Clothing

Gear

Accessories

Unconditional money back guarantee – Welcome to gear gluttony
Close This Window
K2 Mt. Baker Alpine Touring Ski - 2008

K2 Mt. Baker Alpine Touring Ski - 2008

Item #K2S0573|Out of Stock
Add this to my Gear List  
This product has been added to your XX List

K2 Mt. Baker Alpine Touring Ski - 2008

Built to tackle the unpredictable conditions and challenging lines of its Cascade Range namesake, the K2 Mt. Baker is the Alpine Touring Ski of backcountry legends. Lighter than an alpine ski, but certainly no flyweight, the Baker's appeal lies in its terrain-conquering downhill versatility. An 88mm waist and 121mm tip provide no-hook float in soft snow, but the twin Titanal sheets in the core also let you bust crud with authority. You can crank down the burliest four-buckle touring boots and take your favorite bowls on like a gate-basher, then tackle a sketchy, no-fall zone thanks to the Mt. Baker's smooth, predictable progressive sidecut. It's that go-anywhere, ski-anything capability that places the Mt. Baker in a class all its own, and it's the reason Andrew McLean straps a pair on his pack. *Available for US shipment only.

Bottom Line: Turn pucker-country into your playground with the K2 Mt. Baker AT Ski.

Product Wall

Talk shop with all the gear freaks out there: ask 'em questions, upload/browse photos, and give your 2¢.

Hi, throw your review on the Product Wall to show your Gear-telligence.
Hi, got a question? Ask on the Product Wall.

I have been skiing over 25 years and advanced skier not expert.

I have been skiing over 25 years and advanced skier not expert. i am 5'10" and 200# cant decide the length 174 or 181 any suggestions

By:
April 7, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Think the 181 is a better bet for you on this ski...I am 5'8, 138 lbs, and ski tested the 174 and that was the right size for me. If you are planning to ski powder and tour as well, the longer length would also definitely be the better fit.

By: Backcountry.com Sponsored Athlete
April 7, 2009

Was this helpful? (1) (0)

Flag

Can I mount regular bindings on these skiis

Can I mount regular bindings on these skiis

By:
April 2, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Absolutely!

By:
April 2, 2009

Was this helpful? (1) (0)

Flag

Rating for this product: 5

All Mountain Ski

By:
February 4, 2009

The Mt Baker while best-suited for soft snow performs very good on the groomed. While the turn radius is fairly large at about 20 meters for the 174 cm ski, these skis will carve nice GS turns. With an 88 mm waist, the Mt Bakers are best categorized as an All Mountain ski. I've skied these in knee-deep powder the skis were a lot of fun. The Mt Baker could be consider a light weight sibling of the alpine "Outlaw." This is a very forgiving, easy to turn ski. I have the Diamir Freeride Plus and this is a very nice set up. These are my patrol skis for powder and crud days. K2 does size these on the long side. The 174's total length is just over 180 cm.

Was this helpful? (1) (0)

Flag

can you use telemark skis as just normal skis, like without a

can you use telemark skis as just normal skis, like without a telemark binding?

By:
March 30, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

That's not strictly true, most tele skis are more flexible than an equivalent sized alpine ski.

By:
March 30, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (1)

Flag

Yes, except if they have an asymmetrical sidecut, like the rapid transits from G3, but not many "tele skis" actually have anything that makes them different from Alpine skis, other than low weight for touring.

By: Backcountry.com Employee
March 30, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Rating for this product: 4

Pretty decent ski

By:
December 8, 2008

Rented a pair of these from REI last year when I was taking my Avy 1 course. Decent ski that can handle crud. Pretty lightweight, although my coombas are more of a pow ski at 102 and lighter, these handled moguls and adverse conditions better

Was this helpful? (1) (0)

Flag

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker instead of the Work Stinx for an AT setup. The Work Stinx are 124-88-111, so they have a bit deeper sidecut. It looks like they weigh about the same. Any thoughts on this decision? BTW, I'm also a tele-skier and love my World Piste's for all-mountain. I got to ski the Mt. Baker in a 174cm and loved them, but I need a 181.

By:
February 20, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I've got a similar Q. Have considered both skis, and also the Karhu Spire.
I see the upside of converting the Work Stinx, is that when my A. Kailas tele set-up dies or I want a fatter AT set-up, i could convert the Work Stinx as tele w/o re-drilling. Anyone ski the Work Stinx as AT? Any comparison between these K2 skis and the karhu spire?
Thanks.
AC

By:
March 28, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker instead of the Work Stinx for an AT setup. The Work Stinx are 124-88-111, so they have a bit deeper sidecut. It looks like they weigh about the same. Any thoughts on this decision? BTW, I'm also a tele-skier and love my World Piste's for all-mountain. I got to ski the Mt. Baker in a 174cm and loved them, but I need a 181.

By:
February 9, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I've got a similar Q. Have considered both skis, and also the Karhu Spire.
I see the upside of converting the Work Stinx, is that when my A. Kailas tele set-up dies or I want a fatter AT set-up, i could convert the Work Stinx as tele w/o re-drilling. Anyone ski the Work Stinx as AT? Any comparison between these K2 skis and the karhu spire?

By:
March 28, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

The graphics on the Mount Baker rules!Plus it is a durable ski!

By:
February 10, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker

I'm trying to figure out why I would choose the Mt. Baker instead of the Work Stinx for an AT setup. The Work Stinx are 124-88-111, so they have a bit deeper sidecut. It looks like they weigh about the same. Any thoughts on this decision? BTW, I'm also a tele-skier and love my World Piste's for all-mountain. I got to ski the Mt. Baker in a 174cm and loved them, but I need a 181.

By:
January 12, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I am looking into getting an AT setup to conquer 14ers in Colorado,

I am looking into getting an AT setup to conquer 14ers in Colorado, couloirs, and do hut trips. I have decided on a dynafit binding. Any good recommendations on boots and skis? I'm 6'3" and 220 and want something that will handle my size and aggressive ability.

By:
December 29, 2008

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

if i were you i would look at a BD or a G3 ski (i think k2s are to soft). as for boots go with a 4 buckle boot that fits your foot. if you are going to buy a boot from backcountry.com than i would take a 12 pack of good beer to your local shop and get fitted. having a boot that fits your foot is super important.

By:
January 12, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I bought these skis and I am planning to mount telemark bindings

I bought these skis and I am planning to mount telemark bindings on them. It seems however that they are "recommended" for AT. Any hint why these skis would not be as good for telemark (like its flex, ...)?

By:
October 24, 2008

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

They're a bit stiffer, since alpine turns put all the weight on one ski and tele turns distribute it over both. They'll be fine though, just a bit more aggressive.

By:
October 24, 2008

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Change me.

Tech Specs:

Lengths:
167cm, 174cm, 181cm 
Dimensions:
121 / 88 / 108mm 
Turn Radius:
Progressive 
Base:
E-4000 
Tail:
Slightly raised 
Binding Included:
No 
Recommended Binding:
AT 
Weight:
[174cm] 4lb 4oz (1950g) 
Recommended Use:
Backcountry touring, ski mountaineering 
Manufacturer Warranty:
1 Year 

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought: