Cham 107 HM versus Coomback as OSQ for AT in PNW

[PNW_Nick]

Looking for feedback from anyone who has experience with direct comparisons between the Cham 107 HM and the venerable Coomback in lengths between 181 and 190.

I have multiple skis already for resort skiing ranging from some old Legend 8000s and up to a new unmounted pair of 184 cm LPR 105s. Setting up a OSQ for the PNW for primarily backcountry (80%) with some Dynafit Speed Radicals. But, I "might" put some plates on the ski in order to let me use them with some Looks for those times I need a softer and wider ski for the less dense snow in Utah or Colorado. OTOH, the Dynafits may be good enough for that. For AT, I would be using Dynafit Titans.

Really impossible to demo the 188 length Coomback or the Cham 107 HM. I've tried the 181 Coomback in resort and it seemed to ski real short but that was on relatively 2D snow and in resort-skiing which is not what I am primarily trying to get set up. I've also tried the Cham 107, but in the regular format (not HM) and though it was nice in the 3D soft snow when I hit 2D snow, I was a bit less impressed.

As I said this would be primarily a OSQ for backcountry in PNW for now. I could see getting a narrow pair of skis for spring touring in the future, but that is not definitive.

Oh, in case it matters, I am 6'2" 180-185 lbs body weight, middle-aged but athletic guy.

Any comparisons of the two and/or recommendations for me? As I said, I think the Coomback in 181 might be a bit short for me, but the 188 is probably more like the 190 in Cham 107 since the K2's run longer. Would the Cham 107 HM in 184 be the best compromise?

Thanks,
Nick

[auvgeek]

190 Praxis BC? 186 ON3P Vicik Tour?

[PNW_Nick]

Thanks for the suggestions, but I really need to stick to one of the two that I mentioned, for various reasons.

I might need to look at those in the future, though.

Nick

[XavierD]

If ya want to fit in get the Coomback, if ya want a fun ski, get the cham. Think PNWBrit has enjoyed his 97s. For a do all touring ski, I'd get the 97s not the 107s, but that is just me.

[PNW_Nick]

So, Xavier, you must be basing your comment on the fact that you have skied the Coomback and didn't find it a fun ski. Am I correct?

[PNWbrit]

I think the 97hm is a closer match to coombacks than the 107hm. Both ski far better though.

My coombacks now in ski fence.

Crystal has hms for demo

[gritter]

I had the Coomback for a season and sold them - OK in pow but I found the shovel intolerably soft for anything else and I ski like a grandma.

I'm amazed that people on this board give Coombacks the time of day - I would certainly have thought it way too soft for PNW.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I'm in the Coomback is a noodle camp too, Chams are great though.

[jfost]

I like(d) the Pocket Rocket, and other soft-shovel skis... I demoed the Cham 107 and HATED it. Waaaaaay too heavy and planky for me. Did tear off nice GS turns though on the firm-ish...

I'm only 170# so that could factor in too.

sorry, forgot to say that the Coomback demo I tried was just kind of "meh", a very plain-jane ski IMHO, not really poppy, not really chargy, not really quick, not really anything. Would be fine in nice pow, but wouldn't anything? Had jester demos on it.

I liked the new Soul 7 best at the demo day a few weeks back... just for reference.

[PNWbrit]

I demoed the Cham 107 and HATED it. Waaaaaay too heavy

The High Mountain 107 or regular one?

[XavierD]

So, Xavier, you must be basing your comment on the fact that you have skied the Coomback and didn't find it a fun ski. Am I correct?

As far as I am concerned, K2 has not made a 'fun' ski since the green Seth Vicious circa 05.06. 'Course, that might have been the last time I sucked at skiing too. Since then, I have skied a variety of Dynastars, Blizzards, and ON3Ps, much more exciting and enjoyable skis (employment dependent, I could see DPS moving into that mix).

I generally only talk about things with which I have personal experience, since my ass is capable of producing enough hot gass on its own.

[jfost]

The High Mountain 107 or regular one?

shit, good point - it was the regular.

[XavierD]

jfost,
I think the HM is a better ski than the stock Cham. Flex is still reasonably stout, but matches the shape better IMO.

[jfost]

jfost,
I think the HM is a better ski than the stock Cham. Flex is still reasonably stout, but matches the shape better IMO.

yeah, seems that matches up with what the rep was saying - a "more round and progressive flex while being lighter and more lively"... I didn't get a chance to compare marketing-speak with reality as they didn't have one (HM) in the booth when I happened by...

[PNWbrit]

shit, good point - it was the regular.

HM is about 25% lighter. No (less?) metal. Skis very differently.

[GeezerSteve]

I know nothing about the Cham 107 HM and Cham 97 HM other than they look like very cool designs and that the 97 HM may portend of a movement towards rockered tip pintail tight radius <100mm waist touring skis. That's a good thing.

Re the Coomback, it is was it is, i.e., a soft round flex ski for low speed touring. Remember that it was originally (in the form of the Anti Piste w/grunge graphics) a telemark touring ski, fer chrissakes. I'm not surprised that Coombacks get dissed by the TGR supergnar. But it's really a great ski for many mere mortal tourists, especially old geezers and lovers of low angle tree pow, and it has many fans.

[PNWbrit]

I'm not surprised that Coombacks get dissed by the TGR supergnar.

I'm flattered.

[jesski]

To the OP, if memory serves correctly, there was a pair of Cham 97's or 107's among the ProSki Seattle demo fleet-- 18x length, I think?

You could take 'em for a spin and see what you think, if you're near Seattle?

[XavierD]

Re the Coomback, it is was it is, i.e.... get dissed by the TGR supergnar.... lovers of low angle tree pow, and it has many fans.

So if I don't like the coomback/anti-piest tele/touring identity complex thing, but do like some low angle powder, does that make me a supergnar meadow skipper?

[j0ffen]

FWIW, I'm 195cm/90kg (approx 6'5"/200lbs) and tour on a pair of last year's 188 Coombacks mounted with Radical STs. I don't do gnarly stuff when touring, just enjoying the ascent and hoping for snow conditions to enjoy cruising back down.

If I could get anywhere near half my money back I would have sold the Coombacks and gotten something (almost literally anything) else. Haven't tried the HM, but if it is your only option and not a disaster on anything but boot deep pow and groomed slopes, get that one instead. I'm still kicking myself for buying the Coomback hype. For bigger guys, it just doesn't do the job. It's not even close.

(I guess I should add as a footnote that I have a one boot quiver of Tecnica Cochise 120. And that the setup is doing really well when going uphill, the K2 skins are also doing their job so far. And I ski/tour on the western coast of Norway.)

Sent from my LT26w using TGR Forums

[bigdude2468]

Well I guess I am the lone big supporter of the Coomback. Mounted with FRP's, up is good and use it inbounds on big days and like them. I am kinda old but other than hucking I do everything else. I have skied them on groomers and they seem ok but there are certainly better skis for hard pack.

[PNW_Nick]

Original OP here,

It seems the Coomback is quite polarizing on this forum, while on some of the other backcountry forums it is highly regarded. I wonder how dependent the perception is on the ski length, size of the driver, and the conditions. TBH, when I demoed the 181 Coomback on combo of fresh heavy snow, crud, and hardpack at Alpental, I hated the way the slight rocker tip stood up and flapped (Cham 107 Regular flaps too but not quite as much). But if I was in 3D snow and trying to be playful, it might have done the trick for me. Always wondered how the added edge length of the 188 cm would have felt under the same conditions. I actually demo'd the 181 cm metal-laced K2 Sideshow under the same conditions and liked the stiffness better and thought that would have been a more useful OSQ for backcountry. But then I demoed the same 181 cm Sideshow on a really crusty hard day recently at Crystal and it was really harsh, ie. no dampening. But, if I really wanted to ski pure "hardpack", I wouldn't be heading to the backcountry, would I?

Recall - I am primarily looking for a true OSQ backcountry ski and won't be using this as a groomer zoomer or an ice carver.

PNWBrit- You are correct - Crystal has demo's of the Cham HM 107 but only in 166 cm. They do have the Cham 97 HM in 184, but I really hated the reg Cham 97 when I tested it, so I'd be surprised that the HM would be that much of a total turnaround. Alpin Mag thought the Cham 87 HM was superb, but larger cousin 97 HM was dissed. Maybe I should really check it out for myself. I didn't totally hate the Cham 107 regular in a 184 - thought it was great in the deeper snow but had a weird (at least to me) behavior on 2D snow and was not dampened enough in crud and crust. But as XavierD and jFost have pointed out, and others on Epicski have stated, the HM version is truly a different animal.

jesski- I recall seeing a Cham 107 or 97 in a 184/190 length at ProSki but I kind of remember it was the regular and not the HM version. I'll need to check that out, just in case. Thanks for the reminder.

jOffen- Being from Norway, is most of your experience with the 188 Coomback on harder 2D snow? Did you do much 3D snow skiing with them? I could see how someone your size on a non-metal ski with a soft tip and slight rocker could easily find the Coomback a bit, shall I say, unrewarding on hardpack. In reality, your comment is quite relevant since I was considering the 188 cm.

This is one of those cases that my demoing of the 188 cm Coomback and the 184 cm Cham 107 HM would be really required, but not really possible. So all your comments and feedback are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Nick

[GeezerSteve]

It seems the Coomback is quite polarizing on this forum. . . .

Good that you state that in the present tense. A few years ago, some TGR gnarmags were singing the praises of drilling holes and mounting Dynafits on grunge APs, i.e., Coombacks before there were Coombacks.

What's your BSL? If you got a big foot and tech-fitted boots, you can try out my beat-to-shit 181 grunge APs

[PNWbrit]

Coomback. Mounted with FRP's, up is good and use it inbounds on big days

To each his own..

Would be last ski I'd take from rack to use on such days.

IMO of both 97HM skis pow better than coomback does. Pin tail?

But I wouldn't take it to ski pow anyway.

[.lloydchristmas]

the cham is really a charging, straight down the hill, fall line, big turns, big mountain ski. It is not an intermediate ski. Its a expert stiff big mountain charger.
I dont know much about the coomback