K2 Apache Coomba Alpine Ski - 2008 BCS

I would say the 181 for sure. Means more float, more stability, and an all around better ride for your size.

The recommended point is 2cm forward of the traditional mounting point, or about 4.5cm back from the core center. They run pretty solid at this point, which is my favourite mount for almost any ski except full park. And they do run a little bit longer, not quite 4-5cm, but 2-3 for sure. This is from the slight early rise, but the effective edge and therefore the way they ski handles is as stated. At 181, if you want something a little longer (185 like you said), I would recommend going up to the 188 not down. You won't regret this ski.

The 167 should be alright for you, and even the 174 if you are really pushing hard. I always like a longer ski, just for the stability, and the extra float. But for sure the 167 is manageable for you.

I recommend the 174 cm length. I have skied on the Coomba for two seasons. It is a great ski, light, easy to turn and stable. You won't have any difficulty handling the 174 and will appreciate the extra flotationin powder.

It would depend if you like your skis a bit long or not, but also it depends on how aggressively you ski. If you are a pretty aggressive skier and want more stability at speed I'd say go with the 174. Still, the 167 might be the best choice, especially if you are skiing on 162's and they fit you fine.

The pocket rockets were made by Salomon. They are a soft, foam core twin tip. The Coombas are wider, stiffer, and probably don't have quite the same 'pop', but they are good for charging.

The Coombas run 3 cm longer than the stated length, so you are looking at more of a 191. They also have a completely flat tail, so they will ski true to length (unlike twin tips). You don't "burn down groomers or make GS turns" where a longer ski makes sense. But you like "quick turns in narrow chutes or skiing bumps" where a shorter length makes more sense. With your skiing preference and weighing 170lbs it sounds like the 181s or possibly even 174s are a better fit.

I have the BD Clipfix Skins and they fit my G3 El Hombre 185s with much room to spare. I think that they should fit a 188 no problem...

The 174 coombas will feel slightly longer than your PEs simply because they are directional and will have more effective edge. If the PEs feel just a tad short, then the 174 coombas will work. If you are looking for slightly more stability at speed and plan on doing some bigger lines, then you can go for the 181.

this price is JUST THE SKIS.-this guy sounds like all the Europeans that try and barter with me on eBay. THIS IS A STORE. THE ITEM PICTURED IS WHAT YOU GET. READ THE DESCRIPTION. What made you assume it comes with bindings? In the description it even says "bindings included? - NO"

this is a great ski for that. it's become my quiver of one. it out performs any ski i've had so far. where it's not great is high speed groomers, but those should be the smallest percentage of your time skiing anyway! it's softer than the bd verdict.

I normally ski an apache recon, live in the east and ski three weeks in utah each year and do a canadian heli ski trip every three years, and it is great on up to 6 inches of new snow on groomed slopes but goes to the bottom in real powder. i rented a pair of outlaws, 08 version, and found them better in powder with the 88 waist but not enough in the knee deep you live for. plus, it was sluggish on groomed at the same length as my recons. so this year i bought a pair of coombas and am in love. surprisingly fun to ski on western groomed and much better on ice than the heli daddy's i tried last year at CMH. Great in the trees where quick turns are your lifeline, and can lay down GS lines on deep treeless faces like a champ. i don't favor twin tips, liking the bite in turns and compression rebound into the next turn the flat tails give me. know many kids with Seth and Obseth's but never tried them. if i ski back east it is all recon; out west i only take my Coombas. Doug Coombs must be smiling down! Best buy i have made in years. i weigh 178 and ski 174 recons and coombas with a 20 pound pack.

It is a fun ski, but totally different type of ski then the bacon,its a flat tail directional energetic big mountainski, where as the bacon is a backcountry jib/powder ski, if you like the obseth you would like the coomba, kinda same feel for someone who likes a traditional ski. If i didn't just ride twins i would own a pair.

Try these:BLD1105Black Diamond Ascension Custom STS Climbing Skins 130 mm, 179-186 cm I just ordered some for my K2 Anti-pistes (Same dimensions as the Coomba) in a 181, they are on sale right now too.

If you are intimidated by trees, but actually ski them a lot, i would say that the shorter option of 174 out be a better choice. But if you love to rip open bowls and chutes, the 181 offers more float and stability. Up to you, but I think that the 181 is a wicked ski.-------I'm 6'2" and 165 and ski the 181 anti-piste (which is the Coomba but with a slightly rockered tip). I have NO trouble at all with tight turns, and given your weight, you'll be able to handle the 181 just fine. You'll overpower the 174...-------My friend skis the 174's and she is 5'7" and probably 125lbs. She loves them for just about anything. Granted, she's a pretty aggressive skier, but based on your significant size difference, I'd go with the 181.

This would be a decent combination combination for AT, maybe a little heavy, but the Freeride Plus would be better if you are wanting to do jumps. If jumping is a major focus for you, I highly recommend the Marker Duke, or Baron, which is a heavier option, but much stronger for the beatings jumps deal out.

The G3 has the smaller waist, at 93, which makes it a lot more versatile in different snow conditions, like bumps, groomers and powder. The Dynafit is the lightest ski by 2 pounds, so is a mush better option if your main focus is on the touring side, but also has a waist of 95, making it still versatile enough for pretty much everything, including bumps. The lower weight would only really hinder you on wind crusted days. Then finally, the K2 is the widest ski, at 102mm, is the heaviest option, making it more for slack/side-country skiing. It is the best soft snow option though, due to the weight for crud, and the stiff flex to grab an edge. I would personally go for the K2, but its up to you really. As for the lengths, I would say the G3=170 or 177, Dynafit=169 or 178, and K2=174

I would say the Pro Rider. Going to be the burliest and stiffest of these choices. Should handle whatever you throw at it with ease.

i'm not seth but i'm 5'11" 160lb or so (15 yrs) and have the 179cm you're freakin psycho for even thinking about the 169cm. I was caught between the 179cm and 189cm but after skiing them a fair amount I'm happy with my length but could still see myself skiing the 189cm pretty easily. I mounted them at tradish (-7.5cm from core center) and everytime i look down i feel like there is very little tip. that being said i haven't had any tip diving problems at all it's just a mind thing. especially at 6'1" around 200lb i could definately see you rocking a 189cm. that being said i don't skin with mine since i have jesters on them (only short little hikes) so the weight of the 189cm might be too much but don't be afraid of the length. lay them down on the ground and stand over them and you will see that they really aren't that big of skis. also i just got back from whistler where there is absolutely no snow unless you head over to blackcombe and hike the glacier and they still ripped everywhere. also its fun to see that you are the practically the only person with skis over 85mm underfoot. all i can say about the coomba is that i ripped past a guy who was having trouble on some down some chopped up mogels off of harmony. bottom line get the 179's or start the squats and wall-sits and go for the 189cm.oh and if your still undecided go to tetongravity.com and search "obsethed". And don't be afraid to pull the trigger you'll drive yourself crazy if you keep asking more and more questions.

The coomba (181) weighs in at 3,620 grams per pair and the ObSETHed (179) weighs 4500 grams per pair. Keep in mind that the ObSethed 179 is going to be as long if not longer than the Coomba 181 because of the way the K2 measures their skis.Honestly either ski (ObSETHed/Coomba) would be a great ski for you. When you say you hike for your turns, are you talking about skinning up and using a touring binding, or do you just go to the top of the lift and carry your skis up to a higher peak. If you're carrying your skis on your back, I'd say it wouldn't be a big deal to have the extra weight of the ObSETHed, but skinning up, you'd feel the weight a lot more. Honestly I prefer the ObSETHed to the Coomba because they just eat the whole mountain for breakfast in any conditions. Bottom Line- Don't get Gotamas.

Coomba more of a big mountain/big lines ski. Will hold speed better than the gotama. Coomba will handle crud easier with its stiffer flex.Gotama is slightly more powder oriented. Is a twin tip (coomba is directional). Gotama will be a bit heavier than the Coomba.If you have Mantras already, I would say go with the Gotama. The Coomba is much more similar to the Mantra than the Gotama is.

go to the ski size guide on this website and start there.

I hadn't seen any reviews on the combination of tele bindings on this ski, so I took a chance and threw on the Voile switchbacks on the Coombas. They freakin' rip! It's the funnest combination that I've ever been on. I've skied deep, deep Utah powder, steep terrain, and even a bit of sun baked south facing exposure. I'll be hard pressed to find a better set up. Go for it, you won't regret it!

Interesting---- I picked up the coomba,s the other day and flexed them and was blown away by how light they were. way lighter then my line bacons or any other BC ski i know about. I was suprised because K2 is not known for having lite skis. If i wasn,t a twin tip fanatic i would consider these. They had a great flex- soft tip with a stiffer tail. To bad they don,t make it in a twin tip because they sure seemed like they would rip.

174, hands down.

Im 5 11' and ski the scratch ghetto on a 174 but thats park. Iguess its personaly to what length you want I generally want my ski to be about up to the top of my nose or near the bottom of it. Ive never gone any longer than 174 amd don't have back country in the east so....A 174 you would have more control but from what i hear in powder a longer ski is better than short also wider obviously but for me it personal usually from what others tell me. You would have more control with a shorter ski but it would help float a bit with a longer ski....sorry i just found this out. Sorry man i dont know much about Back country apose to park and pipe skis.Edit by Brian.I'm 5'9 and I found the skis at 188 so i decided to get them. I had no problem directing them in good conditions, but found that as soon as you get into crud, breakable crust, or less then ideal conditions, the noodly nature of the ski makes them torque and become longer then you would like in those conditions