K2 Coomback Ski - 2010 BCS

You can get specially made coomback skins from k2.com

climbingskinsdirect.com- the cheapest and best performing skins I've found.

just get these:
http://www.backcountry.com/black-diamond-ascension-nylon-custom-sts-skins
they're probably better anyway.

I'm always calculatin' this kinda stuff: 1800 grams for 174 cm equals 10.34 grams per cm. 10.34 times 188 cm = 1945 grams per ski.

Ballpark anyways...

I may not be the most knowledgeable person out there but I for one would definitely say yes. I know several people that ski it and love it because there's no gimmicks. Just a predictable ski with proven dementions and a long pedigree from K2. You may have friends that say you need something 195 cm long with a triple digit turn radius but in variable conditions you'll be much more comfortable in a ski like this and your skiing will be more confident because of it. Frichie freeride pro binding? That's what I'm going with. I've heard bad things about the k2 skins though. I'd say BD acentions.

I'm 6'5", 210lbs and drove the 188 cm Coombacks for the first time at Mammoth a couple of weeks ago and the held up wonderfully in a variety of conditions. Not crazy about hardpack but still held very well across the mountain. Wonderful on powder and I found them easy to move through trees. Immediately went and bought a pair with Hammerhead binding. Will be skiing them at Squaw next week. Will update

Hi Rob,

The Coomback is almost the exact same ski as the AP -- just different graphics, a snow-resistant top sheet, and no binding inserts. A very fun ski for pow days and the b/c -- they strike a nice balance between width, weight, and durability. I'm 6'1, 160 lbs., and have been skiing the 181 AP's for two seasons -- they seem like a perfect size for me. If you are more concerned about weight on the ups, then you might experiment with 181s, but 188s would be more fun on the way down. The pre-rocker gives them the float of a longer ski and the turnability of a shorter one.

The Coomback would be my recommendation based on the type of use you are describing. If ever I were to apply the now over used phrase "quiver of one" it would be to this ski. Light and agile, it tours very well yet retains aggressive downhill features that make for great descents. And with its newly designed rocker and wider waist, the ski floats in powder, plows through crud and can even handle hardpacked groomers (though I wouldn't say it excels there). The Backlash is more of an all-mountain ski suitable to the backcountry or resort, but for true ski mountaineering, especially in the Sierras, go for the Coomback. You may also want to consider a 181 over the 174. I am 5'9", 170lbs. and love the 181 for it's float and speed. Go with what is comfortable to you, but you might outgrow the 74's quickly as you become more proficient on big mountain runs.

I'm 6'0" 153lbs in Colorado. I have 174 K2 Shuksans and 181 K2 Combacks. The early rise (aka rockered) tips make the Coombacks ski shorter (like my 174 shuksans) on hard pack and longer in softer snow. The 181's are perfect for me!

i would go with the 174 cm version. I currently own the 181's with dynafit tlt z12's mounted on them and i am 6'2" and 220 lbs. This setup is perfect for me, so i think you should go with the shorter version since you ar 70 lbs lighter and a couple inches shorter... those are just my thoughts.

the coomback and the anti piste are very similar, only the anti-piste is the tele version, and has the factory tele binding inserts. if you had, or could lay your hands on some anti-pistes you would know the positions that the factory dictates for the tele version of the coomback

You can mount these tele no problem. They are reinforced in the mounting area to support telemark, AT or alpine bindings.

I use a pair of 174cm Coombacks with Spirit 3's and think they are OK. A big part of this will depend on how aggressively you ski. I think the Spirit 4's would be fine for general powder skiing, but perhaps not enough for heavy pounding at the resorts. Then again, the Coomback isn't really a resort ski, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Hay I love mine !! I ski all kind of stuff. I'm a Patroller in Wisconsin and Ski Vail,Jackson,Alta Snowbird.Small cliffs trees and steeps Saturday 12/11/10 ,Last week end they killed in Chest deep drifts and knee deep blower powder of the back at Vail.They ski the Groomers great also because they are Rocked in the front. I love big GS turns on groomed and they are great. I've Skied 1080 Guns before and these bring them to there knees. I have the Marker Dukes and skins to match. I have done some 20-30 min hikes Side country type stuff and feel I have the right Ski for the all around stuff I Ski. I'm 5'7'' 180 lb's and ski the 174's
17

The new 2010-2011 Coomback has a new snophobic top sheet that keeps snow from sticking to the top sheet when touring....you can wax it too...to make it even more SNOPHOBIC!!!........The new model now has custom pre cut skins that fit the Coomback perfectly as well as the other Adventure Series skis..........as far as the construction of the 2010-2011 Coomback compared to the 2009-2010, I believe everything is still the same...but you might want to wait to hear from the Backcountry experts on the actual construction differences.....

I have skied previous models of the Coomba/Coomback and they are sweeet!!!!....totally all mountain, all conditions ski........one quiver ski for most...........The 2009-2010 model is no longer available on BC so you might have to go for the new model at $649.95..........depending on your size and ability....but I ski the 181.....nice......

*I can definitely answer your second question......flat means the ski does not come with bindings.