or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

08 K2 Apache Coomba - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
Heh.

More to the point, though -- should KApowSKI think about the 190 Goat? If not, why not? Discuss.
think about yes, to be honest I myself am still up in air if I want goat in a 190.

honestly if I was earning my turns morethan 50 percent of the time, I would go for the 181 Coomba and its super light weight and easier skin attachment.
post #32 of 45
Thanks for all the advice guys. SierraJim, definately above the call of duty. To reiterate, I do enjoy bombing stuff, but I enjoy tree runs almost as much. Should I be concerned that with my height and weight the Coomba would be a bit too soft? If I went for the 188 Coomba would this length be enough to provide the kind of stability I'd get out of the goat?
post #33 of 45
Any particular reason why you don't want to just demo these against each other one day or weekend?
post #34 of 45
I have the opportunity to pro deal either pair, but if I wait too long they may sell out. I will be demoing both pairs opening day at Mammoth (nov 10th), but might not be able to get them into all conditions then. I want to decide by mid Nov what I'm getting.
post #35 of 45
Ultimately, length is a priority choice. I ski the Goat in a 183 because I don't ski 100 days. I'll sacrifice ultimate stability in favor of more manuverability. Someone with opposite priorities might make the opposite choice. I skied the 181 Coomba and 183 Goat close enough together to have a feel that they are reasonably similar in stability. I have skied the 190 Goat for one quick run two years ago and the 188 Coomba not at all, so I can't slice that cheese. I'd probably be equally happy with the Coomba or the Goat......I just don't worry abut fat skis all that much. Most of them work pretty well.

SJ
post #36 of 45

Coomba

I think I mentioned this to someone else in another post, but Shane McConkey was riding these all week in Portillo, Chile this past August. He did quite a bit of hiking with plenty of steeps, some elusive powder, but mostly corn/crud. If the snow was deeper, he probably would have been on his Pontoons.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogophers View Post
I think I mentioned this to someone else in another post, but Shane McConkey was riding these all week in Portillo, Chile this past August. He did quite a bit of hiking with plenty of steeps, some elusive powder, but mostly corn/crud. If the snow was deeper, he probably would have been on his Pontoons.
Meh. It's not like that guy knows how to ski fast or anything. :
post #38 of 45

coomba vs gotama

seems I am late on this....I skied my sons 168 / 2005 Block gotamas with alpine set up this winter, and prefered this over my 177 Kongur tele for snow days. The gotama is perfect in all condition, but heavy for BC. So I just bought the 174 Coomba and mounted my pure carbons. I am a bit concerned with crud performance, since they are very light, but with the gotamas and kongur as backup, I now have the best set ups for any conditions & tele, randonee and resort. If you ski inbounds/softbounds, try to find the black 2005 gotamas. If you tele, the kongur is excellent, just a bit narrow - but still better than even the new BD skis (which I demod). For BC - the Coomba is the way to go.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
.I just don't worry abut fat skis all that much. Most of them work pretty well.

Yet you somehow feel compelled to give people advice on them.
post #40 of 45
taken back into context...

I found the 181 Coomba and the 183 Goat to be nearly identical also.

for those still debating this old thread... choose your tail.
post #41 of 45
FWIW, Maggot, think about SJ's point instead of knee-jerking to any "slur" on the wonderful complexity of fat skis by (horrors!) someone who doesn't ski them all of the time. Look, he's just saying that for the average decent recreational skier (no, not you guys over at TGR), there'll be less difference in how fat skis perform in pow than how narrower skis perform elsewhere. Why? Because pow takes away a whole set of variables having to do with edge grip, damping, and reacting to irregular hard surfaces. You turn in pow by flexing the ski, or by skidding/smearing it, and you have a cushion between the ski and hard surfaces. This is why we can all feel like heroes in six inches of light pow, whether we're on Stockli XL's or Pontoons.

Obviously, if you're talking about higher speeds, air, refrozen crust, glaciers, or 60 degree chutes, there WILL be important differences, and I for one like the fact that there's a whole community devoted to discussing them. But what percentage of backside resort skiers are actually going to need to know?
post #42 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
FWIW, Maggot, think about SJ's point instead of knee-jerking to any "slur" on the wonderful complexity of fat skis by (horrors!) someone who doesn't ski them all of the time. Look, he's just saying that for the average decent recreational skier (no, not you guys over at TGR), there'll be less difference in how fat skis perform in pow than how narrower skis perform elsewhere. Why? Because pow takes away a whole set of variables having to do with edge grip, damping, and reacting to irregular hard surfaces. You turn in pow by flexing the ski, or by skidding/smearing it, and you have a cushion between the ski and hard surfaces. This is why we can all feel like heroes in six inches of light pow, whether we're on Stockli XL's or Pontoons.

Obviously, if you're talking about higher speeds, air, refrozen crust, glaciers, or 60 degree chutes, there WILL be important differences, and I for one like the fact that there's a whole community devoted to discussing them. But what percentage of backside resort skiers are actually going to need to know?
Well, I disagree. There is a whole world of variation in fat skis. Some do well in pow, but hold their own on hardpack, some are pow specific. Some are made for little turns in the trees, some are made for straightlining.

All the time people ask for advice on fat skis (a lot of times their first pair) and receive less than stellar advice. I cringe when I see that, because I would hate to be on the receiving end of bad advice.

I know there are plenty of people that really think all fat skis are similar enough that it doesn't matter, and thats fine. There is nothing wrong with skiing mostly skinny skis, but if you have that opinion, you shouldn't be giving advice on fat skis.

For me, there really isn't too much difference in skinny skis. Theres carvers or race skis, and then theres park/all mountain skis. I don't have much interest in either. The difference is though, that I keep my mouth shut and don't offer advice, because my advice will probably be worth less than someone with a quiver full of race and carving skis.

However, Jim is trying to sell skis, so keeping his mouth shut does not really behoove him.
post #43 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
However, Jim is trying to sell skis, so keeping his mouth shut does not really behoove him.

I ski on roughly 15-20 fattish skis a year and form opinions on them. I also own 3 pr and have opinions on those too. I don't feel a need to keep my mouth shut about anything that I have an opinion on.

SJ
post #44 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I ski on roughly 15-20 fattish skis a year and form opinions on them. I also own 3 pr and have opinions on those too. I don't feel a need to keep my mouth shut about anything that I have an opinion on.

SJ
Thats fair. I am of the opinion that you give bad advice about fat skis since you think they're all the same, so expect me to inform people of that when I see you giving advice.

Toodles.
post #45 of 45

Coomba's vs Chiefs

Quote:
KApowSKI wrote:
... Bottom line, I like to go fast and smear pow turns, so I don't mind a stiffer board, but I am sick of not being able to get into tight spots without working my ass off as I do currently on my Apache Chiefs. I'm 6'1", 205, would consider myself an advanced-expert skier, and still have to work those Chiefs to get them into tight spots. The Coombas seem soft and light enough to get the trees and mandatory turns done with more pleasure/less work and because they're ALL wood, have torsion box const., etc, wouldn't be too twitchy at higher speeds...I want something stable, capable of high speeds, but that isn't a freighter in tight spots...
I am considering the Coomba or Chief (along with Anti Piste, '09 Nordica Enforcer, Salomon Sandstorm, Elan 999, etc.) for my powder ski - probably won't ski it a ton, so don't want to spend too much (hence looking at the Chiefs and '07 Anti Piste). Currently skiing the 174 cm K2 Outlaw for general soft snow, Nordica Top Fuel 178 cm for everyday. I am 6'2" 180lbs., level 8 but not a power skier of piste. Ski lots of tight trees, some bumps (to and from stashes) and some open stuff. Maneuverability is important. Have been on older 180cm K2 Launchers (flat top) for powder - great float but not very versatile.

Would the Chiefs or Coombas be maneuverable enough for my needs? 174 or 181 cm?

Thanks,
Bob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion