Kom vs Ultravector vs V6? My first (xc)D ski

[havuja]

I never wanted plastic boots, but always loved downhills when conditions allowed me to enjoy them.
Around here (somewhere in Finnish Lapland) it is rare, most of the winter it tends to either be powder where 200cm Kongsvolds just vanish, hitting rocks and twigs on the bottom (i am not into VERY high speeds, at least on soft boots), or tricky variable above treeline. If there happens to be consolidated base with 5-10 inch powder on top, Kongsvold is all I would ever want for low angle/moderate skiing.
Springtime, when the snow carries better (if it is not all icy or crusty) I am happy with E99 class skis for easy DH fun.
Years ago I had some 90's Tuas with stiff leather. At those times I did not have the chance to get to the hills enough to master that art. I certainly would not say that I have a very refined tele technique, but, since I can have fun with soft boots and xc skis, I suppose there is hope.

To get more good downhill days I finally decided to try fat and plastic. I found cheap unused T4's with BOTH new Intuition- and older model stiffer liners. Also, to be sure, ordered used T2's.

So, this is where I am as I need the final advice for my biggest ever ski purchase.

I have narrowed it down to Kom/Ultra(/Hyper)vector/V6 class of skis, but am still open to other suggestions.
However, to my eye they looked tiny at 174 (definitely want more float than 200cm Kongsvold), and since then tried to find a bigger ski that I could still enjoy downhill, somewhat even in the woods.
Would probably have gone for 183cm V6's, thinking that they ski short and would give me that extra float without sacrificing too much in downhill. Perhaps luckily, to me they are only available in 178 this winter. Ultra/HyperVector is available at all lengths, and 184 Hypervector would likely tour best, but could I handle it downhill?

I am 5 feet 10 inch, 190lbs.

Overall, I would like to hear comparison of those three skis.
I know V6 would be the best for pow, Ultravector best for variable(?), but how do both of them compare to Kom in those conditions?
Kom is back on the list if I settle for 17X length. Mainly for price, but is there something it shines in?
V6 might be the worst for the tour, at least in snowmobile tracks (often have them to help) or harder snow, but are the others, and which one, significantly better?

My thinking at the moment is that, if I really need it, I can get a fatter/longer wax base ski later.

Thank you in advance, I know these questions are much bigger than life, and that there is no one right answer, but am confident there is someone out there who can help!

[connyro]

I've skied all three in one iteration or another. I'm about the same height/weight as you. I prefer the 180ish range for size on these skis for my weight/height/skiing style. Its a toss-up between the Koms and the V6 regarding turnability: both turn very easily. Vectors turn ridiculously well too but are stiffer and have less sidecut. I guess the Kom would be my 3rd choice due to shorter length but you can't go wrong with any of the 3 skis you mentioned. All 3 have very grippy scales (BC versions) and tour about the same. None of these skis tour well on packed snowmobile trails but for breaking trail in deep snow, they are pretty reasonable IMO. Where they shine is deep steep snow where quick turns and aggressive skiing is required.

[Lo-Fi]

I’m a big fan of the Kom as my go anywhere touring-for-turns ski. I think it’s worth reading about Altai’s “backyard backcountry” design concept as taken from their website:

When Francois and I created Altai Skis, our main goal was to make accessible and affordable skis that worked well in the winter backcountry areas that lie close to where many of us live. We call this backyard backcountry. Maybe its not as glamorous as the terrain and skiing found in the ski movies of the day, but its way easier for many of us to get to and with the right skis, lots of fun.



The Hoks were clearly our first and main project. We did look beyond that though, and had the Kōm ski in our initial vision as well. The ski is wide and short like a Hok, but in the continuum between a snow shoe and a ski, the Kōm is much more on the ski side of the mix. Our initial concept was simple. A short wide ski with a length between 155 cm and 165 cm, and between 95-100 mm under foot. We would also use some of the design ideas we incorporated into the Hok. The tip has some rocker, allowing us to reduce the sidecut a bit while keeping the ski easy turning. The binding and geometry are a bit forward then a traditional skis design as well. This keeps the balance and swing weight even, and the ski sinking more evenly when breaking trail in deeper snow – a condition we all seek out whenever possible!



The Kōm is also faster gliding then the Hok, as it uses a no wax (fish scale) base. The base we are using along with the ski design is quite aggressive for climbing, more so then the normal nowax base, but not as grippy as the Hoks with their integrated skin base. As a solution we are also developing a dedicated removable skin – more on that later.

The Kōm is a ski we have been working on for a few years, and the idea of it goes back to the start of Altai Skis. It’s a dedicated backcountry ski without many of the usual compromises. The Kōm can be skied with a downhill focus and it rises to lighter XCD touring use with a fun, stable feel.

There are a lot of great skis that are labeled backcountry skis, but they tend to fall into several distinct categories. Either they are full on downhill skis to be used with skins and big boot/binding systems, or they are more from the nordic end of the spectrum, often nowax with a wider platform then true xc skis but still with a lot of nordic DNA in their dimensions, flex, and overall design. At Karhu, Francois and I have worked on many of these. These are light and excellent for touring in moderate terrain, but tend to fall short when the downhills get more challenging. We wanted the Kōm to be free of these constraints, so rather then start from a nordic or alpine perspective we would start from a purely backcountry point of view. The ski needed to tour as well as it turned, and we have incorporated a lot of features into the Kōm that are very specific to skiing in the backcountry. Many of these stray from the norm and make the Kōm a very unique ski.

– Length – 150cm, 162cm, 174cm

– Dimensions – 124/98/119

– 174cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 7 lb. 4 oz. (3250 gm.)New weight 6 lb. 3 oz. (2807 gm.)
– 162cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 6 lb. 8 oz. (2960 gm.)New weight 5 lb. 12 oz.(2608 gm.)
– 150cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 5 lb. 12 oz. (2630 gm.)New weight 5 lb. 4 oz. (2382 gm.)

– Base – positive grip nowax base

– Slightly rockered tip as well as early taper

– Wood core.

– Binding retention plate – no inserts.

10.14 Kom Sher4 10.14 Kom Sherman 10.14B Kom top bttm
Other notable features in the Kōm –

We made a tall tip on the Kōm, out of fashion these days, but very useful in breaking trail.

The ski shape is designed to slightly forward mount the binding (from the current norm in skis), making a more balanced ski and – along with reduced sidecut in the tip – avoiding the “Body Builder” shape skis have been trending towards – lots of girth and heft in the tip and a skinny little tail. This creates the dreaded pintail effect when touring in deep snow, a nice floaty tip and a tail that sinks deep, leaving the skier chronically climbing steeper then the actual slope.

The nowax base is grippier then most nowax skis, making it a bit slower on a groomed trail, but very functional in the backcountry and climbing in soft snow.

The reduced sidecut in the tip makes for a more predictable and stable ski when crusty or thick snow becomes less then friendly.

The Kōm is light and supple, with dimensions that make it very skiable with two buckle plastic boots and even sturdy leather. This keeps the system light and flexible for more adventurous touring.

Our focus has always been the backcountry, and the Kōm is designed for skiers looking for a versatile ski that will rise to the challenge of all terrain. It is the next step from the Hok in terms of skiability and more traditional backcountry or XCD style touring.


It seems to me that the emphasis is on a shorter ski that delivers especially in the more micro-terrain that is available to those of us without necessarily big mountains, and it’s certainly my experience.

Otherwise, I’ve only tried the original Vector BC a few years ago and so I’m sure others will chime in on the newer skis.

It is notable that the current Kom has been lightened from its initial layup and it is now slightly lighter at 1600g per ski than the Voile V6, in the 174cm range.

[mikesee]

I'm 5'10" and 185#. Lifelong, experienced, but intermediate skier.

I had 174 Kom's last winter, with Excursions and Hardwires. I liked them in the soft stuff -- they turned nice and floated well. But when the snow got funky or the trees got tight they were hard for me to manage. They felt way too big.

I think it was a combo of the longer ski and the flimsier boot/binding, along with my mediocre skillset. Seemed like a more robust boot/binding could have solved it, or a shorter ski.

I sold the Kom's a few weeks ago.

This year I'm on a 163 V6 BC, with TTS bindings and Scarpa F1 Race boots. All the control I need when things get tight or funky. All the float I want when things get deep.

I vacillated for a month+ on going down to the 163's. Figured I'd be losing float and maybe feeling too far over the front. Wished for a 167.

Turns out none of the above is true. I float fine and I've never felt misbalanced. I don't in any way regret the 163's.

Worth mentioning: I put TTS bindings onto my wife's 162 Kom's and have skied them a few times. They also feel great to me. Perhaps slightly better float when it's really deep. Perhaps slightly less turny compared to the V6. Hard to say for sure, and if these differences do in fact exist they are *tiny*.

I wanted to buy 162 Kom's but they haven't yet arrived this year and the season was well underway. May still pick up a pair when they arrive, just to be able to compare back to back to back with the 163 V6 BC's.

[Struckski]

I've never skied any of those 3 skis, but if it's your first xcD setup, the Madshus Annum (now called the Panorama 78) might be a ski to consider as well. I have a pair mounted with Voile 3 pin cables and they're awesome. Contrary to some reviews, I've had an awesome time with them on a variety of conditions, not just powder. I've been using them as my resort ski and loving them. Maybe not so great on windslab or crust, but it's xcD...

[spopepro]

From your description, and with the T4, I'd strongly recommend the Objective BC. I think the shape of the objective (which is the same "shape" as the vectors, just narrower) is better on crust and cruddy snow. The "straighter" tails also work better for me on trails that are chopped up by snowmobiles or snowshoes. My V6 really feels good when the snow is soft and not nearly as good in other conditions. I most frequently ski my objectives with a T2 and no cables and it's great that way in almost* all conditions. The one bummer of the objectives is that such a light ski gets bounced around in icy crud.

My wife has the KOMs and she adores them... because they are slow and stable and she's not a great skier. I think it's a great predictable ski that will go anywhere... slowly.


*I showed up at a skimo race with the objectives-no-cables setup and was in great shape until the bullet hard ice 40deg downhill. It was not great in those conditions.

[stilltryin]

Perhaps you have already seen; it is Voile design description that will allow comparison of V6 and UV.
https://www.voile.com/blog/do-i-want-th ... id-rocker/

[phoenix]

"I showed up at a skimo race with the objectives-no-cables setup and was in great shape until the bullet hard ice 40deg downhill. It was not great in those conditions."

I can't imagine any gear anywhere in this category that would be great in that scenario. The most carefully selected heavier tele gear might get you down without a slide for life, but if I had to do it for damn sure I'd be making alpine turns.

40degrees is genuine steep. What is often considered ice out west is referred to as hardback or perhaps boilerplate, but ice as I know it is quite unforgiving. Just making conversation here, and not challenging or being snide, simply adding some thoughts.

[spopepro]

I can't imagine any gear anywhere in this category that would be great in that scenario.

Yeah, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. Not many folks stayed on their skis that morning. It was scary. And not ice by east coast standards, but not helped by racing at dawn before the lifts opened.

But yeah! Objectives are great. If you don't do that.

[lowangle al]

I never wanted plastic boots, but always loved downhills when conditions allowed me to enjoy them.
Around here (somewhere in Finnish Lapland) it is rare, most of the winter it tends to either be powder where 200cm Kongsvolds just vanish, hitting rocks and twigs on the bottom (i am not into VERY high speeds, at least on soft boots), or tricky variable above treeline. If there happens to be consolidated base with 5-10 inch powder on top, Kongsvold is all I would ever want for low angle/moderate skiing.
Springtime, when the snow carries better (if it is not all icy or crusty) I am happy with E99 class skis for easy DH fun.
Years ago I had some 90's Tuas with stiff leather. At those times I did not have the chance to get to the hills enough to master that art. I certainly would not say that I have a very refined tele technique, but, since I can have fun with soft boots and xc skis, I suppose there is hope.

To get more good downhill days I finally decided to try fat and plastic. I found cheap unused T4's with BOTH new Intuition- and older model stiffer liners. Also, to be sure, ordered used T2's.

So, this is where I am as I need the final advice for my biggest ever ski purchase.

I have narrowed it down to Kom/Ultra(/Hyper)vector/V6 class of skis, but am still open to other suggestions.
However, to my eye they looked tiny at 174 (definitely want more float than 200cm Kongsvold), and since then tried to find a bigger ski that I could still enjoy downhill, somewhat even in the woods.
Would probably have gone for 183cm V6's, thinking that they ski short and would give me that extra float without sacrificing too much in downhill. Perhaps luckily, to me they are only available in 178 this winter. Ultra/HyperVector is available at all lengths, and 184 Hypervector would likely tour best, but could I handle it downhill?

I am 5 feet 10 inch, 190lbs.

Overall, I would like to hear comparison of those three skis.
I know V6 would be the best for pow, Ultravector best for variable(?), but how do both of them compare to Kom in those conditions?
Kom is back on the list if I settle for 17X length. Mainly for price, but is there something it shines in?
V6 might be the worst for the tour, at least in snowmobile tracks (often have them to help) or harder snow, but are the others, and which one, significantly better?

My thinking at the moment is that, if I really need it, I can get a fatter/longer wax base ski later.

Thank you in advance, I know these questions are much bigger than life, and that there is no one right answer, but am confident there is someone out there who can help!

First, I think you've got it narrowed down to some good choices for what you're doing. Any of the skis your considering in just about any length will float way better then your Kongsvolds. I'm also about the same size as you and my first Vector BCs were 170s which was short for my weight but I thought the floated and glided very well.

If I was deciding between the UV and V6 I would lean towards the V6 just because it is such an ultimate powder board and turner (because of the rocker) and doesn't tour much different than the UV. I base this on watching what my wife could do on the V6 compared to her vector.

The Kom would be a good choice if you won't be hitting the resort or don't expect to do any real alpine mountain skiing where they would be at a disadvantage because they supposedly aren't as torsionally rigid. They would also be a good choice if you tend to hit rocks like you mentioned because they are cheaper to replace.