jon Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Looks like SkiLogik has some nice boards but the Howitzer is a little on the heavy side and their backcountry rig, the Piton, is just a bit too narrow of a profile. It is a bit heavy, but so am I, and I put Plums Guides on there to even things out For me it was more important to have a ski I really enjoyed skiing. I liked skiing on the PMgears they had a great ride, but the Ski Logik was that much better. And I've never seen such craftsmanship in a ski. How much do the Coombacks weight in a 181? Is the weight on their site a ski or for the pair? Can't be for the pair? Quote
Dannible Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I don't think that is for the pair, meaning they are a bit heavier than I thought. Quote
Pete_H Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I think the Coombacks are a little over 8 lbs a pair. John, I know what you mean. My boards are a bit on the heavier side as well but with dynafits and l/w boots its a pretty reasonable setup. The other thing about Icelandics is they don't make anything longer than a 170 in lot of their skis. Quote
pcg Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 The other thing about Icelandics is they don't make anything longer than a 170 in lot of their skis. The Shamans max out at 173 because they're a way fat ski. Trust me, you wouldn't want them longer. They're 160mm at the tip. Because they're short and fat they excel in deep snow in trees. Hands down the best deep snow tree ski I've ever been on. The first time I was on them I couldn't keep from giggling and laughing I was having so much fun. I know people that have tried them and don't like them though. Some complain they are hooky in deep stuff and if you like sliding/swishing your turns as most skiers on rockered skis do, then you might feel the same. They are unique among fatties in that they have lots of sidecut and thus are a carver's ski. Quote
pcg Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Ever stick a true bar across those Shamans? I've never seen a ski more railed than those planks; which is too bad because they're a pretty rad ski. Quote
counterfeitfake Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Ever stick a true bar across those Shamans? I've never seen a ski more railed than those planks; which is too bad because they're a pretty rad ski. I read and talk about skis a lot and I don't think I've ever seen "railed" used this way. Honestly the Coomback is light and soft and is really good for any soft snow condition. If you're particularly heavy or ski really hard or want to have something that works on real ice or rubbery damp groomed snow, it is probably not the ski for you. If you actually want a "hard charger" here's a deal for you. Quote
denalidave Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Anyone looking for AT boots? AT Boots for Sale Quote
Pete_H Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 The other thing about Icelandics is they don't make anything longer than a 170 in lot of their skis. The Shamans max out at 173 because they're a way fat ski. Trust me, you wouldn't want them longer. They're 160mm at the tip. Because they're short and fat they excel in deep snow in trees. Hands down the best deep snow tree ski I've ever been on. The first time I was on them I couldn't keep from giggling and laughing I was having so much fun. I know people that have tried them and don't like them though. Some complain they are hooky in deep stuff and if you like sliding/swishing your turns as most skiers on rockered skis do, then you might feel the same. They are unique among fatties in that they have lots of sidecut and thus are a carver's ski. The Oracle, a mid fat, maxes out at 175. I understand their philospophy is short fat and stiff though. Quote
kevino Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 If you want something hard charging and off-the-hook stable you should take a look at the Salomon El Dictator. That and a pair of Dukes. Marker Dukes. Because they don't suck. Not at all. Have you ever toured in the dukes? How about dynafits? Night and fucking day difference. I've put in about 15 days of touring plus another 20 days in bounds with them. Touring they are worse than a fritschi and in bounds i feel their slop and hear them squeak with every turn. Their heel post is a joke and if you skin in wet snow at all putting them back into ski mode is a bitch. end rant. I'm sure they are great for some people but i used dynafits first and i cant get over how bad they tour. Quote
counterfeitfake Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Dukes are pretty widely considered the worst choice for a true touring setup. If you wanted to do a lot of resort skiing with a little bit of touring, they could be a good way to go. Quote
Fairweather Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I've done ok with the Marker Barons on a set of BD Kilowatts. Marker's out with their new F-series touring bindings now. I'm anxious to hear how the tour-ski tradeoff sounds in the reviews. Quote
backclipped Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Avoid the F-series. It's pretty much a Squire binding with a touring option. What does this mean? Well, lets just say I wouldn't put anyone but my 110 lb. wife or a "tweener" on them. Quote
JasonG Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Here is what a combination of friends use, though nobody has this exact setup. This is the all star line up, and will not disappoint. Skis: http://volkl.com/ski/skiis/models/nunataq Boots: http://www.dynafit.com/product/shoes/tlt-5-mountain-tf Bindings: http://www.fixation-plum.com/detail-article-fixations.php?idproduit=30&lang=en Better buy a lottery ticket. Quote
backclipped Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I've toured a bit with the Duke and they're adequate. Your assessment of the Dynafit gives validation to my intuition: Not For Me. Quote
Bronco Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 FWIW, I spent a couple of days skiing with a friend who is a good athlete and snowboarder but has only been skiing for three years. At the advice of some guys at the ski shop, he bought Volkl Mantas and is really having a hard time skiing aggressively enough to stay over the front of the ski as is recommended (mandated?) with the twin tip design in steeper and deeper terrain. Some of the skis recommended here are very similar designs and depending on what kind of skier you are, may want to give it some consideration. Personally, I prefer the traditional (square) tails. I really like the K2 lineup of BC skis currently, you might check them out. I ski Dynafit Comforts (on old Tuas) for strictly back country and Marker Barons (on K2 backstashs) for side country/resort and like them each for the different uses. Quote
jon Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Bronco, I'm surprised to hear that. I've always liked how Volkls ski, and have skied the Mantra, but not the new version. That Nunataq looks like a great ski. Kurt, is that the Volkl you have? Sky did a review on the Plum Guides if you haven't seen them. The are spensive, but are bomber. http://cascadeclimbers.com/blog/2011/04/19/plum-guide-backcountry-ski-binding-review-by-sky-sjue/ Sky showed me his bin of broken dyanfit bindings, and I don't think this will be an issue with the Plums. I have about a dozen days on mine so far, with it being my first Dynafit setup, and I can ski them about as hard as my Fritschis. Quote
JoshK Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The Plum binding is basically a copy of a Dynafit, right? It looks similarly expensive though. I'm unfamiliar with them, but have been skiing Dynafits for years. Are there any significant upgrades in their design? Considering the Dynafit patent ran out, there is little engineering cost involved in ripping off the design, so I'm still waiting for somebody to company to produce a cheaper knock-off version. Quote
Bronco Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Bronco, I'm surprised to hear that. I've always liked how Volkls ski, and have skied the Mantra, but not the new version. That Nunataq looks like a great ski. Kurt, is that the Volkl you have? More just a caution about twin tips in BC conditions & terrain than anything against Volkl. I have a pair of Volkl resort skis and like them a lot. I guess it has to do with a backseat stance as well. Obviously, some skis are more forgiving than others. It was interesting to observe my buddy struggling in steep and chalky snow if he was in the backseat at all. Quote
jon Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Yeah that patent ran out, that is why Plum and La Sportiva have their new bindings. I think the biggest change is the heel plate and post are twice as thick, which is where the majority of failures happen. They also have a DIN of 12. Quote
counterfeitfake Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I've toured a bit with the Duke and they're adequate. Your assessment of the Dynafit gives validation to my intuition: Not For Me. Kevino's wording was kind of ambiguous but I'm pretty sure he was dissing Dukes and praising Dynafits. Like everybody who has used Dynafits does. I don't think anyone would ever claim that Dynafits tour worse than Fritschis, or that they are sloppy and squeaky. FWIW, I spent a couple of days skiing with a friend who is a good athlete and snowboarder but has only been skiing for three years. At the advice of some guys at the ski shop, he bought Volkl Mantas and is really having a hard time skiing aggressively enough to stay over the front of the ski as is recommended (mandated?) with the twin tip design in steeper and deeper terrain. I have never heard that the Mantra is a twin-tip. Your friend's issue could be just that it is a pretty stiff ski that you have to work to stay on top of. Quote
Bronco Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The Mantra does have a distinctly rounded and turned up tail that looks like a tip to me. Maybe that's not considered "twin tip" any more. My buddy was definelty getting manhandled by the boards and I thought it was worth mentioning. Quote
pcg Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 he... is really having a hard time skiing aggressively enough to stay over the front of the ski Don't we all! Quote
DPS Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) At the advice of some guys at the ski shop, he bought Volkl Mantas and is really having a hard time skiing aggressively enough to stay over the front of the ski as is recommended (mandated?) with the twin tip design in steeper and deeper terrain. I switched from a pair of noodley Atomic Tour Carve Alpins to BD Havocs and had the same problem. It was like learning how to ski all over again. Edited February 2, 2012 by DPS Quote
trumpetsailor Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) For the Shaman fans: Icelantic now makes them in a 184. http://icelanticboards.com/skis/shaman/ Quite a few ~200 lb people seem to like the 161 and 173, so the 184 may be overkill for some. "Railed" <--> "edge high" Just bought a pair of used 161s for my girlfriend; tuning them yesterday, the only flaw I noted was a couple of base dimples from the binding mount. Appear to be burly well-made skis. Want to play with them, but our BSLs don't match... For the OP: Friends put friends on Dynafits. Fiddly at first, but ultimately much lighter on the up. How fat is fat for you? Noodly compared to what ski? Edited February 2, 2012 by trumpetsailor Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.