Kongur vs Kailas looking for Opinions

[Kski]

So I am torn between the Kailas and the Kongur... I have a chance to get some 184 Kongurs for around $175 or some 175 Kailas' for around $220. Since I dont have much $$ I need to take advantage of off season prices and therefore I cannot Demo before I buy.

I am 5'11" 190lbs... Which ever one I get will be my everyday BC ski, and I am going to mount them up with Dynafits. I ski mostly in and around Summit County, CO. I ski a wide variety of terrain ranging from Long tours and Hut Trips... to steep lines and coolies. The skis that I am replacing are 185 K2 Shuksans. I enjoyed the Shuksans... but definatly want something with more width underfoot. The Kailas at 88 underfoot obviously seems like a better floater... but the Kongur at 84 underfoot seems more versatile. Im looking for opinions from any Maggs who have skied either ski... Thanks!

[GBB]

Haven't skied either, but common sense tells me that you will not like going from a 185 to a 175. Get the 184.

[laseranimal]

I've skied the TM:X which was the precursor to the Kongur

nice ski, lightweight but plenty stiff, very versatile, floats well, holds a solid edge

great all around ski, nothing fancy just kinda there getting the job done

I don't use them much anymore since I got heli daddies which I like a lot better seeing as how most of my touring days are pow days with shorter approaches. But if I had major vert to climb or was touring hut to hut with an emphasis on mileage but still wanted something that was going to be able to handle descents I'd definitely recommend the Kongur. The TM:X to me is a genre defining ski similar to the Explosive, at 115-84-107 its light enough to carry, wide enough to float and skinny enough to hold an edge.

I have not skied the Kailas but it has not been as well received, I think that might have something to do with the fact that its going up against the BD Havoc which gets a lot of rave reviews, and the fact that 88 mm underfoot to me is right around the tipping point for the performance aspect to win out over weight.

I did some computations for myself a while back and found out that if you use Couloir magazines formulas a 183 Janak is only 1/2 a pound heavier then a 185 Kailas and the performance difference of an 88 waisted ski vs a 99 waisted ski is well worth that weight penalty in my eyes since I saved more then that by going to dynafits over freerides.

as always YRMV but to me I think the TM:X/Kongur is all around a more versatile tool then the Kailas but thats just my opinion

[Kski]

Laseranimal, Thanks for the feedback. I have found tons of Rave reviews for the Kongur... but not much out there for the Kailas.. Makes sense now that you mention their being overshadowed by the Havoc. It seems like the Kongur is the way to go for a do everything touring ski. I have some lawn chairs with Fritschis, that I use for Powder... and I'll prolly replace those next year with something more in the 95-100 underfoot realm for a dedicated powder ski.

[smmokan]

I haven't skied either, but if it helps at all, my friend skied the Kailas last year for all-around skis in SuCo/WP, and he hated them.

[Hugh Jass]

Can't offer much on either ski, but I ski a Janak/Dynafit rig in CO. My feeling is that you should always go fatter when given the choice. The Janak is 99 underfoot, and plenty versatile. I think you'd find the Kongur the same, but the Kaila too narrow.

[laseranimal]

Can't offer much on either ski, but I ski a Janak/Dynafit rig in CO. My feeling is that you should always go fatter when given the choice. The Janak is 99 underfoot, and plenty versatile. I think you'd find the Kongur the same, but the Kaila too narrow.

Kailas is 88 underfoot so its wider then the Kongur

kentheskier if you're going to get a wider pow ski then definitely go with the Kongur

[Hugh Jass]

Whoops. I thought it was the 70-ish waisted one. Looks like I should have read the thread.

Advice retracted.

[laseranimal]

Whoops. I thought it was the 70-ish waisted one. Looks like I should have read the thread.

Advice retracted.

yeah I don't know what atomic was thinking with the new names its IMPOSSIBLE to keep them straight now that they have womens models with mountain names as well

Tacora Pumari Kontenga I can't even pronounce them more or less remember dimensions

[Vets]

My friend MJ has both skis and likes them both. The next time I talk with him I'll get details to share.

[Kski]

Appreaciate all the feedback. In the end the Kongur won out. I pulled the trigger yesterday and UPS should drop them off on Friday!! The best part is that I paid only paid $149 + ship!!! If anyone is interested.... GearX.com has them in 161,184, and 191cm for $149!! They are last years with the Black/Orange topsheets, brand-new in the wrapper!!

http://gearx.com/product_info.php?products_id=1654

This should be perfect for my new everyday BC ski. Next I just need some fatty sticks for pow... Bros perhaps..

[stuckathuntermtn]

On a related note, the Janaks come really cheap. I know there is a 1mm difference in the tip or something, but will it ski just like a sugar daddy or is it softer?
IDK why I am so hung up on sugar daddies, but they're pretty popular and they seem like a great everyday ski for me now that I made the move.

[sar13]

Well, I was going to write how much I like my 184 Kongur/Dynafit setup but that at 165 pounds I think they are a bit soft and that you should consider the Janak if it will be your only AT ski but not to worry, you will love the Kongurs.

Kinda wish I hadn't seen how much they have come down since I got mine