I'm looking for a comparison between the different generations of this ski. It seems like only the previous version is available here, but have there been any significant design changes between this version and the latest version?
Also looking for size reccomendation. I'm 170lbs, 6'1" and intermediate backcountry skier. Will be used in all types of terrain and conditions. Leaning toward 179cm. Thanks!
For those days when gluttony abounds and your friends may not be so friendly, K2 brings you the Wayback 106. Built from the same bones as the beloved 88, this fat ski is a dream ride when the snow is fresh and deep. The Wayback 106 packs all the wizardry that K2 has developed in their years of ski building while remaining light enough to stack laps. With a Y-shaped titanal insert and a carbon overlay on top of a Paulownia Tour Lite wood core, this Wayback model is stiff and poppy for the hard-charging, powerful skier. It handles hardpack with aplomb and gorges on powder. When you buy a pair of K2 Wayback 106's, you'd best be spending the summer getting on your boss' good side, because you'll be calling in 'sick' more than ever before. And remember, there are no friends on a powder day.
- Snophobic top sheet helps to keep your skis light and feathery while you're skinning, because why buy light skis if they're snow magnets?
- Ti SpYne is a Y-shaped sheet of titanal that keeps the tail supportive and the tip torsionally rigid, just how a good ski should be.
- All-terrain rocker profile keeps the tips up in the deep stuff without over-rockering the tail, essential in a lightweight ski.
- Paulownia Tour Lite wood core is becoming the industry standard lightweight construction.
Update 2020/21: The K2 Wayback 106 has a dazzling new topsheet - same great ski we know and love, it's just going through a more yellow phase.
Update 2022/23: Another visit to the paint shop for the Wayback team. Less yellow, same fun.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 172, 179, 186 |
|
Weight |
1455g [172] 1525g [179] 1655g [186] |
| Weight (pair) | 2910g [172] 3050g [179] 3310g [186] |
|
|
136-106-124 [179] |
|
Turn |
22m [179] |
|
Skin |
Z-Clip tip and tail holes, flat notched tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
All Terrain rocker, camber underfoot |
|
|
Round tip and friendly, medium radius |
|
|
Titanal Ti-Spyne laminate with ABS sidewall construction and full metal edges |
|
|
Paulownia Tour Lite |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | A daily driver in a good year, a powder ski in thin snow years |
| Notes | Snophobic topsheet repels snow |
| Bottom Line | A mid-to-stiff fat ski that is light enough to stack laps when the snow is soft |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
12/27/2024
12/27/2024
Hey Ben, having owned both this and the current iteration, I have a few thoughts:
First, they both are easy to ski, handle all types of snow exceptionally well, and have a large sweet spot. Neither ski is particularly demanding, but they also can be skied confidently. They both feature longer rocker profiles, which makes both models very maneuverable and easy to pivot, which I appreciate in tight trees. Neither ski feels nervous, and they are content to let you dictate when they pivot/turn, instead of the other way around.
When it comes to choosing between the two, it comes down to your preferred ski characteristics. The old iteration found on this page has a very traditional mount point (close to -13), which was very noticeable in heavier/grabbier snow. They also have a little less rocker in the tail, which was noticeable in tighter terrain.
The new iteration has a more modern (forward) mount point (I believe around -11), a slightly shorter turning radius, and more rocker in the tail. In my opinion, the new iteration improves upon the older platform and has made it one of the best all-around backcountry skis I've used.
Regarding sizing, I am 6' and 155 pounds. I ski the 186cm in both versions and have been happy with that for general backcountry touring. Because of the long and low-slung rocker, these skis may feel a bit short. If you want to size down, the old iteration might be the better option with its further back mounting position.
I hope this helps!
First, they both are easy to ski, handle all types of snow exceptionally well, and have a large sweet spot. Neither ski is particularly demanding, but they also can be skied confidently. They both feature longer rocker profiles, which makes both models very maneuverable and easy to pivot, which I appreciate in tight trees. Neither ski feels nervous, and they are content to let you dictate when they pivot/turn, instead of the other way around.
When it comes to choosing between the two, it comes down to your preferred ski characteristics. The old iteration found on this page has a very traditional mount point (close to -13), which was very noticeable in heavier/grabbier snow. They also have a little less rocker in the tail, which was noticeable in tighter terrain.
The new iteration has a more modern (forward) mount point (I believe around -11), a slightly shorter turning radius, and more rocker in the tail. In my opinion, the new iteration improves upon the older platform and has made it one of the best all-around backcountry skis I've used.
Regarding sizing, I am 6' and 155 pounds. I ski the 186cm in both versions and have been happy with that for general backcountry touring. Because of the long and low-slung rocker, these skis may feel a bit short. If you want to size down, the old iteration might be the better option with its further back mounting position.
I hope this helps!
Answer this question:
12/16/2024
Hello,
I would like to ask. What is the exact weight of the wayback 96 and 106 at a length of 186 cm
Thank you
I would like to ask. What is the exact weight of the wayback 96 and 106 at a length of 186 cm
Thank you
12/16/2024
Hi Martin, as you can see from our verified specs above, the average weight of the 106 186 is 1655g. However, there is a noticeable variance per pair. We did not like how the 96 skied and thus did not carry nor weigh it.
Answer this question:
12/5/2024
Yet another size question here: I’m an expert skier in the wasatch, 5’9” 175ish lbs without a pack. I tour on BD Helio 104s in a 178cm and resort ski on QST 106s in 181cm (which is perfect). I’m leaning toward the K2s in a 172 because I like the idea of shorter skis for more manageable kick turns, less weight on long tours, easier bushwacking, etc. but I’m torn between the 172 and 179. Mainly, I'm trying to figure out 1) if these will ski longer or shorter than similarly sized Helios, and 2) I’m wondering whether I’ll overpower the flex or floatation of this ski if I go with a 172 for the uphill benefits.
12/5/2024
Karl, Good question! You are correct at the increased nimbleness of the shorter ski. The effective edge on the K2 vs the BD will not be drastically different so they will feel about the same in length ie 179cm and the 178cm. The biggest concern for overpowering the shorter ski will depend on what boot you use with the ski. The bigger, stiffer, and burlier the boot, the more likely you could overpower the shorter ski. Partnered with a lighter boot and the 172cm will ski fantastic.
Answer this question:
1/29/2024
quick question about the Wayback 106: do you know what side edge bevel, if any, the ski ships with? Thanks. Want to tune these up after a few uses but don't want to change the side edge bevel from nominal.
1/30/2024
Hi Thomas, it should come with a 1 deg base edge and 2 deg side edge
Answer this question:
11/6/2023
If Im trying to replace my coombacks 101's, would you say this is my closest
match? other K2 skis to consider for that 101-106 underfoot 1 ski?
match? other K2 skis to consider for that 101-106 underfoot 1 ski?
11/6/2023
Darin, The Waybacks are a good bit newer, so different.
The main thing will be lots more tip and tail rocker. Haven't ever skied the Coombacks, but guessing these, or the new 98, will be easier and more fun to ski. I couldn't dig up an actual weight on those, but I would say these newer skis are lighter too. These are the only K2 we carry, they have a heavier Dispatch line, that may be more similar.
The main thing will be lots more tip and tail rocker. Haven't ever skied the Coombacks, but guessing these, or the new 98, will be easier and more fun to ski. I couldn't dig up an actual weight on those, but I would say these newer skis are lighter too. These are the only K2 we carry, they have a heavier Dispatch line, that may be more similar.
Answer this question:
1/24/2023
Hello, I just purchased the 186 K2 Wayback 106 and wondering about recommended mounting points that deviate from the manufacturer's recommendations of -13cm. I live in Ak, seek the powder, but will inevitably get variable conditions more often than not. I prefer a freestyle centered stance but can drive the ski when needed. I am 5'10" and 220lbs. Is there any data out there about bumping the bindings forward?
1/25/2023
Thomas,
The recommended mount point isn't too far back, you'd be perfectly fine at the factory rec. I haven't talked to anyone who's mounted them forward, but those who have them at the rec say they handle crud fine. I'd say if you'd like to go a bit further forward, you could try +1 of rec. +2 or +3 would probably feel a bit far forward for powder.
The recommended mount point isn't too far back, you'd be perfectly fine at the factory rec. I haven't talked to anyone who's mounted them forward, but those who have them at the rec say they handle crud fine. I'd say if you'd like to go a bit further forward, you could try +1 of rec. +2 or +3 would probably feel a bit far forward for powder.
Answer this question:
10/17/2022
When de-cambering these skis with my hands or with a ski strap at the recommended mount point, is it normal for there to be multiple gaps between the tip and tail?
In other words, when de-cambered at the mount point, the skis touch in three spots: near the tip taper, the mount point, and near the tail taper (kind of like triple camber almost); where I would normally expect continuous contact from the tip to tail taper points.
Is this expected? Can someone confirm? I'm wondering if this will compromise grip on the skin track.
In other words, when de-cambered at the mount point, the skis touch in three spots: near the tip taper, the mount point, and near the tail taper (kind of like triple camber almost); where I would normally expect continuous contact from the tip to tail taper points.
Is this expected? Can someone confirm? I'm wondering if this will compromise grip on the skin track.
10/18/2022
Hi John,
The amount of pressure a ski strap or your hand can apply to the ski is significantly lower--and the surface area of the applied pressure is significantly smaller--than that of a person when touring. Also, the recommended mounting point is where the center of your boot aligns, so your contact points on the ski will actually be closer to where your arrows are pointing in the picture above.
The amount of pressure a ski strap or your hand can apply to the ski is significantly lower--and the surface area of the applied pressure is significantly smaller--than that of a person when touring. Also, the recommended mounting point is where the center of your boot aligns, so your contact points on the ski will actually be closer to where your arrows are pointing in the picture above.
Answer this question:
9/22/2022
Thinking about these as a Southcentral AK daily driver, so mostly pow but need to hold an edge in occasional firm steeps and survive breakable crust. I've been on the Dynastar Mythic Pros for a couple seasons and am over the short turn radius (although love the light weight). Also considering The Voile Hypercharger, Blizzard Zero G 105 or 95, and the Atomic Backland 100s. Thanks for any thoughts!
9/22/2022
Hey John, the K2 Wayback 106 is a great option for your expectations. A longer turning radius with their early rise will allow you to fly down the fall line. They are exceptionally well-rounded and would feel confident in firm conditions. I think you are looking for a fun, surfy, confident ski then the Wayback is the clear winner.
Answer this question:
3/25/2022
I am trying to confirm if I am making the right choice with these skis. I previously asked about the MTN Explore 95s, and they do appear to be a good fit, however, I decided to eventually go with these as a hedge for days where the snow is deeper. I am opting for the 179 cm as I am told the K2s tend to run long. The one aspect I am unsure of is the turning radius, even for the 179 cm length, it is listed at 22 m. This is 3 m larger than the MTNs and 3.5 m larger than my resort daily drivers. Is this something I am really going to notice? I am just concerned about the ability to execute short radius turns or survival turns when controlling speed is important like on a really steep pitch.
About myself, I am 185.4 cm (73 inches) tall, weigh 86.2 kg (190 pounds), and classify myself as a type III skier. I have not skied any back country with the exception of one day where I rented my gear, but I do want to start skiing backcountry in addition to my resort alpine skiing. My current setup for resort skiing are a pair of Nordica Enforcer 104 Free, 186 cm length. For my backcountry setup, I have already purchased and fitted a pair of Scarpa Maestrale boots. For bindings, I am going to be running the Fritschi Tecton 12 due to its downhill performance with release capability, while not being as heavy as some other tech bindings with these features. As far as what I will primarily be skiing, I want flexibility to ski in all kinds of conditions in the PNW (Washington).
About myself, I am 185.4 cm (73 inches) tall, weigh 86.2 kg (190 pounds), and classify myself as a type III skier. I have not skied any back country with the exception of one day where I rented my gear, but I do want to start skiing backcountry in addition to my resort alpine skiing. My current setup for resort skiing are a pair of Nordica Enforcer 104 Free, 186 cm length. For my backcountry setup, I have already purchased and fitted a pair of Scarpa Maestrale boots. For bindings, I am going to be running the Fritschi Tecton 12 due to its downhill performance with release capability, while not being as heavy as some other tech bindings with these features. As far as what I will primarily be skiing, I want flexibility to ski in all kinds of conditions in the PNW (Washington).
3/25/2022
Hello PNWS410, getting a sense for your taste here. The K2 Wayback 106 is a nice choice as a predictable reference point to center your ski quiver around. Although fatter than the MTN Explore 95 for a bonus in soft snow, the weight penalty is minimal. While not overly stiff or powerful, this ski can still hold its own arcing medium to large radius turns. Likewise, the Wayback can soak up mixed snow conditions pretty well, though I would hardly categorize this as a specialist in steep, firm snow. Overall, I would not be too concerned about the longer turn radius listed, as this ski remains forgiving, plus the shorter length will help you rotate the skis around in those survival skiing scenarios.
Answer this question:
I'm still in the honeymoon phase but I have the 179's mounted on the line with hagan pure 10's and the k2 skins and it's been a great setup so far. Versatile and capable at a reasonably light weight. I echo what Anthony O has already written and use these in the PNW where things snow tends to be a bit heavier on a regular basis.
5 stars to Jeff for patiently answering all my questions over a 4 week period as I dialed in my target setup as well as the overall skimo crew.
5 stars to Jeff for patiently answering all my questions over a 4 week period as I dialed in my target setup as well as the overall skimo crew.
Comment on this review:
This is a great ski that is great because it is bad at nothing, not because it excels anywhere. Ive been playing on it with speed radical toes and plum 170 heels for the start of this season. Ive found it reliable, predictable, and easy to control in a variety of conditions from neck deep blower, to icy garbage. It has a higher turn radius than some of its competitors, and while not very stiff, is no noodle either. It is capable in pow and in hardpack if you find yourself on it (i know that doesnt happen in utah). While it doesnt amaze me, i have no problems giving it a strong recommendation for skiers that may like to think they ski pow everyday, but may find other "conditions." This ski will keep you happy with its reliability either way.
Comment on this review:
8/20/2019
Hey ya'll, I'm in the market for a ski to replace my Carbon Converts as a daily, powder hunting ski. While I like light I'm willing to gain some weight in order to add versatility and stability in crappy snow (which I feel the Convert lacked). I ski around Bend, OR so 1-2 feet of medium density snow is a good day. This ski looks attractive but I'm open to suggestions. I'm 6' and 180lbs and only a moderately capable skier. If my skis leave the ground it's usually because I've messed something up, although I do enjoy small airs. I'll be skiing these with TLT7s and Helio 200 binders. Thanks for the input! You guys rock as always.
8/21/2019
Jeremy, Thats what we all want, skiing 1-2 feet daily. I put a few choices in comparison- 106 skis. For what you want, Versatility and stability in all snow conditions, The Zero G 105 and K2 Wayback are your best choices. I threw in the Movement LT 106 for comparison to the lightest in this category. We don't have much experience skiing the Wayback 106 yet, but the 88 is well known for skiing all condition's well. I have been on the Zero G 105 and it is also quite comfortable in all conditions too. Blizzard changed it considerably from the previous 108 which was a high speed monster.
8/24/2020
Blister has a review of these. The gist was, great, forgiving allrounder.
https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2018-2019-k2-wayback-106
https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2018-2019-k2-wayback-106
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
