EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for advise on Atomic GS D2 Non-FIS length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for advise on Atomic GS D2 Non-FIS length

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

I would like to buy a pair of the Atomic D2 GS non-fis skis in either a 174 or 179 and looking for someone to persuade me one way or another.  I don't have the opportunity to demo them.  Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

1. 5'10, 150lb, 28yo, male

2. Usually ski in Jersey, New York, Vermont.  These skis might go with me to some mountains out west, but would only be used on groomers.

3. I'm looking to use these for nastar racing, maybe some beer league, but in general I just like ripping turns and am looking for a turn radius wider than my slalom skis.  I usually ski aggressively down the mountain (SL or GS turns all the way down) and can carve cleanly.  I usually ski faster than most people on the mountain.

4. I intend to buy a quiver...currently have 2 pairs of slalom skis, getting rid of 1 in order to get this pair of GS skis and will follow it up with powder skis when the time comes. 

5. I'm an advanced/expert skier with the equipment I have now.  I'm sure using GS skis requires different

6. I currently use Nordica Doberman wc slr's in 165.  I love them. I've tried an older pair of Nordica Doberman WC GSR's in 176 (I think they were 21 or 23m) and I've tried Fischer wc RC4 in 175.  I remember the Nordica as impossible for me to turn and got rid of it the following year.  The Fischers were somewhat better but still had that feeling of 2x4's and not enough flex in the ski for my weight.  I know D2 is completely different because of the double deck allowing for more of a progressively stiffer flex, so I guess my concerns at this point are:

a. The 179, given it's length, would be too stiff like some of the other skis I've tried.

b. The 174 would be too short and wash out for me.

 

Thanks,

Jon

post #2 of 17

I have not skied the D2 but did quite a bit of research on them and what size I should get this summer.

 

Here's the specs on them:

D2 Specs.png

 

Here's my view:

 

Your weight says shorter.  I don't know why a 174 would wash out and a 179 wouldn't.  I don't think the stiffness of either would be too stiff.  I think the best turn radius for NASTAR is 17-18M.  I think you should be choosing between the 169 and 174.  I'm 5'7 and 170# and ordered the 169.  I use a 176cm 21M race stock ski for beer league.

 

I'm sure shortly after I post this several will chime in telling you to go longer.  Anyone of the skis above will work in NASTAR and beer league.  Part of the fun is making them work.

 

My Opinion,

Ken

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

Maybe wash out is not the term I'm looking for.  I guess my thinking is being that 174 isn't drastically longer than the slalom ski I use, my concern is it wouldn't be much more stable at higher speeds.  Maybe I'm completely off here, which is why I'm seeking advise from everyone smile.gif

post #4 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonb018 View Post

Maybe wash out is not the term I'm looking for.  I guess my thinking is being that 174 isn't drastically longer than the slalom ski I use, my concern is it wouldn't be much more stable at higher speeds.  Maybe I'm completely off here, which is why I'm seeking advise from everyone smile.gif

 

The TR and taper are what is going to have the bigger impact when compared to the SL ski. 

 

I have the Atomic LT11 in 170 16M and the Elan GSX 176 21.2M.  It isn't the 6 cm in length that separates them.  It is the TR, race construction and race plate. 

 

I would bet you'll have a blast on either length but if your target is NASTAR, I think you'll have more fun on the 174 than the 179.  If you want it more for tearing up groomers, go with the 179.  179 would probably be better for beer league if the beer league course is longer and steeper than the weekend NASTAR.

 

Ken
 

 

 

post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 

I would definitely be doing more free skiing and beer league training/racing with them than nastar.  We don't have a great home nastar course, so I only get the chance to run those courses when I travel to other mountains and half the time they aren't set up.

 

As long as I'm not biting off more than I can chew with regards to flexing the ski at my weight then I agree with your recommendation and would be fine with the 179's.  The reason I was initially hesitant about them was from my experience with the other WC GS skis.

post #6 of 17

im a bit bigger than you 180 6'0" and have the 179.

its up to you, i think you'll be fine with either, but I'd go with the shorter ones for you.

 

 

post #7 of 17

Hello jonb018. I am 5'7"-175lbs. I own and ski the Atomic D2 GS 179cm. You will really enjoy the softer flex of the newer D2 GSs (consumer models) compared to the older Atomic GS12s or any Race Stock GS. I think L&AirC nailed it for length suggestion at your weight. The 174cm would be good for Nastar, the 179cm even better for high speed groomers and Business League Racing.

post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 

Appreciate all of the advise from everyone...based on the responses I've noticed two things:

1) Most of the guys on the 179s are 175lb+

2) Everyone says you can't go wrong with either the 174 or 179

 

I think the safe buy would be the 174.  Even if I'm not getting the optimal turn radius for business league racing or the most stability for high speed groomers, I'll still be able to ski it and have a wider turn radius than my slalom ski.  If I went longer and found it a little hard to control given my body weight then I'm just out of luck and have wasted my money.  Being that I haven't been on a ski this long before I'm guessing it's wise to move in manageable increments until my experience with the ski says to go longer....

 

Would everyone else agree? 

post #9 of 17

Easily agree. At your weight the 174cm  will be a blast on groomers and a fun addition to your SLs.

post #10 of 17

At 150 lbs on small crowded hills, 174 is your best bet. 

post #11 of 17

On the other hand, you'll be able to easy bend the 179, compared to 174, this is 1....  

When come to GS/little higher speed/,longer is better, this is 2.....

This is absolutely unnoticeable difference between 17.8 and 18,4m  this is 3......

 

 Last IMHO, if you have to ask get the longer one.smile.gif...

 

Happy skiing..

 

P.S. If it is too long you can always cut it..biggrin.gif

post #12 of 17

I would also go against the pack and  recommend the 179.  Remember this is the non-fis you are looking at which will be softer and, with the ~18 radius and the D2 there will be no problem getting it to turn.  You will find it gives you a greater range than the 174.  Going too short in a GS ski will lead to a greater tendency to skid the ski, particularly when you are jumping between a 165 Sl. While both will work, you will find yourself ultimately happier with the 179.  In the worst case and you DON'T like it, you will also find it a lot easier to sell the 179 than the 174.  YMMV

 

 

post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 

Sorry Andy and Scots, I had already purchased the 174's.  I guess having bad experience with FIS skis in a 176 kept me from going higher than that length.   If I find them skidding out too much and they are really easy to turn then I'll consider an upgrade to 179's in a couple years.  Just didn't want to bite off more than I can chew.  Shame I wasn't able to demo these anywhere, I would have known instantly whether the 174 or 179 was best. 

 

I have em all prepped to go for Dec 2nd race week at Killington.  I'll let everyone know how they worked out for me.  Thanks again for all the feedback.

post #14 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the recommendations everyone.  After skiing half the season with the 174's I'm extremely happy with them, although I could have easily gone with the 179s the way these things turn.  The 174s are perfect for some of the smaller east coast mountains, but when I brought these out to Park City I felt like I could have really used some extra length on those cruisers. 

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

I would also go against the pack and  recommend the 179.  Remember this is the non-fis you are looking at which will be softer and, with the ~18 radius and the D2 there will be no problem getting it to turn.  You will find it gives you a greater range than the 174.  Going too short in a GS ski will lead to a greater tendency to skid the ski, particularly when you are jumping between a 165 Sl. While both will work, you will find yourself ultimately happier with the 179.  In the worst case and you DON'T like it, you will also find it a lot easier to sell the 179 than the 174.  YMMV

 

 



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonb018 View Post

Thanks for the recommendations everyone.  After skiing half the season with the 174's I'm extremely happy with them, although I could have easily gone with the 179s the way these things turn.  The 174s are perfect for some of the smaller east coast mountains, but when I brought these out to Park City I felt like I could have really used some extra length on those cruisers. 


biggrin.gif

 Glad you are enjoying them.!

post #16 of 17

Hi you all - newbie here!

 

I read this thread with a lot of interest. 

 

I live in Switzerland and go skiing with my family (two teenage kids, Swiss wife) 25-30 days per year. Mostly ski in Grindelwald-Wengen area (where they do the Lauberhorn race). I'm 184cm, 82kg, athletic (also a Crossfit coach - except during snow season). Speed Machine 14 boots with custom footbeds. I'm also turning 40 this year - but no chronic injury issues so far. (Knock on wood.) I'd join an old-farts racing league - but (a) any Swiss guy who wants to race is probably is an ex-teenage racer and would eat my gizzard and (b) I'd rather spend my freetime racing my kids! 

 

I picked up a used d2 165 SL non-FIS two years ago, and I've had a lot of fun with it. However, the techs at my shop tell me that there's not much metal left to tune, so it's time to be planning my next ski. I can get pretty good deals on Atomics (and Heads) at an outlet in Zürich, and since I liked my d2 SL so much, I'm planning on getting another d2 of some kind.

 

The question is whether to pick up another 165 SL - or whether to spring for a GS 174 - or even a GS 179. 

 

What do I want to do with it?

 

Well, for now this is my only ski I have, so I need to make it count. (Some day I want to add a powder ski.)

 

I spend about 80% of the time going fast and making hard curves on more-or-less groomed pistes under conditions that deteriorate during the day. Favorite run is probably the Lauberhorn racetrack - complete with ski schools and familes with what seems to be three 6-year-olds apiece who all fall down on their backs and slide headfirst down the Hundschopf when I roar in. I.e., I ski fast, but I also have to be able to get out of trouble in a split second. As for the other 20% - I go off-piste now and again with my kids and survive the odd mogul field.

 

I demo'd the d2 174 GS today, and I liked it. I felt like I could ski hard stuff faster and with more authority than on the SL, and it seemed a little easier not to fall into the back seat - or pull back out when I did. On the "Abfahrt" down to Grindelwald at the end of the day, the icy, bumpy stuff felt smoother than normal.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't try it out on some of the late-day mogul fields that build up on some of the blacks - and that's a pity. That's where I'm wondering whether the 165 SL might be better, since I can flick it around faster. 

 

Stupidly, I DIDN'T try the 179, even though they had it. I did try a Head i.Speed 180 and even a Head GTO 200 (the 190cm) - they both felt a little TOO unwieldly - but I also had a lot of fun with them. Even smoother and faster, and not all THAT much harder to bend into a curve. In fact, I kind of wonder whether the 174 isn't a bad compromise: no longer an SL but  - not quite a realy GS for my body size either ...

 

Then again: Am I going to survive a mogul field on a 179 GS??

 

This is probably WAAY to much verbiage - but I'd appreciate any help you could give me on this ...

post #17 of 17

In your case  Mikesusangray, I say get the longer ski.

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 › Looking for advise on Atomic GS D2 Non-FIS length