll end up with. Let us all know!

[Woodserson]

88s and 98s tour very similar.

How much do you weigh?

[12gaugesage]

88s and 98s tour very similar.

How much do you weigh?

6'1", around 210lbs.

[connyro]

I wonder how different a pair of KOM skis is to a pair of Vector BC...

I've skied both. I prefer a longer ski, so I'm automatically bias towards the Vector BCs, even in tight trees. I also prefer how the longer Vectors tour compared to the KOMs. The KOMs seem good for tight spaces and seem to prefer a lower overall speed than the Vectors. The KOMs climb about as well as Vectors. Both float in deep snow well. I prefer the rocker tip of the Vectors over the KOMs hands-down for both breaking trail and turning. The Vectors are freaky telepathic turn-wise for my style of skiing. Overall, IMO, the Vectors are more similar to a downhill ski that tours really well while the KOMs are a big fat XC type ski that turns really well but tours less well. For me, the Vectors are a better compromise between touring and turning than the KOMs. YMMV.

[rongon]

I wonder how different a pair of KOM skis is to a pair of Vector BC...

I've skied both. I prefer a longer ski, so I'm automatically bias towards the Vector BCs, even in tight trees. I also prefer how the longer Vectors tour compared to the KOMs. The KOMs seem good for tight spaces and seem to prefer a lower overall speed than the Vectors. The KOMs climb about as well as Vectors. Both float in deep snow well. I prefer the rocker tip of the Vectors over the KOMs hands-down for both breaking trail and turning. The Vectors are freaky telepathic turn-wise for my style of skiing. Overall, IMO, the Vectors are more similar to a downhill ski that tours really well while the KOMs are a big fat XC type ski that turns really well but tours less well. For me, the Vectors are a better compromise between touring and turning than the KOMs. YMMV.

Yeah, I love my Vector BCs. I'm learning to love them more as I ski them more. From Camels Hump to Rogers Pass, they seem able to handle most anything. The only drag ( ) is the fishscales, so I'd like to get a pair of waxable based Vector or V6 sometime.
--

[12gaugesage]

Thanks for the response, it helps a lot. I have been very curious about a 1:1 comparison to the Hoks. What size Koms are you on? I am drawn to them because they are very much an elongated Hok, with a waxless base. Probably a great play ski for the rolling backwoods terrain and up and down fun runs that are so accessible to me, but you make me wonder if they lose some of the easy climb ability and tight woodland turnability that the Hoks provide, without a whole lot of gain in the k&g/touring department.
Do they glide on the flats much better than the Hoks?

Boy the Annums come up every where I look, gotta be the most ubiquitous BC ski.

This is difficult.

Thanks again

It all depends on what and where you want and can ski. It's very personal and specific to your particular circumstances.

I have the 162cm Koms and 175cm annums, and I wouldn't want anything narrower and less turny, or hok-like, for the kind of skiing I seek, in the finite number of skiing days, I now find myself keeping track of, I have over the rest of my probable life!

I also have some karhu 10th mountain/ Madshus epochs that I've concluded I'll probably never ski on again because they just can't deliver the kind of ski experiences I love.

Sorry for the video re-posts, but just to illustrate that nothing less than the Annums or Koms could ski the kind of terrain and conditions I have most accessible to me and frequent, and thus enjoy:






Hoks are cool and they'll do steep & tight like no skis can do. They just don't seem "ski" enough for what I happen to like.

And if I'm touring, looking for turns, they'll be the kind of turns that will be best served with annums or, more likely, kom type skis, and I'll accept their limitations for kick & glide.

I'm curious what you'll end up with. Let us all know!

Yeah, I've watched those a few times. No need to apologize for the repost, thats awesome stuff. Your light years ahead of me, but I hope to get to that level. The second video is very much like what we have around here in many places, and exactly what I think of when I think "fun". I also understand why you wouldn't be enamored with the Hoks, they are not that type of "ski" at all.

Thanks for all the info!