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

[havuja]

Thanks for all the advice - even as the subject in general has been quite well covered elsewhere, my pondering got plenty of new spark.

When I last wrote, my nearby hills had a fairly consistent 45cm (switching back to metrics) of very soft and dry powder (where Kongsvold and most other skis hit the bottom like it was nothing), only slightly affected by wind above treeline. After that we had more windy days with maybe 15cm snowfall. So now in the valley roughly 60cm of soft, above treeline more windpacked/variable snow with plenty of rocks visible, and thick softer snow in "chutes"(what would be the word for that in the scale of gentle hills?). Skis are still pretty much hitting the bottom in the valley so hard time breaking trail, up there in the chutes did get a couple of nice turns. What is Is the hardest part both uphill and down is the foot of the hill up to the treeline. Wind has brought snow down from the hill range, and there is often about a meter bottomless. Even though much of the snow was brought by wind, it is usually not consolidated, but more like quicksand. I do not even leave a proper trail behind when skiing, snow just flows back where I was. It took about an hour for the last km before treeline, Kongsvolds and 60mm kicker skins.
Where I live is 300km north from the Arctic Circle, so it is a couple of more months now before sunlight is beginning to really have an effect to the snow structure. Also, we are east from the Scandes so more continental, Siberian climate without that moisture and heat coming with the Golf stream. Basically in higher areas it is fairly arctic vidda, think of Finnmarksvidda, and in the lowlands more like barren taiga. These hills are right in between those two zones. Perhaps we do not generally get very deep snow (now slightly below average I would say), but as it does not really consolidate (if it does at all, it mainly is just a bit more packed "powdercrust" in windy spots at the surface that you sink right through) during the polar night and heart of winter following it, there are, at least locally, and so as it happens, right where I want to ski most often, some very real powder snow conditions. I can not make a first hand comparison of most other parts of the world, but completely different from most of Norway for example.

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.

Yes, I have come to think that for my use in the hills they all are very adequate and I can not know what I like or need without trying, as I lack a point of comparison in this class. What comes to length, I am happy to hear that 180+ would not be out of question, as I've seen implied elsewhere. However, I have started to question my need for waxless base, as I have not tried any that really works at all in our mid winter snow (have tried Annum, Hagan, Sporten at least) on its own. Sure these would be much better, but I might be better off just relying in kick wax and skins, which opens up the whole AT ski market.

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:

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.

Yeah, I am familiar with Altai marketing and love it! However comparing with Voile BC it really seems to be right in the same class of skis, and from others I indeed got some more clarification on differences. Also checked from my retailer, and yes, it is the new lighter version they have in stock!

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.

Well that was a good reminder on the advantages of shorter skis! It sure makes sense for me to consider the medium lengths for a waxless ski, as it may end up as a not-so-deep/spring ski for me if I ever build a quiver.

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...

I have in fact tried Annum, except that it was wit NNN-BC. Very nice ski, but it seems to me that it is more in the same class with Kongsvold. Not much, if any, more flotation, and i find Kongsvold even more turny in good conditions. Sure it would make a lot of sense for me with sturdy boot/binding, would definitely beat Kongsvolds in variable conditions and tour well, not just what I am after right now.

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.

Well that is a tempting ski to be skied with either leather or plastic depending on condition, but now I am not in a rush and really NEED the float! If they came in 190+ they would have been a contender.
40 deg with any snow would most likely kill me. I checked from my maps what I have been skiing, and think that I'll very rarely go over25, and certainly try to avoid 30+ degrees by all means.

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/

Yeah, I had seen it, but it was good to refresh. Led me to the conclusion that I must get a Manti BC!

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.

Good news on the float!
Yes, after my pondering and also reading what was written elsewhere (by you and others) I am pretty sure V6 would be my best bet if I really were to get by with a one ski quiver. Also in the future after some practice, and when it is easier to get across the border to Norway, I'll be skiing some more challenging and technical small mountains. However I do not think that it will be anything that could not be managed with Koms, too. Also, for those mountains the approach is looong getting steeper slowly and gradually before the last, mountainous 300-400 vertical meters. I think I won't want fishscales anyways for that terrain when coming down, as I really enjoy to ski down those gentle slopes with maximum glide, sometimes double poling and occasionally getting a turn, or five, every once in a while when it gets a bit steeper.

So, I have decided to get KOM 174. I think I will have plenty of use for the ski anyways, and also a lot to learn to ski up to its potential. I will see what I miss when i have something to compare with. If I had not began to hesitate whether or not scales are the (only) way to go, V6 would have seemed worth it. Another strong contender was Åsnes Fjørå 92 in 187, they were sold out. I think that if I'll get another pair in this class, and if I won't totally convert to scales, it will not be Voile. I am sure they are one of, if not THE best skis in AT market for light tele touring use, but many of the contenders are much easier and often cheaper to find in Europe, especially second hand.

Bindings!
I have thought of getting Switchback X2, to get most out of "light" boots, and for ease of switching the mode. Is there any reason not to? Will it be so active to cause tip-dive skiing the soft stuff?
I will be mounting with inserts so that won't need many pairs of bindings in the future, they cost me almost 400 euros!

[stilltryin]

...
Bindings!
I have thought of getting Switchback X2, to get most out of "light" boots, and for ease of switching the mode. Is there any reason not to?...

My skis of this type are mounted with Voile 3-pin cable bindings. It works for me. They are lighter. I don't feel the need for free-pivot in the situations where I use this type ski. I don't really like touring with free pivot, feels unnatural, like I'm dragging the ski forward (more stress on my ankle I think). That being said, I have not tried to get used to them. (Of course, they're great for skinning, but that's not what I use these skis for.)
This is just my take on it -- many others are fine touring around on switchbacks -- and will probably chime in, so you are not misled by me!
If you have tried free-pivot, then you know what you like; if not, I guess you'll have to rely on hearing from others (and/or just give it a try).

[metamorphosis108]

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...

What is your boot option on the Annums?