Altai Kom skis

[connyro]

LC, I would seriously consider the HW (or just a regular 3-pin) over the SB bindings for that setup. On a short ski like the 160ish KOM, I find that just a 3-pin minus the hardwire works just fine. I personally think that the SB would be overkill for such a short maneuverable ski. Excursions tour pretty well in 3pins, so I can only assume T4s would be similar but maybe a bit stiffer. I find that when I'm on short skis, I tend to 'overload' the tips when I'm using plastic boots and more active bindings. Oh, and also, leathers and SBs CAN work, but I don't think it's an ideal setup. When I tried it, the heel assembly seemed to squish the sole when K+Ging (Asolo Snowfield2 boots), allowing the heel assembly to occasionally slip from the rear of the boot.

[fisheater]

Woods,
Thanks for the great review, I look forward to your continued reports. I am kind of hoping you get two feet of light powder, because I really would like a review of how the Kom handles two feet of light pow on the up and the down.

What I need from a ski in this class is the ability to travel as efficiently as possible over deep fresh snow. The other thing I need is the ability to handle the tough deep snow on the downhills efficiently. I want a ski that handles that 4" thick breakable sun / wind crust, the ski that handles that wet dump, when it's two feet of mashed potatoes / concrete. That's all I would ask, but that is what I would want out of a ski that would not see a ton of use. Because I do not see those conditions all that often.

Based upon what I want out of a ski in that class I am leaning more towards a V-6, because I thick the fiber / carbon layer would offer a bit more torsional rigidity than the fiberglass only Vector. I originally thought the Vector would be best because being straighter it would tour better. I accept that the V-6 tours on par with Vector as Connyro has reported. I am still up in the air as to a BC or waxable version. I plan on spending more time on my waxable skinny, it has worked pretty well. When the temps called for blue it was awesome, but even when it got warm and I had to go full length red/silver I was happy with the results.

I am pretty confident as far as the binding selection, 3-pin HW. 3-pin for the kick and glide. Riser for that fat underfoot width. Hardwire to flex that T-4. I will believe I can ski this class of ski with the Ski March boot, until I learn otherwise. It would be my hope that I will be able to ski this class of ski without cables on the Ski March boot. Like Al said, the HW's do cause build up on the heels in deep wet snow.

I don't think I added a lot, just my thoughts on the subject. Keep up the reports Woods! Lilcliffy, I think you should be getting that waxable Vector soon, really could use a report!

[rongon]

If the Kom can easily make short turns at very slow speeds, does that mean it has trouble with stability when skied faster arcing bigger turns on steeper terrain?

The thing that astounds me about the Vector BC is that it does pretty well for short turns at low speeds in tight trees, while becoming a real downhill ski when you open it up on a wide open slope with some pitch to it. My one and only complaint with the Vector BC is that it's slow going downhill on packed snow (the scales drag). I wish I had the money to buy a second pair with the waxable base.

PS - On the Voile site, they have a video of how the Vector is made. They show it with a fiberglass layer with carbon stringers. That suggests the Vector does have carbon in its layup. Is that different from what they're doing with the V6?

https://youtu.be/ll_Nxlq247s

[connyro]

I'm pretty sure the Vectors have a carbon layer as well. My understanding of the difference between the Vectors and V6s is that the Vectors are straighter and stiffer while the v6 is softer, and, in Voile's words, "more playful" than the Vectors. Whatever that means...

[Woodserson]

It is unfair to compare the Kom to the Vector/V6, they are just different type of skis and unfortunately I'm not able to articulate the difference as much, but it keeps coming up. Just because dimensions are similar and there is rocker and scales shouldn't automatically make two skis in the same category-- "why" I can't explain but it made sense to me.

If I am hard-charging and going fast and that was the point of the skiing, I'd be on my Vector. Precise, stable at speed, crud-crushing skis. True heavy-duty AT/Telemark skis. You are going to hunt ELK in the tundra on a mountain!

The Koms are slower and not as precise, but balls of fun in certain applications. XCD skis. You're hunting SQUIRRELS in a New England forest!

Meditate on those two.

Tough to explain. I don't want anyone to be disappointed but be honest with yourself about your applications of 90% of your skiing.

Woods,
I want a ski that handles that 4" thick breakable sun / wind crust, the ski that handles that wet dump, when it's two feet of mashed potatoes / concrete. That's all I would ask, but that is what I would want out of a ski that would not see a ton of use. Because I do not see those conditions all that often.

This is quite a demand... I'd go Vector on this one and make sure to dial the speed up to around 60+. Don't die and good luck!

[Woodserson]

I'm pretty sure the Vectors have a carbon layer as well. My understanding of the difference between the Vectors and V6s is that the Vectors are straighter and stiffer while the v6 is softer, and, in Voile's words, "more playful" than the Vectors. Whatever that means...

I always take "playful" to mean softer, turnier, and anticipate more chatter at speed in crud and variable conditions-- there's a speed limit to the ski. I'm actually thinking of replacing the 180 Vectors for the 173 V6s for this very reason. (One of many ideas and when funds are available if a cheaper ski doesn't come along)

[fisheater]

Well gentlemen you are correct, both the Vector and the V-6 share the carbon/fiberglass layer. From the video the construction seemed the same. Is there a Dealer that stocks Voile skis in your area Connyro? It sure would be nice to be able to feel them and flex them.

[connyro]

Is there a Dealer that stocks Voile skis in your area Connyro? It sure would be nice to be able to feel them and flex them.

Nope. We are kind of on our own up here.

[lilcliffy]

Well- what I am really after is something that you describe well Woods- an up-down ski for BC skiing tight and steep lines through dense forested hills and ravines.

Currently, all of my XCD skis (except for the Hok) are distance-oriented- including my 195cm Annums. This means I must downhill ski through open hardwood stands, old fields and glades.

In my backyard-backcountry- there are limitless wicked downhill runs that require skiing very tight lines to truly enjoy them.

The Kom it is- currently leaning hard towards the 174cm- can't decide between the hardwire versus cable...

I am not trying to replace my Annums- it just seems to be happening...My 210cm Combat Natos have already replaced my Annums for a distance-oriented tour in very deep snow. The Annum is still my choice to go out and play on hills in very deep snow- it is much easier and more fun to turn than the Combat Nato. BUT- I wouldn't describe the Annum as the turniest of skis- if I get a Kom it will no doubt displace the Annum for up and down playing in deep snow.

The reason I want to be able to put leather on the the Kom is just habit really. I have been skiing my Annums with my Alaskas (I have leant out my Guides and 10th Mtns- each fitted with 3pc)- this is a great setup when the conditions are ideal. I keep thinking I will want to use both my T4s (which currently only see light at the local lift-serve) and a pair of leather boots on the Kom..but, I kinda doubt I will use the leather much on a ski that big....I have never put a ski as wide as the Kom to the test with a soft leather boot. If I want to stay with a lighter, softer boot, I should really be looking at the Objective...I feel the need to use my T4s more- for some reason(?)- which keeps me considering something as big as the Kom/Vector. The only time I have ever truly put the Vector through their paces, I used my T4s- lots of distance, 500m verticals- I skied some very steep tight lines with the Vector BC, and my T4- I could not have done that with a leather boot and a ski that big...AND- if I am honest with myself skiing very steep tight lines with a leather boot requires at least me to use a much narrower ski entirely...So- to ski the lines that I want to- on a ski that is wide and stable enough for the full-range of snow conditions- I need the T4. And if I need the T4, I feel that I might as well jump up and skip over the Objective...

(interesting how Connyro finds the Vector BC (an Alpine ski really) such an effective XCD ski- the K&G advantages of camber really disappear as the snow gets deeper and deeper...the 180cm Vector BC is obviously the choice for his XCD skiing in very deep soft snow- with long distance approaches.)

Currently, I think that the Vector BC lies either in my past- or in a future where I am able to travel more for BC skiing.

On the subject of the V6 vs. Vector- the V6 has a tighter turning radius and- from looking at the photos- has more tip rocker, and the tail is more open than the Vector- no idea what the difference in flex is- but, it would seem that the V6 would have significantly less effective edge-length than the Vector, plus more effective tip rise. This should make the V6 more "playful" (i.e. smeary, turny) in deep, soft snow (Voile describes it as an "everyday powder ski")- the Vector should be more stable at high speeds, especially on difficult and/or firm/hard snow. Bob- I would think that the Vector BC would be more effective in a wider range of snow conditions than the V6- just my 2 cents based on never even handling the V6! BUT- I can say I was EXTREMELY impressed with the edge hold of the Vector- it made my Guides (which I tested against them back to back) feel like wimpy wet noodles- the S-112 was in between the two. The Vector is a remarkably versatile BC mountain touring ski. If I had a Vector, it would likely become my local lift-serve ski as well- hard for me to justify considering how my kids literally have to drag me there a few times per season (I am currently using an old Karhu single-cambered military ski for the lift BTW- you should see the looks they get!)

The Kom it is for me- it fits what I want to do.

[Woodserson]

The Kom it is- currently leaning hard towards the 174cm- can't decide between the hardwire versus cable...

I'd go HW with a 174, honestly. Email Nils at info@altaiskis.com