In most cases, even publishing the simplest videos takes more time than communicating the same thing with some still photos and a few hundred written words. Even so, video is fun and a valid tool in the communication box. (After all, that’s why they invented moving pictures). Not sure this is ground breaking, but I’m impressed at the effort Backcountry.com put into doing a series of mini-vid reviews for their favorite skis. Below is a WildSnow affiliate sales link of course, gotta pay for that virtual server! But mostly, I was wondering what you guys thought of this style, content and format? Too trivial? Just right? Time waster? Helpful? Let me know. Thanks, Lou
The Ultimate Ski Review?
previous post
8 comments
The video format is cool, but content is still king. I reviewed the video on the BD Gigawatt, which basically told me “Dude, this is fun in the soft” and not much else. Time Waster. No idea how much the testers weigh, how aggressively they ski, comfort zone, etc…
I can’t imagine Backcountry.com showing me how much better the gear will be if I just mod it a bit, nor am I expecting any long-term use reviews. Give me text or video, just provide enough depth so I end up with gear that works for me.
Wildsnow’s review of the G3 Zenoxide was almost perfect IMHO. A video would have made it even closer and a “stiffness graph”/technical drawing would have taken it all the way (showing the rockerline, sidecut and how stiff/soft the tip/mid/tail is). Agree with Mike that these didn’t really say that much.
The best thing about these videos is when they put the skis together base-to-base so you can see for yourself what the rocker/camber is like – every retailer should post a picture like this in their product descriptions. A still photo would suffice.
I’m sure Jason and Elias are cool guys, but forcing them to banter about each ski for the duration of the vids is cruel. Just the specs, please.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but I did get a chuckle out of how in one vid he say something like “ski is flat under the foot, for lots of pop.” Then, in another vid he say “ski has plenty of camber under the foot, for lots of pop.” Reminds me of some of my own writing mistakes (grin).
I second the rocker/camber visual of putting the bases of the pair of skis together. Nice look at the rocker. Reviewer makes me want to grow a ‘stache.
Hi Lou,
I am an East Coast intermediate but aggressive tele-skier, I ski both resorts and BC with more interest in BC. I use the resorts here in N.Y. to practice for escapades in the Adirondacks. I am looking at the K2 line and have a couple of skis narrowed down for selection and I am interested in your opinion. I know there is no such thing as a one ski quiver however I would like to get something for use on both. I am looking at the K2 Backup or the new Sideshow, I will be mounting HH Axls on them and using the Garmont Syner Gs. I like to ski relatively fast on the groomers so I want something to handle speed on hard pack but also want a versatile ski for BC. The weight difference is not a huge issue unless the two will perform equally as well on the groomers then I will go for the lighter touring ski. However, I would sacrifice lighter weight for downhill stability and control. How do you feel about the different rocker designs for my application? Does the difference in width and side cut of each ski offer much advantage over one another? I have experience on Karhu Guides, 10th Mountains and K2 super Stinx. I will always keep my !0th mountains for the lighter stuff but I am not a big fan of the Stinx, too narrow and I don’t really like them at speed. Sorry for such a long question but there is really no place to demo around here so I would appreciate any info you might be able to send my way.
Thank you for your time!
Oren
Hi Oren,
I am not Lou but still I would like to try to help you as I am tele skier as well and know the problem of not being able to test any setups before buying.
Currently, I ski a K2 Coomback 09/10 model in 181 with NTN bindings and TX Pro Boots.
I find this ski the perfect one ski quiver solution and I have taken it out in any kind of conditions. I am 5’11” and ca. 160 and ski in the Austrian Alps as I am located in Munich, Germany.
I think with the AXL and Syner G set up you can easily go wider on your ski to give you the extra float and versatility for the BC experience that you prefer. The Coomba will do the trick on groomers fine for you and be plenty of fun in variable BC conditions from wind pressed to fluffy, and from chopped to spring corn.
I am currently looking at either the Sidestash 188 or the Gotama 186 to replace the Coomba or downgrade it to a rock ski and have something a little wider and stiffer to charge hard.
In general you can say that the rocker design with a gentle tip rocker and camber underfoot and a flat tail is perfect for telemarking (at least for my style of skiing which is traditional and quite forward but aggressive).
I have tried the Coomba with a mounting position a bit further back and it works but not quite as good as a classic telemark middle mounting position. The tips do not sink in in fluffy conditions and in mixed but soft snow the tip is soft enough to plough through or over most of what is in its way and the camber will give you enough edge grip and turning performance, also at lower speeds.
I can understand why you would like to get a ski that is narrower when looking a plenty of East Coast resort days, but let me tell you that you will enjoy a wider ski in BC conditions a lot more. Wider is not always better, don’t get me wrong, but it sure helps a lot.
I hope my lengthy post helps you a bit and keep shredding.
Rocco,
I love my Coombacks, but I love my “skinny skis” too. Who would have guessed 10 years ago 90mm waisted skis would be considered skinny?
I’m in Stuttgart if you ever want to go skiing. However, I might try to convert you to a tech set-up. 🙂
0176-3120-8884
Tschüss!
Comments are closed.