backcountry skiing Dynafit Trip Reports resort Misc Gear Reviews Louie weather Black Diamond safety Binding Reviews backpack skins climbing skins avalanches video snowmobile snowboard food clothing Boot Reviews Fourteeners camera huts Fritschi alpinism Utah avalanche safety photography alpinist guidebook Cloudveil Europe Silvretta Rando Racing Technique Guest Blogs Gear Mods kids Elk Mountains training Aspen automotive Wyoming computer Chris Davenport music backcountry skier Christmas 10th Mountain Enviro Rants bicycle North America Avalung TGR GPS Austria Mountain Culture north face Everest Movie Reviews Canada Book Reviews gloves batteries Aspen Mountain lightweight gear History News Backcountry Alps Andrew McLean Salewa Alaska Carbondale Maps Dave Downing first aid helmets Bob Perlmutter pastry Denver Google Aspen Highlands Montana Forest Service Sean Crossen Televangelism snowboarding Eulogies rock climbing Mount Sopris hunting Diamir Greg Hill Craig Dostie Mike Marolt Aspen Skiing Company New Zealand Ortovox Boot Fitting thermo liner

K2 Coomback Backcountry Ski Review

By Louie

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 getting ready for fun at Temple Basin

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 l(right).

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 my old Verdicts, but 5 cm 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?

Posted by Louie on August 14, 2009 | Filed Under Ski Reviews

Comments

40 Responses to “K2 Coomback Backcountry Ski Review”

Matt August 14th, 2009 9:29 am

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.
Wayne Nicholson August 14th, 2009 9:33 am

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.
Jonathan Shefftz August 14th, 2009 9:35 am

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!
ScottP August 14th, 2009 11:26 am

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?
Ben W August 14th, 2009 11:50 am

Have you skied the rockered Anti Pistes? Is there a difference?
Matt Kinney August 14th, 2009 1:52 pm

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.
CCD August 14th, 2009 4:00 pm

Hey Louie, keep up the great work. Those sure are a far cry from the planks we skied on back in the day!!!!
Louie August 14th, 2009 4:39 pm

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.
dan August 14th, 2009 5:22 pm

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.
Mark August 14th, 2009 5:37 pm

Coombacks are cheaper than Manaslus, but significantly heavier, so you must decide if lighter weight is worth a thinner wallet. Nice review, Louie.
Jack August 14th, 2009 10:18 pm

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?
Mark W August 16th, 2009 9:00 pm

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.
Jonathan Shefftz August 17th, 2009 7:25 am

That is indeed my review at stp. Great adaptation of the old TLT4 design. Just wish it had fit my low-volume foot better.
Mark W August 18th, 2009 9:18 am

I’m not buying sight unseen, but if they had my size, I’d head to Cheyenne.
Mike Hattrup August 19th, 2009 3:43 pm

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.
Lou August 19th, 2009 3:52 pm

Nice Hat, thanks!
Craig August 19th, 2009 5:01 pm

Does anyone know the actual length of the 181 cm Coombacks?
Lou August 19th, 2009 6:25 pm

I’ll know shortly
Henrik August 29th, 2009 11:05 pm

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.
JB September 14th, 2009 4:32 pm

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.
Louie Dawson September 14th, 2009 4:52 pm

JB, I am about the same size as you, 5′10″ and 150. I would probably go for the 174s.
Louie Dawson September 14th, 2009 5:25 pm

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.
Chris September 15th, 2009 1:31 pm

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.
Matt S September 15th, 2009 3:19 pm

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.
Matt S September 28th, 2009 7:33 pm

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!
Chris October 22nd, 2009 6:37 pm

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!
Matt S October 22nd, 2009 7:22 pm

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!
Lou October 22nd, 2009 8:02 pm

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.
gtrantow November 17th, 2009 10:55 pm

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.
dean November 21st, 2009 10:24 pm

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?
dean November 24th, 2009 9:26 pm

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.
Lou November 25th, 2009 10:07 am

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.
Chris Sauro December 15th, 2009 5:49 pm

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.
Lou December 15th, 2009 6:22 pm

That’ll have to be Hatt, what do I know about tele bindings!?
Howie December 29th, 2009 6:37 pm

Louie, have you skied the ‘09-’10 Icelantic Nomad or Nomad SFT? I’m trying to get some comparisons to the Coomback.
Grant January 4th, 2010 11:56 pm

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.
gtrantow January 5th, 2010 8:16 am

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
franco January 20th, 2010 6:28 am

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.
Howie January 20th, 2010 8:37 am

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).
SB March 1st, 2010 2:20 pm

@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.