EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic Blackeye or Atomic Crimson?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Blackeye or Atomic Crimson?!

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
I'm looking at getting new skis and can't decide which; Blackeyes or Crimsons. I've pretty much decided on the nomads but can't decide which ones. I ski at Perfect North Slopes, your typical non east coast/west coast average groomer slopes (http://perfectnorth.com/),normally needing a skinner width ski. However i am planning on taking a couple trips to the east coast and west coast, thus needing a wider ski.

The thing i can't decide is the width. The blackeye is 79 underfoot and the Crimson is 88.
 
Ti or standard?

Overall, What do you think?

Any other suggestions will do to, thanks.
post #2 of 11

The new Blackeye is 82mm under foot, and should more than satisfy your needs at your home hill, and both east and west. It wasn't too long ago that 82mm was considered a fat ski. If you are out west and there is deep powder, rent something wider as conditions warrant. There is non-Ti option anymore.

post #3 of 11

The reviews seem to all agree that the new wider Blackeye with Ti is a significantly better ski than the old Blackeye with or without. That adaptive camber thing. After looking at your home resort link, would strongly agree that the Crimson would be overkill. Too wide and too beefy for there. Something in the 78-82 range should take care of all your needs. 

post #4 of 11

Picked up the new Atomic Blackeye Ti (82mm underfoot) a few weeks ago after demoing it and I've absolutely fallen in love with it.  The Ti makes for a great edge hold even on eastern hardpack, but it isn't so stiff that it becomes unmanageable.  The small amount of rocker isn't noticeable on the groomers, but once you start getting into chop and crud you notice that the ski is still quite stable.  It also feels quicker edge to edge than the 82mm width would have you think.  My stats: Approx level 7 skiier, 210 lbs, 5'10", east coast.  Let me know if you have any questions.

post #5 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indus View Post

Picked up the new Atomic Blackeye Ti (82mm underfoot) a few weeks ago after demoing it and I've absolutely fallen in love with it.  The Ti makes for a great edge hold even on eastern hardpack, but it isn't so stiff that it becomes unmanageable.  The small amount of rocker isn't noticeable on the groomers, but once you start getting into chop and crud you notice that the ski is still quite stable.  It also feels quicker edge to edge than the 82mm width would have you think.  My stats: Approx level 7 skiier, 210 lbs, 5'10", east coast.  Let me know if you have any questions.



 thanks this realy helped, leaning me tward the Blackeye Ti. however a couple questions. I'm 5'7" about 200lbs and currently skiing on Atomic GS at 168. I heard that the nomads in general ski shorter than there legnth becuase of them being so easy to turn, is that true? Would you go with the 169 or 160 for me, can't decide becuase im looking at these for a teaching ski /freeride ski.

 

thanks

post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betaracer View Post

The new Blackeye is 82mm under foot, and should more than satisfy your needs at your home hill, and both east and west. It wasn't too long ago that 82mm was considered a fat ski. If you are out west and there is deep powder, rent something wider as conditions warrant. There is non-Ti option anymore.



So would you stick with the blackeyes? what about anyother suggestions?

 

thanks 

post #7 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsoccer View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Indus View Post

Picked up the new Atomic Blackeye Ti (82mm underfoot) a few weeks ago after demoing it and I've absolutely fallen in love with it.  The Ti makes for a great edge hold even on eastern hardpack, but it isn't so stiff that it becomes unmanageable.  The small amount of rocker isn't noticeable on the groomers, but once you start getting into chop and crud you notice that the ski is still quite stable.  It also feels quicker edge to edge than the 82mm width would have you think.  My stats: Approx level 7 skiier, 210 lbs, 5'10", east coast.  Let me know if you have any questions.



 thanks this realy helped, leaning me tward the Blackeye Ti. however a couple questions. I'm 5'7" about 200lbs and currently skiing on Atomic GS at 168. I heard that the nomads in general ski shorter than there legnth becuase of them being so easy to turn, is that true? Would you go with the 169 or 160 for me, can't decide becuase im looking at these for a teaching ski /freeride ski.

 

thanks


 

You're correct, they do ski on the short side.  I am currently on the 167s and am quite happy.  Honestly you'd probably be fine on the 167, the 160 is probably a little on the short side, but to really get a feel I'd recommend you demo the two different lengths if you can.  I was on some 176cm 2003 lines before this, and I have to say these are so much easier to ski, it feels like cheating sometimes because the ski just does whatever you want it to. 

post #8 of 11

The Blackeyes finally got the award it deserves.  The best All-mountain ski of the year.  You know, aside from that, at times, I think we put too much into our quest for a ski that is perfect, especially an all in one quiver.  How often does ONE ski really screw your day up?  If you really think about it; its like buying an car/truck.  Some are quiet in the cabin and some have major road noise.  Some have major lacking in handling and some have awesome breaks.  Some shades of silver are better then others.  Some leather seats are more comfortable then others.  At the end of the day, what do you feel more comfortable driving.  Is it the Lexus with leather seating or is it the Camry, which drives nice, but the dash seems to be falling apart?  Ski's fall apart too, all of them.  Luckily they do not require either only liability or full coverage; although, at times, would be nice to even have that choice.

 

When it comes to skies, being 6'2' 200 vs. 6'3' 215 make a HUGE difference.  I've been reading review from 5'6' to 6'2."  We can ask all the questions we want and we can try to demo every ski out there.  The only best choice is what best suites us that we have demoed, even-though we might miss out on 20 other better choices because we do not have the time or money to demo that many.  So, even thought I've made bad choices in the long-run with skies, I think I have figured out the best formula, which is as follows:

 

Look at reviews for the top 10 best rated all-mountain skies.  Pick thee, say 3, that SEEM to best suite your specs (what you want vs. what everyone tells you what you should want).  Demo them and pick the 1 that feels best of the 3.  Then, test the one (which seems to be the one that everyone talks about that you've never heard of) and see what you think of that one.  Then make a decision.  Buy the ski that works and be happy with it, don't look, or think, back, and enjoy it.  If there is a certain aspect of that ski that does not seem to work for you, then find a way to make it work.  Hell, that's what skiing is all about.  Will ANY ski be a good carver and when you decide to smoke SOMETHIN going down the mountain and hit a pile of crud and eat shit..........Will you expect that ski to tell you to quit smoken and pay attention.  I'll guarentee the Volkl AC50 will not tell you as such, LOL,  You will eat it and that ski will be looking at you with it's poles crossed and call you a dumb ass.  Sierra Jim has a better way of narrating it.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is, giving that everyone's level and physical characteristics are different in every way, who is to say what ski is best fit.  Get out there, try some out and if there is one ski that you get excited about, then buy that one and push it to it's limits.  The only aspect you have to consider is whether or not that ski does not adapt to the limits that you push it too.  Even-though they say that the Legend 8000 will ask you to push it, but can't handle the heat; that does not mean that the Blackeye will say the same.  Follow your heart as much as the heart of your ski.

post #9 of 11

haven't tried the current version, but i have the '08 blackeyes and i absolutely love them.  awesome edge grip, good energy on GS turns, nice and stable at speed, and they power through the crud.  you have to work them to do short radius turns, but overall a great ski for me.  these are 79mm under the foot and i don't have much trouble getting bogged down in crud or slush, so i'm sure the current year's model will work even better with the fatter waist.

post #10 of 11

Crimson Crimson Crimson.. there's a reason it is possibly the best ski Atomic has ever made... I've ridden them now for three years and they respond like Slalom ski in the woods and blast like rails at 60mph...

 

 

post #11 of 11

I wouldn't agonize over this one too much. Both are great skis. I have the Crimson Ti's but only ski groomers when I have to. If you think you might point them through the bumps I would go the narrower option, although on the 88mm's I still rip all but the hard black bumps, where I need to take a more 'deliberate' approach. Few extra mm width might make a small difference in soft up to 6-9". Deeper than that and neither are really going to 'float'. Which color do you like best? As for length I am 5'7" and 158lb and ski 171 - but I am level 7/8 and suspect I push the limits more than you. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic Blackeye or Atomic Crimson?!