This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
lilcliffy's list of favorite skis makes me think that the Kom may be worth considering -- and maybe even cliffy can speak to how it compares with the others he just compared -- surely more float than the s98 and less $ than Voile. Probably the longest Kom given 200#.
The Kom is a superb ski and a most excellent value- the new model is also significantly lighter than the 1st-gen that I have.
The Kom offers WAAAY more flotation than the most recent skis mentioned in this thread. AND- it has a superb raised Nordic tip for breaking trail in deep snow.
(The only part of my new Rabb that I would change is a more raised Nordic tip, completely wrapped in steel...)
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy's list of favorite skis makes me think that the Kom may be worth considering -- and maybe even cliffy can speak to how it compares with the others he just compared -- surely more float than the s98 and less $ than Voile. Probably the longest Kom given 200#.
The Kom is a superb ski and a most excellent value- the new model is also significantly lighter than the 1st-gen that I have.
The Kom offers WAAAY more flotation than the most recent skis mentioned in this thread. AND- it has a superb raised Nordic tip for breaking trail in deep snow..
...I'm looking for something wider and tighter turning than my SB98... Gotta squiggle between the trees here and there. Sizing info on Madshus products is extremely limited, but one site said to go with the 192cm if over 170lbs. I am 182lbs, but with pack and boots etc closer to 200lbs when my water bottles are full.
It's this shorter ski a good idea?
I want to climb and ski down even in the deeper snow if I can find it. The climb will be good but what about the float?
It's the enough difference from my SB98'S to warrant this ski?
The price is good! Any advice on this would be appreciated, thanks!
I skied the Guide/Annum/Panorama M78 for years before I got the Kom. The M78 can be fun in soft snow. Climbing is fine, but a little less than a wider ski like the Kom. I'm 5'10" 175# and I use the 175cm. If you want to turn, I wouldn't really go longer.
If you really want to turn, The Koms are magic. With their 98mm underfoot(and other well thought out design features) they rise up and plane very quickly and allow buttery pivot turns that you can just steer with your feet, parallel or tele. Very versatile, they can handle crunchy stuff too. Best skied with T4/T3/Excursion. The 162cm would be right for you, especially to "squiggle between the trees" but you could consider the 174cm too. Great value too.
I've now relegated my Guides to NNN-BC use and they are just ok.
Last edited by Lo-Fi on Sun Feb 19, 2023 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks lo-fi and LC, I might go for it. Probably would go with the 174 as that seems short to me and would be my shortest ski ever except for the Hok. I believe this would be the first time a ski that I wanted was available at my favorite local shop, so an added bonus. Also a good ski for my Ski March boot which I've only kicked around on the Hok out back. A T-4 next year.
Yo @Lo-Fi as I continue my Kom obsession you keep coming up all over the Internet, . It isn't clear to me which one you ski, the 162 or the 174? Maybe you have both .
Yo @Lo-Fi as I continue my Kom obsession you keep coming up all over the Internet, . It isn't clear to me which one you ski, the 162 or the 174? Maybe you have both .
I ski the 162cm.
I just picked up some G3 Findr 94 XCD in a longer 172cm which are similar to Koms, but I prefer the Koms.
Brand new 2022 Madshus M78'S 50% off at my local shop. Time for some serious quiver overlap! What the hell I'll get em shorter than my 98's for the trees. $165 can't afford not to and I've got the bindings.
I'm hefty at 190 lbs and ski Annums in 175cm length with Switchback bindings and 3-buckle plastic boots (Crispi CXP). I use them as my Northeast tree skiing/bushwhacking/powder turns ski when I want something that's lighter and glides better than Voile Vector BC -- which is a real *slug* on the flats for me.
I love the round flex of the Annum for making slow turns in soft, deep snow. I've skied them up in Quebec in a 4 foot deep snowpack with maybe a foot of fresh pow on top. I loved them for that. I would have skied the Vector BCs faster downhill, but the long stretches of packed snow on the road in would have been a slog.
It's definitely a taste thing, but I've found that for southern VT-Catskills-Adirondacks bushwhacking, the Annum is a really good ski to use. I even did a 20 mile day with 2000+ foot elevation gain up Glastenbury Mt in southern VT, and it was really great for that. The guy who was leading the way was on a pair of topo map topsheet Karhu Guides with Targa bindings with their cables really loose and T4 boots. He was flyin'!
But we Northeast bushwhackers are truly weird, so YMMV, with a vengeance. Hopefully this is a useful data point for you. Hopin' for snowin'!
I'm hefty at 190 lbs and ski Annums in 175cm length with Switchback bindings and 3-buckle plastic boots (Crispi CXP). I use them as my Northeast tree skiing/bushwhacking/powder turns ski when I want something that's lighter and glides better than Voile Vector BC -- which is a real *slug* on the flats for me.
I love the round flex of the Annum for making slow turns in soft, deep snow. I've skied them up in Quebec in a 4 foot deep snowpack with maybe a foot of fresh pow on top. I loved them for that. I would have skied the Vector BCs faster downhill, but the long stretches of packed snow on the road in would have been a slog.
It's definitely a taste thing, but I've found that for southern VT-Catskills-Adirondacks bushwhacking, the Annum is a really good ski to use. I even did a 20 mile day with 2000+ foot elevation gain up Glastenbury Mt in southern VT, and it was really great for that. The guy who was leading the way was on a pair of topo map topsheet Karhu Guides with Targa bindings with their cables really loose and T4 boots. He was flyin'!
But we Northeast bushwhackers are truly weird, so YMMV, with a vengeance. Hopefully this is a useful data point for you. Hopin' for snowin'!
Have you had a chance to take Annums out in NH (e.g., Mount Cardigan, Wildcats)? Would these be suitable for skiing down those mountains?
. It isn't clear to me which one you ski, the 162 or the 174? Maybe you have both 
.
