or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Closest 2015 ski to the Atomic B5?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Closest 2015 ski to the Atomic B5?

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

A deep sidecut (12 m, 133-76-116, 172 cm, 5.2 cm boot sole height) on a wide platform (mucho boot clearance). Seems most or all of today's deep sidecut skis are pretty narrow under foot and I hate nothing more than riding the side of my boot out of the end of a good turn. Ouch! Maybe something a bit lighter and crisper but, to be honest, I think I may be too reliant on the heavy dampness of the b5 to keep me out of trouble at high speeds (6'4", 205 lbs.). So far, recommended has been the Head Supershapes but they are still too long of a sidecut at the 170 length and not very wide under foot. My last (saved) pair of b5's are starting to get played and I'm getting nervous.

post #2 of 21
How wide? I don't think you will find a 12m sidecut on anythink but a slalom ski, and not on a wide ski for sure.
If pro skiers can ski slalom and gs without boot out I think you're fine on a narrow ski.
post #3 of 21

I'm a big fan of sidecut, too, and love the Nordica Fire Arrow 80 Pro.  You might still be able to find some in the 172 length if you search hard enough, though I find the 180 works better at my weight of 195 (not quite the radius you're looking for, though).

 

The B5 has become a favorite ski to bash, but I loved mine, and and really only moved on due to the Gear Junkie in me. 

 

It might also be worth looking at the SkiLogic Burner and Occam's Razor.  I have no first hand experience, but they have deep sidecut, and generally good to great reviews.

post #4 of 21
It sucks, for us 6'4 guys there are two main choices, a FIS 165cm slalom ski, or a longer ski with a 14-15m sidecut. I would just get the 177cm super shapes, I think they will blow your mind.
Edited by clink83 - 2/6/15 at 12:18pm
post #5 of 21

If you should choose from Atomic's current skis, you'll find then to be narrow

 

Redster ST, 170 cm, 129,5-72-112,5, R=12 m

Redster Edge SL, 171 cm, 124-70-111, R=12,3 m

Redster DD 3.0 SL,171 cm, 127-69-112,5, R=11 - 11,5 - 12,5

 

The SkiLogic skis are so beautiful!

post #6 of 21

Check out Ski Logik's Ullr's Chariot Twin Tip (TT) 101 under foot and 15 M radius. I too have a pair of Atomic B5 and skied Atomic FIS 165 SL skis for close to ten years as my every day ski. The Ullr's are far more versatile and a ton of fun. I am 6' 3" and 240 lbs. The Ullr's come in 168, 178, and 188 which I have. 

 

I don't know where you ski but the Ullr's are a great everyday ski for the West.

post #7 of 21
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thank you for all the suggestions. The atomic sand heads don't quite have the geometry I seek. I have never heard of ski logic and they have the b5 waist width and turn radius that O have never seen since the b5 AND on a race ski. All the artsy graphics leave much to be desired as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully, U am not very concerned with graphics.
post #9 of 21

I could care less about graphics also but the web site photos doe not do the Ski Logik skis justices. The wood is all inlay-ed on the top sheet, really great craftsmanship but the proof is in the skiing which I find superb, as good as anything out there, I demo skis every year and have not found anything I like better. I have four pair of Ski Logik, each of them is a joy to ski.

 

My B5 is a 172 the longest length, a longer ski provides more edge and control in hard slick conditions.

 

My advice to you is to demo skis and realize the snow conditions can have a huge influence on your opinion, so I like to alternate between a know ski and the demo skis, then back to the know ski, then demo ski.

post #10 of 21

This is tough for me because I was never a fan of the B5, to put it mildly. Keep in mind that modern skis can have sidecuts that are not quite as dramatic, but still be better at what the B5 did because of other design attributes like early rise fronts and different flex patterns. The Head Titan is probably closest to your mission, and I'd bet serious money that in the opinion of nearly everyone here, a far more versatile ski. 

post #11 of 21

The bottom line is there are very, very few older skis that folks are seeking because the new stuff is better. In general all manufacturers have raised the bar and now there are very few bad skis, all skis companies make good skis if they didn't no one would buy them. You can remember an old ski being wonderful but if you ski it side by side with a modern ski there is no comparison. My B5 is now a rock ski and I never ski it longer than I have to.

post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post

A deep sidecut (12 m, 133-76-116, 172 cm, 5.2 cm boot sole height) on a wide platform (mucho boot clearance). Seems most or all of today's deep sidecut skis are pretty narrow under foot and I hate nothing more than riding the side of my boot out of the end of a good turn. Ouch! Maybe something a bit lighter and crisper but, to be honest, I think I may be too reliant on the heavy dampness of the b5 to keep me out of trouble at high speeds (6'4", 205 lbs.). So far, recommended has been the Head Supershapes but they are still too long of a sidecut at the 170 length and not very wide under foot. My last (saved) pair of b5's are starting to get played and I'm getting nervous.


The super shapes and piste carving/race skis all have plates of some sort. Ted might boot out, but you won't...ever.
post #13 of 21

This thread has got me thinking that I need a pair of Ski Logik Occam's Razors.

 

Tough ski to find, though.

post #14 of 21
I've had a number of Metrons. Now Heads are a good fit for me. (3 pair) Ski logiks are also durable,handsome and good carvers. (2 pair)
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post
 

This thread has got me thinking that I need a pair of Ski Logik Occam's Razors.

 

Tough ski to find, though.

Yes! Occam's Razor is the one that, based on manufacturers description, is probably the closest ski to the b5 available along with probable updated performance advantages of the 10 years that have passed. Who the (heck) is Occam?!?!

 

There are a few responders that are assuming that I, or perhaps others, may want the extra width under foot to avoid boot-out on their way to suggesting a slalom ski geometry. While I certainly understand the assumption, this is not the case. There seem to be many others who may be unaware of the leverage advantages of tipping a ski that is wide under-foot over one that is narrow under foot in a carved turn on a fast and damp but short radius ski simply because they never skied the one ski that has delivered this unique performance characteristic. Another advantage to the b5's width under foot is not so much that it avoids boot-out on hard surfaces but that that same element allows your boot and binding travel further above the snow surface in a carved turn. What this extra height, or clearance, translates to in a certain range of snow pack densities is that the boot does not "drag" through the softer medium-density snow pack and the ski carves more cleanly and effortlessly across the surface. Slalom race skis are designed for hard pack only and therefore do not have to contend with this issue of the softer medium-density snow pack not found on a race course. I can feel the difference and have seen cleaner, sharper rails from this ski vs anything I have tried under similar, same-day snow pack.

 

I mention all of this in case it inspires anyone else to try the skilogik occam's razor. I am going to get a pair as soon as I can get my hands on the 172 which will probably need to be preordered from whomever is getting next seasons stock. There is no reason to demo it because there is probably nothing else that will ski close enough for comparison.

post #16 of 21

^^^ Agree with all that, especially for a heavier guy.  I'm in the process of trying to locate a pair, either within two weeks, or for next season.

 

Interested in binding recommendations for a ski with this much sidecut, that will be flexing deeply.

 

Don't want my 338 boot sole to mess with that beautiful, deep flex!

post #17 of 21

The reason there isn't many options like the B5, is that the design wasn't successful. At the time I personally did't like the B5 although I did like the regular M11 better. You are looking for a few things, stack height. stiff, short turn radius and a mid 70's width. I think you can find 2 or 3 out of those 4 requirements, now which 2,3 are most important to you? 

post #18 of 21
But the Metron B5 provided a strength workout carrying the skis from the parking lot to the lifts unmatched by any other skis I have carried. I had the Metron one below the B5 and my buddy had the B5 and I skied them a few times.

In the beginning the turn radius is a blast , but the noted lack of versatility begins to compromise that.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

The reason there isn't many options like the B5, is that the design wasn't successful. At the time I personally did't like the B5 although I did like the regular M11 better. You are looking for a few things, stack height. stiff, short turn radius and a mid 70's width. I think you can find 2 or 3 out of those 4 requirements, now which 2,3 are most important to you? 

Phil, I hugely appreciate everything you do for this forum, but I've got to say, as a previous owner and lover of the B5, things are not that simple.

 

The B5 married a very deep sidecut with a very damp GS construction.  This let mere mortals ride the rails at high speeds with calm confidence.  But the ski did NOT provide lively, short radius turns.  It would make those short turns, but only reluctantly, and with their weight and dampness, there was little or no "snap" involved, and I think most people that bought this ski didn't really get what they expected.

 

Certainly not the ski I'm looking for anymore, but at the time, I loved them..............and they're gone, so not much point in lamenting them.

post #20 of 21

I still ski the B5 as well and have not found a ski that can compare. The only time I park them is when conditions are ice and then I pull out my race stock Atomic Sls.   Without trying to sound contentious or insulting, many of those that did not like the B5 did not have the skills to appreciate them OR they skied them too long.  You really need to be over 200 pounds to enjoy the 172's.  At 185 pounds the 162's are ideal for me.  When skied with speed and modern technique they are an unbelievable carving machine that will also venture off piste in all but deep powder.

 

Admittedly I have never even heard of the Ski Logik Occam’s Razor, but am fascinated that they are almost the exact dimensions to the B5.  Apparently someone thought the design merited saving.  If someone knows of something else similar to the B5 I too aminterested as my B5's are getting near the end of a good run... so to speak.

post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 

 

An intimate relationship ...

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 › Closest 2015 ski to the Atomic B5?