or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic 11.20 vs. K2 Axis X Pro vs. ???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic 11.20 vs. K2 Axis X Pro vs. ???

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
190 lb, 6'1", expert/ex-racer, 23 yrs, east coast.

I'm in the market for an all mountain freeskiing ski - a wide GS ski, like the 11.20, K2 Axis X Pro, etc. I skied the Stockli Stormriders over Christmas in a 184 cm, and found them to be too soft, damp, no rebound and not nearly enough ski at speed. They didn't have a 194 cm.

I need something to ski the average day in VT/NH, make quick turns on icy steeps, ski a few bumps, but mostly making FAST GS turns on sluffed up packed powder/variable snow. These will not see the trees or real powder days, I have a pair of old school powder skis for that.

I'm going to try to demo the following over the next couple weekends:

K2 Axis X Pro: 188 cm
Atomic 11.20: 180 cm and 190 cm
Salomon X-Scream Series: 195 cm

The two front runners are the K2 and the 190 atomic. Any comments on how they compare? I greatly prefer the K2's price and ability to use standard bindings. Anything I should try to add to this list?

post #2 of 43
Hey Kevin, welcome to the Forum.

If you found the Stormrider "too soft," you aren't going to find the listed skis stiffer. The current '02 Stormrider -- with a reddish orange topskin -- is a very stiff ski. I skied them on December 15 and found them the most demanding mid-fat I've ever skied.

If you really want something stiffer, you should look into some of the true fats for big mountain psychotic skiing -- Dynastar Intuitiv Big, Rossi Bandit XXX, Volkl G4, Head Monster Cross. Maybe even the Stockli Asteroid, but it will have the overdamp feel of the Stormrider.

That's what I think, anyway! [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #3 of 43
I'd rule out the X-Scream Series - it's not in the same ball park as the others.

Maybe look at some of the Fischers - not sure of the US models, but their edges over the last few seasons have been excellent, and the booster plate systems have kept them lively & fast.

My 2 euros

post #4 of 43
Hi Kevin,

Just a few suggestions for stiff expert GS type ski's ......

Saloman Crossmax 10 Pilot
Nordica N9.1
Volkl P50
Dynastar Autodrive Speed Cross
Atomic 10.22ti

Some of the above maybe too stiff for the bumps or too much of a race ski to deal with variable conditions, but if you found the Stormriders soft then perhaps not.

post #5 of 43
Can't really compare with the others, but you might want to think about Atomic 9.20 or 10.22 Beta Races. I've got the 9.20's (only have 2 days on them though) and based on what you're looking for they might be a good fit. What I've experienced so far is that these skis are very quick edge to edge, can handle a wide range of turn sizes/shapes, are pretty good in the bumps (mine are 180 cm and I'm comparing them to 203cm Rossi 4SK's...so consider that with a grain of salt), and are extremely fast. I have not found the speed limit yet, they haul and when you want to turn you just roll them onto the edge, but hang on...they're not forgiving you need to stay on top of them or you'll wind up in the back seat. Great on steep hardpack in fall-line turns too.
post #6 of 43
Volkl G3 (or whatever the G31 Vertigo is now)
I think the G4 is a little too fat for the east.
post #7 of 43
If you want stiff try to get your hands on the original Stormrider.
post #8 of 43
Thread Starter 
Allow me to clarify -

1. I found the 184 cm, 3rd gen stormrider, soft, because it IS soft. Much softer than a 180 cm 11.20 that I flexed in the store. The 184 cm SR would work for an "expert" that weighed in the 125-150 lb range. Really. They had a 192 cm 1st gen stormrider in the shop that I flexed, which I thought was actually fairly soft for such a high performance ski. When I think "really stiff", I think 205 cm Volkl p10 RS super+deflex...when I weighed 165 lb...but by no means do I want to ski that sort of thing anymore.

2. I want a ski with a ~70mm width, why? Well, you just can't make a 63mm waist GS carve a DEEP arc on variable/groomed snow without booting out. I already have a pair of 198 '98 race stock Volkl P30 RC racings with a deflex on them. I boot out on anything but white ice.

3. The x-scream is on the list because of the long 195 cm length, and no metal construction (I think). It might be nice. I know I thought it was a little soft by my standards last time I flexed it in the store.

A ski that I spent a few days on that I though was nice - the K2 X-15 in a 193 cm, that was when I still weighed 165 lbs. I little long in moguls, but passable. Any comparisons to that?


post #9 of 43

It sounds like you're caught up in the equipment assessment mindset of 10-15 years ago. You're looking for long and stiff. Nobody is looking for that nowadays, so not many companies make it.

At the risk of insulting you (and if I do, I apologize in advance), you should be aware that in the past 5 years we have seen skis get VERY soft longitudinally while keeping excellent torsional stiffness. If you went into a shop, grabbed a Stormrider by the shovel, rested the tail on the carpet, and proceeded to do the flex/rebound test by pushing at the ski's midsole mark, you would indeed find the Stormrider soft. But that isn't how it skis if you are on the proper size...

...which brings me to my next point. If you weigh nearly 200 and I barely nudge 160, and we both skied the 184 Stormrider, that would account for you thinking it was very soft and me thinking it was very stiff. 30-40 lbs at the same height translates to much more leverage on the ski -- and especially if you are still skiing as though you're on a 223 Red Sled, and have to really hammer at the shovels.

Lots of folks who are excellent skiers but not gear-tech hounds cannot understand why they can't find their beloved 204s or at least 198s. They cannot imagine that a 188 or even a 181 could support them at speed. Are you one of those folks?

You talked about getting a mid-fat. But from your clarifying 2d post, it seems pretty clear that what you really want is a true GS race carver. That changes things quite a bit. I don'te even mess with racing skis, as they're too demanding and for me are fun for only about 2 hrs a day. That's too narrow a window.

I'd suggest going to Peter Keelty's website and reading his reviews. Also, Footloose Sports has pretty decent reviews on its site.

Lastly, the Salomon X-Scream Series does have metal -- a sheet made of a Titanium/Aluminum alloy known (quite cleverly) as Titanal.

(edited to repair URL link)

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 03, 2002 02:53 PM: Message edited 1 time, by gonzostrike ]</font>
post #10 of 43
The Stormriders are fairly soft buy VERY stiff longitudally! Try them on the hill but go with the 194's.

I also demoed the mod-x pro (axis-x pro) in a 188 and a 193. They were like 2 different skis. The 193 was awsome, the 188 was just ok...

You might also try a 10-ex in a 198, they seem to be available for good prices.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 03, 2002 03:35 PM: Message edited 1 time, by NWJohngalt ]</font>
post #11 of 43
Demo the 11.20 in the 190 length. If that feels short and soft, try the 10.22 in any size around 190. If that feels short and soft, petition the Olympic Committee to let you race Daron Rahlves in SLC.

Others to try...191 G3, 195 Axis X Pro, 2002 Intuitiv Powertrac 71 (Dynastar...a tweaked Powertrac with Autodrive...they looked sweet at the shop in WA!)
post #12 of 43
I would shy away from a midfat ski for the conditions you described and go with a versital GS style carving ski. Midfats don't have the quick edge-to-edge response as a carving ski nor do they do as well in icy conditions. I would really think about the following three skis:

Rossignol T-Power Viper-X PPS
Atomic Beta Race 9.20
Dynastar Speed Carve 63

I have skied the first two in the list and though both were a blast (I own the Viper X). I have heard great reviews from friends on the Dynastar, also.
post #13 of 43
I did not try the K2's in ice but I have skied the Stormriders in ice. They held like skiing on two rails!
post #14 of 43
Thread Starter 
This is getting a little frustrating folks…..

I seems like I have a hard time getting taken seriously this year by people I don't know, both here and in ski shops. If you say you're an expert, nobody believes you, and if you want a longer stiffer ski, everybody brands you as "old school" and behind the times.

As I said above, I'm 23. I raced in high school, at Bosquet in western MA, went to States individually my senior year, got 20th in GS. I never did interclub, tri-state, etc. I have always been an avid freeskiier, doing just about anything including big jumping. Used to ski 75-100 days/yr, in HS, managed 20-30 d/yr in college. I now ski 3-4 times a week, nightskiing at Wachucett in MA, weekend in NH.

I ski like a true aggressive expert….very fast, with good "adaptable race carving technique". If a trail slightly allows it, I will make 45-50 mph gs turns all the way down. If not, its because of excessive moguls, or its really, really steep, which I have no problem using the proper technique on. I ski with a high angulation - when I say a ski is too soft I mean it……I am over skiing the ski. When I lay it over hard at high speed, the ski flexes too much for the side cut and the turn shape and you cease to carve……..no good. The solution is either ski slower, get a ski with less sidecut (like the 1080's, way soft, but not too much sidecut), or make it stiffer. Speed wise, I want something that can handle a ~60 mph top speed.

***please don't suggest getting another GS ski***
***they allow boot out in anything but white ice***

I worked in a shop in HS. I am a bit of a luddite, however, I have been very up on changes in skis over the past 5 years. I own a pair of 2nd gen Elan SCX's (red monoblock) in a 163, don't really ski them much anymore. I skied some of the first slightly sidecut skis and GS race skis when they came out (K2 Four, Fisher Revolution race), in fact, my p10 rs supers had a decent sidecut for their day, although they were too stiff and long for me. I've skied modern skis all through the years, through I have freeskied primarily on an Elan r5c 203 slalom ski, SOFT (!!!) for a 203, and slightly damp, but plenty supportive at speed in most cases, carves a nice super-G sized turn. They will be retired this year. I also own, ski and carve:

P30 RC Racing 198cm (womens Race Stock) +deflex (Will race Nastar on this)
(actually softer with less sidecut than the commercial version, rect. sidewall)
P40 SL 170cm (new this year, for carving ice at Wachusett)
Salomon 1080's 177 cm (tricks)
Rossi Axiom DP 110, 183 cm (tree/powder ski)
Salomon 3s prolink 197 cm/pr7 (nice old school SL with decent sidecut, just for fun, moguls)
Two pairs of P10's that are just too beefy (don't really ski them anymore, can't sell)

I was also thinking about picking up a pair of used DH or SG skis, and a dedicated mogul ski. That should round out the quiver nicely.

I skied Tecnica's for 7 years (AVS, and Icon) with silicone then foam liners. Now I have Flexons with a WC tongue and I am thinking about going to a full silicone or foam liner in those.

So anyway, I skied the 11.20 (180 cm) last night, along with an Elan MX4 Super in a 178 cm (longest they had, just wanted the flavor). Easily overskied the Elan, thought it was an okay feel. The Atomic rocked. This was at Wachucett, and I couldn't get going fast enough to overski it (straight run down a decent pitch followed by carves, ~45-50 mph) and I think it could handle more. Packed poweder+ice/sluff - typical conditions. Feels powerful like a race ski. Carves well through sluff and undulations at speed. Not as much rover effect as the SR, but 10 times the power and energry. I could be very happy on this, but I would like to try it at on steeper trails and higher speeds - I will try the 190 this weekend in NH. The shop also was pushing the G3, the 184 cm they have is fairly stiff so I'll have to try that too, but would look hard at a longer length

Nobody is going to fool me - a stiffer ski skis like a stiffer ski - it's harder to "over ski" it.

post #15 of 43
try the axis-x pro in a 193
post #16 of 43
Red Sled,

I know what you mean about wanting a solid ski and prefering a longer length. I am glad to hear that you like the 11.20. I skied it in a 190 and loved it as well. I hear that a 175-pounder like myself should go shorter and perhaps I should for that ski, but the 190 didn't feel bad or wrong, just super stable at speed. You might like the G3, alhough a G31 from last year might have been more fun for a guy coming from a race background. It had a bit less sidecut than the new one, with more taper towards the tail, so skiing a mach on the groomers felt super smooth. I must admit that I sold my 193 G30's this year and hae not regretted it. My 188 Axis X Pro's have been more than enough ski. Anyhow, let us know what you end up with! Happy demo-ing!!
post #17 of 43
Thread Starter 
So I demoed some more skis this weekend, Saturday at Cannon in NH.

First, Atomic 11.20’s in a 190 cm. When I got to the shop (Village Ski in Lincoln), they needed to put a quick tune on the skis. Right in front of me they belt sanded them to do the base edge (!!!!), I almost wet my pants. After asking them how often they did this (about every week or so), I lectured them about how bad this is. I took the skis out, and about 50 feet down the hill I could feel they had way too much base bevel, it felt like a much different ski. From what I could tell, the 190 for me would be too much of a good thing, just too much weight to haul around all day in bumps or steeps on junk snow, although I could carve GS turns and vary turn shape with no problem on the groomed. When I got back to the car, I used my diamond stone as a true bar to check the bevel, it looked to be about 5 degrees. (!!!!!)

I went back to the shop and showed them the skis and had them put a stone grind on the K2’s was going to take out (0 degree base bevel with a slight recess), Axis X Pro in a 188 cm, and while they were doing this I went down the street to “The Great American Ski Renting Company” and picked up a pair of (properly tuned) X-Scream Series in 195 cm.

Got back up to the hill:

X-Screams: 195 cm - Hot ski. Almost telepathic responsiveness. Moderate stiffness, dampness, snappy rebound. The modest sidecut for the length (106-68-96), somewhat narrow tail and mild flex make it an easy ski to vary turn shapes on. I could get it going pretty fast and still make a solid big gs carve, I didn’t over ski it, but I could see where it’s speed limits are. I could make a purely carved short GS turn by working the ski with a high angulation. What makes them a fast ski is the length and control. I never felt locked into a turn, I could vary the radius mid turn with ease, and throw them sideways out of a carve to speed check. I got bounced around more than on the atomics, not as much dampness and power of course too, but the atomic is almost a GS race ski. They are lighter underfoot than both the 180 and 190 atomics, and a swing weight right in between. It was okay in the fresh snowmaking muck. The ski this year is WOOD CORE, with a thin Ti cap. Very fun for me overall, and somewhat similar to my Elan r5c’s……….except with just enough width and sidecut. They could actually make this ski in a ~203 cm and a 200 lb guy with stiffer boots could ski it with no problem, I could have skied the 195 cm’s with my tecnicas when I weighed 165 lb.

K2 Axis X Pro: Too much ski for me, very stiff in the shovel, they would only pivot a short turn, I could only carve gs sized turns. The lack of base bevel might have had a little to do with this, but I think it really just brings out the true nature of the ski. Feels dead as a doornail. Very good in the muck. Not to much fun for me. I talked to a guy who was 250 lb and skied the 188. Might try a 181, or the axis x 188.

So, Lesson learned here? Check the tune on your demos!!!!!!!!!!

Now also on the list –

Volkl G3 184 cm
Salomon Crossmax 10 185 cm (just for feel, more interested in the 192)
K2 Axis X 188 cm

X-screams are in the lead, especially on price and fun factor.


post #18 of 43
Hey Kevin,

Sorry if you were frustrated by what we have commented so far. I worked in a ski shop for 7 years, and I had MORE than my fill of people who claimed "expert" status and "ex-racer" status while being little more than a mildly advanced intermediate skier who "survived" the more difficult runs. So, I'm naturally wary of self-proclaimed "experts." Besides, we guys tend to over-estimate our skill just as readily as women tend to under-estimate theirs.

Your impressions of the various mid-fats you've skied are pretty consisitent with what I'd imagine. I'm still puzzled by your comment that the '02 Stormrider is a "soft" ski, especially compared to the K2 Axis X Pro, which you said was too stiff. My experience is to the contrary.

Even ex-racers and aggressive "experts" can use the wrong technique. My coach is a very experienced former US Ski Team coach, and he tells me that it's not at all uncommon for folks to still use pencil ski technique on the new skis, EVEN folks with racing experience. So, I was trying to figure out whether your comments on a ski being "too soft" were a result of too much forward pressure and not enough balanced stance and underfoot pressure. Many of the current skis will respond to pencil technique. However, the "speed limits" for skis when using pencil technique are MUCH slower.

I think you're going to like the Axis X. I would also try the Bandit XX and Bandit X.

Can you demo some Dynastars? Try the Intuitiv 74 if you can. Also, what about Head skis? The Monster Cross and Super Cross Ti would be worth a spin.

Great reviews on those you just demo'd. Thanks.
post #19 of 43
Thread Starter 
How dare you imply that I may be a pencil skier! :

Would this be modern technique?

I think I come fairly close to that, though haven't really focused that much on technique lately. I tend to like to work the ski a little front to back if it is responsive to that, sort of mid 90's semi-sidecut technique, but with a pure carve. I also tend to keep a higher percentage of weight on my downhill ski, like ~80%+. I tend to be a little more upright during the unweighting phase. Try holding a high angle carve like those through a pile of snow and you will see my boot out problem. Keep in mind that what works on the world cup isn't exactly what might work when free skiing, just somewhat similar.

The stormrider I skied is still a very soft ski - the 3rd gen, orange, in a 184 cm.

When you compare skis, you have to consider length.....

post #20 of 43
you are way too defensive, Kevin.

how do you expect me to know how you ski, relying only upon your assertions of racing background?

since you obviously are the resident Ski God and are vastly superior to the rest of us, I am staying out of this discussion from here forward. Let me know when your head can fit through the doorway, eh?
post #21 of 43
Thread Starter 
I think you're just a little ticked off I said the stormrider is a soft ski. Hey, I'm ticked off the stormrider is a soft ski after hearing everyone talk about it like it's really burly.

If I wanted to lie about my skills and technique, what would I have to gain?

If you recall, all I said in my first post is that I was an "Expert/Ex-Racer". If that had been taken at face value and not challenged (repeatedly), I would not have had to defend myself by elaborating on my background.

I've added alot of content to this thread by posting reviews.

I am usually content to let my skiing speak for itself.....

post #22 of 43

I'm a bad-ass! No you're a bad-ass! Sheez! We all love to ski...why fight about it? :
post #23 of 43

I'll preface this with the admission that I'm nowhere near as good a skier as you are.


I regularly ski with someone who's probably pretty close to you in ability. He skied downhill/sg/gs on the US Team through most of the '80s. He does some race coaching now and he most definitely skis like the photos you posted.

He pretty much smokes just about everyone on the hill at a mountain (Jackson Hole) that's known for some fairly good skiers. He does most of his skiing on a pair (off-the-rack)of 188cm K2 Axis X - not even the Pro. And he normally skis in a pair of Scarpa Lazer randonnee boots that usually aren't even buckled. (Every now and then he'll wear his alpine boots if the conditions are particularly heinous, but he still never buckles them.)

My only point? Every ski you've mentioned so far works exceedingly well on the feet of a bunch of d**n good skiers. I can't quite figure out why they don't work so well for you.


ps - I've also never seen him boot-out, and he leaves some pretty mean trenches around the mountain.
post #24 of 43
Thread Starter 
When did I ever say I was the greatest skier in the universe, and that every ski is too soft?

I certainly qualify as an "expert" both in aggressiveness and technique......woooop teeee dooooo! That sure doesn't make me as good as an ex USST member. I dabbled in racing in HS, and didn't even try out for my college's team. Can I still be an expert? Can I still have modern technique?

I can tell when a is too stiff or soft for me, etc. All I want is a ski that works for my skiing.....which happens to be fast sometimes?

Where do you get that I didn't like any of the skis I tried? I'm trying to decide between a 180 Atomic 11.20 or a 195 X-Scream, leaning toward the X-scream.

Reviews on Volkl G3 184 and Salomon Crossmax 10 185 to come.


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 09, 2002 11:12 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Red Sled ]</font>
post #25 of 43

I am 178lbs, 5ft 10" strong all terrain skier (Lv III instructor) with lots of little lazy bits in my skiing. As soon as I can get a decent deal I will be purchasing the Atomic 11.20 in 180 length. The best ski for me and my all terrian style that I have tested although the Bandit X comes close.

Currently I am on Salomon Super Axed 10 in 190cm. Buy the ski and lenght for you and ignore the hype and the hype believing Ski Shop workers. The only rider is that the skis are indeed torsionally stiffer so will hold an edge well in shorter lenghts.

post #26 of 43

It sounds like you know what you're looking for. As others have stated the current Stormrider is by far the softest longitudinally of the three versions. Still stiff torsionally.

They have a very round flex pattern unlike some of your other choices with tail stiff patterns. Makes for an interesting ride. I had to focus on staying very centered to get the most out of them. I have a friend about your size and ability who didn't care for the 184 but loved the 194. Try and give them another chance in the 194.

I know it's not in the catagory of skis you're looking at but did you try the Stockli laser SC in a 188. With your background I think you'd enjoy them. A stiff little ski with super edge hold at speed. I love the Asteroid but the SC is the ski that opened my eyes.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 09, 2002 12:56 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Grizz ]</font>
post #27 of 43
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gonzostrike:
... I'm still puzzled by your comment that the '02 Stormrider is a "soft" ski, especially compared to the K2 Axis X Pro, which you said was too stiff. My experience is to the contrary...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the '02 SR is anything like the original silver and black SR model (maybe '99?), there might be an explanation. Believe it or not, while wating for the season to start, using a machinist's dial indicator and weights, I have measured that the center 2 feet of a 198 cm '99 SR is something like 10% to 20% more flexible than the center 2 feet of a 188 cm p40 Pt (!!!).

OTOH, if you move the supports apart and compare the flex of the two skis over a span in the 170 cm range, the situation reverses as the softer tip and tail flexibility of the p40 come into play.

The reason that the '99 SR feels so stiff when you flex it by hand (ie, in the shop) is that you are testing its overall flex not its center flex.

Just a possibility.

Tom / PM
post #28 of 43
Thanks, Tom. I'm referring to the feel on snow under one's feet. The old "flex it in the shop" test is irrelevant with new ski designs that allow longitudinal flex while keeping torsional stiffness. The two used to be more directly related, but now they're not. This was the very issue I thought that perhaps RedSled misunderstood, but he never let the conversation get that far.
post #29 of 43
Thread Starter 
".....new ski designs that allow longitudinal flex while keeping torsional stiffness."

Now, could you please fill me in on the massive leap in ski technology that brought this about? I'm a mechanical engineer, and from what I can tell, ski construction has NOT changed dramaticly in the last 5-7 years, only modest improvements. How can a 180 cm ski fit me now? It's because this ski is stiff, damp and heavy, just like a ski could be made stiff damp and heavy 5 years ago.

How is longitudinal stiffness any less relavant than it was 5-7 years ago? If a ski is too soft, it bends too much when skied, and if it's too stiff, you end up relying too much on the sidecut and not longitudinal flex to make the turn.

Let me see if I can elaborate on my "new definition" of overskiing a ski. This would apply to two pairs of skis I skied on, the Stormrider in 184, and a Salomon Crossmax 10, which seemed to have roughly equivalent longitudinal stiffness and sidecut depth. Thes skis work just fine for me when making medium small gs turns at a moderate angle at 25-30 mph on a trail of beginner to intermediate trail steepness. However, when on a steeper pitch than that, and speeds of 40-50 mph, a higher angulation is nessisary to support a gs carve. When you take one of these skis and REALLY LEAN THEM OVER, the deep sidecut and soft flex allows you to really, really bend them, which is too much bend in the ski for the turn shape you and your momentum is trying to make, and they cease to carve on the edge. I first noticed the phenominon on my 163 scx's, it is very easy to demonstrait with so much sidecut. Good luck making a fast long turn on this kind of ski.

Overskiing I guess would also genrally refer to any time you exceed the speed limits of the ski, which are based on a combination of it's stiffness, dampness, length and sidecut. I was also "generally" overskiing both the skis discussed above.


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 10, 2002 09:35 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Red Sled ]</font>
post #30 of 43
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gonzostrike:
... I'm referring to the feel on snow under one's feet. The old "flex it in the shop" test is irrelevant with new ski designs ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. The "foot feel" of a ski senses the stiffness of the middle of the ski on hardpack and senses the overall stiffness on soft stuff.

The shop-flex ritual was probably equally meaningless (to most people) even in the old days. You would look over and see someone flexing a ski and from the side you would see clearly that the last foot of the tail was bending like crazy but the center was straight as a board and they would pontificate that it was too soft for them - arghhh.
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 11.20 vs. K2 Axis X Pro vs. ???