K2 Coomback vs BD Drift

I have the Coombacks set up for tele. I really didn't like them on tele at all, but that's just me. I like smaller skis cause that's what I learned on. My brother got the same set up in AT and I used it for a day. They ripped for downhill!

BTW, if someone wants a once used pair of Coombacks, I've got some that were mounted with a pair of free pivot G3 bindings. I'd be willed to sell. PM me. BTW, they have a few early season scratches...but that's about it.

The Coomback is the Anti Piste w/o inserts.

The Anti Piste is no more.

I had a pair of the older Coombas and they were deadwood to try to push around, no spring in them. Can anyone compare the performance of new Coomback to the older Coomba?

I demoed the Coomba at the Marmot demo day at Summit West the first year and the Coomback last year at the Marmot demo day.  Conditions were firm.  I felt the Coomback was a more lively ski and handled the firm conditions.  I'm a former East coast slalom style skier and the Coomback performed nicely for my style.

FWIW, Jill demoed the Gotback which is the womans flavor of the Coomback with the same dimensions. She loves them and has a downhill mount and a pair for touring with Dynafits

So what did I buy - K2 Sidestash.  In fact, I have 2 pairs. One mounted downhill and another with Dynafit. 

The Coomback is the Anti Piste w/o inserts.

Scratch the BD Drift. Its likely they are great for touring light powder but agreed that they are probably too wimpy for variable & heavy snow. (Ah, but they feel soooo nice and light.)

As for the CoombacK evolution there is a great thread on WildSnow where I found this post:
"Just weighing in on the Coomback vs. Anti-Piste question. These skis are very similar: exact same dimensions, and though we used different woods for the cores on the old Coomba and Anti Piste, the flexes and weights were within a few grams. We really liked the old Coomba, but found that the rocker of the Anti made it , easier to adjust turn shape, and therefore more versatile and predictable ON HARD SNOW as well as soft, which was an eye opener for us. (After the test, I immediately pulled my Duke’s off the Comba’s and put them on Anti’s) So we took the Coomba construction which had a slightly stiffer flex due to the burlier core and gave it rocker. Et voila, the CoomBack."
Mike Hattrup August 19th, 2009 3:43 pm

I have the antipistes in 188.  fun ski, versatile - Aaron Riggs & Marcus' feeback seems spot on.  188's are a bit heavy.  I have dukes on 'em so they are even heavier than they need to be but again fun and easy to ski in just about any condition.  I ski them inbounds and tour them when the snow is deep and just call the extra weight good exercise.  If I have longer tours planned I do take a lighter set-up which doesn't ski as well.

Maybe you can go 181?  that will reduce the weight and if you can go dynafit w/ no brakes you'd really be in business.  I'd put dynafits on mine but they get used inbounds too much.

k2 skins: I have not used the K2 skins but I do have experience with climbing skins direct skins, which I believe make the k2 skins (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I liked my CSD skins. Never had a problem w/ the glue or the plush. They seemed to roll up/fold a bit better (smaller) when compared to my BD Ascension skins. Interested to hear others feedback on the k2 tip tail connections which seem cool in theory.

Maybe you can go 181?  that will reduce the weight and if you can go dynafit w/ no brakes you'd really be in business.

I found a great deal on some manaslaus so I got those. I figured with the coombacks I'd need to keep my kailas as a spring/tour ski which would mean new bindings as well. If the manaslaus work out as a good all around ski then I'll (hopefully) get some true powder specific skis next year.
Thanks for all the input folks.