Altai Kom skis

[Woodserson]

Video is private...

I think that kind of flexing makes perfect sense on a shorter ski like the Kom. I am excited to try them for my application, which is quick up+downs locally in manky conditions.

[MikeK]

LoFi - you might want to check your youtube settings. It says that video is private.

[Lo-Fi]

Sorry. Very embarrassing - here's the vid...

I'd assume length has some part of that as well? 180ish vs 162?

Maybe. I'm more referring to the tips of the two skis. The Koms are a traditional looking tip with little (if any) discernible rocker. The Voile tips seem to "want" to come to the surface while the Koms need some guidance.

Unless they are scaling the materials and construction directly to the length, all other things being equal, I would think the length and thus leverage on the ski's flex would be a significant factor.

Ive only skied a couple of runs on the Vector BCs, and I never did an A-B comparison to the Koms, but I can easily believe that the Vectors have more rocker and tip rise. I don't know if this video gives a discernible sense of the Kom's shape and flex, but they certainly didn't feel like they had as much tip flex as the Jaks and Guides, although they do have some more built-in rockered shape:



The Jaks could have just kept flexing, whereas the Koms flex a little and then stop. What is cool though too on the Koms, is that when you flatten the ski's slight camber, the front end noticeably rockers up a bit on its own.
.

[MikeK]

KOMs look a lot stiffer than I would have expected them to be. That unto itself can make a ski plow rather than plane up.

Thanks for the vid - that was interesting.

[lilcliffy]

Yeah! The Jak's tip is so soft it reminds me greatly of the Eon...

Also- the Kom has much less tip rocker than I was expecting for some reason...The Vector's have waaay more opened tips than that...

I do love the look of the Kom's raised tip.

I am still suspicious that the disappointment in XC skiing in very deep snow may have a lot to do with flotation and surface area...A 180cm Vector has got to have more surface area than a 162cm Kom- or at least I would have thought so...

[connyro]

LC, The design and execution of the Koms and Voiles are completely different. They look nothing alike shape-wise. The flex and camber are also completely different. IMO, the Koms in any length won't be similar to the Voiles. Koms are surprisingly traditional in shape and camber while the Voiles IMO, are much more modern and magic. I also just don't get the need for a super-short ski to be honest, especially when you've got to tour several miles to get to the goods. Fat, rockered skis are ridiculously easy to turn, so the tight trees argument does not hold water IMO. Where I ski, we need float in order to bushwhack anywhere; we've got lots of cold lake effect all season most years. Short skis don't work as well as longer ones here generally speaking.

[lilcliffy]

LC, The design and execution of the Koms and Voiles are completely different. They look nothing alike shape-wise. The flex and camber are also completely different. IMO, the Koms in any length won't be similar to the Voiles. Koms are surprisingly traditional in shape and camber while the Voiles IMO, are much more modern and magic.

Yeah- I was actually expecting the Kom to be more of a Nordic design than a ski like the Vector. I just would have expected the Kom- due to its girth- to be a better performer in truly deep soft snow- I don't mean that I expected it to be better than the Vector- I just expected the Kom to do better in deep pow than it did...

I also just don't get the need for a super-short ski to be honest, especially when you've got to tour several miles to get to the goods. Fat, rockered skis are ridiculously easy to turn, so the tight trees argument does not hold water IMO. Where I ski, we need float in order to bushwhack anywhere; we've got lots of cold lake effect all season most years. Short skis don't work as well as longer ones here generally speaking.

Well- I definitely get where you are coming from here. 162cm is short- unless one is short and VERY light in weight.

I wonder how much of a different beast the 174cm Kom is...

[Woodserson]

Still, I think a fun toy that I'm willing to try. A Vector BC in a 170 would probably be 'better', but at the moment the Kom is cheaper and I'm somewhat intrigued. I also like supporting two Karhu guys and their Hok mission to get everyday people on skis albeit short ones. Maybe it'll be a gateway drug to some. I still think the Kom has practical applications for me, in a weird hillbilly way. We will see!

[MikeK]

Well I'd say based on LoFi's videos, you really can't go wrong...

[lilcliffy]

I too wish to support Altai Skis. I would very much like to see this small company be successful.

The Kom is clearly not a Vector BC- I am not surprised by this- I was expecting it.

I am not exactly sure what is going on here- but perhaps it is related to Connyro specific snow context- cold, dry, very deep fresh snow?

However- Connyro's testimony makes me lean towards the 174cm. At least in my own backyard- I too, have to XC ski some considerable distances to take advantage of the best downhill runs...

The Kom is excellent value, it is an intriguing design, and it is made in QC. And- yes- LOFI's videos are rockin advertising for the Kom!