What off-season ski deals are you looking for?

[connyro]

Skis like the Hoks, Metas, Karvers, Marquette Backcountry are pretty cool when compared to snowshoes, but I find that type of ski very limiting for skiing down. There's hardly any tip on them, so if you intent to actively turn these skis, it's pretty difficult to keep your weight from overloading the tips; they seem to like being skied passively and not aggressively at all, especially in a lite plastic boot. They ski down much better with soft leathers IMHO because your weight is not forced forward as much as when using plastic boots. They don't really do well in deep soft snow. I've also found that once you get them on edge in a turn, the skins embedded in the bases are no longer engaged with the snow, so fore-aft balance is compromised a bit when turning. They CAN be fun for dinking around the back yard or scrambling through thick brush, but I have a hard time considering them skis. The Altai Koms look like a whole different beast...I want to demo a pair of those!

[lilcliffy]

I tried a pair of Altai Hoks about 2 weeks ago. I have to say I was quite moved by the experience...

They are SO fun... But yeah, it was quite disturbing for me... I skied the 125cm version. It made me question why the hell we are so into long skis... For me, the short skis trend in alpine and telemark is just bullshit. I still think you NEED skis at least the same as your height. Speed, power and stability cannot be achieved with short skis. So why would I care about 125cm Hoks?

I honestly don't know. I had in mind they we're just another version of the ski-snowshoe, like all the previous incarnations made by various companies in the last 20 years. No wonder they were all big flops, they were just toys for people who can't ski. But jeeez, I really, really had fun. (Does that mean that I can't ski? ; ) I didn't want to switch back to my Epochs after a run with the Hoks... I don't know what's cool or not anymore, thanks to Altai Skis!!!

Yep, I NEED a pair for next season...! (Anyone?)

I wish I could say I have tried them- your description of your test drive resonates with others that I have heard!

I wonder what your experience on the 145cm would have been? Skiers are saying that the downhill performance of the 145cm is better (speed, stability).

I think your impression is spot on- the Hok truly is a ski- not a snowshoe. It is inspired by the indigenous bushwhacking-forest skis of Siberia. The Finns and the Sami have traditional skis like the Hok as well- for skiing through dense boreal forest. I find it particularly interesting that indigenous ski technology never made it to North America. It must have developed long after the ice age migrations from Siberia into N. America.

Your thoughts and feelings about ski length resonate with me in particular...I have a passion for long skis. For me- this passion is primarily driven be the need for SPEED- GLIDE! This passion for long skis, for me, equally applies to both xcountry and downhill skiing. When it comes to my everyday Nordic touring: length = xcountry glide = touring efficiency = speed. When you are freely gliding on a ski, it is almost effortless- like flying.

My other passion however is being in the backcountry- period! And although I can get away with long skis in the backcountry when I am in the alpine, or on a forest trail- long skis get truly challenging in the bush. In my neck of the woods, I have to be truly strategic when I am on my 200+cm touring skis (i.e. the forest in the Northeast is very dense). In general, I am willing to give up turning efficiency for touring efficiency. I like to cover lots of terrain and many miles when I am in the backcountry.

The trend towards short skis - and parabolic sidecut- is of course to make downhill turns easier and more efficient. I understand the reasons for this...and have appreciated them many times.

My perspective is that if one really wants to primarily downhill ski in the backcountry- there is no good reason to shy away from shorter, easy-turning skis.

The technology keeps advancing as well. I have read quite a few posts over the last couple of years full of complaints regarding the Karhu/Madshus XCD ski downhill performance. In a recent post a skier was describing that the Annum tail felt, "straight" and "rigid"- that the ski wanted to track straight- that he felt like he was fighting to make the ski turn.

For many of us traditionalists- XCD-telemark skiers- we have been using ski technology that was designed to tour first- turn second. Traditional telemark technique was originally developed to turn xcountry skis.

The downhill performance (turning/climbing/flotation) of "Nordic" skis such as the new generation S-Bounds, and the Voile Vector BC, cannot be underestimated. The downhill performance of these skis completely blows away traditional backcountry Nordic skis.

A ski like the Hok takes skiing in the bush to a whole other level. It is clear that you can truly ski ANYWHERE on a ski like the Hok- that is what they are for.

When I am doing winter field work- I typically carry my snowshoes on my ski pack. I ski in to the field site- snowshoe while I doing my field measurements in the dense forest. My primary interest in a ski like the Hok is to be able to ski my way through the dense forest. This may even allow to me to leave my long touring skis behind (if the site is close enough).

Getting back to Connyro's comments- the Altai Kom may just be the absolute sweet spot in a backcountry Norcic ski for XCD. The design of the Kom is clearly designed to do it all- tour, climb, float, turn, edge. IMO, a ski like the Vector BC has more of downhill focus than the Kom.

Johnny- based on your love of the Hok- I am very interested in what your impressions of the longer Hok- and even more the Kom.

I am definitely getting a pair of Hoks this year. I desperately want to test the Kom- may have to get to QC this coming winter in order to do so.

[Johnny]

Those snowshoes are impossible to get on edge... Well, at least with leather shoes... Too fat and too bulky...

But they are amazing where you cannot normally ski with 200cm skis... Perfect for east coast super dense steep woods... They are opening a whole new playground...

About the Koms, I'm not sure what is the point of putting out yet another BC ski on the already over-saturated market... At first look, they don't have anything special... And a bit heavy for XCD at 2850g a pair... But hey, maybe I just need to try a pair to fall in love with them, like I did with the Hoks...

[lilcliffy]

My interest in the Kom...are they different?- don't know....but they are actually fairly straight through the meat of the ski (by today's standards)- they have a LOT of width underfoot (for their length) = traction and flotation. They are rockered in the tip in order to improve flotation AND for easier turning initiation. They are kinda like an alpine powder ski in profile (fat with relatively little parabolic sidecut)- but with camber underfoot for Nordic touring. I don't know...I am very intrigued...A ski like the Vector or Charger is an AT/telemark ski with waxless traction added- after the fact (i.e. the Vector/Charger was not designed to be a Nordic touring ski). The Kom seems designed for backcountry XCD right out of the box....my only hesitation is the short length of the Kom...gotta hurt touring efficiency...but maybe not in very deep soft snow...they are 98mm underfoot! Even the longest Vector BC is 96mm underfoot!

What can I say...GOTTA TRY EM!

As far as the Hoks- it is a done deal for me...just trying to decide between 125cm vs 145cm....

[MikeK]

The Kom looks cool, but I assume we all have seen the video? I have one major problem with it, and it's of course the one you would expect...

The skis look like they do a great job of climbing and descending. The issue I see is the short section they show the user kicking and I'll quote, "gliding" - not much glide that I can see. Looks like a fast, jog, shuffle, even on the flattest, broken section I in the video.

This is where I'm going to say a ski like the Epoch or the S Bound absolutely kills it. I'd actually be getting some noticeable glide on that section with either of those skis. Neither would probably climb as good in that deeper stuff they showed... I'd probably be putting in a half herringbone on that even with the S Bound, of which the new version climbs better than the Madshus. I'm pretty sure neither of those skis would be as good downhill, unless you skied them really short and were in snow stiff enough to keep you afloat on lesser area.

I'm thinking someone who likes the Vector would like these too, but they might be more similar in actual performance than we think, although the Vector would probably still have the upper hand on the descent.

Hoks are obviously still in a complete different league for me. I'd get them as a SS replacement. I wouldn't expect to go any faster than I would on SS, just have a bit more fun coming down. For narrow NE mountain hiking trails and ultra tight glades, this might be the ticket. Also just bushwhacking through tight brush would easier.

Given the choice and keeping to more moderate terrain, I'd still rather grab the XC skis.

[Johnny]

I'd really like to try a pair of Koms... But I doubt they can be skied properly with leather shoes... But hey, I might be wrong... I thought the Hoks were just a toy and they are totally not...

For narrow NE mountain hiking trails and ultra tight glades, this might be the ticket.

That's where the main interest is I think. I have a lot of BC spots in mind that are impossible to ski on regular skis... Suddenly, the whole mountain range becomes skiable... (You'll still need goggles though... ; )

Given the choice and keeping to more moderate terrain, I'd still rather grab the XC skis.

Absolutely. But that's what's been torturing me: Why not make super light 140cm fat waxless XC skis? Like Lowangle Al said, why not trade speed and stability for a little fun? (And expand our playground at the same time...)

[MikeK]

Guess it's like anything, it's what you are after... Hoks or Koms will compromise speed and stability (and really speed on the flats) but give you superior performance in another aspect.

I really like getting some glide on the skis because I ski a lot of rolling terrain. I'm actually always surprised at how much more tired I get hiking or snowshoeing, especially on unbroken snow, than I do skiing.

It's great to be able to ski more, but I can't or haven't skied a fraction of what I could with regular skis, so it's hard for me to justify. If I was an expert skier and was looking for the next thing to expand my horizons, I might be interested... either that or if I was just wanting to get out and not have to go through the hassle of learning to control long sticks with floppy boots, then I might go for snowshoe-ski.

I think the reward of being able to rip it on a long, free-heel ski with soft boots is worth it.

[Johnny]

Gliding is the reason why we ski. That's the fun part... Without it, we all would be snowshoeing...

The reward of being able to rip it on a long, free-heel ski with soft boots is worth it.

*Exactly*...!
But I should add: The reward of skiing previously non-skiable terrain is worth it too...

[lilcliffy]

I have the same hesitation with the Kom as you do Mike- they are damn short! At least my baseless impression is that I would not consider the Kom for its touring efficiency. I am- as you know- primarily a backcountry-xcountry skier- so I am not interested in the Kom as a typical touring ski.

I do however love to tour and play in mountainous terrain (as does my wife)...in recent years, something we rarely get to truly enjoy more than 2 or three times per ski season.

The fellas that designed the Kom used to work in the Quebec Karhu factory- made Karhu XCD skis for years...

The reason that I am interested in the Kom is that I am under the impression that it is something different- that it is truly a product of intelligent and fresh design- from scratch. The other truly downhill-oriented skis are just that- downhill skis. The Kom is designed to be a Nordic backcountry ski. However- I can only assume the short length is for turning efficiency- gotta hurt touring efficiency. That being said the shape and design does seem unique to me...Although they are shorter than my Annums/Guides- they are much fatter underfoot (98mm vs 78mm); and have a rockered tip- I bet the Kom offers better flotation than the Annum...Also- unlike a ski like the Vector BC- the Kom has traditional Nordic camber underfoot- the Kom should offer more effective kick & glide than an alpine ski like the Vector BC. The lack of aggressive parabolic sidecut on the Kom is refreshing- after all- parabolic sidecut is really only most effective when on edge on a firm, stable base. If you are skiing on deep, soft snow- what does parabolic sidecut really do for a ski's performance? And as far as touring- I hate the squirrely behavior of parabolic skis during K&G xcountry skiing. Despite the fact that the Madshus (Karhu) XCD ski design is aging- those skis do track straight, and offer excellent K&G touring performance. The Kom seems to be truly attempting to do it all- in mountainous terrain that is.

As far as the Kom with soft boots...the open tips should offer efficient-enough turn initiation to allow a softer boot? At least in soft snow?

I guess the primary reason I am interested in a ski like the Kom (or perhaps the Vector BC) is to tour in the mountains, and jump off the tour onto most any downhill run- no matter how steep, even with fairly dense cover...

[MikeK]

I'm no expert on sidecuts, but I have to say whatever they've done on S Bounds really works (I say it all the time). It's just so noticeable compared to the other skis I have, and it seems to work best on deeper snow. On harder snow I hate the way the skis feel, but that is mostly the camber and the lack of damping I suspect. The caveat of all this is I'm not skiing fast and aggressive on top of the snow, I'm sunk in a bit at lower speed... so the sidecut probably helps initiation better in this case.

I assume if the ski is soft enough with enough rocker in deep snow, then the sidecut becomes less important as it will reverse camber itself easy enough. My assumption of this comes from skinny skis like the Glittertind, which are IMO easier to turn in deep snow using a telemark. I have great trouble trying to get them to carve on hardpack, so I usually just skid them in a not so elegant fashion - lack of sidecut and excess camber are the big contributors here.

I would assume the Kom would perform like that but provide float and easier initiation due to the short length. If it's purely a deep snow ski, it would probably be OK with soft boots as you don't need as much stiffness for those conditions.

I would also assume the Vector is way more versatile having that sidecut. What it may hurt for straight tracking during glide, it probably makes up for in being able to handle a wider variety of snow conditions going down.