Feedback Needed - Atomic Vantage 107Ti

[phatty]

Difficult to find reviews on this ski. Based on marketing copy, it sounds like it would fit in well with TGR crowd. Looking for any real live experience with them. Preferably the 189.

[phatty]

No one has skied these, huh? Maybe that's the feedback I need.

[meter-man]

Rahlves skis them.

I understand they are the inbounds version of the Backland 107. I have the Backlands. The Backlands are great skis, but are light and stiff, and so require a confident and front-of-boot pilot. I imagine the Vantage skis similarly, but probably not as harsh.

[phatty]

Rahlves skis them.

I understand they are the inbounds version of the Backland 107. I have the Backlands. The Backlands are great skis, but are light and stiff, and so require a confident and front-of-boot pilot. I imagine the Vantage skis similarly, but probably not as harsh.

Thanks. They advertise them as a "playful charger" that is able to handle firm and soft snow equally. Has the same hulled tip as the Bent Chetler. Local shop carries the whole Vantage line except the 107. Said they only sold one pair last year and the guy returned them because he couldn't handle them. When I told them my regular ski is a QLab, he said "oh, you'll be fine. They are similar". That got me more intrigued.

[meter-man]

Thanks. They advertise them as a "playful charger" that is able to handle firm and soft snow equally. Has the same hulled tip as the Bent Chetler. Local shop carries the whole Vantage line except the 107. Said they only sold one pair last year and the guy returned them because he couldn't handle them. When I told them my regular ski is a QLab, he said "oh, you'll be fine. They are similar". That got me more intrigued.

The shape (Backland anyway) is much more chargy than playful, but it still has a deep rocker line, so they plane up well. They do handle both soft and hard very well - much wider range of versatility than a lot of other shapes in this waist width. IMO, the hulled tip makes a micrometer of difference as compared to the overall camber profile, the shape, and the flex. They are NOT playful if you're coming from a softer, center-mounted ski. For a QLab skier, I think they will be a familiar/similar design. Let us know if it's good!

[Panegyricon]

I also haven't heard of that ski, maybe I should do some research.

[ak_powder_monkey]

I'll ski em this week an get back to you.

As far as I can tell they are pretty dope resort skis, on the stiffer side with solid specs at a good price. I just find them to be ugly as fuck (along with all atomic skis) and I prefer a twin tip at the resort.

[meter-man]

Pretty solid reviews

https://www.skiessentials.com/2020-s...antage-107-ti/
https://www.skiessentials.com/2019-s...ge-107-ti-skis

[phatty]

I'll ski em this week an get back to you.

As far as I can tell they are pretty dope resort skis, on the stiffer side with solid specs at a good price. I just find them to be ugly as fuck (along with all atomic skis) and I prefer a twin tip at the resort.

Yeah, they screwed up the aesthetics for sure. Price is pretty solid ($420 at Evo). I generally prefer a flatter tail for my DD ski, so they work for me there. Would love to hear what you think about them.

[kamtron]

My wife just got the 107 C W version (carbon construction, women's model). We went with 175 cm length, which is about her height.
One short tour in weird snow--alternating pow on crust & wet pow railroad tracks snow--and it seems to be working okay. It seems like the skis like to charge but also can be easily made to do short-radius turns. The supposed radius is 17 m, which is small. She's been touring on 168 cm G3 Cakes and resort skis on 175 cm G3 Manhattans.

So far so good

[bennettc14]

Just mounted up a pair of 182s with STH2s to replace my old Mantras. Looking for similar stability but more float. Will report back. Think I paid less than $400 from Level9 back in October for them.

[phatty]

Just mounted up a pair of 182s with STH2s to replace my old Mantras. Looking for similar stability but more float. Will report back. Think I paid less than $400 from Level9 back in October for them.

Sweet! Looking forward to hearing what you think. Pricing is close to $400, so it could be a contender.

[CaliBrit]

Skied them. They were fine. Non memorable really.

[ak_powder_monkey]

Finally got around to skiing them, conditions were soft, with a bit of solidness in the groomers.

I skied the 182s which are about 10 cm shorter than I want in a ski.

First off the swing weight is light as fuck, I ski a JJUL and the swing weight felt less than that even with the demo bindings. This was desirable in making short slashy turns in cut up pow. Although as soon as it got bumpy I just felt like there was nothing there, could be that I was on skis to short...

That's where the good part ends. They definitely have an upper speed limit. The turning radius is really tight, I had trouble getting an edge on steep fairly firm groomers. Had trouble going fast, had trouble going through choppy snow. Had trouble skiing switch (as they are directional).

The only time I felt like they were a good ski was carving a ton of turns on mellow blue runs.

I think they would ski steep pow alright because they have such a low swing weight, and very tight radius, plus lots of taper in the tail. You could easily make a lot of turns and slash/slarve.

Compared to my daily driver, last years CT3.0 they were pretty atrocious. Easily one of my least favorite skis I've ever ridden.

Who is this ski for?
Advanced beginners who want a fat ski to make a lot of effortless turns with.
Skiers who want to generally go slow, but also want the ability to go slow in powder.

Who this ski is not for?
Anyone who wants to ski fast and make fewer turns.

[ak_powder_monkey]

Finally got around to skiing them, conditions were soft, with a bit of solidness in the groomers.

I skied the 182s which are about 10 cm shorter than I want in a ski.

First off the swing weight is light as fuck, I ski a JJUL and the swing weight felt less than that even with the demo bindings. This was desirable in making short slashy turns in cut up pow. Although as soon as it got bumpy I just felt like there was nothing there, could be that I was on skis to short...

That's where the good part ends. They definitely have an upper speed limit. The turning radius is really tight, I had trouble getting an edge on steep fairly firm groomers. Had trouble going fast, had trouble going through choppy snow. Had trouble skiing switch (as they are directional).

The only time I felt like they were a good ski was carving a ton of turns on mellow blue runs.

I think they would ski steep pow alright because they have such a low swing weight, and very tight radius, plus lots of taper in the tail. You could easily make a lot of turns and slash/slarve.

Compared to my daily driver, last years CT3.0 they were pretty atrocious. Easily one of my least favorite skis I've ever ridden.

Who is this ski for?
Advanced beginners who want a fat ski to make a lot of effortless turns with.
Skiers who want to generally go slow, but also want the ability to go slow in powder.

Who this ski is not for?
Anyone who wants to ski fast and make fewer turns.

[dfinn]

You just described my dream ski.

[AKbruin]

I have the 189cm Backland 107s, which, as meter-man mentioned, is the same ski as the Vantage but lighter. After 50-75 days on them in the last year, my assessment is basically everything that AKPM said about the Vantages, but the opposite. For the record, I'm an advanced beginner currently working on my wedge christies. Aymar Navarro, Yu Sasaki, and Craig Murray also appear to be conquering blue squares with the Backland. (I don't know why they use the Backland instead of the Vantage, but they often do.) Daron Ralves, another aspiring intermediate, used the Vantages to win the Red Bull Raid last year.

I've found the Backlands to be plenty fun and playful, competent to great in most forms of snow, and perfectly stable at speed (10 mph as I power wedge my way through troops of five-year olds). I've never found them to be particularly demanding, but YMMV. Anyhow, if the Vantages ski like my Backlands but with more dampness and heft, they'd make a killer all-around ski. They'd probably even be my first choice for a new resort ski, given my satisfaction with the Backlands.

[bennettc14]

Have four days now on the Vantage 107s in the 182 and really like them. Playful but stable, really fun on groomers. Preferred them on edge vs running bases flat. Low swing weight with the construction which is much appreciated. Better in every way than my 190 Rituals. They definitely ski short but I picked them up for an East/West ski and didn’t think I needed 189s. Not really sure how much the HRZN tips help, definitely notice them flutter on the hard stuff.

[skier2265]

I picked up a pair of these recently in 182 but haven’t mounted them yet. I generally prefer light/playful skis, so I think I’ll get along with them well. Anyone else been on the ski? It’s surprising how little reviews there are considering they are Rahlves’ daily driver.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[fool]

Bump. Any more thoughts on Atomic Vantage 107Ti? Looking to buy a new Western daily driver - primarily CO - and considering this, Mantra 102, and Fisher Ranger 107 Ti.

Edit: And now after looking around a bit more, Enforcer 104 Free.

[bennettc14]

Size up.

[LT]

I have a pair of 182's that I've skied 3 partial days. No base or edge damage, almost no nicks in the top sheet. I need to figure out how to get pics up but could very easily text or e-mail pics. They're just a little stiffer and traditional than I like. They're light and I was going to use this as my travel ski but have decided on the Rustler 10 for that. They are mounted for a Shift at 286BSL on the line. Thinking $300 shipped.