EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Obsethed, Czar, or Coomba/Anti Piste?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obsethed, Czar, or Coomba/Anti Piste? - Page 2

post #31 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

Hey, I'm from upstate ny also.  Grew up in Elmira and learned to ski at Greek Peak and Denton Hill (Northcentral PA).  Went to undergrad at Binghamton and lived in Syracuse for a few years before moving down to Pittsburgh for grad school 15+ years ago.

 

Yes, for me this ski will be a "powder" ski, but it also needs to do well in cut up snow days after a storm.

 

Thanks for all of the advice!  Of course now I'm more confused than ever

 

 

A real NY-fest (and I do have a real soft spot for the Finger Lakes).   Ah yes, Greek Peak - know it well (skied there along with Bristol Mt. while in college, that is until I realized that the 30+hr. drive out to CO was a better deal)...drove through Binghamton more times than I can count when coming/going from where I grew up in N.J...was in Syracuse two years ago at the start/finish of an 8 day bike ride through the Finger Lakes - beautiful...memories....

 

Back to reality - sorry for the confusion, but the best answer (which you already know) is to demo.  Short of that, given your weight, and what I've learned about what you need I'd recommend the Czar (the obSethed is probably better suited for us littler people - they are real soft).  Why?:

  1. Some other 100mm+/- cambered ski (e.g., W101, P100, Coomba, Nomad) won't be enough different than your W94's to change your powder game appreciably (though getting a longer W94 or something similar may not be a bad idea, just don't expect it to be the powder "answer").
  2. You probably already know that a beefier cambered ski (e.g., Argos, Dyna LP's, and maybe even the '09 Gotama) will probably make powder skiing even more challenging (in your other post you mentioned that you don't want something that you need to ski @ 100mph to get them to work).
  3. The 110mm+ flat cambered skis like the Dyna HT's or Katanas are probably more appropriate for an expert powder skier and/or for Sierra Cement or PNW snow.

 

My only fear in this recommendation is that you might find the 182 Czar's too short (they will probably ski shorter than your W94's).  This leaves the obSethed's (but the 179 may also be too short and the 189 might be too long, and did I mention that they're noodles), the Shaman (you'll either love it or hate it), the Fat-ypus D-Sender (good luck finding 'em), or the 115mm tip/tail cambered skis like the Rossi S7's or Armada JJ's (which are slightly closer to a dedicated powder ski and might be the ticket in combo with a 100mm cambered ski).

 

Which leads us back...to the safest bet: demo'ing - sorry

post #32 of 52

Mike,

 

If you are shooting for a 2-ski quiver, and you want the fat ski to be one you aren't only going to use on deep powder days, which is what it sounds like, here are the ones I would consider personally:

-Dynastar Huge Trouble

-Line Sir Francis Bacon

-Scott P4 (maybe)

 

I think there is gonna be a 115 Watea next year too...anyone tried it yet?

 

If you go the way of a ski that is easier to use in untracked snow for an inexperienced powder skier, it would probably mean something soft and/or rockered, and IMO, would be too much of a compromise in versatility for what you want the ski to do.

 

For it to excel in day-after chopped powder, and thick crud, and to be respectable in shallower EC powder days and soft groomers, you'd be better off with a more traditional design, like the ones I listed...and these are the conditions you will face far more often.  While it requires a little more finesse to ski the deep snow on such a ski, this is something that you can learn quickly if you are a good skier.

 

Seems to me that it would be unreasonable to expect a ski to

a : make powder skiing a cinch for the unseasoned,

b: but also make sking the leftovers and crud, and be decent on groomers, versatile enough to use back east.

 

what makes a ski good for "a" would require a sacrifice in "b".  and to achieve "b" you would have to give up a little "a"....so you're gonna have to ask yourself, what's more important? 

 

 

 

 

post #33 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 

Mike,

 

If you are shooting for a 2-ski quiver, and you want the fat ski to be one you aren't only going to use on deep powder days, which is what it sounds like, here are the ones I would consider personally:

-Dynastar Huge Trouble

-Line Sir Francis Bacon

-Scott P4 (maybe)

 

I think there is gonna be a 115 Watea next year too....


 

Me thinks he has a 3-ski quiver to which he wants to add a more powder-oriented ski (I don't want to say "powder specialty" given that usually conjures up a fully-rockered, 125mm+ waisted ski), which is why he listed the Czar, obSethed, but I shouldn't be speaking for him....

 

MikeC:

Not to continue flaming on your thread, but at least monologuist and I agree on...nothing!  Well not really - he is echoing the nub of your challenge - do you want a less-versatile ski that will help you grow into deep powder skiing (e.g., the Czar) or do you want to grow into a ski that may eventually be more versatile (but for now will require "...a little more finesse to ski the deep....";  which may mean more speed to get them to turn/float).  Fotunately you are of the weight where this is really a choice rather than a dilemma, though the latter would lead me to again recommend a powder lesson (not that that would be a bad idea either way). 

 

BTW - I learned to really ski powder well on what would be considered noodley, narrow-waisted jokes today (the Volant Chubbs).  However, at my weight (130lbs.) I'd say a ski like that is still better at powder than the mostly "Big Mountain" crud-busting, hard-pack slaying skis that are sold today.  Even as an expert I'd rather give up some edge grip so that skiing can be more fun in the deep (hence my interest in trading in my Gotama's for possibly the Czar's, obSethed's, etc.).  For us lightweights this issue is perhaps more of a dilemma than a choice - so be happy and go for...something.

post #34 of 52
Thread Starter 

Now I've gone and done it for better or worse

 

The K2 Anti Piste just popped up on Tramdock and I ordered a pair of 181's.  Waffled a bit about getting the 188, but settled on the 181 since it actually measures something like 187 and I'm just a level 6-7 skier in soft snow.  At 187cm they will be an inch or two above my head height which should be about right.

 

I can probably still swap the 181 for the 188 if you can convince me that's what I need.

 

Though they are a tele ski, I'll be mounting them up and skiing them with alpine bindings.

 

Thanks for your help everyone.  I'll let you know how they ski when I finally get on them next season.

 

Mike

post #35 of 52

Mike -- are you sure you'll be able to mount alpine bindings in the right location?  The inserts could get in the way.

post #36 of 52
Thread Starter 

Shouldn't be a problem.  I have a number of options ranging from mounting a set of FF14's right to the ski to mounting up a Railflex plate or carve plate and mounting bindings to the plate.
 

 

K2 website says it's fine to mount alpine or AT bindings to their Tele skis. 

______________________________________________________

Here's the FAQ from the site:

 

Can I set up a K2 Tele Ski with Alpine or AT bindings?

 

Yes, all K2 Tele Skis utilize an internal fiberglass mount screw retention matt. It is imperative that all drilled holes must be at minimum of 1cm from the inserts, center to center.

______________________________________________________

 

I also have a PM out to mtlion who has the Anti Piste mounted alpine just to get some real world feedback on mounting them up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

Mike -- are you sure you'll be able to mount alpine bindings in the right location?  The inserts could get in the way.


 

post #37 of 52

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

Now I've gone and done it for better or worse

 

The K2 Anti Piste just popped up on Tramdock and I ordered a pair of 181's.  Waffled a bit about getting the 188, but settled on the 181 since it actually measures something like 187 and I'm just a level 6-7 skier in soft snow.  At 187cm they will be an inch or two above my head height which should be about right.

 

I can probably still swap the 181 for the 188 if you can convince me that's what I need.

 

Though they are a tele ski, I'll be mounting them up and skiing them with alpine bindings.

 

Thanks for your help everyone.  I'll let you know how they ski when I finally get on them next season.

 

Mike

 

honestly the 181 will be fine for you.

 

FYI the anti piste is a better powder ski IMO with the tip rocker and 4ster on here has a pair.

post #38 of 52

I am very happy with the Anti-Piste, it is quite versatile & slays heavy dense snow along with deep powder.

 

 

JF

post #39 of 52

I forgot to mention, I am 5'10" 155lbs. I am on the 181cm with Marker Barons they seem ideal for me.

 

I ended up a few mm forward of center with the mounting to have good clearance from the inserts.  It is not noticible, & I have had no problems.

JF

post #40 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

K2 website says it's fine to mount alpine or AT bindings to their Tele skis. 

______________________________________________________

Here's the FAQ from the site:

 

Can I set up a K2 Tele Ski with Alpine or AT bindings?

 

Yes, all K2 Tele Skis utilize an internal fiberglass mount screw retention matt. It is imperative that all drilled holes must be at minimum of 1cm from the inserts, center to center.

______________________________________________________

 

I also have a PM out to mtlion who has the Anti Piste mounted alpine just to get some real world feedback on mounting them up.


 


 

I guess I was wrong about that one - it wouldn't be the first time.  Just not many people out there mounting alpines on tele's, especially when they have tele binding nutserts already installed.  Report back about how the mounting (and skiing) works out since, who knows, maybe I'll now be more open to taking this approach (esp. since many tele boards can be a bit softer than their alpine brethren).  P.S. the 181's ought to be perfect given how you've felt about the length of your 178 W94's (which are more like a very short 176 vs. the K2's) - good thing you left the 188's for the big and level 8+ folks.

post #41 of 52

Not sure how much of this you may already know, but the Anti Piste and Koomba have the same demensions, but different construction.  The Koomba is a bit beefier, and the Anti Piste has a slight tip rocker making it a bit more forgiving and nimble in the deep stuff.  For a dedicated soft snow ski I'd go with the Anti Piste, and if you want more of a crud buster the Koomba.   The inserts on the AP should be no issue when mounting alpine or AT bindings.

post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

 

I forgot to mention, I am 5'10" 155lbs. I am on the 181cm with Marker Barons they seem ideal for me.


 

4ster - A 181cm seems long for a 150lb'er (and, as you know K2's are longer than most other skis on the market for a given length).  Anyway, how nimble do you find them for tight trees, bumps?  I (130lb) was considering the Coombas (and now the AP's), but the 174's seemed a tad long (I've had other K2 174's) and the 167's too short for a powder ski.

post #43 of 52

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

4ster - A 181cm seems long for a 150lb'er (and, as you know K2's are longer than most other skis on the market for a given length).  Anyway, how nimble do you find them for tight trees, bumps?  I (130lb) was considering the Coombas (and now the AP's), but the 174's seemed a tad long (I've had other K2 174's) and the 167's too short for a powder ski.

 

not in utah.....and longer skis are MORE nimble in powder if you know how to ski!!!!!

 

I wiegh like 10-20lb more than Jim and ski on 192 for a powder skis..

 

 

post #44 of 52

Ski-ra,

 

I'll just say that I wouldn't want them any shorter, but different strokes for different folks. 

 

They are quite agile as long as it is fresh snow, even in trees & bushes.  On the groomers they take a little patience compared to a carving ski, but they will carve a turn none the less.  The slightly rockered tip seems almost like a bonus in soft bumps & other conditions you would not suspect, although I haven't skiied them much on groom or bumps. 

 

I am fortunate enough to have a quiver of skis, but I use the A-p's more than I had origanally intended.  On firm steep slopes, they would not be my ski of choice.  I am looking forward to skiing them in some deep Spring rotted sludge though, I think they will be a kick.

 

If you are buying them strictly for fresh snow, I think the 174cm will be fine.

JF

post #45 of 52
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 

Not sure how much of this you may already know, but the Anti Piste and Koomba have the same demensions, but different construction.  The Koomba is a bit beefier, and the Anti Piste has a slight tip rocker making it a bit more forgiving and nimble in the deep stuff.  For a dedicated soft snow ski I'd go with the Anti Piste, and if you want more of a crud buster the Koomba.   The inserts on the AP should be no issue when mounting alpine or AT bindings.

Mudfoot, I'm not so sure they are much different.  Same dimensions, same exact weight to the gram, just a slight rocker on the AP vs. the Coomba.  All of this according to the K2 website.

 

For me the slight rocker was the big selling point for me.  Should help with my feeble powder skills

post #46 of 52

Shoot, once you're skiing powder right, all skis will be bent into a rocker shape!  I remember looking down at my Wateas on the last trip to Alta when I was basically waterskiing on the top 8-10" of windpacked powder, and the skis were bananas.  I guess a true rockered ski just gives you less hassle getting up on top to start.

post #47 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

 

Mudfoot, I'm not so sure they are much different.  Same dimensions, same exact weight to the gram, just a slight rocker on the AP vs. the Coomba.  All of this according to the K2 website.

 

For me the slight rocker was the big selling point for me.  Should help with my feeble powder skills


 

According to the local dealer, who knows his tele skis and sells Koombas and Anti Pistes, they are not the same internal construction.  Exact same demensions, but the APs are a little softer flexing, have the tele binding inserts, and a little tip rocker.  I thought the APs were also lighter, but if K2 says they are the same, then they must be.  Perhaps the weight of the inserts makes up for a missing internal layer of metal.  Next year K2 is combining them into one ski called the Coomback, with the construction of the Coomba and the rocker of the AP, and getting rid of the inserts.


Edited by mudfoot - 3/26/2009 at 03:20 pm
post #48 of 52

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

Still on the hunt for a soft snow ski for trips out west and have narrowed the list down to the following:

 

179 Obsethed

182 Czar

181 Coomba or Anti Piste

 

I'm 6' and 185lbs, level 7 eastern skier (probably level 6 in soft snow out west).

Greetings Mike,

 

We are about the same build and skill set, so here is my take.

Get a ski a little longer than you are tall. For me that has worked out to be a 184-187 ski. As others have mentioned, normally you will luck into 6"-12" of fresh snow in the morning that quickly gets tracked out. That said, I prefer a 88ish width under foot for the tracked out stuff and a true fat pow ski for deep stuff that I luck into a few days a year. Granted, the 88 width will not perform as well in 12" of soft snow and at that moment you will really wish you bought the Obseths (would be my choice) or maybe some Gotamas, but as soon as it starts to get tracked out or is 6" or less, the 88 width is just so much more dynamic to rock the mountain on an everyday basis than a 105 under foot ski. So really, it is all about trade offs and what will the conditions be like most of the time that influences my ski choice.

I really like my new Dynastar Mythic Riders in a 184 for what you are looking at.

post #49 of 52
Thread Starter 

I'm still not so sure they are different construction though I don't doubt what your dealer friend told you.  Lot's of marketing goes into selling skis, and people are told different things by different ski company reps all of the time.  

 

I don't think the Coomba has any metal in it.  Just checked the K2 site again and there's no mention of metal in the Coomba, just a wood core with "triaxial fiberglass braiding for torsional rigidity".
 

http://www.k2skis.com/products/tech.asp?category=skis&id=3

 

I'm wondering if the Coomback is going to just be a rebadged Anti Piste without the inserts?

 

I guess we need to get them side by side and check them out, or better yet ski them back to back

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 

According to the local dealer, who knows his tele skis and sells Koombas and Anti Pistes, they are not the same internal construction.  Exact same demensions, but the APs are a little softer flexing, have the tele binding inserts, and a little tip rocker.  I thought the APs were also lighter, but if K2 says they are the same, then they must be.  Perhaps the weight of the inserts makes up for a missing internal layer of metal.  Next year K2 is combining them into one ski called the Coomback, with the construction of the Coomba and the rocker of the AP, and getting rid of the inserts.


Edited by mudfoot - 3/26/2009 at 03:20 pm


 

post #50 of 52
Thread Starter 

Got my 181 Anti Piste's last week and wanted to do a quick update.  Skis look great and are a bit longer than 181 as advertised.  Not a lot longer, probably about 184 or 185cm.  Hand flexing them they seem to be medium flex, not planks, but not soft either.

 

Shouldn't have a problem mounting them up with the tele inserts.  A railflex plate will definately fit around the inserts.  I will also be checking to see if a set of Dynastar XXL wide race binders will fit.  I'm undecided about flat or Railflex mounting them at the moment and don't have to make a decision till next season anyway.

 

One potential mounting problem is that I'm unsure of where I should mount them.  They don't have a mount line as the inserts for tele are preinstalled.  Anyone have a pair of 181 Coombas that they could measure the mounting line on?  I would just need a tail to mount line measurement to get me in the ballpark.

 

Thanks,
Mike

post #51 of 52

www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144868

 

I love mine on this point too,   no need to go back or forward from this I think

 

"Mid sole is at 79.5cm from very edge of the tail, NOT from the notch."

 

 

 

 

 

post #52 of 52

i just got my Anti Piste 188's. Reading this thread, it sounds like I picked the right size. I'm 5' 11'' and 205 lbs (dry). Can't wait to try them!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Obsethed, Czar, or Coomba/Anti Piste?