or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Soft/noody ski (Atomic Access) not a good fit for PNW skiing, but ideal in Colorado?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soft/noody ski (Atomic Access) not a good fit for PNW skiing, but ideal in Colorado?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

Hey all,

I'm 5 foot 9, 168 pounds, and been skiing on the 171 Atomic Access for the past few years (a wood core ski).  I live in Oregon and primarily ski on Mount Hood.  I think my skiing has progressed a lot since I moved out here, but I'm not that happy with my skis here in the PNW.  I get thrown around a lot on choppy/inconsistent snow conditions.  Living in the PNW, the snow is often choppy and inconsistent.

 

Last year, I made a trip out to Colorado, and my Atomic's did great.  Winter Park had gone a few days without fresh snow, and the weather was quite warm when I was there (sunny, 50 degrees).  Still, the snow quality was way more consistent, and lighter.  Whereas I hear my skis bouncing around a lot, and feel myself getting tosssed around a lot in Oregon, in Colorado this didn't happen.

 

So here's my dilemma:  I think a ski like the Rossignol Experience 88's or Line Prophet 90's would be great for me, especially in the PNW.  They're significantly stiffer than my Atomic's, and would allow me to charge through inconsistent snow without being tossed around.  However, I'm moving to Colorado this summer (Fort Collins).  Should I hold off on buying a new pair of skis until I move out to Colorado?  Will my Atomic's fit the bill, even on groomers, out in Colorado?  I'll only be in CO for a year likely, so it'd be nice to have a good set-up moving out there.

 

Matt

post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post

 

So here's my dilemma:  I think a ski like the Rossignol Experience 88's or Line Prophet 90's would be great for me, especially in the PNW.  They're significantly stiffer than my Atomic's, and would allow me to charge through inconsistent snow without being tossed around.

 

I'm not going to talk to what would be best in CO as I've only skied there a handful of times, I'll leave that to someone else.  I want to ask though, have you skied any of these stiffer skis that you might be considering for comparison?  From what you've said, I worry that your expectations may be too high in terms of what a stiffer ski can do for you in crud.  A stiffer, damper ski is absolutely better in crud, I don't think most people would argue with that (having said that, I'm sure someone will argue with that ;)); but it's not a magic cure-all that will definitely make you rip through difficult snow with nary a care in the world.  Depending on what kind of snow you're talking about (how gnarly and heavy the crud is), sometimes you're just in for a bumpy ride, and that's that.

 

IMO, if you're moving to CO this summer, and loved your Atomics out there, spend your remaining time here in the PNW demo'ing some stiffer skis to see if that really is the ticket for what you're looking for.  Bring your Atomics to CO to ski there, and if your demo'ing tells you that you'd rather have something else here in the PNW, worry about that when you get back.

post #3 of 20

your skis are too short, that ski is not awesome at the conditions described but the lenght is to short, the majority of people looking to ski crud well are going to be on at least 180 something at your size if not longer.

 

I personally would look into a 185 Blizzard Cochise . 

post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post
 

 

I want to ask though, have you skied any of these stiffer skis that you might be considering for comparison?  From what you've said, I worry that your expectations may be too high in terms of what a stiffer ski can do for you in crud.

 

 

Thanks for the reply!  I did demo both of the skis I mentioned.  It was last year on Mount Hood.  If I remember correctly, the conditions were similar to how they are often here:  lots of heavy new snow all over the place.    Whereas I typically might go slower or e concerned about being thrown around, I found I was able to go way faster with more stability---and I had more fun!

post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

your skis are too short, that ski is not awesome at the conditions described but the lenght is to short, the majority of people looking to ski crud well are going to be on at least 180 something at your size if not longer.

 

I personally would look into a 185 Blizzard Cochise . 


Really?  So you think my difficulties are more related to ski length than the material the ski is comprised of?

post #6 of 20

yep, I would have ton of trouble skiing crud on a 171 atomic access. My balance is just not that good, so I use either 185 cochise or 186 sickle depending on the day. Longer skis compensate for my lack of balance skills. 

post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

yep, I would have ton of trouble skiing crud on a 171 atomic access. My balance is just not that good, so I use either 185 cochise or 186 sickle depending on the day. Longer skis compensate for my lack of balance skills. 


Thanks.  What is your height/weight?

 

So think I'll still have trouble with this ski when out in Colorado?

post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 


Thanks.  What is your height/weight?

 

So think I'll still have trouble with this ski when out in Colorado?

 

5'10 175lb. 

 

I have huge quiver and could easily ski that ski on smoother groomed snow but in powder/crud I prefer more for and aft balance. 

post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 

 

Thanks for the reply!  I did demo both of the skis I mentioned.  It was last year on Mount Hood.  If I remember correctly, the conditions were similar to how they are often here:  lots of heavy new snow all over the place.    Whereas I typically might go slower or e concerned about being thrown around, I found I was able to go way faster with more stability---and I had more fun!

 

Ok, carry on, then.  If you've demo'ed them and liked them better than your current skis, that's all you need to know IMO.  That said, if you were happy with your Atomics in typical Colorado conditions, I still probably wouldn't bother to buy them now unless you come across a can't-pass-up deal.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 


Really?  So you think my difficulties are more related to ski length than the material the ski is comprised of?

 

I agree with Josh that 171 Access is a little too short for you, but I'm not sure I'd jump all the way to a 185 cochise.  That's a somewhat demanding ski, and bear in mind that Josh is a strong skier.  Not sure where you fall on the skill spectrum as you didn't really talk about that, but at your weight, a 185 cochise could likely be too much ski for you (in my non-expert opinion).  What length prophet or experience did you try?

post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post
 

 

Ok, carry on, then.  If you've demo'ed them and liked them better than your current skis, that's all you need to know IMO.  That said, if you were happy with your Atomics in typical Colorado conditions, I still probably wouldn't bother to buy them now unless you come across a can't-pass-up deal.

 

 

I agree with Josh that 171 Access is a little too short for you, but I'm not sure I'd jump all the way to a 185 cochise.  That's a somewhat demanding ski, and bear in mind that Josh is a strong skier.  Not sure where you fall on the skill spectrum as you didn't really talk about that, but at your weight, a 185 cochise could likely be too much ski for you (in my non-expert opinion).  What length prophet or experience did you try?

 

Thanks for the reply.  I'm not a particularly skilled skier--maybe an intermediate our advanced intermediate.  I can ski pretty much anything on Hood (double blacks), but I become a lot slower on steep stuff.  I enjoy skiing blues the most.  My balance is pretty lousy (balance on my left side is lacking), so that definitely figures into this.  In terms of ski length, I can't remember, perhaps a tad longer than the 171's.

post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

your skis are too short, that ski is not awesome at the conditions described but the lenght is to short, the majority of people looking to ski crud well are going to be on at least 180 something at your size if not longer.

 

I personally would look into a 185 Blizzard Cochise . 

 

Josh, very few people who weigh 168 are going to drive a 185 Cochise effectively. I think you know this, no? 

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

 

Josh, very few people who weigh 168 are going to drive a 185 Cochise effectively. I think you know this, no? 

 

 

eh the point being that you can either drive the best crud ski on the market or you can not. MY point being is if you get on a Cochise(well maybe 177 for him) and you are having trouble then maybe it time to get some coaching.   I get that light at some time during the ski season and do not think it that demanding of ski in 3d snow, its demanding comes when you are on hard pack IMO.


Edited by Josh Matta - 3/11/14 at 4:42am
post #13 of 20

I don't think the problem are the skis. Colo, has dry snow and  is much easier to ski than PNW. Get a lesson or the Steep Clinic @ MHM they have some very good instructors.  Longer skis will only mask the real issues. IMO the reason your getting thrown around is your inability to balance in variable terrain.

post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
 

I don't think the problem are the skis. Colo, has dry snow and  is much easier to ski than PNW. Get a lesson or the Steep Clinic @ MHM they have some very good instructors.  Longer skis will only mask the real issues. IMO the reason your getting thrown around is your inability to balance in variable terrain.

 

 

so here is the thing you think someone could ski a Free World Tour well on shorter 170ish skis? 

post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
 

I don't think the problem are the skis. Colo, has dry snow and  is much easier to ski than PNW. Get a lesson or the Steep Clinic @ MHM they have some very good instructors.  Longer skis will only mask the real issues. IMO the reason your getting thrown around is your inability to balance in variable terrain.

 

 

so here is the thing you think someone could ski a Free World Tour well on shorter 170ish skis? 


He's not at that level & you would be hard pressed to find someone that could handle it on a 170cm.

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
 


He's not at that level & you would be hard pressed to find someone that could handle it on a 170cm.

 

 

so the deal is people do not get this to level with out knowing what equipment to use....

 

I can ski some shorter skis well in broken up terrain but thats because I first learned how to do so on a stiff/straight and long crud board. In this case its actually the most forgivinging ski for the task at hand. Just like skiing powder is not bad on my Mx83s but honestly most people would spend years trying to learn how to ski it on skinnier ski while thye kept getting frustrated by falls. 

post #17 of 20

Josh is right about length.  For crud longer stiffer skis with a longer turn radius are just easier, unless you don't have clue about what to do.  I weigh about 150 to 170 lbs depending on turkey ingestion.  Comparing skiing heavy tracked out crud on my 165 cm WC SC and my 190 cm machete G (both about the same waist width), the 190 is like pushing the easy button.

post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 

A ski shop in my area offered to and sell me the 181 Access for $240 including installing my binding on the new 181 length (and trading in my Atomic Access in the 171 cm length).

 

What do you all think of this deal?  Should I take them up on this, or just stick with the 171s until I am able to demo other powder skis? 

 

Keep in mind, I'm moving to Colorado in July for one year, and want a powder ski that will suit me well out there.

post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

 

 

so here is the thing you think someone could ski a Free World Tour well on shorter 170ish skis? 

 

I don't think we're talking the same skill set...  I doubt the OP is Drew Tabke. But I agree, extra length and some mass is your friend in crud. :)

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 

A ski shop in my area offered to and sell me the 181 Access for $240 including installing my binding on the new 181 length (and trading in my Atomic Access in the 171 cm length).

 

What do you all think of this deal?  Should I take them up on this, or just stick with the 171s until I am able to demo other powder skis?

 

Keep in mind, I'm moving to Colorado in July for one year, and want a powder ski that will suit me well out there.

 

That sounds like a great deal. Lots of people use that ski out here. It is definitely on the playful side here, but what we call crud is not what the PNW calls crud.  I suspect what the PNW calls crud is what we call Miller Time. ;)

 

Stiffer skis will tend to get pushed around less in crud as you have noted, but the Access in a longer size will be suitable for all but the worst days.

 

I agree with Josh that the ski is too short for you- the Access has a fair bit of rocker and just not much platform for a 5'9" person. The 181 sounds like a better fit.

 

Going to 185+ at your weight/height seems a bit long unless you develop a real preference for long skis.

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 › Soft/noody ski (Atomic Access) not a good fit for PNW skiing, but ideal in Colorado?