Comparo – K2 Baker SL and Wayback – Backcountry Skis

Post by blogger | November 4, 2009      
K2 Baker Superlight and Wayback

K2 Baker Superlight and Wayback

You guys switched me to gear geek mode. So I grabbed my Baker SL and the Wayback for comparo. Here you go:

Baker SL is 51.5 oz (1460 gr) per ski.
Wayback is 55.0 oz (1560 gr) per ski

So, an increase of 3.5 ounces per ski? It’s known that the same model of ski will vary slightly in weight depending on which pair you grab off the rack. But on a ski this light that’s a 6% difference, so I suspect this is more than a manufacturing variation. I’m hoping the increased mass will make the Wayback a bit smoother on the downhill, but I wish they’d stuck with the same weight. An almost 1/2 pound increase per pair of skis is significant if you’re traveling light.

Shape & length
Exactly the same, 124/88/108 – cord length (66 3/8) inches = 168.5925 centimeters

Similar, used Bakers are a bit softer and have less camber

Wayback is K2 all the way, with a large retro red/white/blue K2 logo on the tip base to make those digital blog photos brand well. Baker has the familiar Pacific Northwest graphics based on Native American art. I don’t mind art, but never preferred the weird looking face staring at me from the Bakers. Color scheme of both skis is similar. Black base, yellow/white/black on top.

Shop for the K2 Wayback skis.


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


64 Responses to “Comparo – K2 Baker SL and Wayback – Backcountry Skis”

  1. Mark November 4th, 2009 10:13 am

    Superlights are my favorite. Hopefully K2 will keep something in this weight range to compete, at least on some level, with skis like the Dynafit Manaslus.

  2. Lynne Wolfe November 4th, 2009 10:43 am

    Well personally I am glad to be upgrading to the Waybacks from the Mt Baker Superlights, which were a little too soft and wambly for my taste. I like the light weight, sure, but after flexing the Waybacks think they will be better suited for variable conditions and a heavier pack. I am 5’6″, 135 or so, but ski with a relatively heavy guide pack, had the 174s. As soon as I get the new Waybacks mounted up (with Vertical Fts) then I will weigh in again with my observations.

  3. NickD November 4th, 2009 11:10 am

    Hi Lynne – hope you’re all recovered from CSAW. Anybody know what the new Backside equivalent of the “regular” old Mt. Bakers is? This constant rebranding coupled with painful marketing-babble descriptions by both K2 and retailers makes it hard to figure out the lineages.

  4. Mark November 4th, 2009 11:19 am

    I believe the new Bakers are the Backlash, but crazy nomenclature marketing aside, they’re now 92 mm in the middle–only change sans graphics.

  5. Greg Louie November 4th, 2009 11:19 am

    Don’t the Baker SL’s have binding holes drilled in them?

  6. Porter November 4th, 2009 10:46 am

    6 oz of core shots?

  7. harpo November 4th, 2009 12:23 pm

    Lou, have you tried, or will you get to try, they new Trab Stelvio XL Lights? I ordered a pair and am dependending on the Trab reputation to deliver better edgehold with the XLs than the Bakers SLs, which I didn’t like on hard pack.

  8. Lou November 4th, 2009 12:32 pm

    The Mount Baker (great ski with its metal layer, BTW) is now the Backlash.

    K2 also told me that the Outlaw and Work Stinx also translate to the Backlash.

    Jeez, it was worth going to the OR show just for my custom annotated K2 Backside catalog.

    Coomback = Anti Piste & Commba
    Backlash = Outlaw, Mount Baker, Work Stinx
    WayBack = Baker Superlight
    Backup = Shuksan, World Piste
    GotBack = Phat Luv
    PayBack = Tough Luv, Miss Baker, Dawn Patrol
    She’s Back = Shusanne, Schi Devil

  9. Halsted November 4th, 2009 12:46 pm

    Are you going to the dinner Saturday?

  10. Lou November 4th, 2009 2:15 pm

    Taking a year off from the Hall of Fame event. Just too much going on for a Denver trip. I’ll miss it.

  11. Halsted November 4th, 2009 2:20 pm

    That’s too bad.

    I’m going again, because Otto Werlin of Loveland Ski area is being inducted. Otto was an old friend… 🙁

  12. Brian Litz November 4th, 2009 3:54 pm

    I haven’t read thoroughly through all of the comments on this thread … so excuse me if I am being redundant here. However, I spoke with Ken Shealey (K2s main tele/freeheel ski engineer for quite a few years now) at last winter’s OR show and he took K2s new tri-fold brochure and scribbled out the new names, and with a pen, did what Lou did above. Perhaps I misunderstood him but he seemed to say that the new skis were exactly the older skis. That’s how I took it. Then I asked Mike Hattrup if this were true and he said absolutely not. While many of the are basically direct replacements for their older predecessors in respect to overall dimensions and intended usage, Mike said they have newer dimensions and redesigned guts. Having said this, I haven’t been on any of them so have no performance feedback. I have to say though that when the Superlight first debuted at Outdoor Retailer I found them to be surprisingly tight, stable and precise. And I weigh in around 200-pounds with a long history of skiing slalom-type skis. I mentioned to Hattrup at the time that I had to look down to make sure I was on the Superlight. And this was on hardpack resort snow. really had to ski one Superlight on one foot and the regular Baker on the other to feel the difference. Of course they are different and I’d go for the regular if forced to pick one. I really liked the original Baker Superlight and felt it to be a super choice for a Rocky Mountain all-purpose backcountry touring ski.

  13. NickD November 4th, 2009 4:43 pm

    Thanks, Lou and Brian for the translation help. Seems like the new skis are all the same as the old ones except for the fact that they’re completely different. Which means we have to try them to tell. Hmmm, I wonder if that was planned?
    IMHO, they should just GOBACK to naming their AT/tele skis after iconic mountains. But I guess the K2 guys couldn’t defend that at Jarden Corp. meetings with their Crock-Pot, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Ugly Stick, Bionaire, Volkl and Marmot brand manager peers.

  14. RandoSwede November 4th, 2009 8:02 pm

    Curious, Lou… are you running the new K2 skins? What are the material, weight specs? Glide impressions are TBD I suppose. Geek out!

  15. Brian Litz November 4th, 2009 8:15 pm

    After re-reading my comments i did want to add a few more thoughts. I also have not had time to really sit down with a notepad and pen and pick their brains to what the exact differences are (between the new and older K2s). Primarily these were extended “in-passing” conversations or ones over a beer at day’s end at the OR show. This has got to thinking more about the new skis and I would like to know more.

    And, when I said the Superlight is a great Rocky Mountain ski … I meant that in in a neo-traditional sense, i.e., going to huts, day tours, peaks … kind of everything, but, not necessarily a ski for more modern big mountain blah, blah, blah stuff.

    And, about the whole new marketing of the line up. At first I was curious if what they gain through a simplification and re-classification/re-alignment of the lines would be offset by a potential loss that could be realized through the loss of their tele/AT specific names and graphics. Historically K2/Hattrup has always been so right on with their graphics, names, and overall vibe—their skis really resonated with skiers in the past. Could they lose some of that connection? Don’t know. As i said though, Hattrup has always been so one step ahead, keeping the line fresh, etc. In the process, in the past, I know they always had a dominant position with regard to their slice of the pie. The more I thought about them and gotten a bit more used to the new line-up(s) the more they seem to make sense. Its simple, Frontside ‘alpine” skis for the groomers, “Big mountain” duck-the-ropes, boot-pack, “Sidecountry” freeride skis for less firm, wilder snow conditions, and the tour oriented, lighter lay-up Backside (or is it Backcountry?) skis. Plus they have the new fitted skins.

    This is what everyone else has finally done … no more “AT” skis for the American market (they still sell tons of these in the Alps) and no more softer, rebranded tele skis. Boots, bindings, and skiers tastes are running so big and powerful these days, no need for “soft” round flexing tele skis. Instead, they have stiffer skis or “flat” freeride skis. Mount whatever you want on them. I think Volkl was one of the first to do this when the Mantras, Gotamas debuted. While there are still some “tele’ models out there almost everyone including BD, Rossi, G3, Movement, Volkl, Kastle (?), Voile, etc. are all doing this. Again, for the most part.

    BTW … the new Rossi’s are another clear example of these trends. Their old, round, soft flexing skis are gone (and I liked them). Now they have wood-core/metal powerhouses like the Phantom SC97, etc. (Note: I REALLY love their Phantom SC87 … if you want a ripping quick ski that can ski hardpack all day yet still is light enough for the backcountry and with a big shovel and tail for pow … be sure to check this ski out.)

    PS: I just got this through Doug Schnitzspahn (give credit where credit it due!) that according to the Salomon folks, the new sweet spot for them for an all purpose ski for hard or soft ski (the quiver of one) is 85-95 underfoot.

    Whew …. (I hope this was useful!!!!)

  16. Brian Litz November 4th, 2009 8:31 pm

    A few more things … (sorry) … all of the K2 binding mount insets are gone too. Plus, all of this helps the ski companies to simplify and clean-up their lines ups, their inventories, their marketing efforts, rep forces, etc. Things are pretty tight in the ski building world these days (they’re not immune to the waxing and waning of the global economic scene) and cleaning up/simplifying their lines can help with the bottom line. Consequently I understand what they are doing and am supportive of it ….. as long as we keep getting such a vast selection of incredible skis that can meet any skiers wants and needs—from trad to rad.

  17. Keith Roush November 4th, 2009 9:11 pm

    Hi Brian
    I skied the K2’s back-to-back with the Rossi’s, Volkl’s and BD’s last Spring. There are minor changes in a couple of skis, as you’ve pointed out, but many from these brands are new or changed enough to become different animals.

    The change in Rossi’s came with the closing of their old French factory. The X,XX,XXX and B2, B3, B4 series were all made there with synthetic (acrylic or foam) cores, softer midsection flex, etc. Now they are all made in the Dynastar (another Rossi brand) plant in Spain where they use wood cores and have a more springy feel with softer tips and stiffer tails, much like most of the offering from K2 and Volkl. The combination of dampening metal with springy wood and ABS sidewalls gives them all a great new feel, with the new models excelling in variable snow conditions (other than moguls, never a good idea with metal laminates).

    The K2 Sidestash and Hardside are also great new skis with wood cores, ABS sidewalls and metal laminates. These feel much quicker edge-to-edge than their underfoot dimensions would suggest and with the serious sidewall construction, these things will absolutely rail on firmer conditions.

    So there are many changes out there this season, more than usual and with fewer labels (Tele, AT, Big Mountain, etc), I think skiers can just try a few and ski what they like without being pigeonholed by marketing labels.

  18. Christian November 5th, 2009 3:34 am

    Wondering a little bit of K2 and how they measure. I have always heard they are a bit longer than other brands. Maybe this is only when it comes to freeride/rocker bla bla bla skis and how they measure the surface. Anyway, i am looking for a pair of Mt baker for my wife. she weighs 58 kg and measure 169cm. Any womens out there who got any opinon on whether 167cm will work?

  19. Lou November 5th, 2009 7:50 am

    Christian, I looked and I’m not a woman, but I’ll offer an opinion anyway. The 167 would probably work for your wife, but a shorter ski would be better if the goal is earning your turns.

  20. Lou November 5th, 2009 7:53 am

    Brian and all, thanks for the excellent comments!

  21. Lou November 5th, 2009 7:54 am

    Swede, I think we’ve got some of those coming. I’ve got some of the BD mohair as well, and that’ll probably be what I get on first this season. Having trouble figuring out which skis to cut them for, however!

  22. Dave November 5th, 2009 8:26 am

    What, no rocker tip in the quiver?

  23. Lou November 5th, 2009 9:17 am

    Louie stole my Coombacks. But a pair of those will hopefully make it’s way into my mid-winter quiver edit. I do have a pair of k2 Anti Piste mounted up, and they’ve got a bit of rocker, but they’re last year’s graphics/name so I didn’t want to stick them in this roundup and confuse the issue.

    Meanwhile, the Manaslu with its slow rise tip does nearly the same thing. And they’re fast on the uphill.

  24. keith November 5th, 2009 10:09 am

    Regarding K2 measurements, they are typically accurate on a chord length measurement (tape stretched from tail to tip above the ski), some others are similar, some not. Volkls measure shorter than this on most models, some by a size. My last pair of 180 Volkls were shorter than a 174 K2. More importantly is how they ski.

  25. jason November 5th, 2009 12:16 pm

    were the tip and tail hole plugs taken out when the weights were measured? i don’t see any reason to keep those in, and they’re heavy for their size… (i could easily imagine them being 1oz each)

  26. Marc November 6th, 2009 11:36 am


    Take a leak on the skin track and you’ll loose the 6 oz!

    I was hyper sensitive to ski weights for a while and was skiing short (relatively) skinny skis and wasn’t having as much fun on the down. Then I went back to a fatter ski (coombas) and was happy as a clam! To me it’s a balance of uphill AND downhill performance! If you’re not having fun, then something needs to change. BTW the Coombas are LIGHTER than the MT Bakers, even though they are 14 mm wider underfoot! BTWx2 K2 skins are made by climbing skins dot com.

  27. Josh November 10th, 2009 12:36 pm

    Thanks for all of the good info on the K2 lineup. I am making the transition this year from tele (have been exclusively tele for the last 8 years) into AT gear. I am 5’4″, 160 lbs. My primary tele skis are the Karhu Jaks which I have really enjoyed both in-bounds as well as out of bounds. I ski on the east coast, primarily in Vermont (Mad River Valley area).

    For boots, I am going with a pair of Scarpa Skookums. As for skis, I am trying to decide between the K2 Hardside and the K2 Sidestash. I am probably going to spend half my time in bounds and half out of bounds. As I haven’t had the chance to ski either of these, any thoughts would be appreciated.

    Also, what are folks thoughts on a binding step-up that will work well on in/out of bounds. Thinking of going with Fritschi Freeride Plus. Next year, I will get a pair of Dynafit bindings for a dedicated backcountry set-up, but for now, I am only going with one step-up.

    Any thoughts on the new K2 skins?

    Thanks, Josh

  28. Lou November 10th, 2009 12:43 pm

    I’d go with the Freeride if you’re 50% resort. If you’re in Vermont, I’d go with the Hardside. All the best, Loubiwan Skinowbie

  29. Pat November 11th, 2009 2:45 pm

    I tested the new 188 Coombacks for two months in the Andes this past season. I only skied a few days at ski hills and the rest I was earning my turns and climbing volcanos. These are amazingly efficient climbing and touring skis and not just for their size. I think the slight rocker combined with the tip shape keeps these guys on top where they plow very little snow. It doesn’t hurt that just aren’t heavy either. They don’t ski well at all on any kind of firm snow at speed as they aren’t at all damp. They would be a bad pick for skiing steep chutes in late spring but awesome in powder mush and packed powder. I mounted my binding right on the K2 line using Lou’s template for my Fritsci Freerides. I think maybe a centimeter back would be better as I have managed to dive the tips a couple of times at high speeds(spectacular results). I’ve seen the K2 skins and they look great but I haven’t found any anywhere. I’m using ascensions with the STS and they work great.

  30. Brian Litz November 13th, 2009 2:11 pm

    Some Final K2 Ski Info: At the risk of beating a horse dead, here is some follow-up K2 ski info I got straight from the horse’s mouth. The horse, in this case, being K2’s crack engineer Ken Sheeley. (Note: Ken is one of those totally cool individuals toiling away behind the scenes creating the great gear we all play on.) So …

    1. BackUp = Exact same construction as the Shuksan, only wider profile (4mm underfoot). Two sheets of metal.
    2. WayBack = EXACTLY the same ski as the old Mt. Baker SL. Only graphics/name change. No metal.
    3. Backlash = Exact same construction as the old Mt. Baker, only wider profile (4mm underfoot). Two sheets of metal.
    4. COOMBack = Exactly the same as the Anti-Piste (and Coomba). No inserts in this case. Splayed tip of the Anti-Piste.

    Other stuff:

    1. Ken said that the average weight of the Baker SL is 1500 grams +/- 50 grams. This is due to differences in the density of individual pieces of wood and slightly different amounts of resins, etc that go into each ski. So, with regard to Lou’s two skis and the difference in weight between the two, he (Ken) and Hattrup felt this could be accounted for if Lou happened to get one ski (the Wayback) that just happens to be on the heavier side of the range, and coincidentally, one ski (the Baker SL) that was on the lighter side. Otherwise they should be basically the same.

    2. The “sidecountry” skis are of a sandwich construction while all of the “backcountry” skis are cap construction. Caps are lighter for a variety of reasons—including the lack of ABS sidewalls. K2s sidecountry skis have a true layered sandwich-build using sheets of fiberglass, etc. while the cap skis have a wood core that goes through a braiding machine that braids the fiberglass around the core. On another note, during the heyday of cap skis, many race and high performance skis in ski manufacturers line-ups remained of a sandwich construction. More and more manufacturers now are gravitating back to this design as many people feel they direct more energy to a ski’s edge.

    3. The Backlash and BackUp have two sheets of 0.4mm titanal in them—one on top and one below the core. Ken said this is a standard thickness for most of their skis, though some of their pure alpine models may have 0.5mm

    4. Regarding skins: Ken said the skin program has moved a bit slower than they had anticipated due to extra time taken to perfect the hardware, and, to just get the whole line dialed in. It sounds like supplies will remain tight this year and then open up more going into next season. As someone did mention, ClimbingSkinsDirect is the source, but, it sounds like K2 versions will have a DWR finish while the original ClimbingSkinsDirect will not have a DWR treatment (at least for awhile) but will come with a block of skin wax. K2 have their own unique hardware too (though I haven’t seen it myself).

    5. Wood: Sidecountry ski have aspen/pawlonia, Backcountry (except the COOMBack) have aspen/pawlonia/bamboo cores. The COOMBack has fir/aspen. For what that’s worth! 🙂

  31. valerie December 28th, 2009 9:07 am

    Hi lou, I am wondering if you could help me figure a good ski to get my husband. He is 6’5″ and likes the Mount Bakers (have not tired any new skis this year and have a line on some 181 Mnt Bakers). He is 190pds, a really talented skier, has skied his whole life, and can ski anything. We live in CB and want a ski for him that will a 100% backcountry touring ski (maybe a few days at an area but he has an downhill setup). At the area he skis the 193 Prophet Line. We are guessing that the 181 Mnt Bakers are too short? Can you can offer an opinion on that? His touring ambitiions are modest, hut trips, longer day tours, nothing too steep. He has new scarpa Spirit4 boots. He likes dimensions of the Bakers. Any help you can offer is really appreciated. He works full time and we don’t have time to demo skis before we leave for a ski trip. BTW, did the Mnt Bakers come in any longer than 181? Thanks Lou!!!

  32. Mark W December 28th, 2009 9:26 am

    181 is the longest Mt Baker and should be fine. I ski the Bakers and the SLs too. Used the reg Bakers for two years on Mid Atlantic manmade snow (odd, I know) before moving here to CO and they work nicely in virtually any snow condition. SL is much lighter and tours super well with little noticeable performance difference versus the reg Bakers.

  33. valerie December 28th, 2009 10:34 am

    Mark, thanks for the reply! That is good news about the bakers in the 181. We will check out the availability of the SL too, I just figured that such a big guy would like the bigger ski, but you don;’t think so?

  34. Lou December 28th, 2009 10:45 am

    What Mark said, for what you’re saying Valerie a 181 will be good.

  35. valerie December 28th, 2009 11:13 am

    Thanks Lou!

  36. olddude January 7th, 2010 6:50 pm

    Just had my first day on the waybacks and I’m impressed. They tour and turn really well. Downhill was better than I expectected. I think we will have children together.

  37. Steve March 22nd, 2010 11:41 am

    I’ve been skiing the Waybacks for the last couple months and have a few observations. First, very nice on the uphills. My other ski is a K2 Coomba/dynafit tlt speeds with Garmont Radiums in a 174cm. I really like the Coomba but sometimes it’s way too big for what I do. Planned on using the Wayback for my spring/ski mountaineering ski. My first thought was that the bindings were mounted incorrectly-too far back. But I checked and they were where they should be and after a few days on them in a variety of conditions I got into more of the ski’s sweet spot. They do pretty well in deep powder, good on wind buff/wind board, and very well on spring corn and firm snow. They don’t feel too soft on firm snow at all and have a nice flex. The biggest thing I notice is the difference in width, they tend not to float as well as the Coomba’s in breakable crust or bottomless spring snow. Some better ski technique makes this all manageable. Overall I like them, they feel pretty quick edge to edge but not a ski you can get into the backseat with. I thought about re mounting the bindings forward slightly but thing I will keep them as is for now. Wondering if others had the same thoughts or not?

  38. Camilla April 27th, 2010 1:28 am

    I was wondering the same thing. I just bought the Wayback 167s and plan to mount Dynafit. I weight 143 and measure 5’6″. As many women I have the tendency to get behind my skis. Do I gain anything by mounting the bindings forward slightly?

  39. Richard April 28th, 2010 1:02 am

    Hi Lou, I just bought a pair of K2 Waybacks and I’m trying to determine where to mount the bindings. The boot center mark seems awfully far back. When I line up the boot center marks on my 181 Waybacks with the boot center marks on my 188 Coombas the tips are even! So if I mounted at the manufacture’s line, I would have the same amount of ski in front of me but 7cm less in back (compared to the Coombas). I’m thinking of mounting +1 or +2. Any advice? Where did you mount yours and how are they skiing for you?

  40. Lou April 28th, 2010 6:35 am

    You are over thinking this. Just use the mark and go skiing. Louweene, who is channeling Hatrup, has spoken.

  41. Andrej December 12th, 2010 9:38 pm

    Hi there

    I wanted to ask if there is a difference between the 09/10 and the 10/11 wayback?

  42. Lou December 12th, 2010 9:53 pm

    Andrej, others here will correct me if I’m wrong as this stuff gets confusing, but there have been two versions of Wayback, the original yellow ones which were the same ski as a Baker SL, and the 10/11 greenish ones like I used on Denali. The newer ones have rocker, so big difference.

  43. Andrej December 12th, 2010 10:26 pm

    Thanks a lot for the quick answer. I wasn´t sure if the 09/10 model has the rocker. Now i know. Also it is a little lighter i guess. But nevertheless i will take the 09/10 model as i can get it really cheap.

  44. Lou December 13th, 2010 8:49 am

    09/10 model is terrific, and I dare say perhaps better for hard snow conditions.

  45. val December 13th, 2010 9:00 am

    Got a pair of 09 waybacks for my husband last year with the older graphics, he loves them. We back country ski a lot. Great all around ski if you just want one ski, this is a good choice.

  46. val December 13th, 2010 9:02 am

    OPPS! I meant, the Bakers, not the wayback, we looked at both.

  47. ross February 10th, 2011 9:07 pm

    😛 i currently ski World Piste and am thinking of buying the Waybacks. Is this a good choice? I ski mostly inth east at ski mountains – not much back country but plenty of ungroomed and glades. I like light skis but want to make sure these will have enough for the firmer east coast condidtions

  48. Lou February 10th, 2011 9:31 pm

    Ross, for inbounds firm get something other than Wayback. They’re ok, but that’s not their strength.

  49. ross February 10th, 2011 9:41 pm


    Thanks for the info. any suggestions on which K2 I should consider that might be similar to the world piste but a little wider underfoot?

  50. Lou February 10th, 2011 9:46 pm

    Check out the Backup

  51. ross February 10th, 2011 9:56 pm

    I am also considering the Black Diamond Havoc and G3 Spitfire which are a little fatter. Is there a big difference between these and the Backup? Which would you recomend?

  52. Steve February 10th, 2011 10:28 pm

    Definitely would not use the Wayback for ski resort skiing. Maybe the Backlash or Backup if you like the K2 line. If your not hiking with these doesn’t make too much sense to have the lightest rig out there. I just sold my Waybacks from last year, overall thought they were a little too narrow underfoot and didn’t really excel in most conditions.

  53. Panayotis March 30th, 2011 10:17 am

    I purchased a pair of backups 2 months ago. Right on the next weekend I tried them on a great, sunny day of resort skiing. The ski seemed to work well but in the end of the day I noticed that the tip of the one ski was raised really early. It had changed shape!!! and looked like a rocker ski. I was a bit shocked since I had not even fall (except a minor one), jumped or hit anything that day. I assumed that this would be a defect of the material and that it would be covered by the warranty. But no! As the store in Germany (Sport Conrad) – were I bought them online – claimed, they had checked the ski with a person of K2 and were driven to the conclusion that the ski was compressed and thus not covered by the warranty.

    A material defect could happen to anyone. But when K2 says that this damage was my fault, it means that the ski can be damaged in just one day. I don’t know if this was just bad luck, but since this ski is not supposed to be destroyed that easily even in the hard conditions of ski mountaineering, STAY AWAY!!

    Not to mention that nobody from K2 or the store ever explained to me how such a damage is possible to happen even if I asked.

  54. Lou March 30th, 2011 10:24 am

    Pana, how about some corroboration? I’m pretty close to deleting your post as this sort of thing could even be coming from K2’s competition and is rather tiresome. More, having a K2 Backup bend while simply skiing on it is rather far fetched.

  55. Panayotis March 31st, 2011 9:17 am

    Hi Lou,
    I send you the link of the review I made in epicski were I have a photo of my skis after skiing them.

    I cannot prove to anybody that I skied them only once and that I did not abuse them. This is just what happened. If you think that my comment is offensive in any way, feel free to delete them. I don’t post for revenge reasons, just to inform people, interested to the product, about what happened to me.

    Thanks anyway

  56. Lou March 31st, 2011 9:53 am

    Pan, I didn’t say your post was offensive. It’s just a good example of the totally anonymous and unsubstantiated stuff that pops up on the web and makes it hard to separate truth from fiction. You seem legit, but knowing that for sure is tough (notice I _did_ leave your comment up).

    Everyone, if you want total credibility for this sort of thing, here is one approach:

    First, avoid anonymous rants on web forums. Instead:

    1. Email any well respected blog or website about your issue. Include your name, address, phone number, and photos of problem. Describe who you are, where you live, what you do. If you’ve got a Facebook so much the better. All that helps get away from possibility of you being a shill for a company.

    2. After establishing your cred with the blog owner, go ahead and leave blog comment but start your comment with something like “I emailed Lou about this problem, as I know that criticizing gear on the anonymous web can lack credibility. He said “go ahead and post a comment, and make sure you mention you ran it by my first and your problem looks legit as far as I can tell.”

    Something like that, my friends, would really help with a situation that continues to worsen over the web. That situation being companies that either pay or otherwise encourage “shills” to drop in on anonymous web forums and blog comment strings to disparage their competitor’s products. It happens folks, believe me, and we’re going to be on guard about it.


  57. Lou March 31st, 2011 12:00 pm

    I just got a nice email from Pan, with Facebook profile and all. He’s legit as far as I can tell. My guess is he somehow got a defective ski but no way to know for sure and his dealer feels differently. Main thing is I know of tons of Backups in use and there is absolutely no endemic durability problem with the ski.

    Pan, your dealer sure didn’t sound very helpful, especially as they offered no solution! Seems like they could at least get you a single ski at cost. Meet you half way, so to speak, and keep you as a customer. Another dealer I’m not impressed with…

  58. brian h March 31st, 2011 12:25 pm

    Hey Pan. So, I saw the photo you posted and re-read your post. I gotta wonder if the ski shop is maybe blowing you off. Have you talked to K2 stateside? I’ve seen skis warrantied for a lot of lesser reasons. Did you send the ski back to Germany? If the shop only “called” K2 and talked to “someone”. Then (I would think) that K2 is going to give a rather conservative response. Since the skis are that fresh, then the warranty dept. would be able to see that it’s a legit problem. All that said, I love my Hardsides and my kid skis on Extremes…

  59. brian h March 31st, 2011 12:29 pm

    Lou, I walked away from the computer for a bit…After I posted that last one I saw you had already told Pan about the whole shop vs factory thing…sorry 😉

  60. Lou March 31st, 2011 12:40 pm

    No worries, I was amazed the shop couldn’t at least sell him a single ski at cost+. What’s with these shops, anyway?

  61. brian h March 31st, 2011 1:34 pm

    Ok truth tell time. I work in sporting goods retail (not the ski dept. though). I’d say that one of the biggest factors is does your shop know you? By shopping online (I’m guilty too) or going to the big city and shopping around may get you the “best price” but little else. If I’m working with someone I see often and I know spends their hard earns with us then it’s in the shops best interest to help out. (they’re gonna come back). The margin on skis (I’m sure we all know) is so small and price competiton so tough that helping a customer out on skis or fly rod or binos (at cost) when the factory won’t just makes sense. I have lots of customers that come in and say they can get such and such from so and so for this price. If it’s above cost and I know the person, I’m likely to match it. I guess this is summed up by “shop local”. On a less relevant note. F.Y.I. Big game apps are due next week. Elk season will be here before ya know it!

  62. Panayotis March 31st, 2011 2:18 pm

    Lou and brian h,
    thank you for your replies.
    Brian, I did send the skis to Germany and they checked them with a person of K2 (that is what they told me). I also e-mailed K2 to inform them for the case and ask how such a damage could happen, but they only told me that, for warranty issues, I have to talk to the shop where I bought the skis.

    So I gave up.

    Thanks again


  63. brian h March 31st, 2011 3:23 pm

    Hey Panayotis, did they send the skis back? Did you e-mail the photo to K2? There has to be a way to get them to K2 without this shop problem. I’d get on the phone. E-mail is probably not “personal” enough to get the point across. K2 is gigantic of course but “endeavor to persevere”!

  64. Panayotis March 31st, 2011 3:34 pm

    Hi Brian,
    I have not received yet the skis. Probably on Monday. The form for contacting K2 did not have -as far as I remember- an option for attaching photos. Maybe you are right. I will try to call K2.
    Thanks for the advice!

  Your Comments

  Recent Posts

Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed


  • 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 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