EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Advise on 04 Atomic R11's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advise on 04 Atomic R11's

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Hello,

I purchased R11's (first time buying Atomic) in December and am still not sold.

While they "absolutely" rip down the groomers and smash through crud, I'm struggling with them in the steeps and bumps. I believe this is attributed mostly to the stiffness of the ski.

I've moved the bindings to the forward most setting and this helped but at times I think the skis are skiing me. Every other bump run seems like a disaster but then I see a flash of brilliance and love the skis again.

I weigh 180 and am skiing 180's (which I don't think are too long though the trend seems to be going shorter). My biggest challenge is the uncertainty I still have. These weren't cheap and I think I should love them all the time and not 2/3's of the time?? Any suggestions?

MJG
post #2 of 27
I have several pairs of skis that rip when I'm on the grooomers, but I struggle with on more difficult terrain. This due more to my ability at this point and not a problem with the skis. Difficult terrain has a way of highlighting technical issues, I have found. Many people share this problem, but don't recognize the cause. This may or may not pertain to you, but because I can relate, I thought I'd mention it.

I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the length of your skis. At your weight, 170cm would have been plenty long with a ski that's as stiff as the R 11.
post #3 of 27
I cannot imagine anyone but an expert skiing on a 180 R11. Even expert men thought that the 180cm ski is difficult in short turns and bumps (so your problems in bumps and steeps may be well founded).

Of course there is a difference in having some difficulty (such as in "have to work harder at it") and having no control whatsoever. If you truly find that these skis "ski you", then you may have more ski that your ability can handle. You may be better off with a lower end model (R9 or R10 in 170cm).

Many people are on skis that are beyond their capability. Most of them have no clue about that. At least you are aware of it and you may be able to improve quickly and never look back. Depends on your goals, determination and how much skiing you get to do every year.

Good luck
post #4 of 27
I take it you didn't demo before buying? IMHO The 180 R11 is way to long in that Ski. Body Miller might like it in 180,for us less then Superman skiers 170 is all we need. I have a few more lbs then you and I ski with big moves.I tend to power a ski. Yeah I know and I'm working on that. You would think that with that I would be on a 180. I ski the R11 in a 170. Even in that size it can be a handful in bumps. In steeps and crud it just can't be beat. In fact when skiing with some of the Bears at the Canyons I was no The R11 in some thigh deep powder, powder stuffed bumps and mega crud. The R11 was working great in all those conditions. I really like this ski. It is by no means a powder ski yet I had a lot of fun running some trees and playing in a few bowls. We were not skiing any true steeps most runs I would say were in the mid 30s to mid 40 degree range. Vary fun without being Oh My Gawd I'm gona die steeps! Anyway drop down to the 170 you won't loss any stability and still have a vary powerful fun ride under your feet.
post #5 of 27
Utah49: We were not skiing any true steeps most runs I would say were in the mid 30s to mid 40 degree range. Vary fun without being Oh My Gawd I'm gona die steeps!

Heh, heh, I said "oh my gawd I'm gonna die" many times that day. Especially when we came down on that Chute 2 wind blown surprise.

But I enjoyed that day at the Canyons very much. You and all the Bears made it really special.

Sorry for the interruption to this thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #6 of 27
I had a very similar experience to you, and I am even lighter than you are(150, but I am also tall for the weight, 5'11"). I have a previous version R11 in 180. When I was shopping for skis two years ago, I demoed the 180 and 170. I loved the amazing stability through anything. At the time I was having fun doing fast GS turns on groomer/crud, and couldn't ski bumps that well anyway. This made me get the 180 instead of the 170, as the 180 was better at what I liked doing at the time.

As I started doing different things, I found that I wanted something less stiffer (or maybe something shorter) for more versatility, and so got myself a SX9 in a 170 a few weeks ago. Now I could actually ski bumps in a decent manner, and the short turns got a lot more easier and better.

Seems like I should've gotten the R11 in a 170 in the first place, but now that I have the SX9, it doesn't matter. I'm now using the SX9 as the hard-snow ski and R11 as the soft-snow ski. (But I'll probably get a fatter ski to replace the R11, as the SX9 and R11 are a bit too close.)

Edit: It's interesting to see that when I posted a similar question some time ago, many people responded that the length was workable for me, although maybe not optimal. Now, for someone that's 30lbs heavier than I am, the consensus is that the 180 is way too long. Hmm..

[ February 06, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: paulwlee ]
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by paulwlee:
Edit: It's interesting to see that when I posted a similar question some time ago, many people responded that the length was workable for me, although maybe not optimal. Now, for someone that's 30lbs heavier than I am, the consensus is that the 180 is way too long. Hmm..
Had I seen your post I'd of told you 180 was way too long and in fact that at your weight, that the 170 bordered on too long in the R11. How tall you are is irrelavent, a ski can't tell how tall you are, just what you weigh. My guess is you're enjoying the sx9 in a 170 because it's much softer and far less demanding. You'd probably rip in a 160cm sx11.
post #8 of 27
I'm almost 170-180 pounds and I ski the R11 in a 160.

I had 170s but after they needed to get replaced for a warranty issue I decided to try a shorter length.

I would also agree that the 180s are only for an extremely good skier and are not as versatile as the shorter lengths.

The R11s are not made to be a great bump or short swing ski.

They excel at ripping on groomers and busting through crud and that is what I do 80% of the time.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Coach13:
Had I seen your post I'd of told you 180 was way too long and in fact that at your weight, that the 170 bordered on too long in the R11. How tall you are is irrelavent, a ski can't tell how tall you are, just what you weigh. My guess is you're enjoying the sx9 in a 170 because it's much softer and far less demanding. You'd probably rip in a 160cm sx11.
I know that weight is most important, but I'm not sure that height is completely irrelevant as you say. However, I won't argue that point as I'm pretty much a nobody.

One question, though. My impression is that the R11 and the SX11 (even more so), are skis geared towards longer turns and as such have longer sidecut radii and are stiffer and damper. If that's the case, why would I want to ski it in such short lengths to make short turns as easy as with a skis that are designed from the outset to be better at short turns?

So, in other words, why would I want a 160cm SX11 instead of a 170cm SX9?

[ February 07, 2004, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: paulwlee ]
post #10 of 27
TomB LOL I think I blocked that Last run from my mind. Skiing over ice reefs into Knee deeep powder only to hit windblow shale then another Ice reef wasn't skiing it was something But not sure what to call it?
post #11 of 27
[quote]Originally posted by paulwlee:
Quote:
Originally posted by Coach13:
[qb]So, in other words, why would I want a 160cm SX11 instead of a 170cm SX9?
I'm not saying you should trade one for the other. I was just saying that with a stiffer ski you can/should go shorter.

ps. No one here is a "nobody", at least in my eyes. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #12 of 27
I've found the 2003 R11 to actually be a bit softer than my older 1999/00 10.20s with 75+ days on them. I ski both in a 180 and weigh in at about 145lbs with all my gear on. I've found both skis to be very quick on steeps edge to edge, but you have to really stay on top of them. If you can work the tails of both skis at the very end of a turn, they literally shoot you into the next turn. I love them at high speeds on groomers, and find them to be quite manageable in the trees. Try something a bit shorter as they sound like they are too much ski for you. A softer ski would also be much more manageable in the bumps.
post #13 of 27
I've just returned from Steamboat, and Demo'd a pair of R 11's in 170, and absolutely loved them!I'm 6ft and about 190lbs and a confirmed Volkl G3 177 man, but i loved this skis so much in this length that my wife is going to buy me a pair for my 40th birthday ...soon.They absolutely ripped on the groomers and were excellent in boot high powder,crud and in the 170 were suprisingly good in the bumps
I'm converted ,and i get another ski for my quiver [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
Cheers.
post #14 of 27
Too many people get caught up in buying top-of-the-line equipment and "compromise" by going shorter. I am guilty of that too. But no longer.

Check the ego at the door and get the right ski. Use reviews wisely. The people who like the R11 are experts in the full sense of the word. They like to ride fast and hard. Most of us aren't in that category.

When I look at reviews I specifically look for women's reviews. They are closer to my weight and they are experts. If they can handle a ski them I will probably enjoy it too. I am a much better skier on the right ski because it bends and flows with the terrain. Until one experiences that feeling, one probably does not realize what he/she is missing.

[ February 08, 2004, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: TomB ]
post #15 of 27
Okay I have read all the comments ,now the question. I am 50 years old, 6'2" 210lbs and concider myself and advanced skier after 30 years of skiing. Presently I ski on 1984 210 Dynamic VR27 Slalom and 1998 198 Dynamic VR27 GS.
I recently demo'd several skis and really liked the Atomic R11 180. In was on groomed, crud and powder and enjoyed them in all conditions.
Question is has any one tried this model in the 190 length. I have always skiied longer skis and have doubts about dropping to 180 length. I appreciate any comments.
post #16 of 27
MJG , did you get a chance to ski them before buying ? ( all the Calgary Atomic dealers have some demoes plus there are on hill demoes through out the season).
If not talk to your shop and see what they will do for you, you may have wanted the R10 or even the R9 which by the way is
very underated . I ski the R11 in 190 and yes they are more in the bumps and trees than on groomers but that will be the same with any ski . I'm betting you would be happier with a shorter ski in the bumps and probably not notice much difference on the groomers.
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Leeroy:
[QB]the R9 which by the way is very underated . [QB]
I'm 6'/180 lbs, advanced skier of 15 yrs and like to ski the whole mountain. I have the R9 in a 180 and love it. Forgiving enough in the bumps, torsionally stiff for good edge hold, stable at speed, and very light. You may want to demo it as well.
post #18 of 27
I second ski_steep's recommendation of the R9. I have it in 170cm and I am 5'11" and 185lbs and I love it for everything but 6+" powder, where it still does pretty well.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by BCwoods:
Okay I have read all the comments ,now the question. I am 50 years old, 6'2" 210lbs and concider myself and advanced skier after 30 years of skiing. Presently I ski on 1984 210 Dynamic VR27 Slalom and 1998 198 Dynamic VR27 GS.
I recently demo'd several skis and really liked the Atomic R11 180. In was on groomed, crud and powder and enjoyed them in all conditions.
Question is has any one tried this model in the 190 length. I have always skiied longer skis and have doubts about dropping to 180 length. I appreciate any comments.
BC, I am 6' 210 - 215 and skiing the Atomic R 11.20 in the 191 lenght (the predecessor to the R 11). For me I did not like the shorter version, since I spend 50+% of my time off the groomers. The ofset is that the ski is a bit stiff in powder over 12" deep and in the moguls. For the snow in the maritime west and the essential conditions I ski the ski is my favorite. I find the ski to be good in the bumps but limited by its stiffness. If I were you I would demo the ski in 191 and 180 and see if there is a difference in your mind. Then buy the one best fit for you.

Mark
post #20 of 27
MJG,

You may want to sell them on e-bay. Alternatively, you could add another ski to your quiver that might be more suitable to your skills and to the terrain you prefer skiing on. The most important thing is to try and demo as many skis as you can before you buy. I wouldn't just stick to all the Atomic selections either. Rossignol, Salomon and Volkl make some good skis that are comparable to the R11 or whatever R series you may be interested in.
post #21 of 27
Thought I would add my $.02 on this R11 lenght topic.

I'm 5'9" 190 lbs and am currently skiing on a pair of 1997 Rossi 9X Gs skis in a 191 cm lenght. The pair that was retired when I got the Rossi's were a 1993 Fischer RC4 SL 203 cm...so I'm used to having some lenght. I was very skeptical when I started looking for a new pair of skis that I should be skiing something as short as 168 or 170 cm...until I tried the R11 170cm. I love this ski. I don't feel like I'm giving up any stability or hard pack performance (NE skier, used to the ice) only gaining manuverability, quick turn capability, and some bump capability.

Sure, if I want to do 45+ mph big arc carves, I'll dust off th 9x's, but for everything else, I'll be on the short skis.
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 
Wow a guy takes a few days off from the computer and look what he returns to. Thank you everyone for your feedback. I "learned" several things on the slopes and about myself this weekend.

First and most importantly: Always deal with a reputable ski shop. I demoed all last year and was sold on buying Dynastar. When I went to buy they didn't have the ski in stock, and was almost sold on a 6 star. But after some thought ended up with the all mountain R11. I must say I was slightly disappointed as for some reason I really wanted the Dynastars (but the cool finish of the R11’s helped ease my pain.) Back to the point of a good ski shop; I demoed the R11.20 last year at Fernie on a challenging day (boot deep snow yet pouring rain) so I didn't really get a good feel for the ski. So with that in mind I asked the ski shop what the return policy was as I hadn't really skied the R11 series. No worries! 5 days on the 04 R11's I found myself questioning the decision, was back in the shop and was assured I wasn't stuck with the R11's. They wanted me to find a ski I would like.

After demoing a 170 this weekend and some Dynastar Ski Cross 10's (which was the ski in my mind after last year, again not sure why) I finished the day on my 180 R11's....... These skis rip! And 180 is the length of choice. I found it was more stable and while you have to stay on top of them, its pays you back when you do. Yes with the 170’s bumps were much easier but for a fully rounded day on the slopes I think the 180 is better suited for the hills and runs I ski. And the Dynastars? No thanks.

After several runs I also think I’m getting use to the stiffness of the R11. And as a few mentioned you can’t sit back on these babies or they’ll kick you in the A$$. This is the demanding portion of the ski which I wasn’t use to but gives you a little smile here and there.

My girlfriend, like many of you right now, thinks I’m crazy. Friday, I partially hated the R11’s and now believe they’re the greatest skis in the world. My opinion: I was psychologically attached to an inferior ski. Is it possible to be both an indecisive and impulsive buyer? Yes it is. Did I have any beers in the lodge? Yes I did! Will I stick with the Mountain Missile R11’s? As of today, Yes!

Thank you again everyone for your advice!!

Enjoy the slopes!
MJG out
post #23 of 27
MJG,

Glad to hear the shop worked with you...but I think the underlying issue with atomics is not the stiffness of the ski so much as the 10 cm increments and fixation with even numbers they use. They would sell alot more of these skis if they offered 175 cm. Actually, I would say, offer the ski in 165, 175, and 185. Seems that the shops always have 190s leftover from years past.

I picked the 170 after about 3 demo days of all of the lengths up to 190 ....just seemed right for my weight (145). There were some issues with the longer skis in icy moguls and other suboptimal snow conditions too. But I have other skis for that.

OTOH, there are skiers in the area who tear up ice-moguls in 190 R11s (and other long skis) better than me, I mean absolutely flying with perfect form and control. It can be done.
post #24 of 27
I ski the R11 in a 180 and you're right it rips and it does everything. I have been having some issues in bumps this year but just softened my boots and all better. Someone above made the comment about picking an inappropriate ski for ability and compensating with shorter lengths. It makes no sense, R10 is also an awesome ski and Leeroy pointed out. I'm not sure why you wouldn't stand on the middle of the ski. It'd be like putting your boot in the binding with snow stuck to it. It's counter productive and makes no sense.
post #25 of 27
Glad you like your skis now. Nice to see a shop that was willing to work with you. At the end of the day your The guy that has to ski the ski. No matter how what size, shape, or style of ski your the one That gets to enjoy the ride. Have fun on your R11 180s
post #26 of 27
FYI whilst this is somewhat a topic on the Atomic R series, I ski the Atomic R8 in a 170 (I'm 165 lbs) and absolutely love it: it FLIES down groomers, is easy to ski bumps (I would formerly avoid moguls at ANY cost), and floats well enough for me in powder (9 feet fresh at Squaw this New Years).

I guess its a lower end ski: but it's fantastic, full of life and VERY STABLE: I can feel it holding me through areas where I might have otherwise been tossed. I love both the stability AND the agility.
post #27 of 27
I skied my 180cm 2003-04 R11's all weekend in powder & chop and bumps on Saturday and on 2500 vertical feet of rip ass steep groomed cruising on Sunday. I am 6'0 185lbs.

The skis were magnificent in all conditions. The Pow, crud & bumps were a blast & one of the top Masters racers couldn't keep up with me on the groomers and he was on his Women's World cup Salomon GS ski.

I think 180cm covers a large range of weights, although I am sure the 170cm rips also!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Advise on 04 Atomic R11's