K2 Coomback Backcountry Ski Review
The Coombacks
One of the great things about going to New Zealand was that I was able to take any ski I wanted from the stack in our storage shed, since nobody (as in DAD) else was going to be using them much this summer.
For my main plank I chose the new K2 Coomback. I needed an upgrade from my old first generation Black Diamond Verdicts, and the 174 cm Coombacks seemed like a good choice. They’re slightly longer, have a rockered tip, and are a little fatter.
I knew I better grab them when I had the chance, so I stuffed them in the ski bag when you-know-who wasn’t looking.
My first-gen Verdicts laid down the law in powder, but on hardpack they were unfun. I expected the same from the Coombacks, so I took some skinnier Mount Bakers for stuff that wasn’t soft and fluffy. It turns out, however, that I have been riding the Coombacks every day, both for backcountry skiing and in-area. They are effortless in powder, and do incredibly well in everything else.
Coombacks get ready for fun at Temple Basin
I tried the Coombacks in some breakable crust a few days ago and was amazed at how they ruled. The width and tip rocker kept the tips out from under the crust perfectly. I could carve fun large radius turns almost like it was powder, while everyone else was struggling. They also do ok on groomers and crud. However, they get thrown around a little bit if you try to bust icy crud at high speeds, probably due to their light weight and soft tip. However, if you slow down a bit (something I don’t like to do) they work great in almost anything.
The tip rocker becomes much more obvious when you squeeze the skis together (left) than when the skis are sitting normaly (right).
Even with great performance, the Coombacks are still nice and light, weighing in at only a few ounces more than some of my earlier backcountry skis, but longer and of course wider. (We will publish weight when I return from NZ and can verify that they weigh the same as the full production version). They truly are specifically made for backcountry skiing. Witness the tip and tail holes; skin notch in the back; flat tails. In my opinion flat tails are it for backcountry skiing, you can cut snowpit walls easily, you can put your skis on your pack way quicker, and stabbing your skis into the snow for use as a quickie anchor is a snap instead of a stupid looking struggle.
Flat tail, well made tail holes, and a skin notch, nice!
I noticed the Coombacks top sheet material seems to be softer than some other skis I’ve used. We got in touch with K2 about this, and they assured me that what they used on the Coomback is what they used on the Coomba and all other backcountry skis for years. They said some companies use harder top skins, and some use softer. I think what got me going on this is I’ve not used many k2 skis, and the old Verdicts had really tough skin, so I noticed. Now that I’m educated, I’d say this is a non issue.
Perhaps more importantly in terms of downsides, the Coombacks might be a bit soft for some bigger/agro skiers, but they work for me. How “soft” a ski feels is of course somewhat a function of length as well, so as always, if in doubt demo first.
Yep, get ready to burn some plastic out of your wallet — Coombacks are sweet. They have the best ski performance of any ski I have owned (considering I have only owned backcountry skis my whole life), while still being pretty light. In other words, they are indeed a terrific lightweight (for their width) backcountry powder ski. Even better, they bust through bad snow in a way that belies their lack of mass. Thus, Coombacks will be my go-to ski for variable snow, as well as for getting big vertical of human powered backcountry skiing pow. I also expect them to work magic for ski mountaineering in variable conditions. Only problem is, I wonder when DAD is going to notice they’re not in the shed?
Comments
148 Responses to “K2 Coomback Backcountry Ski Review”
Got something to say? Please do so.
Good review. Planning on getting touring gear this fall so I’ll definitely consider the Coombacks.
What boots and bindings are you using with these? I can tell it’s some version of Dynafits but not sure which one.
That picture of Temple Basin makes me wish winter was here already.
Thanks for the review. I wonder how they’d compare to my 4 year old Atomic Sugar Daddy’s, I need to get a new pair of skis sometime this year.
Nice pics of the skis, NZ, and the combo of the skis in NZ, but I think we also really need to see a pick of that ski storage shed back home!
I think I’ve sort of figured out what it is from reading about skis, but is there a standard, plain definition of a rocker tip? I have yet to see it plainly spelled out. Maybe it’s in a glossary somewhere?
Have you skied the rockered Anti Pistes? Is there a difference?
Thanks louie ..good review. I too am coming off a set of 1st gen Vedicts. Got 300 days out of them so looking for a replacement at Christmas time. The Verdict are now early season rock skiis in Oct-Dec. I enjoy a one ski quiver so your input on variable conditions was …WAY …. informative.
Hey Louie, keep up the great work. Those sure are a far cry from the planks we skied on back in the day!!!!
Matt – I am using Garmont Radiums and Dynafit Comforts on the Coombacks.
Ben – I haven’t skied the Anitpistes, but I think the Coombacks are a bit different, I will compare them side by side when I get home.
Thanks for the review, I wanted to upgrade to a rocker tip for the pow season – I had my eyes on the Dynafit Mansalus, but the Coombacks are lookin very cool, and I’d imagine a little cheaper than the Mansalus too. Have you skiied the Mansalus? Any obvious differance for better or worse between the two? Thanks.
Coombacks are cheaper than Manaslus, but significantly heavier, so you must decide if lighter weight is worth a thinner wallet. Nice review, Louie.
Thanks for the post, Louie. Got to try some Coombacks. Last K2′s I skied were a little soft on topsheet, too. But, what does the topsheet appearance matter when it’s obscured by billowing pow!
Anything notable on Coomback ascending performance?
Louie, can’t wait to get your take on Radiums. Jonathan, do you have a pair of Dynafit TLT 4 Race boots? Was on Sierra T Post and noticed a review by a Jonathan S from MA.
That is indeed my review at stp. Great adaptation of the old TLT4 design. Just wish it had fit my low-volume foot better.
I’m not buying sight unseen, but if they had my size, I’d head to Cheyenne.
Just weighing in on the Coomback vs. Anti-Piste question. These skis are very similar: exact same dimensions, and though we used different woods for the cores on the old Coomba and Anti Piste, the flexes and weights were within a few grams. We really liked the old Coomba, but found that the rocker of the Anti made it , easier to adjust turn shape, and therefore more versatile and predictable ON HARD SNOW as well as soft, which was an eye opener for us. (After the test, I immediately pulled my Duke’s off the Comba’s and put them on Anti’s) So we took the Coomba construction which had a slightly stiffer flex due to the burlier core and gave it rocker. Et voila, the CoomBack.
Nice Hat, thanks!
Does anyone know the actual length of the 181 cm Coombacks?
I’ll know shortly :ninja:
Good review! I too would like to know the actual length (as opposed to the running length which K2 measures, right?) of both the 174 and 181.
Nice review. So… what’s your height and weight Louie? I’m NW skier looking for new skis to replace my Jak’s and need help deciding between the 167′s and 174′s. I’m 5’10″ and 160, 25+ days inbounds, 10 to 15 BC, depending on the season, skier.
JB, I am about the same size as you, 5’10″ and 150. I would probably go for the 174s.
The 175 Coombacks measure at 175.5 cm, from tip to tail (actual length, not chord length). We haven’t got our hands on the 181s yet.
JB, I’d go for at least the 174′s I’m 5’8 and 180 lbs, and the 174 feels small in the Coomba, i can only imagine that with the rocker the ski will ski shorter yet. the soft snow performance will only be enhanced by the next size up to 181. I wish I had purchased that length.
For what it’s worth, K2′s general recommendations for the Anti Piste put me in a 181 length based on my 170 lbs. I can’t remember the exact range, though.
Louie (or anyone else),
Sorry this is a little late, but I’m wondering if you have been using the K2 skins with the Coombacks, and if so what you think of them. Thanks!
Have you compared the rocker of last year’s Anti-Piste to that of the Coomback? Is it noticeably different? Any thoughts on difference in flex between the two.
Thanks!
Lou/Louie, I’m wondering if I can ask the dreaded ski length question. I’m 6’1″, 170, and an intermediate conservative BC skier in Seattle. I have Baker SLs, which will become my spring ski, leaving the CoomBack as a winter all-around ski, to be driven with Zzeus boots and Vertical STs. I generally get a “middle” size in my BC skis, and ski a 174 in the Baker, which works great. My local shop has recommended a 174 in the Coomback, but last year I got some advice to go up a size (181) for the AntiPiste because of the rocker. What do you guys think? Given the CoomBack’s rocker, do I stay with my usual size or go up to a 181?
Thanks!
Matt, Louie has been dealing with that very issue and we’re figuring he might like the 181 better, for a bit faster/smoother modern style skiing. With my slower style, I’d probably be happy with the shorter. At your height and weight, I’d think the 181 would be excellent.
I skied the K2 AP 181 cm for two seasons tele. I am 6 foot 170 lbs and love the 181 cm in open slopes, but the treees and bumps are painful. I just bought the 174 cm ski to enjoy Aspen Highlands on pow days. Email me to buy my 181 cms, gtrantow@aol.com.
louie/mike h.
I’m thrilled to now have some anti pistes at 174 (grunge/rocker/inserts) ready to receive the dynafits off my crossbows. I see no mounting line and am not finding info on line. Excited to be ready for RMNP soon. Help?
anyone with a hot tip on the mounting point for the anti piste (grunge/rockered tip)? Looking to mount asap with my dynafits. help appreciated. would like a second opinion. heard from k2 that 74 cm from the tail is the line, but “most are mounting 2cm forward of that” (paraphrase). would love to hear louie/lou/mike h. comment on this, especially since louie is so happy with his coombacks performance on everything. thanks. Is there some sort of excitement in aspen to see the women world cup racers? Love to see that.
Dean, I’m traveling so I can’t jump into the workshop and get you that info. But I do know that on my Antipistes I mounted per K2′s instructions and they work fine.
When we can , we go to the ski races. They are indeed amazing.
Lou or Mike Hattrup,
Do you know the three-pin line for the Coomback? Is it the center point from the tip-to-tail? I want to mount my G3′s on them.
That’ll have to be Hatt, what do I know about tele bindings!?
Louie, have you skied the ’09-’10 Icelantic Nomad or Nomad SFT? I’m trying to get some comparisons to the Coomback.
A few comments were posted on ski lengths.
I’m looking at Coomback in the 174cm
Is this too short for my 155lb, 5’11″ self?
I plan to use them for deep days, tree skiing and tight couloirs and that’s pretty much all as I have a pair for touring and another for no new snow days in Whistler.
FYI, my other skis are 175 and 178 which I find to be the perfect length for me.
Grant:
I ski 174 Anti Piste as tele, but can parallel them too. I sold my 181 cm AP because they were too long in the trees and tight spots. The 174 floats my 170 lbs/6’0″ with ease. I also ski 178 Dynafit 7 Summits (AT), 175 Pocket Rockets (AT) and 181 K2 World Piste (Tele), but I find the wide waist of the AP/Coomback works better shorter. Best, George
Hi lou, I have a pari of black Dimanad Kilowatt (2008-2009) 1,74 (I’m 1,74 and 74 kg) and I use it for free ride and with skin too, but sometimese also in on-piste. I toke them last year after reading your review, but I’m not totally satisfied. They are maybe to hard for diamir binding and feel pain on hard or iced snow, but they are not enough good on powder or crust, probably because they are hard ski. Now I’m thinking to change them with coomback. What can you tell me camparing them?
I’m a good skier, really good in on piste and good enough off, but not a kamikaze, may be for my age (44)….
ciao and thanks!
f.
In the end I got to try both the Coomback and the Icelantic Nomad SFT. The Coomback behaved similarly to last year’s Coomba: it gets the job done but is missing life and pop. Also, the skis kept ‘braking’ on me when the snow wasn’t of consistent density or the surface was at all uneven. It made for a rough ride. While cutting fresh lines in open powder they worked fine, but any other time I didn’t enjoy them. Because of this I went with the 181 Nomad SFT (5’10”, 150 lb]) and have been thoroughly satisfied in their performance in all conditions and slopes (although I painted them because the graphics are way too loud).
@Louie
Did you get a chance to put your Coombacks on a scale? The published weight (8lb 1 oz) is a little less than the current Verdict (8lb 6 oz), but I’m curious if either number is correct.
I have heard the Dynafit bindings can rip out of the Coombacks. In fact, i saw a pair that had been ripped out. Not sure how it happened. Has anyone else heard this?
BFO, are you saying the Coomback has some sort of construction that is not compatible with Dynafits, based on one pair of bindings that ripped out? That seems a bit out there…
The shop that mounts my skis for me had a pair of Coombacks with Dynafits brought in where the toe piece pulled out. Who knows what really caused this but was wondering if this is common with Coombacks or any ski that does not have metal…Iam looking at Coomback, Sidestash or Hardside for spring touring and a Euro trip in April. All of these K2′s seem like great skis. I am a pretty hard skier who likes a fair amount of ski but with a nice flex in the BC.
BFO, thanks for the specific question. No, AT bindings pulling out of skis is not common, and this is not common for Dynafit nor for K2.
Lou, BFO,
I’ve got the problem of the FT12 toe piece ripped out of Coombacks (in BMW brand). I was just skiing and suddenly realised what had happened.
I was assisting the mounting and I know that the man has mounted thousands of Dynafits, on thousands of skis. I can hardly belive he made a mistake. I sent the skis to K2, and I am waiting for answer. I keep you updated.
BTW. Coomback skis great !
Historically speaking, I haven’t got along with K2s. I don’t know why. The last pair I had was some Unlimited VOs in 1985. However, I threw caution to the wind at a ski store in Bellingham about three weeks ago and bought some Coombacks and threw some Barons on them. The very next day I tried them in 18 inches of spring fresh at Mount Baker and LOVED them. They’re light, precise and just plain fun. Tried them again in less fluffy conditions at Mt. Washington a day or so later and they performed well in crud and ice. Next day in the backcountry they performed great again in pretty much every condition possible (my K2 skins, however, not so much. Balled up like I was on peanut butter). Anyway, glad I took the leap. Looking forward to many adventures with them.
Regarding the FT12 ripped out of the coombacks K2 experts stated that this was neither K2(skis) nor mounting fault. Anyway I have got the skis REPLACED.
I was advised to use Marker bindings with them, but I am still waiting for answer if K2 officially discourage from mounting Dynafits. What would be strange as their factory team riders use setups like this. I will keep you posted.
TPG, the K2 skins I used on Denali worked well but it was pretty obvious they did not have much in the way of DWR treatment, so I treated them myself by rubbing with wax as well as using Nikwax Ski Skin Proof on them before we left Talkeetna.
I’m used to doing this with other skins as well, so it didn’t seem like a big deal…
Janek, indeed, I’d say if you rip Dynafits out of skis that’s probably not the binding for you.
Lou,
I hope I do not rip Dynafits out of skis, but this has once happened. I do not consider myself to be fast nor fat (as for a skier, kg 77/8) There are plenty faster skiers using Dynafits at my weight, I am sure. Anyway the skis were replaced, what I appreciate K2 very much for (THANK YOU K2). I am in a difficult love wih Coombacks now , as this is the best allround ski I have ever tried, and the FT12 seemed to be the perfect solution to have a light touring but perfectly riding, all condition, set… The bottomline, I don’t want to loose Coombacks that I am in love with. I do not want to carry Fritschi/Marker etc. Luckilly we have got a climbing season in Europe now so I can say “I can think about it tomorrow”… I will keep you posted.
Janek, provided you are not big and heavy and didn’t take a forward fall with the binding toes locked, I truly do advise you to find a different person to mount the bindings, and mount them with epoxy. Thousands of people use Dynafits, many with Coombacks, and I hardly ever hear of a problem.
I bought the new Coombacks w/ Dynafits from a well-respected shop back in November 2009. I am not an extreme skier. In February a toe piece popped off – in-bounds, first run of the day warming up on Whistler’s green chair. The shop remounted the bindings for me. In June I used them for a ski descent of Rainier, and again lost a toe piece shortly after starting my descent. Luckily I was able to arrest the fall without incident. The shop sent them back to K2, which just replaced them. The shop says that K2 made their new backcountry skis too light and added some extra material for this year. The shop says many folks were having problems with bindings ripping off new K2 skis, and said there was a fatality accident due to this problem. Should I believe that my replacement Coombacks are safe?
Just ordered ordered NTN Garmount boots and looking for skis. Considering the K2 Coomback. I ski 50/50 lift and BC. I live in central British Columbia and we get great powder. However on a good day you may get 2000ft in the BC (in my youth I did ski more). With lift ski your vertical will be a lot more. I love ski the soft crud along the sides. A strong tele skier. 6′ – 180lbs. Any suggestions on the ski and lenght.
Um, Telemarktips.com?
Or, any other WildSnow telemarkers out there who can help out? Dostie?
50/50 lift/BC — K2 Darkside 181 cm
or Dynafit “The Stoke” 182 cm
You could try telemarktips.com but between the exciting thread on “Actuaries” and “Contrador flunks Drug test” it might be hard to get a response .
My advise would be to “think old”, get lighter gear and don’t ever stop at 2000′. wink:
Hi Louie,
I am a student at Colorado State University and I am doing a news article about climbing skins for an assignment. I know you have a lot of experience with them and I would love to ask you a few questions. I would really love to talk to you.
Have skied the first generation of Coomba and actually bought 2nd pair off E-Bay but am going to try the rockered version this year. As a 5’8″, 165 lbs skier who gets between 100 and 200 days in a year I LOVED the Coomba and have never skied something that seemed designed for me in particular. For the lighter skier who enjoys the stoke in all conditions, terrain, both BC and on-piste. I don’t think anything compares (at least for me). Just pulled the trigger for a rockered version of the same ski and am hoping the core foundation and flex of the original Coomba ski hasn’t changed.
Can anyone shed some light on the new vs. older version of the Coomba/Coomback?
Anyone have more info on mounting Dynafits on Coombacks?
Would inserts help with a ski with a softer core?
Tim, what’s the issue? We just mount ‘em and carpe skium.
Lou, no issues here.
Just read of some people having an issue with binding pullout when using this ski/binding combo, and am wondering if there is any info about K2 having made changes to the ski to prevent it from happening.
It appears they may have added something in the binding area of the 2010-2011 skis; can you confirm this?
The Coomback looks like a sweetspot for width/weight in a powder touring ski, and since I am a committed Dynafiddler…..
Most binding pullout is a result of poor mounting procedures. Or a huge skier using RV 12. Are you in one or both of those categories? If not, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Hey Lou,
Can you help me out on my Oct 28th question?
Mike
If anyone is really concerned with binding pullout on any ski, you could just helicoil the holes and then insert with epoxy…just don’t screw it up:) That being said I’ve rarely seen bindings pullout unless there is an error at the shop or a knot/imperfection in the wood core right under the mounting holes…which needless to say is very rare.
What Vanessa said.
Mike, more rocker is the main difference.
Yet another ski length question. I think i found the right fit of ski for me, the Coombacks. I am new to the BC and have recently skied 170 Bandits I. I am 5′ 7″ and 170 lbs. also which binding would be best I’m thinking Dynafit…TLT or FT 12′s with a Scarpa Mansaulat boot??? back to ski length 167 or 176???? ps i love trees and cutes. tks. pc
Louie. This is an old thread, but I’m wondering how you are feeling about your Coombacks now after extensive use. Still giving two thumbs up? Or have they been demoted to the corner? And if so, what are you riding these days? I ask because I’m suffering from a severe case of ski lust (specifically rockered) and am considering springing for a pair.
Tom,
I currently have a 3 ski quiver, k2 Waybacks for spring skiing, Black Diamond Megawatts for inbounds and backcountry powder where I’m not worried about weight, and the Coombacks. I use the Coombacks for winter ski mountaineering, long backcountry powder days where weight is a concern, and as more of an all around backcountry ski. The Coombacks are still my go to ski for most days in the backcountry, especially when the snow conditions are variable.
Lou
I haven’t yet road the Coombacks I picked up the 174s and think this is the way to go for ht wt etc. will get them mounted this or next weekend depending on when my boots come in..
Lou,
I noticed you advised using epoxy over wood glue for mounting dynafits on Coombacks. I have the 2010/11 model….just drilled my holes and I’m on the fence as what glue to use, talked with K2 and they recommended wood glue. Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
I just bought a pair of Coomback’s for my husband -question, is there a right and left ski or are they interchangeable?
Thanks!
Interchangeable. Why would you think there is a right and left ski? The graphics or something?
Because I’m a snowboarder … I don’t know anything about skis. Thanks for answering my question!
And then, there’s the asymmetric G3 Rapid Transit
Cheers,
Thom
Yeah, there are more and more asymetric skis out there, so it’s a good question. I try to keep my Coombacks on the same feet even though they’re not asymetric. Great choice, Kerri. It took some time for me to warm up to my Coombacks but the final verdict is they rock!
TG.
Thank you for the very thorough review of the Coombacks. I hope you get a kick-back from K2. I wouldn’t have bought them based on K2′s description online. You review convinced me they were the right choice.
Thanks!
Kerri, glad we can help.
Lou – I’m on my second season with a pair of the original Coombas in a 181, mounted with Marker Barons. I’m a 6′, 180 lb skier just getting into touring. My question is, does the Coomback offer enough improved performance to justify an upgrade? I’m considering dropping down to the 174 to have a more manageable ski for kick turns (at age 51, I’m not as flexible as I once was…) Thoughts?
Louie,
I seem to recall a little bird mentioning that you are skiing the Maestrale this year. Is that true, and if so, are you using them with your Coombacks? My feet are currently locked in a duel to the death with my Zzeus boots (which I am losing in a route), and I am wondering if the Maestrale would work as a replacement to drive a similarly shaped ski (G3 Tonics) in PNW “snow”. They are my shorter tour, beefier setup, so I’d rather not be underbooted, but I’d also prefer to keep all my toes. I would describe myself as an intensely mediocre skier, if that helps. Any thoughts you have on the subject would be most appreciated.
Thanks!
-Matt
I have the 174s with dynafit slt and Mastrale boots, love the setup so far but have not yet had them in the backcountry…two hard all day long rides at resort skiing the steeper terrain. the skis felt great but could use a little more power from the boot for all day skiing. The reason i bought these boots was to tour and get into the backcountry. with weight savings and the comfort considering i will be hiking/tourning longer than a ski run will last i think the compromise will be well worth it especially when it is untracked snow. I don’t have any other experiences with other tourning boots only my alpine boots which are bomber tough. I do like the range of motion in walk mode of the Mastrales and look foward to the bc.
Rob– I really liked the slightly rockered tip (basically the only difference between them), I don’t know if it’s worth the upgrade, depends on how worn out your Coombas are.
Matt– I am using the Maestrales, and have skied the Coombacks a few times with them. I love the Maestrales, and they are plenty of boot for ski touring for me (I also have some Radiums for shorter tours). The amazing weight and tourability of them are worth the compromise with ski performance. They are definitely a lightweight boot, and some might consider them wimpy. I’ve actually never skied the Zzues, but I’m fairly sure the Maestrales are softer.
Thanks, Louie!
Just to really try your patience, any further thoughts on the Radium/Maestrale divide (I haven’t skied the Radiums, but I assume they’re in roughly the same performance ballpark as the Zzeus)? Big performance drop off? Minimal? Big, but only in certain conditions? Do you find yourself taking the Maestrales out more and more, or do you find yourself longing for the control of the Radiums when you’re on the Maestrales and the CoomBacks? Or do you just wish that people would make their own ski boot decisions without pestering you with the same freaking question every five minutes?
Lou, I take full responsibility for any decline in Louie’s GPA this term. My apologies.
-Matt
I am an east cost skier, primarily Vt., looking to purchase a ski for slack country touring, particularly in Mt Mansfield. I have Marker Dukes that I intend on using, and was wondering if the Coombacks are a good choice for someone who is 6’5″, 215 lbs, and if the Coomback isnt the ski for me/ here, what you would recommend.
Tony, I have a buddy that skis on Coombacks and likes ‘em. He’s not your size, though. He’s more likeley to be b.c. skiing and not one to ski at the resort much where those boards would be a little too big on all but the big snow days. If your thinking of k2 they make the Hardside which is like 98 underfoot.
Thanks for responding, Brian. I am considering the hardside too. I am looking for a ski just for skinning and side/slack country, as I have skis for the frontside and resort. I will also look at the kiloiwatts. I don’t want to get something that isn’t good in soft snows and trees, as that will be the primary function.
Another Dynafit/Coomback combo bites the dust:
A few weeks ago I purchased a demo set-up from a shop in Colorado. and on day four, on a blue groomer no less, my Dynafit front ripped out of my Coomback upon coming to a high-speed halt. Nothing crazy. I’m 175 lbs, an advanced skier, but would not classify me by any means as “extreme.” The shop ensure me that they had used 3.5mm holes, and I have absolutely no reason to assume it was a faulty installation. Skis will be shipped to K2 tomorrow – I’ll keep y’all posted.
Hi Olaf, do you know if you were skiing 2009/2010 or 2010/2011 Coombacks?
Hi Rich.
They were this year’s demo skis, so I assume that they are 2010/11s.
I was really hoping that K2 had fixed this problem for 2010/11. If it’s not too much trouble, could you check with the shop that sold them to you?
Will do for sure. Stay tuned.
Olaf, the bindings rip out and you have no reason to believe the install was faulty? Huh?
Lou -
I had nothing but great experiences with this shop so far, and many people in Colorado trust these guys. They have installed thousands of Dynafits over the years – hence I had no reason to believe that the install was the problem. Let’s see what K2 comes back with.
- olaf
Olaf, if a mount rips, then the first thing I’d suspect is the mount, no matter how expert the mounter is. If one of my mounts ripped, I’d take full responsibility until I knew there was some other reason (such as a severe knee fall with the toe locked). Any number of things can be wrong with a mount, and if they were demos pre-mounted, who knows. Heck, perhaps they mounted using wood glue and never checked the screw tightness, or something like that. As for K2, perhaps they’ll give you new skis, but they probably won’t be able to crystal ball into the past and tell us why the screws pulled.
As for early Coombacks perhaps being weaker in the binding mount area than some other skis, that could be so, but plenty of Coombacks are out there getting well used, including my son’s, and they’re doing fine. Thus, this mythology surrounding the supposed weakness of Dynafits on Coombacks should be taken with a grain of salt.
Lesson here is that if you buy used skis, it’s not a bad idea to re-mount the bindings using epoxy etc.
Hi Tony,
I’m 6’4″ and 205 pounds, experienced skier. I purchased some Coombacks last April with Marker Barons. Took a few times out to get used to them but once dialled in I found they are an awesome go-anywhere ski. I’ve toured on them, skied all conditions in the BC and have resort skied on them several times. My choice for almost any day except deep pow when I prefer my Head Jimis.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
TG.
Thanks, TG, I am demoing the hardside today, we are getting 18″ of fresh as we speak. I will let you know what I think.
Just back from an in-bounds demo day on Coombacks. I was hoping for soft snow, but got served up hardpack and broken refrozen crud — not the Coomback’s forte. Or so I’d read. So I left them in the car and started out skiing my old G3 Rapid Transits. Which, despite their stiffness, chattered a lot. At lunch I figured, oh well, might as well try the Coombacks, and made the switch. Wow! If they can rail hard snow like that — and I’m talking boilerplate in places — I can’t wait to see what they do on soft. Bottom line: fantastic ski. Now I just gotta figure out what length, 174 or 181? I’m 6’0, 166 lbs. Any suggestions from those who’ve been on them a while?
Hi Tom,
Good choice with the Coombacks. I like mine more everytime I ski them. Great in all conditions … they really shine in variable snow in the BC here on Vancouver Island. To give you an idea, I’m 6’4″, 205 and ski hard all day in all terrain, including tight trees. I ski the 181. There was only one time I wish I had the 188s and I was really cooking some GS turns out in a wide open bowl with six inches of fresh. Hope that helps.
TG.
So I wound up buying the 2009 Coomba 188′s, and I couldn’t be happier! Nice and turny, great in the trees, and fairly light . Each ski weighs 7.76 lbs with large Marker Dukes. I skied them on hard snow, and they were great. I also skinned them the day before in 7″ of fresh.Very surprising.
I was able to demo the Sidestash at a BMW event at Killington, and it confirmed my decision, the Coomba is the right ski fro me.
Thanks for all of your help!
That’s great Tony!
Hi Lou, I am an aggressive Vermont female skier looking at the Gotback. I think it will meet my desires of performing well in the trees post tour, or side stash in variable terrain. I am about 135 and 5’4. With the rocker I am wondering if I should ski the 160 or 153? I plan on putting an AT set up on them and taking them skinning whenever I get the opportunity. Any thoughts?
160, they will rock you.
Adding to the Coomback binding pull out thread.
Mounted a set of 22 Design AXL telemark bindings this season (these have 6 mounting screws as opposed to the standard 4 hole pattern.) One of the bindings ripped out. I had about 25 days on these skis. I remounted the set with heli-coils in each hole. (I used a kit that I bought on line from Tognar Toolworks and followed the instructions precisely). The same binding began to pull out after two days of skiing. In both cases I was very lucky and did not crash or get hurt.
I haven’t mounted a huge amount of bindings but was taught by a reliable and experienced shop guy. I used plenty of wood glue to seal the screws. I have other skis with these bindings that have 200 plus days with no problems, and none of my other mounts have had any issues. I initially thought that my first mount was poor due to some unknown mistake I made. I find it hard to believe that a binding remounted with 6 helicoils would pull out.
K2 is replacing my skis when they have stock available, for which I am very thankful as this is my favorite ski of all time.
So… I’m not sure what is going on here, but I lost a bunch of sleep thinking about what might have happened had that binding pulled out while I was skiing instead of at the bottom of the lift as I was putting them on.
Lou/Louie, another sizing question. I’m hoping maybe you have a definitive answer (unlike the shop folks I’ve talked to) based on skiing on the Coombacks for a couple seasons. I’m 6’0″ 170 lbs and plan on using the Coomback mostly in the backcountry as my only ski and plan on encountering all types of conditions. I’m relatively new to skiing (snowboarded for years), but would say that I’m fairly aggressive speed wise when I can be. I’m trying to decide between the 174 and 181. I was leaning toward the 181, but my only concern is its maneuverability in tight, steep terrain. It seems like the 181 is more like 185 in actual tip-to-tail-length. Thanks for the help.
Brian, hard choice. The 181 is going to rip much better, but if you’re doing true ski mountaineering the 174 would be a good tool as well.
We just got a new pair of 174 Coomback here for Louie and I, but specifically for ski mountaineering.
How old are you, and where do you ski mostly?
Lou. I’m 25 and in Seattle, so 95% of the time I’ll be using these in northwest snow conditions.
Brian,
If I can offer a suggestion … 181s hands down. I’m 6’3″ and a strong but not super-aggressive BC skier and I ski mashed potatoes here on Vancouver Island. I own a pair of 181s and wouldn’t go a centimetre shorter. I love them in wide open bowls at speed and tight trees. Better to grow into them than out of them. Hope that helps.
Toby
I’m with Brian. I’m 5’10″ and 145 pounds and my 174 coombacks are great for steep, powder bumps, but not good for fast turns in variable fresh snow. They’re heavier, but you may want to consider the hardsides if you ski fast.
I’d suggest the 181 as well.
At 25 years old, 170 lbs, yes, the 181. Carpe skium
Hi! I’ve another dreaded sizing question. I’m 6′ 5″ and with all the gear onboard I easily reach the 220lbs mark. What I lack in technique is made up in brute force approach. I will be doing mainly one-day trips and some slackcountry. I don’t expect to be riding very high speed I just want to make sure I’ll have enough float in the powder and edge on hard snow. The question is 181 or 188 Coombacks?
Thanks!
188! You are at the outer edge of the design envelope (grin)!
That’s what my mountain bike parts used to tell me when they broke (grin). For that very reason I’m rather not convinced by tech bindings in my case. Thanks Lou!
I’ve skied K2 Hardsides and love them – great on Highlands Bowl steeps and crud, and in the trees. Much better than expected cruising down the mountain on hardpack and bumps. Before I buy, I wonder if I should look at Coombacks for more flotation, or Gotbacks to suit my size and weight (I’m 58 yrs old, 5′-4″., 135 lbs and skied the Hardsides in 174 cm) but I can’t fine either of those to demo. Anyone have thoughts?
K2 Hardsides vs Coomback
After I had destroyed Coombacks I went for Hardsides in the same length for touring. Coomback is much better, nicer, more forgiving, versatile and better floating. I regret not beeing able to trust Coomback again, as it skis great. Anyway I am in great love with the Darksides so maybe Sidestash (which is in between the Hard and Dark) would do the job…
Another Dynafit/Coomback toe piece pull out …
While riding inbounds in UT on hard/icy conditions made a hard turn and pulled the toe piece out. I had the piece heli-coiled back in and proceded to pull it out again several days later. I ski this setup inbounds a lot as it’s my only alpine ski, so it received plenty of abuse on hard conditions.
Complete setup is BD method boots, Dynafit FT12′s, and 09/10 Coomback 188′s. Bindings were mounted at Bent Gate, so I trust their work.
I am 190# and ski fairly aggressively. This combo has been my favorite alpine setup by far (skis amazingly in all conditions, light weight, and i thought solid). I hope to have the skis replaced by K2, but thought I’d add to the list of failures with this combo …
For those considering this combo, it seems pull outs are rare but can happen. I’m looking into quiver killers or an aftermarket mounting plate to help with the strength as I remount my Dynafits (hopefully to some new K2′s). It’s just such a great skiing combination that I want to go right back to it …
thanks to wildsnow for all the great info & reviews!
K2 builds skis for the very average skier. 5’10″, strong intermediate, & certainly not getting out there 50+ days a year. For any bigger guy looking at these, strongly consider something else. Look beyond the 2 page ad spreads in the big ski magazines before buying and don’t be a slave to hype!
Only half tongue in cheek, but who builds ski’s for the 6′ 4” and up crowd, 220 lbs and up? Tall is the new Black… though plenty of my mates still use the term ‘freak’ around me.
Hi Lou, Louie: many thanks to Wildsnow for all the great information and discussion. Coomback ski length question… 140lbs, expert skier, 100% human powered, always carrying at least 20lbs (more on multi-days/technical tours) for total weight of at least 160lbs on average. Ski all my K2s in 167 (Baker SL, Baker regular, Backup). Would probably ski original Coomba in 167 but have trouble deciding on Coomback length, 167/174(?) because of rocker and softer flex (than Coomba). Looking for stable, predictable ski for variable conditions often encountered on glaciers in the Cascades (wind affected, sun crusts, powder, firm). Should I be looking at Backlash instead to replace my regular Bakers? Thanks.
Lou/Louie, another sizing question. I am 5′ 8″ and 155 lbs and looking at the Coombacks as my all round ski, mainly backcountry and day tours. My local shop only has 181′s in stock and I am heading to the Canadian Rockies in two weeks and need new skis as my old ones are bust. Would the 181′s be too much of a compromise? I am fairly agressive, but no cliffs…
G’day Lou and Louie
Thanks for this thread on the K2 Coomba’s. I am choosing between the Volkl Mantra’s and the K2 Coomba’s. I have not got the chance to demo before I buy (bit of a bugger). I will use my Fritschi Freeride Plus as the binding.
I am currently on Salomon Exscreams (timeless planks!). I am ski-ing 50% back country and 50% on fields down here in New Zealand. I am 6ft and 90kgs and not as aggressive as I was in my younger days. As you may know, the snow in NZ is generally wind blown, hard pack on and off piste. With a bit of powder when I head South.
Keen on your views on the merits of the Volkl Mantra or K2 Coomba’s. Also a little concerned about the comments about toe pieces riping out of the Coomba’s.
Thanks mate.
I just bought a pair of K2 Wayback and I wish to mount tele bindings (22designe Axl) on them. Where does sameone recommend me to place them in relation to the chord line???
Thanks!!!
Pancho, Patagonia, Argentina
Pancho, someone here might have the answer but you’d do better to contact K2 customer service.
What is the exact weight and measure in length of these skis: 188cm Hardside / versus 188 Comback?
Thomas, neither are designed to be particularly light, just to ski super well.
They’re also different widths so a weight comparison is somewhat meaningless, Coomback is 135/102/121, while Hardside is 131/98/119.
I don’t have exact weights for the lengths you request, I’d suggest simply calling or emailing K2.
We only real-world weight the skis we receive and review. We do have a pair of Coomback 2011/12 model in 174cm, which weigh in at 65 ounces per ski. Not particularly light but that’s ok at their width, and they ski super well.
See our weight chart:
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/backcountry-skiing-gear-weights/
the dreaded sizing question again.
wtb apache coomba or coomback for resort/sidecountry.
6’2 180lbs, short legs for the size. liked 174 bakers, 181 backlashes (the earlier ones w/o rocker) feel long.
coomba in 174 or 181? different for coomback?
thanks!
I have owned 4 pairs of Comba’s over as many years and will undoubtedly buy another pair this year after putting 252 days on my last purchase tele. Yeah, it was a hell of a season in the Carson Range East of Lake Tahoe and we were skiing into August plus the bonus rounds on Mt. Lassen and Mt. Shasta. I can’t more highly recommend any ski produced. Doug knew what he was doing with his input on these boards. They are light but produce great turns in mash potato’s, frozen muck and breakable crust. For their weight, you can’t beat their performance all around. I am 5’8″ 165 lbs and I ski the 181 version. I would recommend moving up a little in length due to the rocker effect of the current models. A small percentage of your purchase also goes to Doug’s widow and family which is a bonus!
Thanks for chiming in Mike! Lou
You are very welcome Lou. After reading about all the binding problems etc. I wanted to post just what a great ski they are for at least lighter and smaller folks that like to ski hard both on and off piste! Thanks for your blog. It is a good one!
“coomba in 174 or 181? different for coomback”
I’ve skied as both of them 181cm , at 170 lbs, 5″10,5 and never felt to long. I would rather go for 181/188 at your “sizing”. Due to the rocker the Coomback filling is like skiing a shorter ski. Of these two the “back” is nicer, but this is probably obvious for you.
K2 sizing chart should help you a lot.
(I would just change the sentence “in doubts go shorter” to “in doubts go as long as you can”
Yet another dreaded sizing question…Coming off of BD Verdicts and AXLs but looking to go AT with a more playful and fun ski. I’m 5’10 180 leaning towards the 181′s. I’m an intermediate skier, should I stick with that size, or go down to the 174′s. As much as I would like to get in the BC I have to be realistic with my family and school situation so these would probably be something like 70/30 BC/resort, what binding do you guys recommend? I’m currently living in WA and would like to use them to ski Hood, St. Helens, Adams, Baker, and maybe the lower parts of Rainier since I found out this year that walking all the way down them after going up isn’t all that fun. Thanks for the help, sounds like a great ski.
Jake,
My $0.02….
I got the ski-touring bug on the above mentioned Cascade volcanoes. I found (and still find) that the less weight I carried up the hill, the more enjoyable my day was. Since the volcanoes are mostly hard-pack and corn skiing, I would go as light as possible and I wouldn’t go with a ski wider than 90-95 mm in the waist. This size will still rip on the groomers, and if you can’t ski powder so well, than your money would be better spent with a day or two of lessons and more time practicing.
Good luck and have fun.
Jake, what JCoats said is good advice. But if you’re set on a ski of the wider type, for length you’d want to evaluate your style at the resort, and your body weight and height. If you’re planning on losing any body weight, you could probably go with the 174 if you ski at the resort in a fairly mellow style, and as you say, are an intermediate skier. On the other hand, if you’re out in natural soft snow or ski with more speed, the 181s might be better, though at your height I’d consider a 181 to be a fairly “big” ski. Can you demo some stuff at the resort for a few weeks? Really, demo experience is how to answer these questions.
Thanks for the advice all. I’m only going to be in WA for one more year, have climbed all said peaks, loved it, but unfortunately due to school will be moving next year. Good thing is I’ll be moving to E. Idaho where I hope to get some more (have done a fair amount) days in the Teton BC. I think that is one of the reasons that I was leaning towards the Coombacks, but am open to any ski knowing that it won’t always be a blower powder day. Anybody care to steer me in the direction of a few skis/binding setup recommendations? Thanks.
I am planning to build a ski touring pack including Maestrales, Dynafits FT12′s and skis I have not yet chosen. First I considered Dynafits Stoke or Manaslu but heard and read lots of cases where toe piece has ripped of. Now I would like to go for Coombacks but read these comments and problems with toe pieces ripping of and I not so sure anymore.
Does this problem still exist with 10/11 and 11/12 versions or should I start looking for other skis? I am about 6’4” and 210 lbs without gear and as said, looking for a ski touring skis with FT12′s. Would you recommend Coombacks or if not, which skis would be the next best choice? Sidestash or hardside? Or is there some similar skis from BD or any other manufacturer that someone would recommend?
loads of choices, I am facing a similar decision for my new rig with the PLUM Guides as a binding, personally I’ll be opting for a La Sportiva HI5.
other choices are Prior Husume, Movement jackal, Trab Evo Volare, DB Drift & Aspect, G3 ZenOxide, Rossi S3, Surface Live Free, Völkl Nanuq, Völkl Nunataq, la la la, you get the idea, there are plenty of good skis
good hunting
Lou and Louie,
Greetings from the North Cascades where winter is due to arrive in 36 hours. I’m a Clydesdale at 6’4″ and 220lbs and 54 years young and recovering from 43 years of tele skiing, with a low volume size 28 foot.
I got the rockered bug because last March I was skiing Tahoe and got 24 feet in 2 weeks, and found I had to ski from the back seat. So the question is, what to buy, from reading all the comments I was looking at some 188 Coombacks with some Dynafit TLT Radical ST for touring. Unsure on the boots.
I am open to ANY and ALL suggestions for a rando set-up.
Best to All in the 2011-12 season,
mt
mt, I don’t see any inherent problem with the ski/binding setup, but be ready for a learning curve with the Dynafits if you’re coming directly from tele, especially at your size as you’ll probably be able to eject pretty easily in touring mode.
As for boots, it’s more about what fits your foot. Can you go to a shop where a good boot fitter works, and they have a brand selection? At your size you’ll want one of the beefier boots, but exactly which one will depend on your feet.
Randonnee, what say you? Jordan? We need to get some words here from the larger guys.
Lou
Hi MT,
Best of the ski season to you too. I’m on Vancouver Island and ski your stomping grounds often. I’m six-foot-four, 210 lbs. Ride a 188 Coomback with Garmont Radiums (size 28) and skied on the Marker Barons last year, but am selling them due to weight. I researched the crap out of the Radical ST versus the new Radical FT and am convinced I need the FT, as much for ascents as descents. Saw a lot of friends eject in sketchy places going up last year with the ST. I like the FT’s higher DIN. Just my two cents.
TG.
MT,
I am not sure how agressive a skier you are, but If you are a clydesdale, I am a bowling ball (6’1″ and 245lbs). I skied the Coombacks last year w/ Dynafit FT 12s and Garmont Radiums. I did not have any retention problems even though the FT 12s are going on their 3rd year. I just remounted them on the same Coombacks to fit my new dynafit TLT 5Ps and skied last weekend. Still no problems and I couldn’t appreciate any loss of stiffness or control with this set-up even with the tongues out.
I like having the lighter weight boots and bindings to make up for the increased weight a wider board gives, and even with my weight I haven’t had any problems popping out of Dynafits or driving my Coombacks.
Have fun!
“Randonnee, what say you?” This big guy says FT12 on Manaslu and on Stoke are A-OK, no issues, with Zzero3C or Zzero4C boots. I think improved engineering over the older models of Dynafit bindings, I can press the ball of my foot down and release the older Dynafit bindings. Older Dynafits forced me to ski very smoothly with finesse since an exertional twitch would lose a ski from my foot..
I am not ready to jump on the new Radical binding yet, since my ST and FT bndings are- A-OK. As well, I am staying with my Zzero3C (or4C) mainly because of the metatarsal flex in the TLT5. I ski a lot from my feet and believe that I would flex that TLT5 boot while turning. Also I am very fond of my Zzero3C- taller boots rub my large calf.
Manaslu remains my touring favorite over Stoke, although Stoke is fun-review here-
http://www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/23169
I have upgraded to the new stiffer Manaslu 178cm. but not skied them yet. . I continue to prefer touring ski length of the Euro standard length below my nose when standing. On those short skis I go as fast as needed and enjoy the touring on steep forested mountain slopes with the shorter ski- easier getting around.
Dear Lou, TG, and JCoats, and Rando,
Thanks kindly for all your input. In my day (when dinosaurs still roamed the earth) I was a very aggressive skier who had the pleasure of sharing the same slope with Lou in Tahoe after he delivered his talk on his book Wild Snow. Due to my size and strength, I was always able to totally destroy equipment, so my wallet decided that I needed learn to try to ski like a petite blonde rather than an 800 lb. gorilla. Although the gorilla comes out once things get frozen and hard.
My first descent into rando was prompted by a move to the North Cascades, where spring touring between the treeline and the road brought home the difficulty of steering two meter tele board between the pecker pole forest spaced about the width of my shoulders, without engaging in the ugly sport of health care.
So I bought some 185 Atomic Kongurs, mounted a pair of Diamir Explores and drove them with some Garmont Dynamites. I loved the set-up, but am now searching for a rando touring set-up for an attempt on the Ptarmigan Traverse. I’ve been on Atomics since the advent of the Beta cap design and found them consistently to be the lightest stiffest skis I could find.
I had the opportunity to ski the Coombas a couple years back during a trip into the Selkirks and loved them. I think Doug would be (is?) happy to know that we are still talking about his design after his passing into the next realm. He was poetry on snow, and for all I know, still is, in the realm of the beyond.
So it looks like I should look at the FT for the higher DIN, that the 188 Coomback is the right size, and my walllet said that I will be using my existing Dynamites to steer ‘em. Any tips on mounting these puppies? Any skin recommendations for this?
One last issue, I’m sure you have heard of the passing of Jamie Pierre skiing Alta pre-opening. Doing some investigation, it appears that the continental mountains make be plague by some depth hoar due to some rotten October snow.
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/advisory/slc
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/accident_gad_valley_11132011
http://www.mtavalanche.com/photo
So, Take Care, Take a Risk.
Thank you kindly all for your time and attention. Should you ever find yourself ensconced on the dry side of the North Cascades, gimme a shout, and we shall get out. Have an awesome season All.
Wax Em’ Up, Point Em’ Down!
mt
The toe piece of my Dynafit FT12 bindings ripped out of my K2 Coombacks twice last season. I’m about 200 lbs but not a very agressive skier. Both times were during an easy turn on a hard pack groomer. After contacting both K2 and a K2 dealer they assured me this was rare and couldn’t be the fault of the ski. So I had given up any chance of getting a replacement set of skis until I stumbled across this and a couple other threads on the subject. After reading these posts it does seem to be more than a ‘rare’ occurence. I think I’ll be pursuing this a bit further.
Mike,
I wish I had a dollar for every time a manufacturer told me that a failure of their product was rare, with Black Diamond leading the pack. If such a failure was rare, then why are all these posts about failure.
My experience is that there is a lot of equipment that works for the smaller skier, that once strapped on a Clydesdale such a myself, fail. My only response is that Clydesdale need to ski carefully while carving.
Happy Winter,
mt
I have neither the technical measuring tools nor the equipment testing experience (not even a workbench) of Lou, but I do have a question, could the wider skis + Clydesdale-ness of some be a potential cause of ripping the bindings out of skis?
From what I’ve read and heard, the front piece of the Dynafit was not designed for such a wide ski, so the levering + heavy individual might be the cause (I’m sure that y’all have thought of that). My understanding is that the FT Z12 binding series is supposed to take care of that (as well as tighter springs on some front piece models).
15 years ago I ripped a Marker MRR toe piece out of a Dynamic slalom ski. Had the remount done with heli-coils (sp?) and never had a problem after.
Should the Clydesdales among us who choose a wide ski + Dynafit binding setup go the heli-coil route?
Just a suggestion / question (I’m not a materials nor physics expert, I’m not a doctor and I don’t play one on TV).
Cheers.
P.S. I’ve never had hard goods fail, so never had to deal with a brand claiming that failure was not their fault. However, I have had good luck with clothing and backpack manufacturers replacing zippers, repairing seams, and reinforcing cordura in the lower pant legs of ski pants.
dmr,
I think you are correct. Although it depends on what type of Clydesdale you are, at 2 m tall and 100 kg heavy, I have an inseam of 38 inches and a wingspan of 7 feet. All the limb length adds a lot of leverage ( longer moment arms), making it easier stress the mount. Additionally I use a lot of angulation, which adds to the problem.
In my brief 43 years of mounting boards, I’ve always gone the heli-coil route simply because it seemed like cheap insurance and a better alternative to ripping the mount out, and then hoping the ski manufacturer can see it’s way to replacing the ski.
One thing I will note is that while mounting a NTN binding to a pair of Line skis, it does appear that as skis morph into snowboards their vertical profile appears to shrinking, leaving less bearing surface for the screws, which would increase the chance of ripping out the binding mount. One might be served by using a higher thread count per inch of screw.
FWIIW, I’m a M.E. P.E. with 30 years of professional experience in addition to a PhD in destroying recreational equipment of all types.
Damn Clydedales!
Ciao Bene
mt
Hi Lou,
Did the 2011-12 model changed much from the 2010-11 model?