Altai Kom skis

[phoenix]

lilcliffy,
I've been going thru a very parallel process in gear selection this season. I have some Alaska 75's, and also Excursions... went back and forth between the Kom's (162 for me) and Objectives for a couple of months.
Went with the Objective BC's finally. Though I'll still be wondering about the Kom's. I think I'll be able to mess around on the Objective's with both boots, depending on the outing. The Kom's: I spoke with Nils, and he suggests - and rightly so- better to go with the light plastics.
'I'll be clipping into a pair of Spike 3 pins.
We should compare notes once we ski 'em some!

[fisheater]

Woods, I get your analogy to a degree, but I have not put my hands on either ski. I am impressed by your videos, and I am impressed by your enthusiastic reviews. I will wait and read the continuing reviews, and play with wax on my skinny skis. I still want to see how well I can do with wax, I really like it so far. I also have that s-112, it skis light powder up to two feet well, I have not had it any deeper. In powder it handles the downhills better than it tours. It also handles most spring conditions well enough. I don't do well in crust with it, and when it is chopped up it gets a little squirrelly on the trails (that's when I need a squirrel hunting ski). I really need a ski that can handle that 4" crust, at least better than the skis I have. Because my fact of life is if I have good coverage, it will crust up. I don't necessarily get new snow until a thaw comes. So a lot of the time I am just trail skiing. My fat ski is more to keep turning when the snow gets bad, and to get as much in as I can when the snow is good. A few hours north the terrain gets better and the snow also. Preservation can be really good for the most part, but it is still putting on miles to get turns.
You have way better terrain than I do. My downhills are only 300 feet, and those are the biggest. I have thick woods, I had beagles for a number of years, and I ran rabbits the same places I ski. That is why I want a ski that tours. I might ski 10 miles to ski 4 or 5 hills. Some of the hills I might yo-yo 6-10 times, others it is only once. Because it is to steep and narrow to climb up, and the next trail I bushwack to does not head back that way. Bottom line is I have no idea what would be the best ski. What will probably happen is we will get dumped on next winter. I'll finally make a decision, and it will warm up before I get them mounted

[lilcliffy]

lilcliffy,
I've been going thru a very parallel process in gear selection this season. I have some Alaska 75's, and also Excursions... went back and forth between the Kom's (162 for me) and Objectives for a couple of months.
Went with the Objective BC's finally.

Cool man.

What is your initial experience and perspective on the Objective- and what length did you get?

The Objective BC is a serious lure for me...

[lilcliffy]

That is why I want a ski that tours. I might ski 10 miles to ski 4 or 5 hills. Some of the hills I might yo-yo 6-10 times, others it is only once. Because it is to steep and narrow to climb up, and the next trail I bushwack to does not head back that way.

A ski that offers enough XC performance for significant distance...plus offers downhill performance as well...

How are you finding those Combat USGIs for this context? It is truly a XC ski- but, if you are comfortable downhill skiing on it- that opens a whole world of possible options.

How much do you weigh Bob?

Perhaps the most versatile single ski for what you are thinking of would be the Fischer Excursion 88 with the Easy-Skin kicker skin...It will track much better and XC ski much more efficiently than your S-112; it will be a much slower XC ski than the USGI- BUT- it will be much lighter and easier to turn with that softer flex and nice open rockered tips.

Instead of the Excursion you can enter the frustrating world of the mid-width BC-XCD skis (Eon/Ingstad/E-109/T-78). I think that the Ingstad is the best, but it certainly will not turn as easy as the E-88...But- it does turn easier than your Combat USGIs...

If you got the E-88, and discovered that you eventually wanted a narrower ski for denser, harder snow: Asnes Nansen with skin lock; or T-78 with Easy-Skin.

I think I would try the E-88 first- see if it is enough. The downhill part seems very important to you- you may well be willing to sacrifice some XC performance for the downhill performance of the E-88...

In the same context I tend to reach for the E-109 or Combat Nato/Ingstad- knowing full well that I would get better downhill performance in a ski like the E-88...However- when it comes right down to it, the E-88's sidecut and the flex with a rockered tip may make the most sense of any of these skis for distance touring combined with excellent downhill performance...I know that my 210cm Combat Natos require me to pick strategic descents- open enough to ride them as much as possible. Perhaps I just don't know what I am missing and would prefer the E-88 over all of these mid-width XCD touring skis. I have no doubt that the E-88 will perform better than the E-109 in deep and difficult snow...The E-109 with its extremely narrow waist and soft wimpy tip only performs as a XC in ideal conditions...

Woods-
What do you think about the E-88 in Bob's context?

[Woodserson]

Woods-
What do you think about the E-88 in Bob's context?

I think it has some merit. I do not have the KOMs for any sort of flat-land travel. I think it's miserable with plastic boots and the short length and all those scales. I like leather boots and then if I have short downhill ski sections I can make do with what's on my feet. I am finding myself gravitating towards the 189cm 88 for this kind of stuff, but I still believe in the 98, except in a shorter length-- I have a spot in the woods here that takes a few miles of road skiing to get to and then it's tight skiing-- I think a 179cm 98 is the way to go to maintain the comfort and efficiency of leather boots for my 160lb self. The key for me is the leather boot and it's most efficient use. I could probably wrestle a 112 but I know I would be happier on a 98 waist of 69mm with the Antarctics.

Interestingly, I don't know why I keep leaning towards the 88 instead of the 98, we've hashed this out before, but in the same length and weight ratings I do better on the 88s and I think it's the rocker. It may be worth exploring in a store to see if my 98s are some aberration with their lack or rocker-- I just don't know.

I also think the Objective BC, considering Jonny's review, is also a serious contender here since the rocker and lightness seem to be light years ahead of Fischer, and it can be used with equal ease with plastic for more downhill stuff and leathers with a certain level of skill, panache, and possibly less downhill oriented skiing.

This is all very subjective to my personal preferences however.

Bob- I to have lots of crust conditions, difficult always, with no easy solutions. If the crust is going to support my weight I'll take a narrower skier with better edge hold, and ride whatever dust is on top to full effect. If it's breakable crust, I usually seek out snowmobile trails and lakes and wait for a better day....

Lots of speculating that can only be answered by biting bullets and trying and selling the failed ideas to fund new ones...

[lilcliffy]

What about the 88 over distance- enough camber for it to be tolerable?

What about the 88 vs. 98 over distance? This is the context where I have not liked the 122 or the 98- I find them frustratingly turny- due to the sidecut- when I have tried them on a distance tour...It was actually a big dispointment for me several years ago...Although I like the flex of the 98&112 better than the Epoch&Annum, I find that the Epoch/Annum track straighter than the 98/112...

Bob- how steep are these downhill runs you want to hit? If they are only moderate slopes than the more distance-oriented XCD skis (T-78/Eon/E-109/Ingstad) would be perfect. (I think that the E-99 Tour (waxable) is really equally a good choice too- a bit more XC, a bit less D). However- if the slopes are steep then the E-88 is likely a much better downhill ski than the narrower distance-oriented XCD skis?

[Woodserson]

What about the 88 over distance- enough camber for it to be tolerable?

I like it... used it on long snowmobile trails. However I think this is quite a personal opinion. It's not an E99 or wood Madshus Touring wax, but it does a nice job.

[lilcliffy]

Excursion 88 Bob- with Easy Skin- should be able to get it for a steal in the off-season...

I should get one too so we can all compare!

[lilcliffy]

Excursion 88 Bob- with Easy Skin

That is- unless it ain't steep- then the T-78 is probably better!

[phoenix]

lilcliffy, I haven't even had a chance to try 'em yet. Just got the bindings day before last... been working, and the snows going fast. I still THINK they'll be sweet... will check back in when I take them out to play.