K2 Coomback vs. Hardside

[sierrabum]

So I'm trying to decide between these two in a 181 mounted with Dukes and there's not much as far as reviews to go off of. I want a ski that can be used 80% resort/sidecountry and 20% backcountry (mostly day tours) and I ski in Tahoe. I know the Coomback is basically last year's Anti-piste, but there's nothing on the Hardside (short of K2's website).

Has anyone ridden both of these and can offer me a comparison?

[sierrabum]

bump!

seeing as 158 people have viewed this post and no-one has responded i assume no one has ridden both of these skis and can offer a comparison. any opinions then?

[mntlion]

I have NOT skied the hardside, but have used last years antipiste and have ordered this years coomba

have you skied a ski with rocker? helps a lot in windpress and wetter snow.

Coomba = bit softer, and rocker

HS = stiffer and more traditional.

I'd go coomba or last years AP myself....

[Stikki]

I used to have a Coomba and skied a Hardside for a couple runs last year.

Coomba (no tip rocker like Coomback)- Jack of all trades, does anything you want it to and is totally compliant. Floats, carves, skids, short or long turns. Relatively light, easy to swing around. Drawbacks are it doesn't have much camber therefore not much life to it and it gets knocked around in set-up junk due to the slighter construction. If you put energy into it you don't get much back but they'll also never kick your ass. Still, a great ski.

Hardside- Like the Coomba but more. More camber, more weight, slightly more sidecut, and metal. This results in more stiffness both torsionally and longitudinally and it's little more carvy versus the looser tail feel of the Coomba. I didn't get them in soft snow so I don't know how they float but suppose you'd lose a little bit of floatation but you do gain a lot more crud busting and charging ability. An overlooked but good ski.

[brown9]

I have coombas as my touring ski, and while they're fine, I'd think that if you're skiing 80% in bounds at Tahoe, then you'll want a ski that can handle firmer snow at times. The coomba will wash long before the Hardside. the rocker on the hardside will be a lot of fun and the ability to hang on through bumps and everything else squaw or alpine will throw is a great aspect. just get stronger hip flexers for the way up.

[mortimer]

skied both last season in mixed conditions.

if i was going to use one for 80% resort it would definitely be the hardside, the difference in hard snow grip is huge compared to the coomback. i feel like the coomback would be a better one rig option, but its really a pretty big tradeoff. get the hardside w/ dukes and save up for another dedicated fatter & non-metal touring rig for next year.

[Bdukes]

I am also trying to decide this but will be going on a multi-day ski trip on the Wapta Icefields but will also have 1+ seasons at Craigieburn Valley/Broken River/ Silverton in the next few years. looking for a ski to handle it all. I will mount with FT12 Dynafits...

My main concern is the ability of the Coomback in the tracked out/mixed/crud/edgehold situations of such backcountry outings..
Thanks.

[mntlion]

I used the coomba, as a daily driver, on hill, in banff for 2 years. I find the flex great for me, but I'm 40, broken back, and #155. bigger, faster, younger, less broken people might like the stiffer hardside.

[Quadzilla]

I have 181 AP's/Dynafits that I haved used for three seasons as my touring skis and I have 181 Hardsides/Markers as my everyday resort ski. So I have plenty of time on both especially the AP's. So, the AP's which is the Coomback is a light, soft ski with a slight rockered tip without a lot of underfoot camber. IMO, it is a very good BC ski around Tahoe as it handles a variety of snow, turns at slow speeds and light for climbing. It is a decent resort powder ski especially picking around trees and off piste. Also pretty weak on groomers and heavy chop. The Hardsides is slightly smaller dimensionally but way stiffer especially in the tail. It has a rockered tip but pretty slight and the tip is pretty stiff as well. so, the ski can be drived in a traditional manner and you can load and drive the tips. The skis have some underfoot camber. They are heavy compared to the Coombacks and with Dukes, a heavy touring rig for sure. WTBS, they are easy to ski and easy to ski fast. They handle firm, chopped up snow as well as heavy snow better than the Coombacks. I think for your needs I would choose the Hardsides unless you are a mellow skier and avoids firm snow. I am old and weigh 200#.

[iamTRuTH]

I liked the Coomback for the few days I skied them last year. The are fast and turn nice. I liked the small rocker in the tip and extra width over the Hardside is a plus IMHO.

[Bdukes]

Thanks for your input guys. I think I might go with the hardsides... If there are any other skis that fit my needs please suggest!!
BTW, im 5'7" 145 lbs. semi-aggro

WTBS? what is that acronym?

[eurob]

Thanks for your input guys. I think I might go with the hardsides... If there are any other skis that fit my needs please suggest!!
BTW, im 5'7" 145 lbs. semi-aggro

Like my Faction Alias which is in that league.

Praxis Backcountry might fit the bill too, mags here seem to like it a lot. Haven't skied it myself though.

[Poop~Ghost]

I equate the 188 Coomba to the Black Matte version of the 191 Gotama with a flat tail... a touch lighter and a hair more sidecut. Very similar in flex though and ride IMO. The 188's kill it in deep snow too.

If you're gonna put miles of uphill travel down, then I'd suggest the 181 coomback over the hardside. 50/50 touring/inbounds I'd say 188 coomback and 20/80 I'd go hardside... but I tend to like lighter skis with more flex.





That was a 188 coomba w/ dukes... eventually switched to dynafit and loved that rig until I fucked up and drove them into the garage door.

[Bdukes]

MOVED TO NEW THREAD FOR MORE INPUT!!!!

[deliberate]

How does K2 measure the lengths? I got a pair of 181 coombakcs and they are almost as long as 191cm ANTs. Not disapointed or anything, just curious. I'm at work now, if I was really motivated I would go home and pull out a tape measure.

[skimaxpower]

How does K2 measure the lengths? I got a pair of 181 coombakcs and they are almost as long as 191cm ANTs.

K2 always seems to lowball on lengths. Most noticeable on their twin tips. But even my 174 Hardsides measure out to 176cm.

I'm not sure what their exact strategy is? (or motivations)

[SP_sam-O]

How does K2 measure the lengths? I got a pair of 181 coombakcs and they are almost as long as 191cm ANTs. Not disapointed or anything, just curious. I'm at work now, if I was really motivated I would go home and pull out a tape measure.

They measure tip to tail no slack... except they don't. The lengths (IME) don't usually fit that, and also don't fit the length along the base. My 188 Coombas(OGs I think) measured about 193 along the base(maby 193-194), and it seems that many K2 skis that are 188(coombas) or 189(factory/ twins), are about 193-194 (and 178/9 = 183-4 etc. etc.). I could be wrong but that's what I'm remembering right now.

As far as how the skis were, I sold them because they were scary soft for non pow conditions, and didn't carve groomers well at all compared to most normal sidecut skis..... however if you're not skiing them too hard/fast they were pretty good all over(but I wanted to ski them faster..).
Untouched powder, especially lighter stuff, was actually really good on them, they for sure are the best normal camber ski I've been on for pow. You can actually ski them decently quick/snappy at speeds in pow and they are really consistantly smooth. If it got really steep/feature filled they started lacking though(less steep w/lots of features was great, though). Wierd ski, the flex really fits powder and not chargy variable, I guess.

[~mikey b]

I've been skiing a 188 Coomba (not Coomback - no rocker) since March at the area and in the bc, and I love it. Charges most everything, yet not something I feel like chasing around all the time like some other biggish skis. Lightish and softish, just like I like 'em. I bought them mostly for backcountry, but I skied them a lot at the area when I first got them because the snow was so damn good and they were new and I was stoked to be on new skis. They did alright on the groomed - not as good as my Watea 101 - but alright.

As similar as these 2 skis seem, after reading and talking to folks and trying a couple of different things, I think I'll probably end up with a pair of Hardsides, too. Seems like a better everyday work ski. A tad narrower, w/ a bit of metal to make it a bit stiffer. Combat skis.

[K man]

I tried the Anti Pistes and thought the tip was too soft for an everyday ski. I've tried the sidestashes, which have metal, and thought they were great. I'm guessing the hardsides will ski like slightly narrower sidestashes, but I prefer a ski with metal.

[Mr. Toad]

I have both and skied them quite a bit this year. I concur with Quadzilla. If you're skiing 80% resort, go with the Hardsides. Both are great skis.

[powtario]

Why not go a bit wider that the Hardside with the Sidestash? Pretty identical skis except one is 1cm+ wider.

[Scottish_Skier]

Why not go a bit wider that the Hardside with the Sidestash? Pretty identical skis except one is 1cm+ wider.

Yup - I wrote a review for the SS here.
Should certainly be on the radar.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...h-lt-Review-gt.

Really liked the original Coomba - but the newer Sidestash & Hardside are better skis for every snow condition (unless you want a light weight dynafit touring set up).

[bertrenolds]

I would say neither, they are K2's, enough said.