First mistake: thinking that my first test should be to cross-country ski- in hilly terrain- some ~8kms (5miles) in VERY deep snow (50cm of powder), in order to access some sweet, steep ravines….
A XC ski the Kom ain’t- period. And- although its flotation, stability, grip and trail-breaking performance is simply AMAZING- slogging through VERY deep snow for 5 miles in T4s was a BRUTAL slog. (I did two separate tours in the same snow conditions and terrain with both my Annums and then my Combat Natos- both of these skis were more than TWICE as efficient cross-country skiing than the Kom- though I was using Alpina Alaska NNNBC boots with the Annum/Combat Nato...)
In very deep snow, the Kom is no more efficient when breaking trail and climbing than its more utilitarian sibling, the Hok. (The Hok offers enough flotation, has a similar Earth-shattering trail-breaking tip, and has even more grip, than the very grippy Kom.) However, on the return trip, the Kom definitely glides better and performs “better” than the Hok on a broken out track (I say “better” with quotes, because a XC ski like the Combat Nato might be 4 times more efficient the Kom when XC skiing on a broken-out track).
I think I may have made a second mistake- will get to that later…
NOW- what the Kom is: an absolutely AMAZING backcountry downhill ski- especially for low verticals, and skiing tight lines on truly steep terrain and in highly variable snow:
• It climbs VERY well- the combination of width, low camber and smooth flex, enables superb grip for a scaled ski. This is perfect for low-vertical yo-yo skiing as one does not need climbing skins (just lay a low-angle track). (In fact the only scaled ski that I have tried- that compares- is the Vector BC.)
• The absolutely wicked fat, broad, raised and rockered tip breaks trail through deep snow like nothing I have ever witnessed (aside from the Hok).
• The rockered tip shortens the effective edge, and offers early tip rise in deep snow. At downhill speeds, the Kom rises to the top of even the deepest pow.
• The Kom simply wants to turn- especially in deep, soft snow. I have the 162cm, and with my T4s I can carve and smear turns of most any radius I choose- on truly steep terrain.
• The Kom has a moderately stiff, round flex, offering excellent stability in deep snow, and at speed.
• The Kom is fairly torsionally rigid (certainly WAAAY more rigid than a ski like the Annum/Epoch/S-98/S-112). This combined with its flex, means that the Kom effectively holds an edge- even when you charge and push it to carve.
The Kom is a world-class backcountry yo-yo ski for low-vertical and downhill skiing tight lines below tree line.
At 98mm underfoot, the Kom is beyond I think any normal human’s “XCD” capabilities (I say “XCD” from a classical perspective (i.e. downhill skiing with XC boots and bindings))- I cannot imagine being able to drive this ski with a XC boot. In my opinion one needs at least a T4/Excursion class Telemark boot to drive the Kom (Nils Larsen has told me that the longer 174cm Kom may require even more of a boot than the T4…)
My second tour I drove to within less than 2 kms of sweet, steep, north-facing hardwood ravines, sloping into the Nashwaak river valley. With less blood, sweat and tears getting to the downhill skiing, the Koms were in their element- spend 3 hours climbing and charging downhill through absolutely spellbinding deep snow and hardwood forest (approx.. 150m vertical).
Which leads me to perhaps my second mistake- the binding I chose...
I mounted the Voile 3-pin hardwire. I chose this binding so that I might truly “XC” ski in 3-pin mode for significant distance in order to reach sweet, remote downhill skiing. As I have discovered- the Kom is no XC ski. I have gone out once with my leather Alico Telemark boots- this was more efficient XC skiing than the T4s, BUT, there is no way I can drive the Kom with a leather Tele boot- like I can with my T4s. SO- what is the point of taking the Kom with a leather boot, if I can’t charge down the steepest slopes when I get there? I might as well be on my Annums/Combat Natos if I am not going to be able to charge and carve on truly steep terrain- right?
So- what I have realized is that the free-pivot Switchback (I spent a couple of weeks trying to decide between the hardwire and the switchback) would have been a better choice. Why?
1. The difference in climbing efficiency of the free-pivot just cannot be underestimated. (I will NEVER forget the first time I climbed a real mountain with AT bindings (1998) after years of climbing with a 3-pin toe!!!!)
2. I just cannot get enough momentum with the Kom-T4 to take advantage of the XC 3-pin binding. I doubt VERY much that I the free-pivot mode on the Switchback would be any less efficient than the 3-pin when XC skiing.
I am NOT disappointed that I stepped up to the hardwire cables however (I had originally planned on just throwing ye-old 3-pin cable on the Kom…) The Kom at 98mm is a lot of ski- and I don’t do enough local backcountry-downhill skiing to justify having multiple pairs of downhill-specific backcountry skis. The hardwire gives me enough stability and activity to drive the Kom- even when the snow is not ideal.
This is quite a ski- I am thrilled with it. It is a downhill ski. Which is good- because that is what I bought it for! My old Guides are officially retired.
The specs:
• Length: 162cm.
• Sidecut: 124-98-120mm.
• Camber profile: rockered tip, low profile single camber.
• Flex: moderately stiff, smooth, round flex.
• Tip: broad, raised.
• Base: extruded with scales- geared towards climbing traction.
• Edges: full-length, but not wrap-around.
This ski has early taper, and does not have a parabolic sidecut.
