atomic thug

[geo039]

Just picked up a pair of the 192s on DE Ebay for $300EUR with FFG 14s...there in the mail. I will give the beta after the weekend.

[Rippinsick]

After having mine for a while I have to say that they are one of the most fun skis I have ever been on. When I first got them I thought they would be entirely to soft for my fat ass. Not true. They are quicker than I thought and absolutely destroys anything that gets in front of it. It took me a litttle getting used to in the pow as it has a little "surfey" feel to it. After only a few turns though it's dialed. I also ski the Big Daddy (06) and Sugar Daddy (first generation). The only similarity it has with the BD is that they will both turn quite easily on the groomed. Overall I find the Thug much easier to ski than my BD's. I often struggle with which ones to take out. However I have to say that I have been on my Thugs more than my BD's. At 192 in length I feel they ski far shorter than my BD's. Prolly because it is a full twin and IMHO much more forgiving. My only complaint is that the top sheets on mine have chipped pretty easily. Other than that I feel that they flat out rip. They have taken everything I have thrown at them with ease. FYI I have them mounted with the 614 FFG (Salomon) at the classic line. My .02!

[geo039]

Nice! Stoked to get on them ASAP. On a side, how are they on the windblown..soft to hard...deposits, etc? Lately the good old Mantras seem to stuggle in that department.

After having mine for a while I have to say that they are one of the most fun skis I have ever been on. When I first got them I thought they would be entirely to soft for my fat ass. Not true. They are quicker than I thought and absolutely destroys anything that gets in front of it. It took me a litttle getting used to in the pow as it has a little "surfey" feel to it. After only a few turns though it's dialed. I also ski the Big Daddy (06) and Sugar Daddy (first generation). The only similarity it has with the BD is that they will both turn quite easily on the groomed. Overall I find the Thug much easier to ski than my BD's. I often struggle with which ones to take out. However I have to say that I have been on my Thugs more than my BD's. At 192 in length I feel they ski far shorter than my BD's. Prolly because it is a full twin and IMHO much more forgiving. My only complaint is that the top sheets on mine have chipped pretty easily. Other than that I feel that they flat out rip. They have taken everything I have thrown at them with ease. FYI I have them mounted with the 614 FFG (Salomon) at the classic line. My .02!

[Blurred]

After having mine for a while I have to say that they are one of the most fun skis I have ever been on. When I first got them I thought they would be entirely to soft for my fat ass. Not true. They are quicker than I thought and absolutely destroys anything that gets in front of it. It took me a litttle getting used to in the pow as it has a little "surfey" feel to it. After only a few turns though it's dialed. I also ski the Big Daddy (06) and Sugar Daddy (first generation). The only similarity it has with the BD is that they will both turn quite easily on the groomed. Overall I find the Thug much easier to ski than my BD's. I often struggle with which ones to take out. However I have to say that I have been on my Thugs more than my BD's. At 192 in length I feel they ski far shorter than my BD's. Prolly because it is a full twin and IMHO much more forgiving. My only complaint is that the top sheets on mine have chipped pretty easily. Other than that I feel that they flat out rip. They have taken everything I have thrown at them with ease. FYI I have them mounted with the 614 FFG (Salomon) at the classic line. My .02!

Thank you for the review! I'm paying attention. I've got a new pair coming to me in the mail. Hopefully in time for this weekend.

[PeachesN'Cream]

blurred did you get your thugs? what do you think of them?

!!sorry dudes but i'm going to launch into a full should i buy this ski debate!!

i'm tempted to give the 192 thug a run as they are on sale for $500 at a local shop. i was sure i was going to pre-order some katanas but now i'm thinking about the thug instead.

i ride seths now and am i big dude — 6'3" 230lbs race background — but seem to like soft skis. i ski in the PNW at alpental (mostly mini golf, tighter tech lines) but head down to crystal (bigger more open skiing) now and then. i like a ski with more turn in it and on the softer side.

past skis have been seth pistols (first and second generation) then ANTs last year (which i thought were pretty burly and hard to work with at alpental, liked them at crystal tho). blew my knee out and then got the new seths on warranty from K2. i actaully really like the seth cause it's not too damanding and thus easy on my knew knee.

anybody care to weigh in? doesn't seem like a lot of people have been on the thug and those who have are very much into them or not into them at all.

what do you guys think? 192 thug now or 190 katana next year?

thanks in advance - flow

[/end ski nerd-O]

[Rippinsick]

Now that the winter has suddenly gone south and we are skiing April slush in March I am still diggin' the Thugs. They have been owning the varied conditions lately. I snicker at the people in the lift line who tell me "you have no business being on a ski like that on a day like today."
Blurred, did you ever get your pair? I talked with you briefly on the East Vail Bus a few weeks ago about em'. Curious to hear your thoughts.

[poof100]

I have no clue how the Thugs ski but I'll throw my 2cents in and my vote for another one of Atomic's skis, the Pimp:

The Pimp is a true twin tip with the same dimensions as the Sugar Daddy. I'm skiing on the 193s and they are slightly bigger at 127-99-118 in this length. The Radius also goes up to 30m on the 193s.

I've skied these on both east coast hard pack and in Austria with all kinds of conditions. They are very stiff, hold an edge very well on hard pack and just crush about any kind of crud, and float in powder. I'd recommend them if you are looking for an alternative to the BDs or the Thugs. Freeskier said that the Pimps were for the whole mtn while the Thugs were mainly for deep powder.

JP

[rugbydave]

GoNads rides the 181s and really wishes she had the longer ones... So unless you're a munchkin, go for the long ones. But damn, are they ever soft...

[mr_gyptian]

Just ordered mine yeterday. I am looking forward to seeing how they ski. Pretty excited to see Atomic making a wood core/vertical sidewall ski again. I agree that it seems that they have a fair amount of sidecut for such a big ski. I beleive Vicious said that they were a pretty fun ski. I will be curious to see how they ski in comparison to my Big Daddies.

a good friend of mine's wife skied them during that utah storm cycle two weeks ago. she loved them.

for whatever reason, though, I've heard that they are in fact turnier than the Big Daddy, but in a bad way. because of their flex they don't have very traditional turn characteristics. but I guess that would vary skier to skier.

My issue with them is that it looks like Atomic robbed a K2 design.

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

Though I may buy another pair of seth's next year and relegate my current pair to rock skis, I have to say the Thugs look like a close contender. After fondling a pair in the shop today, the flex is similar to the pistols, dimensions are similar to maden's, and the construction looks to be about the same. As bad of luck as I've had in the past with Atomics, it looks like they may finally be on the way to making a burly ski. BD's are alright and all...

(Say what you will about BD's, but sandwich vs. cap = sandwich always wins.)

Let's just hope they burl'ed up the base material a little bit. On one hand, I trust the pistols and they are probably the #1 all mountain "go-to" ski I've ever owned. But on the other hand, the thugs are a *little* bit bigger... I digress. Like all things it's probably just gonna come down to price.


edit:
('Cept for that triaxial braided shit. I never quite got that part,) The more I think about it - yeah, I'd say they pretty much ripped off K2. Hopefully they improved the topsheet toughness along the way though. Hey, if rappers can get away with it......

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

yes I'm drunk.

[addict]

Good looking construction, too much taper (sidecut). If I had to guess I'd say it'll ski short and turny...

Would it really be that turny? I mean with a 43m radius (more than a 190 explosive) just how turny would it be? Everyone looks and thinks: "ginormous sidecut". But with a 120mm waist, as a percentage it's not that big a sidecut. I think it'd be a dope ski and would love to try it. Sure it's soft in the tail, but seems to have torsional strength which'd give it stability.

By no means can I imagine it would be as turny and unstable at real speed as Mantra. Those things are dogs.

[PeachesN'Cream]

BSS

we are coming from the same ski (the seth). i'm thinking about going to the thug or the katana next year.

i agree that the thug has a similar flex to the seth but the sidecut dimensions are really different. the seth is 130-98-118 where the thug is 140-120-133. so math skills tell me the thug is 10-22-15 bigger overall. that waist dimension should make the ski turn pretty different than the seth. since it's such a wide ski with that sized radius i get to wondering how it will work in harder conditions or on groomed, get back to the lift, runs. i still like carving turns and prefer to be able to make them more GS than SG/DH like. wonder what the thug will want to make? will it remain stable at speed.

the katana on the other hand is 140-111-130 or 10-13-12 wider than the seth. much more even size gains all around, obviously it's gonna make those groomed turns more on the GS side of things. plus it's overall stiffer than the seth or thug so...

i'm really stoned right now...

my above comments are probably, totally obvious but seemed like really relevant thoughts at the time... i wonder if we have any chips?

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

i get to wondering how it will work in harder conditions or on groomed, get back to the lift, runs. i still like carving turns and prefer to be able to make them more GS than SG/DH like.

Yeah.

But you're ruining it for me. I try really hard to tell myself not to think about skiing that kind of stuff.


Pass it to the left, please.

[Blurred]

OK, so I made a few runs on these today at Loveland in some heavy pow/crud.

Here are my thoughts.

Some people say these skis are soft, others say they're not. The truth is both.
Stiff underfoot, and soft in the tip.
With the soft tip, there was absolutely NO tip dive. It was strange to be on a ski that felt stable, while seeing the tip flapping around, but the soft part of the ski isn't really effective on the running length. When the tips on my ANTS start flapping like that, shit gets squirrly and non confidence inspiring. Not these.
These killed the crud, and with that soft tip, you can really feel the plowing effect of the snow loading up the tip. Not a big deal, just something I haven't experienced much with other skis.
Skiing these in untouched, like Rippinsick said, they feel really surfy. I loved that. The 120 underfoot width skied perfect for me in pow.
Usually the drawbacks of a traditional ski like this is the hookiness you have to deal with in heavier snow. The hookiness on these is quite minimal, and very manageable. Definitely worth the sidecut for harder snow.
The sidecut on these is minimal. 40M turn radius.... When you lay them on edge, it takes a LONG time to complete a turn. These skis skid their turns easily if need be.
The biggest thing I found about these skis is the feeling of holding an edge in a straightline. The edge initiates, but doesn't really turn. It's pretty cool.

In closing, the is the best traditional pow ski I've ever been on. It skis a lot like a lotus/spatula type ski, with minimal hookiness. The sidecut makes these SO much more manageable, and you can still carve/slarve on them.

If you're looking at reverse camber/rockered skis, but don't like the whole idea of not having an edge you can lay them on to relax, this is your ski.
These boards are super fun and forgiving.

[geo039]

This is actually the first "fat" ski that I have ever owned...I have been skiing my Axunns and Mantras all season, so something this thick and with a 40M R was a whole new world. I got on them for the first time on Friday in Eberg. 100+CM over the past 3 days made for a good testing ground.

Impressions:
In hand:
A pretty light setup for the size (192 with Atomic/Salo 614). About the same weight as my Axunns with ZRs on them.
On feet: I have them mounted -1 from the Classic line. Due to the full twin it skis and feels short. This felt much shorter than my Mojo 90 193s. Skis short too, but don't let that fool you.
Untouched pow: SICK. Floaty, stable (I ran these full bore on a 35 degree pitch for 300M) and I found them $$$. As Blurred said, soft tip keeps tip dive (I found none) to a very min.
Chop: Handled with ease. The stiff underfoot gives you the feeling of a stiff race board even if the tips are flexing freely.
Runouts/trees/groomer: I was VERY surpised at how this ski handles. I hear everyone bitching about how their fatties are a pain in the ass except in pow. Don't get me wrong, this ski would kick my ass as an everyday non-pow condition ski but I found it manageable and actually fun to ski the whole day even in really tight crap. I think it is because of the stiff underfoot. It lets you really feel stable and throw the ski around.
Overall: I would reccomend this ski to anyone. Light, stable, floaty, fun.
Here is my Thug stoke:

[GreenRun]

Get this…

Yesterday I won a raffle prize of any pair of Atomic skis I want for next year. At first I was thinking the Thugs but now I’m starting to lean towards the BDs.

My current quiver consists of Spats (pow days), 190 Gotamas (every day ski), Sugar Daddy’s w/Fritschis (back country). Typically I’m skiing 100+ days at Squaw (think thicker snow pack) every year and prefer high speed mocking turns w/your typical mix of air and straight lines that Squaw has to offer. I’m about 170lbs and have a racing background….

Give this, what do you think, BDs or Thugs? And should I go w/the 192s? I feel that my Gotamas are a good length but are a pain in the ass in bumps or more technical tight lines…

[mr_gyptian]

BD's and you won't use the spat again.

[teosickrider]

I was just wonderin...you seen next year's BD's graphics....well they suck...but that's just if you care bout that..

[mr_gyptian]

I was just wonderin...you seen next year's BD's graphics....well they suck...but that's just if you care bout that..

it's hard to follow up perfection.

[BushwackerinPA]

OK, so I made a few runs on these today at Loveland in some heavy pow/crud.

Here are my thoughts.

Some people say these skis are soft, others say they're not. The truth is both.
Stiff underfoot, and soft in the tip.
With the soft tip, there was absolutely NO tip dive. It was strange to be on a ski that felt stable, while seeing the tip flapping around, but the soft part of the ski isn't really effective on the running length. When the tips on my ANTS start flapping like that, shit gets squirrly and non confidence inspiring. Not these.
These killed the crud, and with that soft tip, you can really feel the plowing effect of the snow loading up the tip. Not a big deal, just something I haven't experienced much with other skis.
Skiing these in untouched, like Rippinsick said, they feel really surfy. I loved that. The 120 underfoot width skied perfect for me in pow.
Usually the drawbacks of a traditional ski like this is the hookiness you have to deal with in heavier snow. The hookiness on these is quite minimal, and very manageable. Definitely worth the sidecut for harder snow.
The sidecut on these is minimal. 40M turn radius.... When you lay them on edge, it takes a LONG time to complete a turn. These skis skid their turns easily if need be.
The biggest thing I found about these skis is the feeling of holding an edge in a straightline. The edge initiates, but doesn't really turn. It's pretty cool.

In closing, the is the best traditional pow ski I've ever been on. It skis a lot like a lotus/spatula type ski, with minimal hookiness. The sidecut makes these SO much more manageable, and you can still carve/slarve on them.

If you're looking at reverse camber/rockered skis, but don't like the whole idea of not having an edge you can lay them on to relax, this is your ski.
These boards are super fun and forgiving.

agreed with everything here except I felt the skis with a little input made shorter turns fine.

Too everyone saying they cant ski the 192 just set up its very easy to ski on. Much easier to ski on than say a 183 Sugar Daddy.

[trainnvain]

agreed with everything here except I felt the skis with a little input made shorter turns fine.

Too everyone saying they cant ski the 192 just set up its very easy to ski on. Much easier to ski on than say a 183 Sugar Daddy.

Very true, these things just swivel. I skied them in the woods out here and they felt effortless (except for the day Bill was dragging me around Stowe, but that wasn't the skis, that was my ass sucking that day).

[Dromond]

Hmmm. Looking at the dimensions versus the tried and true Powder Plus it's +5mm/+5mm/+8mm. So it's got a tiny bit more tail, a more forgiving tip. Sounds like not a bad combination! Although I wonder how the extra tail affects things. Anyone have a specific number on the weight?

[BushwackerinPA]

dromand no clue on weight but the demos I skied with Neoxs(heavy binding) felt pretty light. The swing weight was really light for something this big.

Can anyone compare this to the 190 Sumo?

[Blurred]

agreed with everything here except I felt the skis with a little input made shorter turns fine.

Skidding turns, and carving turns are two different things. You can skid turns on them fast and easy if need be.