K2 Baker Superlight Review

Post by WildSnow.com blogger | February 19, 2008      

Baking with the Baker Superlight? We’ll, in truth we weren’t exactly baking this weekend here in central Colorado. We spent the weekend up around 10,000 feet, where the sun had indeed baked some exposures to crust, but cold air preserved powder on northerly aspects. Thus, other than skiing hardpack or corn I had a good snow conditions to test the new Mount Baker Superlight backcountry skis that K2 fired our way a few days ago.

K2 backcountry skiing.
K2 Mt. Baker Superlights with Dynafit Comfort bindings.

As noted in comments to the previous blog post, I do use somewhat short skis these days. My body weight hovers around 150 lbs and I’m 5′ 11″ tall, so big long planks are more a sometime luxury than any sort of necessity. And less so every year as I seem to spend more time in dedicated ski touring and ski mountaineering, with less time at resorts and less desire to ski at high speeds. That said, skiing shorter boards can be an adjustment if you’re used to longer skis, and not every model/make skis well in shorter lengths, so at the least apply your own style to our opinions here, and best please demo when possible.

When I spoke with Mike Hattrup at K2 (after cleansing my mind of weird images from his days as a Greg Stump ski movie star), he didn’t flinch at the idea of sending over a pair of 167 cm Mount Baker Superlights. “They’ll be perfect for what you do,” he said.

Mike was right.

First, width of the Baker is that magic “around 90” under the foot (tip/waist/tail/ 122/86/107, as measured by us). While skis with even more girth can be fun and effective in skiing down everything from glop to breakable, they’re often heavy, and require climbing skins the size and weight of area rugs from an Aspen mansion. More, with super wide skis the weight of snow they can pick up on top can actually injure your muscles and connective tissue when you’re breaking trail.

In terms of flex, the Baker SL is not a noodle, but it is far from being a 2×4. Thus, you do feel something useful under your feet when you require an arc through breakable crust, or, Uller forbid, hardpack. That said, let’s be clear that this is a ski built with less mass, skied in a fairly short length, so it’s not going to rail like a bigger, heavier plank would do.

As for soft snow, in my opinion the Baker Superlight is ideal. The width provides a totally adequate platform for everything from hop turns in tight trees or couloirs to higher speed arcs when you’ve got the room. The wide tip tends to stay up where you want it, so you can make a casual choice about moving your weight forward and playing with a more aggressive powder stance — rather than being constantly forced into the unnatural rearward position that narrower skis with less tip frequently require.

P.M. update: A big question with this sort of low-mass ski is do they chatter or bounce on hardpack, or just feel wimpy? I didn’t notice any problem with that while ski touring. Today I got out on the ski lifts for a few runs that varied from highly chopped crud to fairly hard pack. I could lean the Baker’s over into a carve, though they’re certainly not asking to do that. They had average edge hold that would be totally adequate for ski mountaineering, and would work as a resort ski as well so long as you weren’t expecting a super agro plank. I didn’t have any trouble with chatter — they felt solid for something so short and light. Bottom line: I’m looking forward to using them for spring corn tours, since they’ll behave even if the bottom drops out of the snowpack, as it sometimes does in Colorado on a warm spring afternoon.

K2 of course makes a famous ski called “Mount Baker,” of which the Baker Superlight is a stripped down sibling. The parent Baker is said to yield full-on hardpack performance due to a metal layer that was removed from the Superlight to save weight. Probably true, so the question is if the Superlight can hold up on hardpack enough to be an all around touring ski. I suspect it’s fine as K2 added some Kevlar and stuff like that to make up for the lack of metal, and my lift skiing on the skis this afternoon bears that out (see above).

Another feature of this ski, for me, is the lack of twin tip tail. Unless you need a tail tip for tricks, looks, or your style of skiing, all the tail tip does is use up ski length, add weight, and make your ski tails difficult to stab into the snow next to the gasthaus door (or when you need them as an anchor or climbing aid). That’s the case with me. So I’m a happy camper without twintips. If you need ’em, and I totally respect it if you do (so long as you can land a 30 footer switch, otherwise just say “style victim”), look elsewhere at skis such as BD Voodo.

In all, you get the impression from the Baker Superlight that it’s designed for ski mountaineers, in other words, for people like us here at WildSnow.com weight has been trimmed to compare favorably with other lighter brands and models; it has the incredibly useful (for alpinists) holes in tip and tail; width is perfect; skin notches in tail are greatly appreciated. As for length, they fit crosswise in my pickup bed in front of the Yamaha, what’s not to love about that? My only gripe so far is the Baker graphics. I’m just not finding that toothy weird face to match the sublime emotions a day of backcountry powder pulls from my soul. Oh well, there is always a WildSnow sticker to take care of the problem. And at least they’re not dark colored, which causes even more ice and snow to build up on top than would normally be the case.

In all a WildSnow thumbs up for the Mount Baker Superlight, as a fine ski for earning your turns.


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


67 Responses to “K2 Baker Superlight Review”

  1. Tyler February 19th, 2008 12:05 pm


    The other problem with twin tips is that the tails tend to get stuck when skiing breakable snow or even glob. I completely agree with you – I think you are better off skipping the twin tip unless you have a specific reason for wanting them. I have had a couple of occasions when the tails would get so stuck at the end of the turn that I had to resort to just criss-crossing down the slope in order to get down with my ACL/MCL intact.

    On piste though – they are kind of fun.

  2. Big Sky Rida February 19th, 2008 1:42 pm

    A slight twin tip or true twin is perfect for a backcountry setup…don’t knock them. Side-slipping into a rocky coulior, getting through a rock choke in a chute or getting off a summit with these skis is so much easier then a traditional ski because of the ease to ski backwards…not just for landing fakie.

  3. Tyler February 19th, 2008 2:44 pm

    Good point. I didnt think about that. They are great for slipping back and forth. I have appreciated that ability many a time.

  4. Derik February 19th, 2008 3:42 pm


    Thanks for the write up. Good review. My concern was that they would be too soft for an all around Colorado BC ski. ( I mean 0% resort use.) Sounds like that might work out okay for the conditions we face in CO.

    Do those 167s measure a true 167cm? I’m 5’10”, 163 lbs, and wondering if I could get away with a 167? My Sahales are 167 and I’ve skied them in all kinds of stuff, and its been fun. I am not a fast skier so I don’t know.

    Possibly the 174 is a better choice, I guess we really are talking about 2.75 inches here ……. 🙂

    Thanks again for the review. Now, with our first little one on the way, how to justify this to the wife?


  5. Lou February 19th, 2008 4:59 pm

    Derick, they don’t strike me as being particularly soft. But it’s all relative… I can’t find my cm tape to do real-world length, guess I should get another one… I’d say if you’ve been on other 167s that worked and don’t ski too agro, this 167 Baker SL would work fine.

  6. Lou February 19th, 2008 5:03 pm

    Big Sky, I agree that a slight upturn at the tail does help. For me, the upturn that most skis have seems to be enough. The Dynafit Manaslu has more upturn in the tail than “normal” for exactly the kind of use you describe.

  7. Dave Johnson February 19th, 2008 7:38 pm

    I just picked up a pair of the Superlight’s in a 174 cm (I’m 175 lbs). I’m putting a pair of Vertical ST’s on them and will let you know what I think. I could have used them yesterday on Mt. Tallac (overlooking Lake Tahoe); my Freeride’s are getting heavy.

  8. Lou February 19th, 2008 7:50 pm

    Dave, that sounds like a cool setup. Please check in and let us know how they work.

  9. John W February 19th, 2008 8:51 pm

    My K2 Mt Baker Superlite vs. BD Kilowatt test occured because a friend has the the exact same MegaRide boots as I do so we can swap skis during the day. I am 185 lbs on 175 cm Kilowatts w/ Dynafit bindings. My friend is 140 lbs and the demo K2s were longer, maybe 180 cm. Conditions were soft slightly wind blown old powder. I felt under booted on the K2s. I had to work harder to turn them. The Kilowatts were quicker and easier. My friend ended up buying a very shaped green Atomic that is 86cm under foot , 174 cm I think. I clicked into them 3 weeks ago on some low angle powder and they are nice, very turny. I could really feel the width difference under foot. Perhaps it’s our weight difference but I am sticking with the Kilowatts. I’m trying out a pair of the new , beefier Dynafit compatible boots this week that I’m hoping will really drive the Kilowatts on junkier and harder snow.
    I’m not sure where the Kilowatts come in on the tail curve factor but they seem fine and are very predictable in tight sideways situations.

  10. Lou February 19th, 2008 10:00 pm

    Apples and oranges? But good to get more takes…

  11. George T February 19th, 2008 10:38 pm

    Thanks for the update on Baker SL and body weight to ski length comparison. I look forward to the follow up reports on the Baker SLs in powder and corn. The conditions are really great right now…sunny warm days with hero snow on many bc slopes around Aspen. George

  12. Terry February 19th, 2008 10:59 pm

    Lou, what is the weight of Baker Superlights? Have read the article several times and can’t see this mentioned.

  13. haloboy February 20th, 2008 12:31 am

    K2 says the 174cm NMTBaker Superlights weighs 1475 grams each

  14. Matus (Euro) February 20th, 2008 4:52 am

    After reading about different dimensions of skis and their usability, I would welcome a summary elaborated by some expert skier – what dimensions are good for what and what flex is ideal for which conditions. Eg I have 116-77-106 Movement Demon Flame skis which I found to be perfect on any kind of terrain and from my point of view Bakers SL seem to be too wide for overall use – I cannot imagine using anything wider than 80 cm under foot. FYI, powder is something rare here and we usually have variable conditions through the day and season.

  15. Lou February 20th, 2008 8:15 am

    Haloboy, see our weight chart using menu to left (click “Gear Weights”) . I didn’t specify the weight because without comparison to other skis it doesn’t mean all that much, but when you see it in a chart it has meaning. I should have made that clear in the blog post. Sorry.

  16. Mark Worley February 20th, 2008 8:39 am

    I was stuck with a relatively skinny ski for years, but it worked great. I now ski Bakers and think they’re nearly perfect on all surfaces and conditions. Where the super fat ski thing will end is still unfolding.

  17. Matus (Euro) February 20th, 2008 9:17 am

    🙂 Mark, my previous skis were Fischer X-pedition, therefore for me “skinny” has a different meaning (anything under 70 mm). I am enjoying 77 mm now and maybe in a couple of years I will move to something wider; however, right now I see no motivation to do it (mainly due to lack of powder).

  18. Lou February 20th, 2008 9:22 am

    Matus, if you generally ski snow that’s supportive, then yeah, width is not as big an issue. Here in Colorado we frequently have either fairly deep powder, or a snowpack that one tends to sink into for various reasons. This can even happen during the sping firn season. Thus, the wider skis have cause a revolution in what’s possible in Colorado ski mountaineering. Same to some degree for Wyoming and other west-central US states. As for areas such as NW US and Sierrra, while their snow is more supportive than ours, the wider skis make their sometimes dense “powder” much easier to ski. And so on. They’re just more versatile and easier to ski. Keep in mind we’re talking about skis around 90 mm underfoot. Anything wider can ski great, but starts to be tougher on the uphill due to weight and snow piling up on top.

  19. Matus (Euro) February 20th, 2008 10:33 am

    Thanks for explanation. Here, with 77 mm under foot I am considered semi-fat ski owner, while up to 70 mm is a “normal” ski. However, I can see the trend towards fatter skis, stronger boots.

  20. Lou February 20th, 2008 11:11 am

    The telling thing is that Dynafit came up with their Manaslu. More width works so well I think you’ll see the trend continue in a big way.

  21. Dave Johnson February 20th, 2008 11:29 am

    FYI – I weighed my K2 Superlight’s (174cm) on my Ultimate digital scale before mounting them and they came in at 3020 grams, or 6 lbs 101/2 oz.

    And Lou, thanks for referring to our Sierra powder as “dense” instead of heavy! Actually, this season we’ve had colder storms than any year in recent memory and the powder has been fairly light for at least a few days after storms.

  22. Lou February 20th, 2008 11:32 am

    Dave, thanks, I’ll add to weight chart! That weight is without any Sierra cement on top of the ski, correct?

  23. John W February 21st, 2008 7:53 am

    Indeed, from reading the above some folks apples are oranges to others. Light is nice but I am not against bolt on horsepower, it has its place , especially with the price of new gear. Didn’t you mention skis that snow won’t stick to and light skins with no glue?

  24. Derik February 21st, 2008 8:14 am


    Maybe you could use your contacts to find out what K2 has in store for next year. Specifically, now that the Shuksan is their SMALLEST ski, is there a plan to offer a lighter Shuckie? Seems like there is a big hole when they discontinued the Sahale and Chogori and then made the MT Baker Superlight lighter than the Shuksan.

    Just wondering. Okay, gotta go ski!


  25. Lou February 21st, 2008 8:28 am

    Derik, the main thing to remember is that there are two versions of the K2 Baker, regular with metal, and SL. We seem to be confusing that issue. If you want a ski to compare to something like the Kilowatt, the regular Baker would be more appropriate, in my opinion. We did review the Kilowatt a while back and liked it. But we’ve found that when you’re talking real human powered vertical, less weight on the feet is a big deal, so we’re always biased toward testing and reviewing the skis that come in lighter.

    I have some notes about K2 from the OR show, but need to clarify before a writeup.

  26. Mike Kaz February 21st, 2008 9:37 am


    Great review. The superlights have intrigued me for sure. One clarification/comment. I have the dimensions of the Superlight at 120/88/108 instead of your posted 122/86/107…are the dimensions changing for next year or am I screwed up??

    I find “flat” back tails to be advantageous for a number of ski mountaineering applications, but for pure powder chasing/bc skiing, not sure if they are a necessity. I say “flat” in quotes because it does seem most manufacturers use a bit of an up turn, even if it is only just slight.

    I also agree that a wider platform is an advantage in deep snow (obvious) but in breakable conditions as well. The wider shovel/waist with tapered tail works really well in these conditions. I will continue to experiment with wider skis as long as manufacturers keep figuring out ways to keep them light.

  27. Lou February 21st, 2008 10:03 am

    Mike, we measure the skis we get, which sometimes differs slightly from the party line. As far as I know the “offical” dimensions remain the same.

  28. Mike Kaz February 21st, 2008 11:35 am


    I figured as much…with how fastidious you guys are with weights and such. Thanks for reply.

  29. Lou February 21st, 2008 11:38 am

    I’d imagine skis vary in width by a millimeter or two, due to how they’re finished at the factory. The size they publish is probaby from the specifications or perhaps the mold.

  30. Derik February 21st, 2008 2:53 pm

    After my tour today, I went by the local shop and measured the Superlights. The 167 length came in at 170cm measured from tip to tail. Note that the estimated running surface came in at 167. The 174 measured 177cm from tip to tail, and again, the estimated running surface (eyeballing it) came in at 174cm.

    Interestingly enough, my 167cm Sahales measure exactly 167cm from tip to tail.

    I’m sure no one cares about these small details, I just thought I would pass it along.


  31. ladski March 10th, 2008 8:48 pm

    Lou, I am wondering. K2 lists ski weight on their web but I wasn’t sure if that is weight for one ski or pair. So I wrote K2 with question and got reply that weight is listed per pair!! Now I look at your page where you list weight of Baker SL per one ski and it is pretty much the same weight as K2 lists but yours is per one ski! not per pair! so whatz up with that? I assume that dude from K2 didn’t know what he was saying because if PAIR of K2 skis would weight around as much as they list on their web, it would make them even lighter skis then Goode skis!! Are my assumptions right? if not, I apologize to the dude from K2, if I am right, it is kinda scary he gave me such misleading information. Peace!

  32. Lou March 10th, 2008 9:01 pm

    Hi Ladski, yeah, our weight must be the correct one. But don’t panic, we’re all only human. I’ve made plenty of dumb mistakes here, even on that weights page!

  33. ladski March 11th, 2008 9:17 am

    I do not (or do) panic but knowing what the weight is when you are buying skis is pretty important to me. I don’t wanna buy skis assuming they are super light and get exactly what I have already. I think that someone from K2 should give you right answers. Anyhow, it is snowing outside, I’d better talk about skis and actually go skiing 🙂

  34. Rob March 11th, 2008 12:13 pm

    I am skiing on a set of 181 Superlights and they are far from soft. I would say a tadd to stiff for a touring ski actually, could be a bit more forgivng. Also I fell like the monting point is 2-3 cm too far back.

    Sure is nice hiking with them. No ski in the quiver even comes close in weight. I am 5’7 185. Usually go for the 180-185 cm ski, I like to ski in the front seat. Shorter skiis require a more centerd balance position. However I think I might like the 174cm better since this is not a very forgiving ski.

    BTW IMHO twin tips are stupid. Kick turning with flat tails is way better. Sliding backwards in a chute for a few feet is no reason to have twin tip skis.

  35. Rob March 11th, 2008 2:16 pm

    181 superlight with vertical st and brake on my digital scale:
    4320 grams per pair

  36. Brenda September 29th, 2008 4:59 pm

    Hi Lou, thanks for your review. On your recommendation, I have picked myself up a pair of Miss Baker skis, similar to the Mt Baker but shorter. I wish they made the SL skis shorter, but 167 is a bit long for featherweights. The SL 167 is still a bit lighter than the Miss Baker 163.
    I’m looking forward to having them on the snow soon.

  37. Lou September 29th, 2008 6:47 pm

    I’m sure you’ll love ’em!

  38. Steve September 29th, 2008 8:27 pm

    Hello all. This is my first time to your ( any ) forum so please forgive my ignorance. I was hoping for some advice. I’m in the market for a ‘wee AT set-up and really have no idea where to start. I’m really keen to get into Ski Mountaineering and have been on tele’s for some years now ( a bit hard on tele’s ) so hence the AT set-up. That said, I do most of my skiing inbounds ( we don’t have much Ski Mountaineering options here in Oz! ) but will be travelling to North America for several ski trips over the next few years. The good Finance Minister ( wife’y ) will not approve funds for a set-up for each discipline ie. groomers, off piste, ski mountaineering and the park. Bugger! So what boot, binding, ski will do all this? I am 190lbs, 5’10” and ski aggressively. Please advise.Ta. Steve.

  39. Peter November 19th, 2008 1:42 pm

    Hi Lou,

    I’m a brand new AT skier… I plan on 70% BC and 30% resort. More touring than turns… and on th downhill, I like turns more than speed.

    BD Voodoo’s seem a great choice, but then I read about the Mt. Baker Superlight’s. The major difference seems to be the twin tip on the Voodoo.

    1] How big of an issue is the twin tip in the backcountry – and is it enough of an issue that I should shell out the $585 for the Baker over the $510 Voodoo?

    2] How about flex and softness between them? I can’t ski powder and will be a beginner on it!

  40. Lou November 19th, 2008 1:54 pm

    Peter, I’d say with much resort time the Voodoo would be a better choice, simply because it’s got more beef than the Baker. The tail tips are not much of an issue. Both ski powder just fine.

  41. ScottN December 15th, 2008 7:27 pm

    Okay, now I really like this ski. Having skiied them on corn last year, they were fine, not exceptional, as they felt a little sluggish when doing quick turns (I’m used to narrower waisted skis, like a Sahale which is much narrower…). But, today I finally got into some powder and softer snow. Nice float, easy turning, just the place for this ski. And being a fairly lightweight ski, the uptrack was great. I ski these in a 167, and I’m 5-7 and around 160lbs. I mounted them with Dynafit ST Verts and always wear F1’s (its the only AT boot I have right now…) Great ski for soft snow and powder. Adequate for hardpack. Probably would be even better in all conditions if I had a stiffer boot, which by the way I’m accepting donations for……(grin).

  42. Lou December 15th, 2008 8:24 pm

    Hey Scott, good to get your take. Come by HQ and get some other skis to test now and then.

  43. marco January 25th, 2009 1:46 pm

    Hallo to everybody
    i would like to buy K2 mount Baker superlighy ski.
    I’m 178 cm tall and 68 kg of weight.
    Wich lenght to buy???
    167 or 174 ?
    I use a 174 cm K2 Summit, but 174 Mount Baker SL looks longer!
    Can anybody help me?
    Thank you.
    Marco from Padova Italy

  44. Lou January 25th, 2009 4:31 pm


  45. marco January 26th, 2009 2:13 am

    Thank you Lou!

    Would you confirm 167 also in case of use in Dolomites mountains, where you can find both powder and steep hard iced snow , in the same day?


  46. Lou January 26th, 2009 9:03 am

    Marco, sure, unless you think extra ski length is better for that sort of thing.

  47. marco January 27th, 2009 5:41 am

    Kind Lou,
    Thank you for your kind suggestions.
    All the best (snows)

  48. Anton February 28th, 2009 4:33 pm

    Hey Lou,

    great website! I ended up buying Vertical STs after reading up on them here, to go along with the Scarpa Matrix AT.

    Planning to mount them on a Mt Baker SL but not sure about length: 174 or 181?

    6’3 at 190 pounds. Ski fairly aggressive in SW British Columbia backcountry (Whistler, Garibaldi, Duffy Lake RD), mostly day trips but want them for ski mountaineering and tours as well.


  49. Lou February 28th, 2009 4:53 pm

    Hmmm, I think I’d go for the 181 if I were you…

  50. jason March 1st, 2009 2:11 pm

    Question for ya, Lou,

    in regards to comparison between the baker SL, regular baker, and BD Voodoo: which do you think is a better corn / spring ski mountaineering ski? i know the regular bakers weigh a bit more, but i’ll be putting tlt speeds, so i wouldn’t mind a little added weight if the skiing performance was worth it (i also wonder if a slightly heavier ski would smooth out the ride on firmer spring snow).

    i know the BD’s have upturned tails, but i have yet to find myself in a situation where i’ve needed to make an anchor w/ the skis… (although i do like the notch for skins on the k2s).

    trying to figure out which length, too… 6’1 180 lbs – i think the 181s in the k2s are the ticket (but i’ve heard that the actual length is a bit longer…), and i’m thinking if i go w/ the BDs 185, as 175 seems like it’d be too short… (i live in jackson, so i ski the tetons primarily, but i also try to make spring trips elsewhere)

    another question, not directly related, but i couldn’t find a blogpost that’d be suited: a friend will be in ridgeway the 2nd week of april, and we were thinking about doing a hut trip, maybe trying to ski a 14er as well. do you think the northern san juans will be in corn cycles by then, or if not, what kind conditions should we expect?

    thanks a lot!

  51. ScottN March 6th, 2009 3:53 pm

    Baker SL update. Wrote a while back how I really liked these skis in the powder. The last couple of days I’ve been out on some windblown, frozen crust with the SL’s. I was really surprised at how well they skiied. Not super crisp like a narrower, firmer ski, but more than adequate. And like Lou mentioned previously, no chattering either. And when the snow did finally soften up a little, to almost corn, they really shined. So I’m looking forward to getting them out this spring. I ski them with dynafit verts, F1’s, 167.

  52. lukas March 6th, 2009 4:05 pm

    Hello all.
    I am thinking about buying K2 Shuksan skis. I am trying figure out which length, I am 74 kg (163 lbs) and 180 cm (5’9”) and I classify myself as advanced skier. I want it use in all conditions and all terrain. I prefer shorter skis. I am thinking about 167 cm, isn’t too short for me? Should I rather buy 174 cm?

  53. Derik March 7th, 2009 9:16 am

    Same length question for me. 162 lbs in the buff, will be using it with Dynafits and Spirit 3s or F3s. All Colorado BC skiing. Can’t figure between the 167 and 174 length. Current ski is the BD Havoc (older foam version) in 173. (its a twin tip).


  54. Lou March 7th, 2009 9:29 am

    Derik, if your skiing is mostly touring without aggressive hucking and such, go for the 167, otherwise go for the 174. ‘best, Louwene the all seeing all knowing prophet of ski length. (grin)

    Lukas, if you’re thinking short just go with the 167, you’ll be fine.

    Anyone else have a prophetic vision for this thread?

  55. Derik March 8th, 2009 9:42 am


    Thanks for the input. I would call myself more of a tourer/ skimountaineer wanna-be than TGRs next film star.

    Can anyone measure the running length (contact patch) of the 167 and the 174? Working in Atlanta for the next few weeks and I won’t even get to the shop before the BC.com sale runs out!!!!!!


  56. lukas March 10th, 2009 11:38 am

    Lou, thanks for the advice.

    167 are 167 cm high, lenght of running surface from toe to tip is about 168 cm and length of the contact surface less than 155 cm.

  57. jerry March 12th, 2009 6:12 am

    Yet another query about ski length for the Mt Baker Superlight.
    When I read about weight recommendations I assume it means your skiing wgt.
    So I’m 175# in the gym, add 10 for boots and clothing, another 20 for my backcountry pack, that makes about 205#.
    I’m 6ft, ski on a tele set up and split my turns between tele and parallel.
    Been skiing a long time and as I turn 60 looking for a light set-up. Have a pair of 177 Carbon Surfs that are wearing out, and would like to get a ski that doesn’t lose it’s way quite as much when not in powder.
    So, with the Superlight, 174 or 181? I kind of wish there was a length right in the middle of that range.
    Thanks for your input.

  58. Lou March 12th, 2009 6:21 am

    Hi Jerry, I don’t telemark and know little about what length skis are appropriate for that type of turn, perhaps some of our tele friends who drop by here could make a suggestion? Lou

  59. jerry March 12th, 2009 7:11 am

    Thanks for your quick response!
    OK, if I convert to alpine, it is in the back of my mind, somewhere, which length of ski would you think would work better. the 174 or 181 superlight Mt Baker, given my loaded wgt while touring.
    Thanks again.

  60. Pietro March 16th, 2009 9:28 pm

    Just wanted to share that I picked up today a pair of brand new Mt. Bakers SL 2009 for $215 on ebay. I personally met the seller, since he lives close by, and he’s liquidating on behalf of some bankrupt gear shop based on the East coast. He’s got another truckload of gear coming tomorrow (Tue, Mar 17 2009), which he’ll be posting on ebay. There will be K2s, G3s, BDs, etc skis and boots. I am not affiliated, nor do I have any financial or other interest in this auction. Just thought I’d share. Here’s the link:

  61. Pietro March 16th, 2009 9:35 pm

    The URL didn’t display properly: it should be http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/ligasflies*com

  62. Lou March 17th, 2009 6:09 am

    Pietro, I can’t get either of those URLs to work, even after editing. But if you simply search Ebay for K2 skis, there are plenty of deals.

    Here is a URL that works:


  63. dan April 8th, 2009 6:47 pm

    I currently ski 05/06 volkl mantras 177 which wiegh in at 8lbs a pair. I am 6’4″ and about 195lbs, the volkls have been great, but they are beat to hell. I’m considering going with the superlights as my new setup, which I plan to use heavily in the PNW this spring. I like to ski fast and aggressively, so I wonder if the regular Bakers might be better for me considering my size ?, although it would be REALLY nice to haul a pair of 6lb skis around rather than the 8lb bakers. Any one have any thoughts as to going with the Baker vs. Superlight at my size?

  64. Bob Wagner July 22nd, 2009 10:24 pm

    I just bought a pair of 167s and thought the boot center mark looks too far back. When I compared them with my 167 red Mt Bakers, the boot center mark was 1.5 cm farther back on the Superlights measured from the shovel. I’ll be mounting Dynafits, but am not convinced that I should be using the provided mark. Any thoughts? Thanks.

  65. Mt baker ski resort May 7th, 2010 1:49 am

    So you re looking for a touring ski that ll rock in soft pow without turning your legs into two heavy slow things on the skin up? The K2 Mt. Baker Superlight Alpine Touring Ski has 88mm underfoot, a long tip for predictability in the soft stuff, and it weighs in at a modest 52oz (per ski). The Superlight s shallow, progressive sidecut makes this touring ski predictable so you won t waste all that hoofing-it up the mountain on a warm-up run down.

  66. Phil Maynard November 14th, 2014 5:57 pm

    So, I’m still skiing these. The weight is still pretty good, but they are a bit narrow by modern standards, and they have a traditional profile. I love how they ski – pretty soft, which is great since I’m not much of a hard charger. But, they hold together at speed on crud when I ask, and float well enough, especially that wide tip.

    Where should I look for a ski that’s a step up in every area, but has a similar feel and soft-snow bias? I want lighter, wider, more forgiving, and harder-charging. This is for East Coast BC skiing – lots of woods, but open stuff too. Normally powder, but I do corn as well, when it’s time.

    The ZenOxide seems like too much ski for me, although it stacks up well on a spreadsheet. The Vector is very popular around here, and seems like an obvious choice. Any thoughts?

  67. Lou Dawson 2 November 14th, 2014 7:13 pm

    Why not stick with K2? Wayback?

  Your Comments

  Recent Posts

Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube


  • Blogroll & Links

  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version