or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › comparisson of atomic ritual vs Nordica NRGY
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

comparisson of atomic ritual vs Nordica NRGY

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

Dear Phil: I would be interested in hearing you take on these two skis.Several months ago,you told a person that if he cannot enjoy himself on a ski,he should go bowling.That is such a great line.I wish I had made it up.Thanks

post #2 of 15
Two very nice skis. The Ritual in the longer length is a very GS'y feeling ski... Excellent edge grip, etc... My favorite atomic ski. The N100 is for me more versatile. It makes a variety of turn shapes with aplomb.
post #3 of 15

I have not been on the NRGYs, but I have over 30 days on my 190 Rituals.  I got them as my daily driver for the Wasatch.  I have been on a lot of different skis and I have to say the Ritual is a rather unusual ride.  I did not demo them before buying.  It is like several skis put together in an attempt to do everything. The front is stiffer than the tail and has a longer radius sidecut.  So on hard pack it hooks up nicely but locks into a big radius turn, and if you want to tighten the turn you need to rock back and engage the softer tighter radius tail, or smear.  This works, but is unlike any other ski I have ever been on.  In some conditions they need to be skied on the front, but most from the middle.

 

I have had them in virtually every snow condition imaginable and they handle everything well, but I never feel like I can use the entire ski on any particular turn without paying extra attention and changing things up a little.  I like an even flexing ski that I can relax into during the turn, and the Ritual seems to resist that.   I would have no hesitation taking the Rituals into any situation or condition, but they never feel 100% right to me.  I generally always like them, but I never love them.  Between the tip and tail rocker, progressive sidecut and flex, and wide tips they can pull off any kind of turn, but it took me a while to figure them out.  They are fairly forgiving, which is good because I often feel like I am trying to rectify the turn in some way in the middle of it.  I often think of a comment I saw on TGR by a guy who demoed the Rituals and his initial impression was "there's something wrong with the flex."

post #4 of 15
That's fairly a accurate account of the Ritual from what I recall.
post #5 of 15

I haven't skied the NRGY yet.

 

But I've been skiing the 182 Ritual 103 for two years now. (145 lbs, ~5'10", sorta expert skier, not elite or freestyler.) And I don't recognize this ski from either description.

 

I often find a ski to be odd, or to have a flex or multiple sidecut that takes getting used to: the Nordica Soulrider, The Icelantic Keeper and the Bonafide are a few examples.  The Ritual was not one of them.

 

It also does not ski like a pure or limited gs ski, for me, though there are skis that do that for me.  Some past years' Nordicas, for example.

 

 For me the Ritual skis easily, intuitively, like a characteristic Atomic ski. You can ski it fast or slow, big turns or short turns--as long as you stay anticipating where you're going, aiming at where your skis are headed, really.  You can turn very tight turns with your upper body still in the fall line.  You can really carve longer roller coaster turns also.  It is not as damp as a Stockli--there's a slight tendency to skip a bit while still staying securely on edge, but you can trust your line, and the consistency of the ski.

 

The Ritual has been reviewed as a top ski of 2015 in a number of mags, and described in a way that is fairly accurate, to me:

 

Powder Magazine: http://www.powder.com/gear/15-best-all-mountain-skis/

 

The Yellow Gentian review of the Ritual is the ski I know:

 

http://yellowgentian.com/ski-reviews/all-mountain/atomic-vantage-ritual

 

The Blister gear review of the older version (http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-atomic-ritual) is also consistent with what I've experienced, except at the end the reviewer says he would like to try the Ritual in (powder/chop) bumps and deeper snow than what he got a chance to try.

 

 The Ritual really shines in soft chop/powder bumps, but past about 8" a fatter ski is more stable because of the width at the waist, as near as I can tell.

 

It's a very versatile, soft snow all mountain ski, not a compromise in powder (up to ~8"), great in chop/crud bumps. Good fast or slower.  A real powder ski, soft snow ski, but also all mountain.

 

I would guess the NRGY100 is the reverse: a great all mountain ski that does pretty well in some soft, sort of okay in powder, a compromise there.

 

 I do not use the Ritual on old snow, though it would hold an edge well enough.  There are just better skis for harder snow.

 

If there has been normal, new snow in the past 48 hours, this ski is killer, for me: in a zone. Again, it is great in soft bumps and powder bumps.  That softer tail is probably the reason, you don't get jetted out of turns.

 

I have a friend who tries to make as many tight turns as possible to leave as pretty a fresh track as possible all over the mountain on a powder day: pretty tight turns.  I am right with him, turn for turn; and I'm also there if he opens it up, as he does occasionally, for more gs type turns.  Again, no problem.

 

The ski shop where I demoed it and bought it recommended it for powder, crud and bumps.  It is really great in chop/crud transitions, by the way.  Very confidence inspiring, fast or slow.  It has a consistent Atomic ski quality to it, like the Crimson Ti, and other Atomics.


Edited by ski otter - 10/26/14 at 4:08pm
post #6 of 15

P.S. I meant no disrespect here.  Markojp and Mudfoot I find almost always accurate and helpful, great comments generally.

Also, recreational Atomics are apparently a ski that light and mid weight skiers like often.  Heavier skiers sometimes find the flex too soft.  (But some heavier skiers don't.) So I don't question other people having a different experience with a ski. It's just there is apparently a consensis about this ski over several years, that I also experience, that wasn't represented. :)

 

Also, I'm generally a forward-driving skier, going to more upright if I have to with a particular ski.  With the Ritual I didn't have to.

 

More upright boots might make the Ritual behave differently.


Edited by ski otter - 10/26/14 at 4:34pm
post #7 of 15

I found the Ritual very light and un-damp.  Not the greatest grip on nasty hardpack (ok, it's not a carving ski...) not super floaty or mean enough to bust thick crud.  I'll bet it's a good ski for many, but wasn't a great ski for me.  Might have to do with my weight (230).  My 190 pound friend absolutely loves them and uses them all over the mountain except when it's pure ice or when it's knee deep.

 

Personal preference is a funny thing.  

post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanmoreBruce View Post
 

I found the Ritual very light and un-damp.  Not the greatest grip on nasty hardpack (ok, it's not a carving ski...) not super floaty or mean enough to bust thick crud.  I'll bet it's a good ski for many, but wasn't a great ski for me.  Might have to do with my weight (230).  My 190 pound friend absolutely loves them and uses them all over the mountain except when it's pure ice or when it's knee deep.

 

Personal preference is a funny thing.  

I am on a 182 and I weigh 182.......Great ski...damp, carves like crazy and has amazing edgehold on hard snow for 103mm waist, but as you know I put 3 degree side edge on 'em. 

 

I find them versatile 


Edited by Atomicman - 10/27/14 at 1:48pm
post #9 of 15
Someone needs to invent a Damp-o-meter so that we can objectively measure dampness.

A versatile ski for sure, but not my cup of tea.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanmoreBruce View Post

I found the Ritual very light and un-damp.  Not the greatest grip on nasty hardpack (ok, it's not a carving ski...) not super floaty or mean enough to bust thick crud.  I'll bet it's a good ski for many, but wasn't a great ski for me.  Might have to do with my weight (230).  My 190 pound friend absolutely loves them and uses them all over the mountain except when it's pure ice or when it's knee deep.

Personal preference is a funny thing.  

Different skis certainly have preferred skier weights. I'm 205, so I may have different options than 230. It's always important to know the weight of the tester.
A little more... As mentioned earlier, I thought the Ritual had tremendous edge grip on firm groomers. The 191 seemed a bit sluggish in steep firm bumps on the day I skied them. I'm sure they're nice soft snow skis, and I wondered if the 182 might not have been a better length for the terrain and conditions we were skiing. I liked them, but not as much as my E98 which I found to be more versatile in all terrain and turn shape while being able to ski it in a 180 without over powering them.

The Nrgy also has excellent edge grip, but is more similar to the E98 in terms of overall versatility, though the 177 (actual 181'ish) was a bit short for skiing crud at speed. Just had some 185's dropped off yesterday and am looking forward to skiing them. I'm confident the extra length will sort out the chunder and still be a versatile go everywhere do most everything pretty well sort of ski at both higher and low speeds.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Different skis certainly have preferred skier weights. I'm 205, so I may have different options than 230. It's always important to know the weight of the tester.
A little more... As mentioned earlier, I thought the Ritual had tremendous edge grip on firm groomers. The 191 seemed a bit sluggish in steep firm bumps on the day I skied them. I'm sure they're nice soft snow skis, and I wondered if the 182 might not have been a better length for the terrain and conditions we were skiing. I liked them, but not as much as my E98 which I found to be more versatile in all terrain and turn shape while being able to ski it in a 180 without over powering them.

The Nrgy also has excellent edge grip, but is more similar to the E98 in terms of overall versatility, though the 177 (actual 181'ish) was a bit short for skiing crud at speed. Just had some 185's dropped off yesterday and am looking forward to skiing them. I'm confident the extra length will sort out the chunder and still be a versatile go everywhere do most everything pretty well sort of ski at both higher and low speeds.

 

At my weight, a 191 Ritual would be for SG turns, probably; and I wouldn't take it near bumps, more than likely, unless I meant to flat out charge them. :D

 

Funny thing, I also have the 180 Rossi Exp. 98, for longer than the 182 Rituals.  For me, once there's fresh snow of 2" plus, I'm on the Rituals or an even fatter ski; but with less or older snow, or in crud or slush, the Exp. 98 may well come out. (And maybe the NRGy100 or 90 would too.)

 

The E98 also really charges on groomers, in a way the Rituals can only do as well if the snow is a bit soft, for me.  (Atomicman, I can't remember if I tuned the Rituals to 1/3 or 1/2, or what side bevel they came with! Mush for brains.)  But many narrower skis can do groomers super well too, or better--harder bumps too. So I'm often on a narrower ski. 

 

I really like the E98 for slush spring skiing. :) 

 

But it does not float! (At least for me. And the Ritual does, in spades.)  To me, the E 98 and the Ritual complement each other in the same quiver, different uses.  

The NRGy100 or 90 and the Ritual also might complement in the same quiver, not sure.  

post #12 of 15

I am 6'5" and 215 lbs. and my 190 Rituals actually work pretty well in the bumps for me, but I need to stay off the tips. If I ski them from the middle I can use the tip/tail rocker to initiate turns and then finish on the soft tails.  This is a good illustration of why I think they are unusual but fairly functional.  Almost any other ski I have been on needs to be skied from the front to turn in bumps, but with the Rituals I lean them straight over and push down with my heels.  So they work in the bumps, but you cannot use the entire ski (which IMO is also a deficiency for the Ritual in many other conditions and types of turns).  I think of them as a Swiss Army knife.  The various stiffness and sidecuts give you multiple tools, but they are small tools.

 

It should also be noted that in the Blistergear review the tester was on the 190s but only weighed 145 lbs.


Edited by mudfoot - 10/31/14 at 8:34am
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
 

I am 6'5" and 215 lbs. and my 190 Rituals actually work pretty well in the bumps for me, but I need to stay off the tips. If I ski them from the middle I can use the tip/tail rocker to initiate turns and then finish on the soft tails.  This is a good illustration of why I think they are unusual but fairly functional.  Almost any other ski I have been on needs to be skied from the front to turn in bumps, but with the Rituals I lean them straight over and push down with my heels.  So they work in the bumps, but you cannot use the entire ski (which IMO is also a deficiency for the Ritual in many other conditions and types of turns).  I think of them as a Swiss Army knife.  The various stiffness and sidecuts give you multiple tools, but they are small tools.

 

It should also be noted that in the Blistergear review the tester was on the 190s but only weighed 145 lbs.

I'm mystified.  Please forgive my limited experience and real ignorance, but could it be because I'm lighter that in driving the tips I don't push through the flex of the ski--or something? Because I don't experience needing to stay off my tips. On the Rituals I get rewarded for driving them, pretty much, though more upright skiing is possible and fun too: very forgiving, for me, in a forward leaning boot already.  

 

I mostly carve in bumps rather than smear a lot, and take my own line rather than follow the troughs, most turns.  In soft snow, of course, this becomes easier. And I'm more on both skis and over the skis, I'd guess.  And I'd guess that the same driving, carving technique means I'm creating drag where I'm not actually engaging the edge.  But I feel the sensation of working the (Ritual) ski, from tip to tail, just as I would with any good not too soft or not too stiff on edge ski.  

There are a number of skis I do experience the kind of almost disjointed(?) variation in response to stance you're maybe describing (The Icelantic Keeper comes to mind, a bit: it encourages me to ski more upright, perhaps in the way you describe.)  But not the Ritual.  Difference in weight?

 

On the Blistergear guy @ 145 lbs. on the 190 Ritual: maybe I should try it! :)  I just figured he was a heroic, off the charts skier.  

 

Happy Halloween!

post #14 of 15

Otter:

 

I also have fairly forward leaning boots and generally like a forward weighted skiing style.  Everyone needs to find a ski that fits their personality, which includes their individual style, conditions they like to ski, weight, etc.  Apparently the Ritual is a good fit for you, but not for me.  I have owned several Atomic skis and have liked them very much, but I thought the Rituals were a strange ski.  The fact that you found them intuitive to ski is baffling to me. There are so many things going on with the ski, depending upon where they were weighted, that I feel like I am constantly searching for the right spot.  By the way, I own and love my 191 Keepers and found them to be intuitive to ski from the first turn.

 

Regarding the varying flex of the Rituals, you stated, "At my weight, a 191 Ritual would be for SG turns, probably; and I wouldn't take it near bumps, more than likely, unless I meant to flat out charge them."  The front end is pretty stiff, so if you run them into a bump they do not soak it up but tend to push you back onto the soft tails, which is exactly the opposite of what I like in a bump ski.  To make them work in the bumps I ski them from the middle to avoid pushing a weighted front end into the bumps.  I believe this is the classic rocker ski technique for bumps which is more of a slide and pivot upright style than the forward carving style I prefer, but it works for the Rituals.  In my mind the flex of the Ritual is backwards because I think a softer front end and slightly stiffer tail would be a more relaxing all-mountain ski, but that's probably just me.

 

The Ritual is not a bad ski, as I said I would feel comfortable jumping into almost any terrain or snow condition with them, but they always feel a little off to me.  I prefer an even flexing ski on which I can relax in the middle of the turn. With their varying flex and sidecut the optimum spot to weight the Ritual is a moving target throughout the turn.  I guess I am lazy and do not want to pay that much attention to make a ski work correctly.  IMO the Rituals are a "Frankenski" with too many different design features in one ski.  Atomic wanted to create a "do everything ski", and from my experience they ended up with a serviceable jack of all trades and master of none, which is what I tried to convey in my initial comments.  MF

post #15 of 15

Just a comment: I think you're both right. 

 

Stiffness is determined by the cross sectional area (and elasticity by the materials, which is irrelevant for the same ski), typically measured at mid-ski. You know the drill; usual diagram is a beam suspended at two ends. Pressuring the tip is determined by the lever arm defined by the tip, the line along the ski from the tip to the boot's axis of rotation, and the segmented line from your boot to your knee, and then to your hip. So the longer your leg, the more tip pressure at the same level of effort. Reverse the triangle, same idea, if you pressure the tail, say late in a turn, or landing.

 

Result: Folks of different size will have really different experiences of both flex and tip response. Like being on different skis, regardless of length you choose. If you're a big guy, you may be more aware of regions where flex changes, because you'll really be able to lever the softer zone, while you're heavy enough to flex the mid-ski without much effort at all. So I'd guess bigger guys prefer consistent flex patterns. If you're a smaller guy, you'll likely miss the same sensation because it'll all feel fairly stiff.

 

Similarly, no one agrees on how tips transmit shock. Companies like Blizzard  - we can agree very popular skis - think stiff tips absorb shock, not transmit it. So their skis are beefy in the shovels but have "progressive" (eg, softer) tails. Some Volkls used to be like Blizzards, stiffer in front, softer in back. Some Atomics and Stocklis and Kastles still are, but then Kastle mucks it up by cutting out part of the front. Which they swear reduces, not increases, vibrations. By contrast, narrower Heads are engineered to actually stiffen the already robust tails as they are flexed. If you don't want that pop, you stay off the tail. But their mid-fats stiffen the tips, which they think makes them smoother. Fischers are well known for their beefy tails.

 

Different strokes, and all that...Be happy you're both scaled correctly. I'm tall but thin, which like short and heavy, means no ski is optimized for me. 

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 › comparisson of atomic ritual vs Nordica NRGY