K2 Wayback or Backup for Euro backcountry?

This may be a better question for the Euro Zone.  If you don't get any replies here, I can move it there for you.

Old q which you've prob. sorted but I've heard the Wayback is a bit noodly.  Comes from my tele instructor who is close to the top of that game here in Australia (where conditions vary a lot too though we are not often blessed with deep powder).

Hey Snowdan,

I was a bit surprised by your comment that you thought the 181 Backlash was too heavy and long and you wanted to go with something shorter and lighter. You were considering the Backup (82 mm).  But then later you said your favorite ski is the Mt. Baker. You do realize that the Backlash, albeit a tad wider, was essentially the replacement for the Mt. Baker, and the Backup was the replacement for the Shuksan?  Or was it just the length of the Backlash that you didn't like?

Anyways, I am currently in a similar boat as you were. I am 6'2", 185 lbs butt-naked, Level III/III+ skier trying to set up an AT rig (AT quiver of one) for day trips, something that I can use now in the Pacific NW, but also for spring/summer skinning in the Cascades. I am using Titan boots and will probably set them up with the Dynafit Radicals if I am convinced that the bugs have been worked out. I am also toying with the idea of going to a wider ski so that I could use the setup for resort skiing in "champagne powder" in those rare times I make it to Utah (a month from now) or Colorado. Naturally, the Coomback has crossed my mind as a potential candidate.

Tested couple of skies with Fritschi's on piste recently at Alpental. Snow was mixed, some hardpack, some mashed potatoes, a bit of heavy but thin powder. Unfortunately, didn't really get to try them in deep snow which is what I would have liked. On the front side skiing as I did, the Coombacks in 181 felt OK, but I felt like they bounced around alot. I do like a bit of more heft and metal in my skies, so I also tried the Sideshow in a 181 which I really liked. They were reminiscent of my 178 cm Legend 8000 but without the heft of the latter. Unfortunately, without trying them in the deeper snow it is hard to judge what the Sideshows would be like in the backcountry. Also, considering the Hardside, but haven't had a chance to try them. I really want to try out the Coombacks in the longer 188 cm length to see if that would stabilize them a bit, but no one has those for demo's here. In reality, lengths longer than 181 in K2 are impossible to demo here. The only longer length ski is the BD Verdict in 190, but that might be a bit much for me.

Did you get a chance to try the longer (>181) Hardsides, Sideshows, or Coomback's? For the ones that you did get to try (even shorter lengths), how do you feel they compare with the Steadfast, another ski that a shop recommended? What length did you go with in the Steadfast?

Thanks,

Nick

Thanks Snowdan.

Yeah, I am leaning towards the 188 cm Coomback; although I am also toying with the idea of the 186 cm Fischer Watea 94. Those Watea's are seemingly lighter than the Coomback's and seem equally torsionally stiff, maybe a bit less longitudinally. I really wish I could demo the 188 Coomb's; unfortunately no one has them in that size to demo. I can demo the Watea's in that size at a shop, but don't know if that will do much good without also trying the Coomb's.

 I did see a used pair of this year's 188 Coomb's for about $230. They are pretty beat up with a bit of a core shot in the base too. They would need a base weld, full grind, and full edge job, probably about <$90 of repair and tune in total. Whoever had them last looks like they had Dynafits on it so the holes would have to be filled too.

Still deciding what to do. Decisions, Decisions.

Nick