By continuing you agree to our use of cookies. You are able to update your settings at any time.

Cookie Policy

A cookie, also known as an HTTP cookie, web cookie, or browser cookie, is a piece of data stored by a website within a browser, and then subsequently sent back to the same website by the browser. Cookies were designed to be a reliable mechanism for websites to remember things that a browser had done there in the past, which can include having clicked particular buttons, logging in, or having read pages on that site months or years ago.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies cannot be disabled

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off. They are normally set in response to your interactions on the website e.g. logging in etc.

Cookies:
  • .ASPXANONYMOUS
  • .DOTNETNUKE
  • __RequestVerificationToken
  • authentication
  • CV_Portal
  • CV_Store_Portal_Cart_21
  • CV_USER
  • dnn_IsMobile
  • language
  • LastPageId
  • NADevGDPRCookieConsent_portal_21
  • userBrowsingCookie

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to monitor traffic to our website so we can improve the performance and content of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited or how you navigated around our website.

Cookies:
  • _ga
  • _gat
  • _gid

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and content. They may be set by the website or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Cookies:

Currently we are not utilizing these types of cookies on our site.

Targeting Cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Cookies:

Currently we are not utilizing these types of cookies on our site.

HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneralGeneralAltai Kom vs Rossignol BC 125Altai Kom vs Rossignol BC 125
Previous
 
Next
New Post
1/16/2020 10:16 AM
 

Ive come upon a pair of Fritschi 88s.

These will be paired with meindl himalays or meindl vakkum hunters.

Almost no ski experience, coming from primarily snow shoes. Its funny, after watching the longhouse winter locomotion video, I felt like the concepts presented crystalized rough ideas that were bouncing around my head. Thanks!

Location : Eastern washington. Semi arid with inconsistent snow conditions. Rolling open landscapes into mountain timber.

Use : General travel. Some groomed, lots off path.

At some point down the road i will end up with a pair of 150 Hoks, however right now am evaluating between the Koms and BC 125s. I can get the BCs for slightly less cost than the Koms.

Has anyone had a chance at both for input? ( I believe Evan has?)

 

Thank you all!

Tim

 

 

 
New Post
1/16/2020 1:03 PM
 

Scot has the BC 125s, which I've skied a couple of times. I find them very heavy. Perhaps because they're longer than the ones I use. They didn't give me noticeably more flotation or traction than my BC 110s.

I have a pair of BC 110s which are about all I ever use. I like them a lot.

I skied Ken's Koms once. Unfortunately, I didn't do a side by side on the same day comparison with the BC 110s. I wish I had, because the impression I came away with was that the Koms are a WAY better backcountry ski than the BC 110s. They climb almost as if they had kicker skins on and are very light and stable.

Between the BC 125s and Koms, I'd give it to the Koms hands down. If you get Koms, you may never end up wanting Hoks -- they seem to be that good.

If you asked about Hoks vs. Koms, I wouldn't have a good answer for you.

We are about to start carrying both Hoks and Koms in the shop here. Probably I'll end up with a pair of Koms. At that point, I'll have a much better standard of comparison between those and other waxless BC skis. Based on skiing them once, I think they're head and shoulders above everything else for true backcountry use.


We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
1/21/2020 11:36 AM
 
I haven't actually used either ski, but looking at the specifications out of curiosity..

Altai Kōm
– 174cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 7 lb. 4 oz. (3250 gm.)
– 162cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 6 lb. 8 oz. (2960 gm.)
– 150cm – 124/98/120 approximate wt. – 5 lb. 12 oz. (2630 gm.)

Rossignol BC 125
Weight 1400 gr / pair

Is this at all accurate? At more than twice the weight, the Kom would need to be excessively impressive to get me to pick them over the much lighter competitor.
 
New Post
1/21/2020 4:04 PM
 
Interesting discussion. I poked around Bighorns shop last winter. They had BC 125 skis, but no backcountry bindings. The shop guy seemed surprised that I would be looking for such a thing.

Evan, what bindings will you be carrying in the shop? Will we be able to order a turn key package of skis and properly installed backcountry appropriate bindings?
 
New Post
1/22/2020 6:34 AM
 
Jellydonut - something is wrong with those weights. The Koms are noticeably lighter than my Rossignol BC110s, which are noticeably lighter than BC125s. I don't have the ability to weigh them both right now to give exact weights.

Longeye - skis and bindings is a tricky thing. If you've watched my "Winter Locomotion" video, you know that the bindings we prefer haven't been made in something like 25 years. We are able to source them for our own use on the secondary market but couldn't really sell them as a company. Also, it takes special insurance to be in the business of mounting bindings on skis.

On the other hand, the Altai Hoks come with threaded inserts in the classic 75mm hole pattern which is still a well used standard with lots of bindings available. Most of those bindings require specialized ski boots but work quite nicely if you're willing to have dedicated boots of that type. We are going to be stocking bindings of that type.

We are also going to be stocking the Altai universal pivot binding which go on the 75mm inserts and can theoretically be used with pretty much any type of hiking boots. I haven't worked with those at all to know what their outer limits are. That's going to be my first priority when we get them in stock. I need to figure out just how well they perform with a variety of weights of hiking boots so I know what my recommendation is. The Hoks are an amazing backcountry travel tool -- put them on and point them in a direction and go. And there's almost no learning curve. But I've only skied them with antique AT bindings and mountaineering boots. I'm really hoping that I'll be able to tell folks "if your hiking boots provide roughly such and such level of support, all you need to get around in the winter on most terrain is a pair of Hoks with universal pivot bindings". That remains to be seen. If it doesn't turn out that way, we might be getting into the business of making a universal binding that works the way we want it to.

We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
1/22/2020 1:52 PM
 
My KOM's should be here any day, along with the Fritschi's.

I spoke with Nils at Altai about that combo and he also noted that they have
great luck with hardware from bindingfreedom.com for mounting.

I think previously on here alpendrms has said the same.

Poking around a little bit, it sounds like BF is the predecessor
to quiverkillers.com who I also spoke with.


We will see how this set up works, I am also interested how the
universal binding works for you guys.


Looking at the action of the binding, I can't imagine my meindls
or whites being flexible enough through the toe for great efficiency.

I imagine most hiking/mountaineering boots would lack the flexibility also,
unless you were using minimalist/zero drop/barefoot style boots
which I prefer anyways.


I could see a pair of Hoks with universal bindings being an 'ambassador'

Any family member or friend could strap up with current footwear and go run around with you.

 
New Post
1/24/2020 1:53 PM
 
Toe flexibility is the big bugaboo with the Altai Universal Pivot binding. Won't know until we try but it sure looks like every boot we would actually use for walking anywhere wouldn't have enough toe flex to work. On the other hand, it seems implausible that they would have "universal" bindings that would only work with pack boots.

We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
1/28/2020 5:29 PM
 

Ive searched around, but have a qestion about mounting.

Hoping evan, scott or ken can help.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/hdPjussKzJ7mr3dg7



https://photos.app.goo.gl/Jzs5J7s6WCG6PiaEA


https://photos.app.goo.gl/f2oBaavaxbD9yyzP7


The Kom came marked for the pin line. The Fritschis came with a traced template that states to find the balance point of the ski, which I did and marked.

I laid the template on both ways as an example.

Here is the 88 laid on the top, notch at the pin line.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HmY7arEWJEusTWh59


Heres the 88 on top, notch at the balance point

https://photos.app.goo.gl/43ZKJwkehHB5hg937



Which way is correct? Notch at balance point seems far back, but i know nothing about skis.

 
New Post
1/29/2020 4:23 PM
 

Sorry, couldn't get your pictures to display inline but did turn them into links that could be viewed.

So, I've never mounted a pair of bindings and don't know much about the theory on it. All of the fritschis I've had mounted by a shop look like the "balance point" one where the binding ends up a little bit towards the back of the ski. They all ski great.

That being said, the guys at Altai really know what they're doing and might be placing their pin line somewhere different than a "normal" pin line on purpose. I would contact them directly and ask about this specifically with your pictures. Also ask them about how best to secure the binding. If memory serves, the standard is epoxy but they recommend wood glue for their skis. Or something like that.


We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
2/4/2020 2:48 PM
 
An update on the universal pivot binding --

In short, it works doggone well when paired with heavy backpacking boots (Garmont Pinnacle were the test boots).

The part I was missing is that the heel bail is spring loaded to provide additional flex beyond just the toe flex in the boot. The pivot bindings with my test boots provided better performance than heavy leather nordic boots with 3 pin bindings and about comparable performance as heavy leather nordic boots with cable bindings. This means if you've already got good backpacking boots and want to get out in the winter backcountry, 145cm Hoks with the universal pivot binding is the answer.

By "good backpacking boots", I mean the types of boots that are semi-automatic crampon compatible or the weight and support class just below that. Not because you need them to be semi-automatic crampon compatible, but because boots that are provide the right balance of weight / flexibility / support for hiking off trail with a pack and also skiing Hoks.

Boots in the weight class above that (fully automatic crampon compatible leather mountaineering boots like the Scarpa Mont Blancs I tested) will work, but not very well. You can get the same amount of heel raise but the resistance is such that the tails of the skis want to come off the ground when you're doing much in the way of kick and glide. On the other hand, you'll definitely have more control on the downhills with boots like that. My feeling is that if you're wanting that much support out of your boots, then you're also probably wanting a longer and more performance oriented ski than the Hok (like the Kom). At which point you're looking at some sort of binding setup other than the universal pivot bindings.

I'm going to do a full write up when I have time.

We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
2/26/2020 1:04 PM
 
Thanks for the update Evan

Given that you have ridden with the Univ bindings, could you see them on Koms in any capacity?

I certainly understand you give up stability/performance And lose the auto release capability of the FT88

But for increased glide over the Hoks, with ability to run a wider range of boots.

The only boots i can find to fit my foot with any level of comfort (keen philadelphia) will need some some re-engineering to work with my FTs.

Its doable, but im wondering if the easier option is simply to go with the univ bindings with the hiking boots I already run with

 
New Post
2/27/2020 11:55 AM
 

Not Evan and no experience with ANY of these skis or bindings, but I think the answer, from a safety standpoint, should start with the terrain you'll mostly use the skis on.  Some place flat like the BWCA, the universal binding will likely be the best choice, as you will be more mobile than any binding that has a plate, ESP if it is someplace cold and you intend to wear Bunny (VB) boots.  Any downhill that would require a lot of carving and I would be afraid of them.

 
New Post
2/27/2020 4:19 PM
 
Interesting question.

I think the universal pivot bindings provide enough of a boot to ski attachment to drive Koms adequately if not well. However, I'm not sure the Keen Philadelphias provide enough support to drive Koms on much of a downhill. I've never worn or inspected them but they look in the pictures like they're going to be lacking in that regard.

The other consideration is DIN releasability. I've heard of nasty cross country (not downhill) wrecks that break people's joints because XC bindings don't release. Add much downhill to it and I *really* want DIN releasability.I know that legions of telemarkers ski significant terrain without releasable bindings but I consider that madness myself.

We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
2/28/2020 4:48 AM
 
Personally I have gotten extremely comfortable with the Dynafit-type (not necessarily Dynafit-brand) "low-tech" pin bindings. Not only is it a pleasure and a breeze to skin uphill with them, they also release reliably and have saved my limbs multiple times as I attempt to learn downhill skiing.

The main "problem" is of course the use of hard boots instead of mountaineering boots, but today's lightweight alpine touring boots are exceedingly comfortable to walk in. I do not miss mountaineering boots in the winter.
 
New Post
2/29/2020 8:18 AM
 
My take on the Altai Hoks, my wife is a pretty experienced downhill skier on runs and crosscountry on groomed trails, I am not.
We live in steep timbered mountains.
We use our Altai Hoks with universal bindings with general hiking boots ( me- Lowa Renegades, wife- Salomon Ellipse winter GTX) pretty much everyday, much of the winter we have to pull a sled with much of the stuff we'll need for the day out to the county road 1/2 mile away or 3 miles out to state highway and for recreation.
We don't do much fast downhill stuff on them, but do (what my wife rates as bunny slope downhills). If I tried more than that on any skis in this timber I would resemble most of the old cartoons.
I love my Hoks! I can pull a 80# sled up hill, hunt off them, and go play in the backcountry way off the beaten path.
 
New Post
10/22/2020 9:09 PM
 
I picked up a lightly used set of Hok 125s with the Universal binding this summer and just got a chance to use them on a quick outing today. Conditions were 8-20” of fresh powder with no real base to speak of.

Skier condition is 6’5” 230 lbs. My time has mostly been on snow shoes with a tiny bit of down hill and XC time.

My first impression is that these are going to be better than snowshoes for a lot of what I do. Instinctively, I feel like I want the 145 Hok, but I don’t know if that would realistically get me much more floatation than the 125 length. It is really hard to argue with the maneuverability of the 125. I caught on a transition and sugar cookied. I got right back without even thinking of pulling off my skis first. One doesn’t do that with the long downhill or XC skis I am accustomed to.

Long story short, I am hooked and will be spending much more time on these this winter.
 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneralGeneralAltai Kom vs Rossignol BC 125Altai Kom vs Rossignol BC 125