kom vs Fischer Sbound 125 advice please

[lilcliffy]

Hello Rickg707!
I do have the Kom ski (1st-generation- it has been updated since and the current model is lighter)-
I have only handled the Fischer S-Bound 125.

The Fischer S-Bound 125 seems near identical to the old Rossignol BC 125- the Fischer version having a higher quality base + Fischer's Offtrack Crown insert + the Easy-Skin insert. (Otherwise, I remain convinced it is the same ski- just as some versions of the BC90 are identical to the Fischer 88...)
This ski is a very wide BC-XC ski- a wider version of skis like the S-Bounds and recent Karhu/Madshus XCD models (old school Karhu "XCD" designs were narrow and cambered).

The Altai Kom is a modern scaled BC downhill ski- in the same class as something like the Voile Vector BC (the Kom does not have the rockered and taperd tail of a ski like the Voile V6). What is unique to the Kom in this age is its raised trail-breaking tip.

From my perspective the only Nordic touring element in the Kom is its triangular raised tip- otherwise it is a modern light, wide, BC downhill touring ski- tuned for deep snow- with a scaled traction zone. And in that class- the Kom is a superb ski, and an excellent value.

The Kom will undoubtedly offer better downhill performance than the S-125- don't know whether that will matter in your context.

Length choice depends a lot on your specific touring context.

I have the 162 Kom- I am 178cm and weigh 84kg. While the 162 is incredibly manouverable, it is unstable at significant downhill speed...A not-so-insignificant trade off...

[lilcliffy]

However perhaps someone else can comment on kick and glide, perhaps @lilcliffy ?

The Kom is not a Nordic touring ski- not by any stretch.
They are perfectly fine for shuffling around- and are superb for up-down, downhill-focused pursuits in the hills of the Northeast.
For purely recreational pursuits- I actually like the Kom much more than the Hok for shuffling around in the woods- they gilde and turn much more smoothly. (I now use the Hok excusively for field and farm work with a universal binding and winter field boots).

[lilcliffy]

At ~165ish length- I cannot see how the Fischer S-125 would offer any performance advantage over the Kom- in any context.

A 189 S-125 would be more directionally stable and efficient than the shorter Kom (ie better in XC mode).

[lilcliffy]

I have heard guys complain about the climbing prowess of the Kom.

Without testing them back-to-back- I cannot compare the Kom to a similar-class ski (eg Vector BC)- but the Kom is the grippiest scaled ski I have personally ever skied (probably due to its low camber and 98mm width...)

[lilcliffy]

In my limited experience both of these skis are too wide for a leather touring boot in anything but ideal snow and not truly steep terrain.

[Rickg707]

you all give a guy a lot to think about. I was hoping to use the koms for a comb of nordic touring and low to mod xcd. my thought was that if I put on a rotefella cable binding, or the voile that Altai offers, then I could interchange using leathers for the touring and then maybe the t4s for the xcd. yes/no? I already do have a pair of Rossi bc80s but find them a little narrow for some of what I'd like to do. I also wonder if I may be better off with SB98s or 112s. but then id likely get nnn bc and be more limited on the xcd side.

just read your posts lilcliffy, thanks for your feed back. maybe I'm using the wrong terminology but by nordic touring I mean backcountry xc, breaking trail kind of stuff, but with minimal up/down. sounds like you (and others) are saying the kom is more for the downhill. replacing my heavier AT setup except for the truly steeper stuff.

[fisheater]

If you have BC 80’s why don’t you use them for easy stuff? Use the Koms for more difficult. Use the AT gear for what you can’t handle with the Koms?

[lilcliffy]

I was hoping to use the koms for a comb of nordic touring and low to mod xcd. my thought was that if I put on a rotefella cable binding, or the voile that Altai offers, then I could interchange using leathers for the touring and then maybe the t4s for the xcd. yes/no?

Yes- this remains the ultimate versatility of 3-pin-75mm- that has yet to be duplicated by any Nordic/Telemark boot-binding system.

I also wonder if I may be better off with SB98s or 112s. but then id likely get nnn bc and be more limited on the xcd side.

Nothing stopping you from putting 75mm on the S-98/112 either.

just read your posts lilcliffy, thanks for your feed back. maybe I'm using the wrong terminology but by nordic touring I mean backcountry xc, breaking trail kind of stuff, but with minimal up/down. sounds like you (and others) are saying the kom is more for the downhill. replacing my heavier AT setup except for the truly steeper stuff.

If what you are pursuing is "backcountry XC, breaking trail kind of stuff, but with minimal up/down"-
then my strong advice is that you want a ski much longer than 165...
We are of a similar weight- you are a bit taller-
for reference, all of my distance-oriented touring skis are at least 200cm for backcountry skiing in the Northeast.
Curious, for distance-oriented touring- why are you considering a ski as wide as the S-125/Kom?
Gareth

[Rickg707]

to answer some of the questions and provide more context- I think the bc 80s are ok. I bought them during covid so selection wasn't great and they're probably one size smaller than they could be. I got the hoks bc they looked like fun and I thought shorter and wider would be better than longer/thinner. I took them both on a trip to the Maine woods. hoks were great for breaking trail, and very maneuverable in the woods. the downhills were mellower than I expected for the trip I was on and the hoks didnt glide too well. then came the end of the downhill. we had 4 miles back to camp. everyone else skied back. mine was more of a hike. next day, I was on the Rossi's. trail break was ok more glide on the downs but I'd have preferred a little more side cut for better turning....

so really, my initial thought was that the koms would be a fish scaled version of the hoks, and be the best of both worlds. wider shorted AND more side cut and glide. my bc tours could be a few miles, up to 10-12. and like I said I was hoping that the kom could be essentially a quiver of one- switching boots depending on the steepness. maybe it too much to ask. maybe replacing my 80s with sb 98s or 112s is more what I should be thinking

[fisheater]

Hello again @Rickg707
I think your logic is spot on. If you want to ski leather boots, and want fish scales, your best choices are Sbound 88/112 or Panorama 68/78.
I think the option for an attachable kicker ski is a big deal.
Just curious, what leather boot?