Coomba

**JimLad** · 10-11-2007, 09:06 AM

I want to demo some Coombas, but what would be good bindings for them? Maybe some Dukes?

**adimmen** · 10-11-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by JimLad

I want to demo some Coombas, but what would be good bindings for them? Maybe some Dukes?

Dynafits would be much more appropriate. There's no sense in pairing light skis with heavy binders.

**verbier61** · 10-12-2007, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by adimmen

Dynafits would be much more appropriate. There's no sense in pairing light skis with heavy binders.

uhm, yes, I thought the same, but there are no dynafit crampons large enough (the larger being 92 mm), and crampons might be crucial for serious AT...

**hemas** · 10-12-2007, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by verbier61

but there are no dynafit crampons large enough (the larger being 92 mm)

Yes there is.

http://www.bndskigear.com/index_files/Page1362.html

Good up to 110mm, and I'm sure he'll even make custom ones for wider skis (great guy, and has been know to do one offs).

But everyone that has stated NO to Dukes is spot on, why slap a heavy binding on a light ski which is also rather soft. Dynafits would be the optimal solution, though Naxos, Fritchis or Silvrettas would also work.

**verbier61** · 10-12-2007, 02:57 AM

cool!! thanks a lot, hemas!

**JimLad** · 10-12-2007, 03:06 AM

Or maybe stick with an alpine binding, hum. Not had a touring setup before, and it wouldn't be for more than occasional excursion from lift served terrain.

**hemas** · 10-12-2007, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by JimLad

Or maybe stick with an alpine binding, hum. Not had a touring setup before, and it wouldn't be for more than occasional excursion from lift served terrain.

Taht would be even worse idea than Duke. The Coomba is after all a softsnow touring ski. Not the best stix for lift served.

And Verb61, mebbe will actually ski this season in Verb. I'm bound to do at least one trip there. I'll be in touch. (and the crampon-thing is the least I can do for ya, for the brakes).

**verbier61** · 10-12-2007, 05:04 AM

good to know, hemas, I'll be waiting for you!

**JimLad** · 10-12-2007, 08:19 AM

Well, heli served too

I shall see how they ski when I demo em, but just wanted to have some ideas.

**abertsch** · 10-23-2007, 04:02 PM

I've been looking at the coomba in 181 or 188. Anyone have a chance to ski them yet? I will be skiing primarily lift-served off-piste in Tahoe (Kirkwood most of the time). Is this the right ski for an aspiring off-piste skier? I am not likely to be hitting the BC for at least a season or two. Need to build my skills up and take appropriate training. Might there be another pow/crud ski (that might even work in the bumps) for me? I would be mounting Alpine bindings. Any binding suggestions?

6'7" 240lbs. Trying to leave the groomers behind on a permanent basis.

-Adam

...

I'll save some bandwidth: JONG

**nhtele** · 10-23-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by abertsch

I've been looking at the coomba in 181 or 188. Anyone have a chance to ski them yet? I will be skiing primarily lift-served off-piste in Tahoe (Kirkwood most of the time). Is this the right ski for an aspiring off-piste skier? I am not likely to be hitting the BC for at least a season or two. Need to build my skills up and take appropriate training. Might there be another pow/crud ski (that might even work in the bumps) for me? I would be mounting Alpine bindings. Any binding suggestions?

6'7" 240lbs. Trying to leave the groomers behind on a permanent basis.

-Adam

...

I'll save some bandwidth: JONG

Dude, you are a fucking monster. For skiing off-piste, someone your size needs a minimum 190cm long ski, with a lot more balls than the Coomba (assuming you can actually ski).

Atomic Big Daddy
Volkl Gotama 190
Stockli DP 194 or 201
Igneous FFF or FFL 190

**DFL** · 10-23-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by abertsch

6'7" 240lbs.

I do believe you'll want something a little beefier. Doug Coombs was 150 lbs soaking wet, and the Coomba is quite soft. Consider the Mantra in a 191. Easy to ski and versatile.

**abertsch** · 10-23-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by nhtele

Dude, you are a fucking monster. For skiing off-piste, someone your size needs a minimum 190cm long ski, with a lot more balls than the Coomba (assuming you can actually ski).

Heh, good advice. On a normal day on the hill I'd make the claim that, "I can ski." In this crowd I don't think that's a claim I can back up. It's more fair to say that I can make it down the hill, and I very much would like to be able to ski. A combination of working my ass off and working my ass off some more will get me there. Increased stoke through gear purchase may help! I'll check out the Mantras.

Thread hi-jack warning: How tough is it to handle a ski that long in narrow quarters? I'm not much for straight-lining.

-Adam

**nhtele** · 10-23-2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by abertsch

Heh, good advice. On a normal day on the hill I'd make the claim that, "I can ski." In this crowd I don't think that's a claim I can back up. It's more fair to say that I can make it down the hill, and I very much would like to be able to ski. A combination of working my ass off and working my ass off some more will get me there. Increased stoke through gear purchase may help! I'll check out the Mantras.

Thread hi-jack warning: How tough is it to handle a ski that long in narrow quarters? I'm not much for straight-lining.

-Adam

The softer the ski, the easier it will be to smear, butter, or otherwise throw around in tight quarters (which, btw I define as EC woods - you really don't have quarters that tight in the Sierra woods, though narrow couloirs up high could be challenging if they flirt with the 8' wide mark). That said, the ease with which someone moves a large ski through the landscape scales with overall body size and ability.

e.g. Mildbill is your body double. He can ski his 190 Iggy FFF Corvus in spots where I (5'10", 155 lbs) would have difficulty.

**addict** · 10-23-2007, 11:18 PM

You sir, are a monster, I am 175lbs 6ft3 and found the 191 mantra in both it's incarnations easy to overski. I'm sure you'll manage.

**thd** · 10-28-2007, 02:23 PM

Woohoo! Got a pair 40 % discounted at my local store, cheaper than buying them from Conrad. They only had a few pairs for that price, and I got the last one

**CitizenInsane** · 11-11-2007, 05:16 PM

Noob here, I'm really interested in the Coombas.

I' 170ish and 6ft and I need to step up to some power skis for my first season out west. Now after getting about a billion opinions and visiting all the shops the Coombas keep drawing me back, I'm looking at the 181 as I want a big ski, but I also want something mobile for the hobacks. I'm going to be doing more lift stuff at the beginning of the season and I want to get into doing more AT as I get more comfortable here. Sooo, I'm looking at the Duke binding too, and yes I know its heavy, but so are my boots, size 13 shoe. I like the idea of a super stable AT binding that can do alpine with no prob, and they can crank to 16din which is right on.

So I guess my question is, would anyone back up my choice of 181 Coombas for getting my feet wet in the first season here? I tend to be a controlled skier and I usually like a light ski. The flew seems average from my personal flex texts and they are pretty tight torsionally. And I've always like K2s, my east coast skis are crossfires and they have been pretty much flawless, but I need 100+ now that it's almost big time here. Thanks for any replies, rock on!

On a different note it's snowing

**JimLad** · 11-11-2007, 06:17 PM

Seen them in the shop...really light. I'm thinking of putting some Dukes on after all...they really aren't that heavy.

Don't see why you'd have to use em exclusively in the BC anyway. If I get some they will be used inbounds, bit of sidecountry and heli. Waiting on some more snow here, as soon as I can I'll be demoing them.

**murph** · 11-11-2007, 06:44 PM

Skied 188cm Coombas yesterday at the Loveland demo. Nice ski. Really light and maneuverable. Lots of stability for something so light. Obviously I didn't take it in the pow, but I could see it as a sweet touring ski.

**kootenayskier** · 01-03-2008, 08:13 PM

I'm mounting Dynafit Comforts on 181 Coombas, for 95% back-country and cat accessed powder skiing. I'm an aggressive technical expert skier, but am not spinning or skiing backwards. Any thoughts on modifying the mounting position?

**wizard604** · 01-06-2008, 12:12 AM

any comments on how the Coomba's ski compared to the Seth's?

**TDJ** · 01-06-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by hemas

Taht would be even worse idea than Duke. The Coomba is after all a softsnow touring ski. Not the best stix for lift served.

And Verb61, mebbe will actually ski this season in Verb. I'm bound to do at least one trip there. I'll be in touch. (and the crampon-thing is the least I can do for ya, for the brakes).

I don't really agree with that, i don't think the coomba is a (pure)touring ski. It's a light ski so it's usable for touring, but it is clearly much more. Coombs developed it to be a bigmountain ski for alpinist.

When you flex the coomba you feel it pretty soft in the tip but very stiff in the tail. Wich I think (im not an expert) gives it excellent flotation but also good stability at speed and in the crud.
The harder tail also has the side effect that, if you ski it a little bit(or much) in the backseat and then put pressure on it, it'll go straight and accelerate.

I've got a pair of 188 coombas mounted with Sollie 914ti alpine bindings and it's very nice for skiing pow in the resort. Although on steep and narrow couloirs i'd like a narrower ski (im 175cm(5.9) and 78kg(171lbs)) . But al the others it does very well.

(included a picture at speed on the coombas from last November )

edit:

Originally Posted by wizard604

any comments on how the Coomba's ski compared to the Seth's?

I have skied the Seth(189) for only one run but i think it's a bit more forgiving and playful. I really liked it too.

**Maadjurguer** · 02-05-2008, 09:41 PM

I've got a pair of 174 coomba's with the Dukes. Love the ski for the deep, but wish I had purchased the 188's instead based on the following. I'm 5'7" and 154lbs, like to ski aggresively. I've got to agree that this really is not a resort ski unless you've got more than 6" of fresh to deal with. On the hard pack, these things start chattering at speed on long arcs. I tend to wash them out based on my aggresive style on the hard pack...it's taken me a bit to dial back on these. However, on the steep and windbloan/sunbaked/verglass, these things can turn on a dime which is very usefull for obvious reasons. In this regard, they are the easiest ski I've ever had to turn. In exchange for this, there is not a lot of snap out of the turn on these on the hardpack. But....this is all on conditions that it is not designed for. In the deep stuff, the tips refuse to sink and the float is unreal. I guess in the end, it's just an adjustment of expectations.

**lionelhutz** · 02-06-2008, 10:44 AM

Good thread developing here.
Now I am curious about how the coomba's compare to like the 181 or 188 soft bros.
I know they are wider underfoot so prob. offer more float but I wonder about the stiffness.

**Scottish_Skier** · 02-08-2008, 01:43 PM

> but it is clearly much more.

Yup - agreded. As far as I know the Coomba it was designed to be the perfect ski for La Grave.

Just because it doesnt have a twin tip doesnt mean that it a pure touring ski.
How many people actually go switch in the powder....

Though being light weight they would be a good choice for a 100mm touring ski.

Like TDJ I also have mine mounted with S12 salomon bindings as a resort powder ski. Mainly because I prefer my foot to be flat on the ski by a solid binder.

As mentioned before they are super light weight - which also makes them very easy to flick around in the trees or a tight colouir. For a big ski they are very easy to manouvre. Generally I find them to fairly forgiving, but you can also let them run at speed in wide open spaces. Like all good skis they let the user decide what to make of them and inspire confidence.

They might not rip as hard as a stiff 100mm powder ski (say a gotama, goliath or legend). But the soft(ish) flex makes them a bit more useable and forgiving when your not in perfect wide open powder fields. These seem to handle well when conditions get a bit variable or you end up in a crud or mogul field at the end of a run. Which is why I chose them. Like all big skis they prefer softer conditions - but you can (almost

) carve them on a piste too.

I am 6"2 and ski them in a 188cm. Though be aware thats effective edge length ! So this ski is about same length as a 194cm in other brands

A fine tribute to Doug Coombs indeed. Excellent off piste tools.
And the floatation is unbelievable!