EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic Automatic 109's anybody ski them yet?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Automatic 109's anybody ski them yet?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

So I have a pair of Atomic Auto's 117 in size 179 and just love them.  My favorite outwest ski I own.  However I have really been intrigued by the same ski in 109's.  The only thing that I don't like about them is the length's they come in.  I am concerned the 175's will ski to short but the 182's will be to long.  As a refrence the 117's in 179 ski perfectly when on steeps and open bowls.  However when I am skiing tight trees I have to check my speed cause they are on the edge of as long a ski as I can handle.  I am 5'7" and weigh 165 lbs.  So if I was to get a pair of 109's it would have to be the 175's.  I know in the trees they would be perfect just worried that the shorter length might lessen the stability and they might get to squirrely at speed.  For reference here are my other skis with lengths.  I am super happy with all these skis and the lengths work great for me.  The only ski that seems a tad long is the Cochise.  When going fast and bombing through crud the Cochise is perfect.  I just won't take them into tight trees cause I don't have confidence that I can turn them quick enough.

 

2012 Kastle LX82 in 172

2014 Blizzard Brahma in 173

2013 Kastle F94 in 176

2014 Nordica Soul Rider in 177

2014 Blizzard Bonafide in 173

2013 Blizzard Cochise in 177

2013 Atomic Automatics in 179

 

If you have ridden the 109's and have any input I'd appreciate it.  Just wondering how short they ski.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

post #2 of 6

If all you are worried about is stable at speed, don't worry!  It's not always a length thing.  It can be tune and base structure though.  One can ski haul the mail speeds on 145cm skis and have no issues.  Sure it helps if they are on the stiffer side for some speed, but you can handle it.  Get the skis if you must and don't worry.  Sometimes it not the arrow, it's the person shooting it!

post #3 of 6

"Just wondering how short they ski."   A ski will ski as short as it is from widest point to widest point.  I have some skis I would not recommend, but they are a 170 something 115 waist. 12m radius.  Because of rocker and reverse side cut, they ski like a 100cm.   That's 100cm from the widest point to the widest point. 

post #4 of 6

I had a chance to try all 3 Automatics at the Alpine Meadows demo day during last year's Gathering.

 

Here is my review http://www.epicski.com/t/127183/epicski-members-thumbnails-from-the-2014-gathering-demo-at-alpine-meadows#post_1716949

 

Basically, the 109 was my favorite. It was at the sweet spot of trading stability at speed vs maneuverability in the trees.

The test was a bit inconclusive, since the 102, 109, and 117 were in different lengths. I recorded the 109 as "mid 180's" but now I find that they come in (if I remember correctly) 182 and 188, so I don't know which one I tried.

 

My guess is that the 3 skis have different flex patterns, and that makes as much difference as the length.  As I said, the 109's were a lot "turnier" than the 117.

 

Edit - I've never skied either, but isn't the Cochise a lot stiffer than the Bonefide?  That may be the reason the Cochise feels too long, not its length.

post #5 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
 

I had a chance to try all 3 Automatics at the Alpine Meadows demo day during last year's Gathering.

 

Here is my review http://www.epicski.com/t/127183/epicski-members-thumbnails-from-the-2014-gathering-demo-at-alpine-meadows#post_1716949

 

Basically, the 109 was my favorite. It was at the sweet spot of trading stability at speed vs maneuverability in the trees.

The test was a bit inconclusive, since the 102, 109, and 117 were in different lengths. I recorded the 109 as "mid 180's" but now I find that they come in (if I remember correctly) 182 and 188, so I don't know which one I tried.

 

My guess is that the 3 skis have different flex patterns, and that makes as much difference as the length.  As I said, the 109's were a lot "turnier" than the 117.

 

Edit - I've never skied either, but isn't the Cochise a lot stiffer than the Bonefide?  That may be the reason the Cochise feels too long, not its length.

 

mdf,

Thanks for that input.  Went back and read your review and it was very helpful.  As much as the 109's intrigue me I'll probably pass.  I live in the Midwest and get outwest about 15 days a year.   However with the cost of luggage on planes I can only bring 2 pairs so when I go outwest depending on where I am going I will take either:

 

Kastle FX94 and the Auto 117's  or

Blizzard Cochise and Auto 117's

 

If the darn airlines didn't have that stupid 50lb weight limit I could buy a 3 ski sportube and take all 3 and would have every possible ski terrain covered.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

post #6 of 6

Has anybody else been on the 102s this year?

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 Automatic 109's anybody ski them yet?