or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic ski guru required to explain the nomenclature on the Beta range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic ski guru required to explain the nomenclature on the Beta range.

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

Back in 1999/2000 I bought a pair of fairly light weight Atomic 200 Skis that were described as being Beta Carv 10 20. Before I bought them I tried a lot of different skis including the Atomic 9 18 range with the built in boot mounting plate. But I preferred the 10 20s over everything else.

 

I am looking to find something that is as close as possible to that ski.

 

I have tracked down a pair of Beta Rides. Is there a difference between Beta Ride and Beta Carv? Did Beta Carv get renamed as some thing else?

 

I am 6'3" a heavy 67 year old with a defective knee this means I do better with light skis. . I stay on groomers now and like carving fast GS turns. Because I live on a boat in the Caribbean flying with skis is not an option so I tend to buy a pair when I get to my destination. I usually stay for three weeks skiing maybe 15 days so renting would be expensive. Last time I had a pair Volkl Platinum P 40s at 198 which did the business but were a tad heavier than I would have liked.

 

If anyone in Salt Lake City has a pair of Atomic Beta Carv 10 20s at 195 to 200 I will take them off your hands. Failing that what advice can the panel give me.

 

post #2 of 8
Thread Starter 

Calling Atomic gurus !

 

WHERE ARE YOU ??

post #3 of 8

While you are waiting for the Gurus, I can say the Beta Rides were more all-mountain, and the Beta Carves (and even more so the Beta Race Carves) were more hard snow carving oriented.

post #4 of 8

Interesting that you find the 10.20s to be light. I have a couple pair of Beta construction skis from that era (193cm Beta Ride R:Ex and 188cm Beta Race 10.22) and find them very heavy. Heavy both in actual weight and subjectively in how they ski.

 

And my wife still has the pair of Beta Ride 10.20s that I bought for her back around 1999. She hasn't skied in years, but has been talking about getting back into it, so I was just playing with her skis in the garage and couldn't believe how heavy they felt. I'd feel bad about sending her out on the slopes with those now.

post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha407 View Post
 

Interesting that you find the 10.20s to be light. I have a couple pair of Beta construction skis from that era (193cm Beta Ride R:Ex and 188cm Beta Race 10.22) and find them very heavy. Heavy both in actual weight and subjectively in how they ski.

 

And my wife still has the pair of Beta Ride 10.20s that I bought for her back around 1999. She hasn't skied in years, but has been talking about getting back into it, so I was just playing with her skis in the garage and couldn't believe how heavy they felt. I'd feel bad about sending her out on the slopes with those now.

My 10 20s were light but they did not have the Atomic mounting system. I too found that some of the other Atomic skis from the turn of the century were very very heavy. I think that mine might have been made as a recreational ski. They were orange with the same  half round top edges as the heavier red ones.

post #6 of 8

I remember those Beta Carve 10.20s. I'm pretty sure my brother had a pair, but that was years ago.

 

And thinking about it some more, all of the Beta skis in my household have the Atomic plates and the Atomic bindings. The plates seem pretty plasticky and probably aren't that heavy, but the Atomic bindings that you have to use with them are pretty solid and I would imagine pretty heavy. I could see that getting a flat ski and mounting a lighter binding would make a difference.

 

Good luck with your search!

post #7 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha407 View Post
 

Interesting that you find the 10.20s to be light. I have a couple pair of Beta construction skis from that era (193cm Beta Ride R:Ex and 188cm Beta Race 10.22) and find them very heavy. Heavy both in actual weight and subjectively in how they ski.

 

I picked up a pair of 2002 190CM Beta Ride 9.22's with Xentrix 3.10 bindings for free off Craigslist Summer before last. Had to have the heel piece replaced due to a binding recall, but a local shop did that for free as well. Skied them a few times recently on firmer snow in Tahoe and loved them - great edge grip, very smooth and stable. Thought they would feel plankish/sluggish, but I found them nicely responsive and really easy to ski. Surprisingly they are some of the lightest skis I have - each ski with binding weighs in at 6lb 10oz.

 

Here's something I came across that might be of interest...

 

http://www.skinet.com/ski/gear/1999/12/atomic-skis-2001-02

post #8 of 8

Ah, yes.  My closest encounter with death came via the bindings on the 9.22.  The heel piece released and sent me flying off a groomer into the woods doing probably 30+.  Recall actually going through a tree (clearly a small dead one).  That could have been bad.  Afterwards I could still click in but pull up out of them with little force.  The ski area shop offered to do a binding test for some absurd amount of money.  Like I needed a binding test.

 

As for carve vs. ride, I believe it was basically front side vs all mountain.  IIRC, the 9.22s were quite stiff for something that wasn't even the top of the range and skied very long (or is it short - trying to say don't go too long).  They really weren't that versatile by today's standards.  Not something I'd go back to.

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 ski guru required to explain the nomenclature on the Beta range.