Altai Kom skis

[MikeK]

hmm. I'm not seeing that. It shows the last post in the Kom thread by Johnny showing NNN-BC adapter plate for me.

I've done this before and it's worked fine. Maybe try a refresh?

If you still have a problem tomorrow and are seeing these, PM Johnny or me and we'll see what we can do.

[lilcliffy]

Just checked- it's cleaned itself up.

The last post I made tonight on the "Kom" thread was showing up in both the Kom and th Hok thread- no longer!

[Woodserson]

Who said I was influential and powerful?

Not sure about the size either yet... I guess I'll decide at the last minute... If the guys originally made the ski at 162, I guess I would trust their expertise and go for that...

I guess... but if they are developed for west coast, specifically Cascade Mtn skiing, the snow is pretty dense up there. (Judging on that ONE video-- incredible small sample size-- the snow is pretty dense so the skis appear to float well). I have skied a bunch in WA, and I can say that the snow on the East Coast is often lighter (believe it or not) and I wonder if the longer length would be better for that type of snow. A little more guidance from Altai would be helpful.

[kumachan]

Nils responded to an email I sent to Altai Skis and wrote that they're planning to do a Hok Festival on the East coast next year. I'm looking forward to that!

[bgregoire]

Nils responded to an email I sent to Altai Skis and wrote that they're planning to do a Hok Festival on the East coast next year. I'm looking forward to that!

Woohoo!
https://www.onf.ca/film/les_raquetteurs

[Woodserson]

I hope more than one!

[Woodserson]

I wrote to Nils. HELP WOODSERSON DECIDE HOW TO WASTE HIS $$$! 162 or 174? RARE OPPORTUNITY!

Howdy!
>
> I've been eyeing the KOM for a few years now and have always hemmed and hawed because of the 162 length. Now that the 174 is out, I'm ready to pull the trigger but I suddenly can't decide between the 162 and 174. Here are some parameters and I'm hoping you can send me some PRO advice!
>
> I am 6'2" 160lbs naked. Excellent, life-long alpine skier, AT, etc. etc. until several years ago when I busted my back bad. I became a classic XC skier during rehab, this lasted a few years. Started to go down hills with my XC gear and now find myself using T4's to push mid-fat skis (184cm), Fischer S98's (189cm), and a pair of Voile Vectors (180cm non-scaled version). No more alpine for me. I would rate myself a beginner/intermediate telemark skier. I crush the green circles with dropped knees and para-mark the blues with ease. I'm not a muscle-type skier, more like a light dancer focused on balance and the feeeeel and then a bit of arm waving thrown in.
>
> I really want a KOM for some of the local tree shots around town. We're talking about old river-banks descending to the old flood plain, about 100 vertical feet and consistent 25deg. descent. East-coast hardwoods and variable snow. Rocks. I want my skis to float when I'm balanced over my feet-- I hate the backseat for pow, so I lean towards the 174cm. But then I think of the sweet swing of the 162cm and those tree shots around town and I wonder if the 162cm is more apropos. I don't think I'll be using them in the big mountains, I've got the Vectors for that.
>
> The 162cm just seem so short. I've never seen this ski in person, so I'm trusting your advice.
>
> Love the tall tip btw.

NILS REPLIES

thanks for the email and interest.

I am 5’11” and 185 lbs and ski the 162 in righter places (like trees). I love it and do mostly parallels but still tele at times (I am a 35 year tele skier).

A couple if things of note. The 174 is nice (pretty comparable to 180 Vector BCs which I have as well) but is getting to the upper limit of what a T4 can drive in all conditions.

Sounds like you are a good alpine (parallel) skier and I think you would do well on either. The 162 is very quick in trees and - though it does have a shorter platform - is quite comfortable to ski as long as you have a good balanced stance.

On inventory, we are down to 1 pair of 162s and about 3 pairs of 174s. We will get more in late January.

On a side note- what you describe is what I would ski with the 145 Hoks and a single pole (with 3 pins and T4s). They are ideal and supper quick for short vertical laps. And with the single pole and a good parallel I skis stuff I would not ski with my tele gear.

hope this helps,
cheers nils

[Lo-Fi]

Hey Wooderson,

I'm 5'10", 178lbs, like pizza, Sagittarius, and I'm skiing the 162cm Koms and loving them.

The combination of big width, short length, tip upturn, and rocker, make the Koms pivot like crazy, making remarkable, really quick tight planing turns with little effort. It's almost like having "flying saucer" sleds on your feet, but with more directional control! Once I'm floating in softer snow, with a little speed up on a plane, I'm feeling like I could almost make 360 degree turns. Tele or parallel, you can carve turns but you can also just pull half-effort-foot-fake-turns and slither the skis around like the Grinch under the Christmas tree.

I've got 174cm Karhu Guides too. The Koms climb better, float better and turn more easily. The thing to keep in mind for technique is to keep your tele stance a little tighter, (feet slightly closer together, fore & aft), weight well centered, fore & aft, to make sure your back ski doesn't get grabbed back.

Not a great video production, but this was a couple of weeks ago in soft, heavier snow, with the Koms, Garmont Excursions, original Hardwires(no pins), skiing fairly tight, twiggy, Eastern trees....



.

[MikeK]

I thought it was an excellent production Lo-Fi. Nice static camera placement and nice skiing.

I know this is a KOM thread, and you seem to be enjoying them a lot, but I also know you have a big quiver. I'd really be curious to know how all your skis fit together and what you prefer with what.

For instance, what you skied in that video, how would it compare with your Guides?

[Woodserson]

LO-FI all your vids are awesome. I a regular viewer. Keep them up and thanks for the advice!