Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,254

    2 run review: 192 Atomic Atlas

    Demod a ton of skis this past Sunday (3/15/09) at Alpental and while I liked a lot of what I tried the surprising highlight were these new fatties from Atomic and I felt compelled to offer as much of a review as I could from the two runs I got on them.

    Requisite specs:
    Skis: 192cm, 150-125-132 w/ rockered and tapered tip. Turn radius +/- 28m (cant remember exactly what the rep said but it was definitely 20 something.) Skis were reps personal boards and mounted w/ STH16s on the line for a 316ish bsl implying I was skiing them almost -.5cm w/ my 325bsl foot.

    Me: 61 225lbs, ski fast and aggressively (don't we all?) Current quiver is 186 P100s, 190 Kneissl Tankers, & 194 XXLs.

    Conditions : >14during the day on top of top of >12 the day before on top of (ok you get the picture) .steeps w/ soft, big bumps -> Packed out traverse -> deep pow-> sloppy 2nds & cut up pow.

    1st impression after fondling/flexing: Nice medium/stiff flex w/ softer tips. Lotsa tip taper (back ~15cm maybe) and lotsa rocker but the rise seemed more subtle than megawatts. Decent enough looking and lighter than you would think given their size but inside the dome was I bet these are gonna ski super planky.

    Boy was that last thought wrong. For those of you familiar w/ Alpy I took them on two identical laps: nash->traverse across snakedance-> Elevator (gate had opened about an hour prior). Coming down they pivoted decently through tighter bumps but in the cut up pow along the side of the main run the tip shape/rocker really shined. The combo made for super smooth transitions between fresh and crossing others tracks. Add in the slightly reward mounting and it felt like it would have been all but impossible to go over the bars. Biggest surprise came on the 10ft wide, roller coaster traverse that gets you across Snakedance to Elevator gate. Medium-short radii turns only required a little bit of quick ankle articulation and you were keeping speed in check w/ carved, not skidded turns. Way more nimble and effortless than I was expecting. In the deep and steep pow they kill it. Stable platform with a real tail you can rely on if you get temporarily back seated.

    On paper, they seem most similar to a slightly wider Lhasa or a BD Megawatt. Of the two Ive only tried the Megawatt and that was on a day that was far from soft but imo the Atlas definitely carved better and was quicker edge to edge then the MW. I had penciled in BD's as my powder/rockered ski to buy for the 09/10 season. To be fair I should wait to try the BDs on an equally amazing day but for the now the Atlas looks to be it for a stable and respectably stiff pow ski w/ tip rocker. For those of you out there who've had a chance to ride these, your $0.02 welcomed and appreciated.
    Last edited by SeatownSlackey; 09-09-2010 at 11:42 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,812
    2010 atomics are wood, the old daddies series were foam (and they were sooooo light and floaty)... good to know that the atlas still feel light

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    HELLsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,708
    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    2010 atomics are wood, the old daddies series were foam (and they were sooooo light and floaty)... good to know that the atlas still feel light
    Well... not "light" on the absolute scale, but reasonably light for the size...

    192 Atlas w/ heavy demo-clamps was still a lot lighter than the extra stiffie Comi w/ Dukes... But then again, I'm not certain if there are a lot ski that would actually be heavier...

    As I posted elsewhere, I liked the Atlas. But it was a tad too big for the molehill I was testing it... Should make a really nice ski for something with more vert than 150 ft.
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier
    You should post naked pictures of this godless heathen.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    78 41′ 0″ N, 16 24′ 0″ E
    Posts
    1,508
    A friend of mine tried them on a recent demo day, said they were quite similar to my Shoots, but softer and easier to ski. Hes about 70kgs, said he would probably prefer them over the Shoots for the reasons mentioned.

    Edit - and lighter...
    Last edited by SiSt; 03-19-2009 at 03:56 PM.
    simen@downskis.com DOWN SKIS

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    848
    I'm pretty sure I parked right next to you on Sunday. I wondered what those skis were on the ski rack. I love my Thugs, and these look to be a rockered version of them. I don't suppose you have skied the Thugs? I'll have to keep an eye out for a demo day.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,254
    Quote Originally Posted by hemas View Post
    Well... not "light" on the absolute scale, but reasonably light for the size...
    .
    exactly... considerably lighter than similarly sized Solly Rockers for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SorryBro View Post
    I'm pretty sure I parked right next to you on Sunday. I wondered what those skis were on the ski rack. I love my Thugs, and these look to be a rockered version of them. I don't suppose you have skied the Thugs? I'll have to keep an eye out for a demo day.
    prob parked next to the atomic rep. Don't think he would have appreciated it if i took his boards home with me, no matter how much i liked em

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    15
    These sound pretty sweet, but does this new atlas mean the era of the big daddy is over?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    LaLa Land
    Posts
    3,172
    Any midget sizes for us shrimpos? Ala, if you ski 194XXL, I would be the 187.
    He who has the most fun wins!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,254
    from the 2009/2010 skis thread, catalog shows a 182cm too


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,812
    Quote Originally Posted by 8track View Post
    These sound pretty sweet, but does this new atlas mean the era of the big daddy is over?
    yes, and it's a pity becuase the last rockered version was a delight... floaty, easy, LIGHT

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    71
    how does it compare to the 194 XXL? I know their totally different +/- 16mm under foot and the rocker on the atlas, but I have to decide between the two and just cant get down to it! Me: 70kg, 179cm, agressive skier (DIN 11-13), ski 40+ days in Austria but am good in finding powder. quiver: 182 VCT and PE (collecting dust)! so, Im very happy with the vct, but want/need something longer and stiffer! my concerns XXL: great specs but big radius(to big for couloirs and trees?), Atlas: nice radius and moderate rocker but very wide for a everyday freeride ski/eventually comp ski. would be great if you could give me some infos/ideas comparing the two, I know best would be to get the two but no chance of that for the next two years! thanks

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1

    Atomic Atlas 192cm vs. Head Jimi 191cm vs Atomic Thug 193cm

    I was able to ski all three skis on a deep heavy powder day at Crystal Mountain as well as a 6" light powder over "ice hell" at Stevens Pass. The Thug is not going to be made in 2010 but it is a good reference as it is a traditional fat powder ski with plenty of float and dimensions of 140-120-133 and a 40 meter turning radius (that me be generous). I am 195lbs former ski bum and ski instructor and I ski fast.

    The clear winner was the Atomic Atlas. The traditional straight tail and 27 meter turning radius made the difference. It rocketed you out of the turns without any washout common to full rocker skis and it skied like a GS ski on the groomed (well compared to other rocker skis like a GS ski anyway). This ski was designed by Dahren Rahls and it shows. All power and no speed limit. I found myself skiing the heavy powder 30% faster at up to 50 mph according to my GPS watch. In addition, it was easily 25% less effort than the Thugs or the Jimi's because of the ability to take a neutral stance. In the deep heavy snow (sunk to my thigh with my skis off) I could pressure the tip going into a turn and never experienced any tip dive. On the day I skied it with light snow over "ice hell" I never even felt the ice till I switched back to my Thugs. Six inches of snow felt like 12" of snow.

    The Jimi was a fun ski, but had no power/rebound coming out of the turns and did not ski the groomed nearly as well as the Atlas or the Thug.

    I like the Thug and it was the best powder ski I have ever been on till I got on the Atlas. I would now give the Thug a 7, the Jimi and 8 and the Atlas a 10. The other two skiers I was with all echoed the same thoughts and they were 182 lbs and 240lbs.

    I now have three epic equipment moments in my ski career that started 42 years ago.

    1. Skiing a plastic boot in 1970 for the first time
    2. Skiing my first full shaped ski in 1998
    3. Skiing the Atlas in 2009

    This is a big stick and not for the timid, it requires a good pilot with no fear of speed, deep, or steep. If you are looking for your first powder ski to learn to ski powder I would not recommend this ski. Look instead for a full rocker ski with mid camber like the Jimi. I do love the name, but "Jimi was afraid of the Atlas".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,812
    very interesting, thanks, what other big obese sticks have you tried before (for comparison)?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    550
    Not to sound like a broken record, but from the reviews now posted up, I'm with SiSt -- these sound exactly like the BH Shoots. Which is cool.. Minus the extra weight is extra cool (though I'm not regretting the Shoots one bit). Good shit.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Redneck Town
    Posts
    47
    Does anyone know how the Atlas compares to the Atomic Blog (i.e. a skinnier twin tipped atlas?)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    HELLsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnarshredder View Post
    Does anyone know how the Atlas compares to the Atomic Blog (i.e. a skinnier twin tipped atlas?)
    Blog is anythign but a skinnier twinned Atlas. The shape of the skis and how they behave are very far from each other.

    Blog felt like a fat (all mountain) twintip where as the Atlas felt like a big line slayer.
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier
    You should post naked pictures of this godless heathen.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Whistler
    Posts
    1,627
    I just got a pair of the Atlas today, will be trying them out tomorrow. I absolutely love next years Coax as well, they kill it in pow, hardpack, ice, crud, used them at the lake louise comp on ice-hardpack and they slayed. Atomic stepped up big time with next years line up, and took a lot of athlete feedback into consideration. Very excited!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Eurozone
    Posts
    2,682
    Anybody know how big of a difference between the Atlas and Bent Chetler?
    Shape-/rockerwise one could think so but any first hand field experience?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    HELLsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    Anybody know how big of a difference between the Atlas and Bent Chetler?
    Shape-/rockerwise one could think so but any first hand field experience?

    Big...

    Cheitler was playful and fun where as Atlas (192) felt like you really had to push it to get something from it.

    But I'm small and light... Bigger blokes might feel differently, as for them the Atlas might be playful and the Cheitler would be too soft.
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier
    You should post naked pictures of this godless heathen.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    609
    Chetlers are soft with a very round flex. From my experience, they don't ski as stiff as Scott P4, K2 Seth Vicious, or Rossi Brigades. They definitely don't have much "oomph" or power under the boot like a big mountain ski would, in fact, they have a relatively thin core throughout the ski. I'm not a big guy and found them easy to handle. 5'6" wife also had no problems on them, even in choppy spring snow.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Eurozone
    Posts
    2,682
    The downsized shrimpo version of 182 is 10mm less underfoot - that sucks!
    Not sure I'm beefy enough at 5'9'' and 170 lbs for a 192.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Jackson Hole
    Posts
    2,597
    I ordered a pair of the 192s in March. Can't wait to ski 'em!
    Ski Shop



    Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish.

    Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tahoe City
    Posts
    1

    Cool Revolutionary!

    Vonch has it just right. Exelent review. I have 1/2 a season on these wonder sticks and I just can't see how anything could get much better. D Rahlves has designed what I would call the perfect pow ski. I even told him so in the Silverado lift line in Feb. I'm 6'1" and a racing/coaching instruction background and these skis do just about anything. For a big ski(doesn't ski big though-142cm effective edge/192) they poke through tight trees and rip the big turns like no other. If you can deal with the constant "WOW look at those!" in the lift line and the blur of the passing people on the way down then you should stand in line early in the am at your local ski shop and plop down what ever they ask for. First born,OK! left arm,OK! donation, OK!first chair on pow day,FORGET IT!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    HELLsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    The downsized shrimpo version of 182 is 10mm less underfoot - that sucks!
    Not sure I'm beefy enough at 5'9'' and 170 lbs for a 192.
    If you see the Atlas as a big line ski, then you should be fine. But you mainly ski tight terrain, well they are quite a bit of work.
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier
    You should post naked pictures of this godless heathen.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,484
    I have fondled both the 192 and 182 the 192 looks awsome and the 182 looks like it could almost be a daily driver any one skied the 182 yet. I have to say off all of the 09/10 we got in they look like they would be the most fun.
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •