or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Automatic 117

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

Tester Old Goat, 6', 180#, 64 y/o, 70 days/season, skiing for 50 years, style is moderate. I  ski relatively slowly but am very comfortable on steep terrain and in all kinds of snow. Home mountain is Squaw/Alpine, preferred terrain is off piste--especially powder, steeps, chutes.

 

Ski Atomic Automatic 117, 186cm, 140.5/117/129.5 (who measures skis to the half mm?), radius 19m. Early rise tip and tail, camber underfoot.  Bindings STH2-13 at the factory line. These are my skis, factory tune, all condition wax.  

 

Tested at Alpine Meadows and Squaw valley, about 20 runs, in heavy and moderately light powder, chop, with some groomed man made snow, moderate bumps, a couple of steep chutes with icy spots. Some traverses through tight trees to get back to the lifts but no real tree skiing.

 

I'm very happy with these skis. They are very maneuverable in tight spots, Float is excellent as you'd expect. They carve well on soft to fairly firm groomed snow. On true icy spots they skid. Nimble enough in the bumps. In the crud they skim rather than bust through. In short they are an excellent powder ski that can handle all the conditions you will encounter at a busy resort on a powder day. I wouldn't use them as a one ski quiver. As far as handling high speed, I have no idea, but I know people who are much faster and more aggressive than I am who like them, so while they are a good ski for someone of my age and style don't let that scare you off if you're young and fast. I haven't skied other skis in this class. My other skis are bonafides and K2 sidestashes (I'm giving the Sidestashes to my son). The Automatics are considerably more maneuverable than the Sidestashes with less edge hold.

post #2 of 10
Thread Starter 

Update--had them out the last two days in somewhat difficult snow. Yesterday--somewhat crusty, initially unbroken, very heavy snow. The skis handled this well. The runouts were groomed, very rutted, very firm, rained on snow--the skis were skiddy on this stuff. Today was somewhat lighter snow --maybe 6 inches--on top of the frozen rained on snow from yesterday--the Automatics again handled this well, but so did my Bonafides. The runouts were skier packed previously groomed very choppy wet snow.  The skis did not absorb the chop well--I needed a damper ski so I switched to my Bones which handled it better, even though I was tired by this point. Conclusion--the Automatic 117 is an easy turning soft snow ski which won't kill you on the firmer stuff but won't make you smile on it either. I'll use the Automatics for the deep days and the Bonafides for the not so deep days and the day after, and the day after that . . . . Which is pretty much what I expected--I wasn't expecting the Automatic to be a one quiver ski.

post #3 of 10

Going to add to this thread as I demoed the same skies this past Monday at Solitude.

 

Tester: EoB, 5'11", 155#, 21y/o, skiing on/off for 11 years and consistently ~35-40 days/season for the last 3 years. Like to ski on the faster side making large radius turns but also enjoy bumps and other technical skiing. Sound skiing in steep terrain and generally comfortable all over the mountain. Home mountain this season is Stowe.

 

Other skis owned: 184 Line SFB (18m), 189 Praxis RX med/stiff (32m)

 

Ski Tested: 14/15 Atomic Automatic 117 (186cm), solly demo binders

 

Tested at Solitude on Monday (Mar. 2nd) after decent snowfall overnight into Sunday, more Sunday night into Monday, and with snow continuing to fall during Monday. Average depth of ~8", deeper in places.

 

First thoughts were the skis felt extremely nimble for their size, effortless maneuvering in the trees and powder filled bump troughs. In open terrain I let them run a bit more and they handled well at speed in the untracked. The snow was slightly denser than typical Utah blower but the skies felt predictable and I did not have any hooking problems. In boot deep tracked out crud I noticed more deflection but it was manageable, the skies continued to want to plane above the crud instead of drive through it. I didn't get to try them on any true groomers as they were all covered with a few inches. I did notice that these skis had absolutely no edge hold on firm traverses. It could have been the tune as they were demo skis or the pin tail combined with tail rocker.. I convinced my uncle, who is 58y/o as of today, to try the 117. He is a solid technical skier and skies fairly slowly and he loved them as well, enough to keep them for the remainder of the trip (through Wednesday). So this ski can definitely cater to a wide range of skiers.

 

Overall I would agree with goat that these would not make a good one ski quiver, unless you are only skiing powder in which case they are absolutely fantastic. I also think these would make a great fresh snow east coast tree ski, despite their size, they felt more maneuverable than even the SFB. Again I think this is due to the pintail design and pivoty nature of this ski.

post #4 of 10

Either of you tried the 109's?

post #5 of 10

I have not.

 

There is a blister review on that ski but it is rather short compared to their normal reviews, wish it made more comparisons to the 117.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-atomic-automatic-109

post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Either of you tried the 109's?

I have skied the 109...It is very surfy and smurfy and maybe even too much ( I think that they were base high...) ... Liked them but one thing stoped me into buying them; I find that they were lacking some tail in a point that it got me in trouble twice... A problem that is inexistant in the Soul 7 and the Ranger 106...

post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

 

Overall I would agree with goat that these would not make a good one ski quiver, unless you are only skiing powder in which case they are absolutely fantastic. I also think these would make a great fresh snow east coast tree ski, despite their size, they felt more maneuverable than even the SFB. Again I think this is due to the pintail design and pivoty nature of this ski.

 

I hope to be able to tell you next season as I own a 193 cm since last season but never had the chance to ski them since this years we had snow coming only 5 to 15 cm at a time...

post #8 of 10
Anyone have a sense of how these automatics compare to Cham 117,head cyclic or Volkl shir0?
post #9 of 10

I can't speak for any of those three really, but I would imagine the Cham is stiffer and would make a better charger. Can someone confirm?

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana View Post

Anyone have a sense of how these automatics compare to Cham 117,head cyclic or Volkl shir0?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
 

I can't speak for any of those three really, but I would imagine the Cham is stiffer and would make a better charger. Can someone confirm?

 

I liked the Cham 117..actually a lot, I was not a fan of the original Cham design, but the 2.0 is much better. I also do like the Auto 117, very good ski and I like that Atomic proportions the sizes. I don't like the Shiro, not a fan at all of the full rocker/taper design, too smeary for my taste. I will add the new Bodacious with the carbon at the extremities along with a bit o'camber and a softer flex pattern is a more obtainable ski without loosing it's top end power. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews