or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2004 Atomic R11, R10 question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2004 Atomic R11, R10 question

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Last season I started out on the 11.20 in 180 and while a great powder ski, it demanded higher speeds and more aggressive skiing than I prefer in order to flex it properly on packed. Then I switched to the R:11 in 170, and found it to be excellent on groomed and in moderate crud, but too short for good floatation in powder and harsh in moguls.

Now I'm thinking the softer R:10 for next year, probably in 180 as a good compromise in "all mountain". Last spring I demoed a 2004 R:10 "prototype" in 170 and was very impressed.

What I would like to know is if the 2004 "puls ti" R:11 has been softened from last years model, and if so, how it would fare in moguls compared to the 2003 R:11 and 2004 R:10 "puls ti".

Also, are there both "mens" and "womens" versions of the 2004 R:10 or is it just a marketing issue?

Finally, I read somewhere that the R:10 system would have a binding with adjustable "delta angle". I'm most curious what this is about.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Atomic has not yet updated their web site for 2004.

post #2 of 8

I can't help with the questions re latest models, but I can tell you a bit about the "10 vs 11" question.

I have the R10.20 in a 180. Chose it after demoing both the 10.20 and the 11.20. Decided the 11.20 would be just too much ski for all day use (I'm a good skier but only 155lbs, and 44 years old). Sounds like you've come to the same conclusion, just by a more expensive route

Recently (ie now - in NZ) I've been skiing on other skis, but on Friday I had the 10.20s out for the first time this season, in about 15cm of nice fresh. My first reaction was "wow, I'd forgotten how good these are". In powder and in the chopped up stuff that you get after 11am they are fantastic. Good in bumps too. Not quite as good in firmer conditions, my Bandit XX are smoother and have better edge hold when its gets hard and rough. But not bad either. Maybe like an Alfa (10.20) compared to a BMW (Bandit).

This year a friend has bought the 10.20 after trying both 10.20 and 11.20, and she loves them.

Good luck with your search
post #3 of 8
I have the 2002-3 R11 which I love. I haven't tried the R10 but you're probably right about the R10 being a better all around ski. The R11 is a bit on the stiffer side and it seems to want to submerge in the pow rather than float on top. For those days, I bring out my PR's which have way better float.

We tend to get a lot of heavier snow here in the PNW, and the R11 is great from plowing through the chopped up crud. I love it's stability. It's unshakable in the rough stuff and amazing quick.
post #4 of 8
I say keep the R11 you have and check out a fatter ski. I don't think that length is the place to go if you are looking for extra float. Maybe an R:EX or even a Sugar Daddy. I got a pair of SDs last year, and they are a ton of fun.
post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 
Actually, I sold the R11 170's last spring and did buy a pair of R:EX 177's for deep snow days, which proved to be a great ski during last season's late storms.

I use the SL:9 (incredibly fun) for zipping around on groomed (it's pretty good in the not-so-deep as well) but the plan for next year is to add a ski that fits in-between these two, to have one ski to take on trips, etc., where all conditions may be encountered.

I'm wondering if the skiing characteristic of the new R:11 "puls ti", which magazine and internet info infer is softer longitudinally than last years, has changed significantly - for example to the point where it is more forgiving in moguls.

Thanks for the info
post #6 of 8
I have the R11s in 170 and my wife has the R10s in 160.

I never skied on the earlier R11s so I have nothing to compare them to.

I think the 11s are stiff but I still love them.

My wife loves her 10s and I may have have bought them also but it was very rare to get the 04 R10s in 170 last year.
post #7 of 8
Most people on this thread seem of like mind to me. I'm a BIG 10.20/R10 fan and have been on each of them primarily the last 3 seasons. Never liked the R11/11.20 as much, again because I found it less versatile but for slightly different reasons. I find the 11 slightly softer especially in the tail but with much more dampening in the ski. Great at speed but not so snappy in short or quick turns and for that I find it less fun in bumps. That being said I tried the 04 R11 and it rips. It seems to combine the best attributes of the 10 and 11 of previous years. I know it plows through cut up powder outstanding and was great in powder over firm base. It's a fairly beefy ski so I wouldn't go so far as to say it will be better in powder especially for a light guy. Didn't try the new R10 since it was only there in shorter woman's version ski. Atomic generally does the woman's ski slightly softer flex no and no other differences other than they make it look purdy. Don't know anything about delta angle adjustment on R10 but the Atomic binding is one of the flattest set ups (if not the flattest) out there. You could always change the delta angle with the Atomic boots by putting a different height toe than heel or do the same with the Lange comps for that matter. I'm 5'10 and 180 lbs and ski all of these in a 180. On the good days it's been said that I can ski OK.
post #8 of 8
Good post

I guess I could break out my wife's skis and look at them for the delta adjustment.

I was under the impression that the new R10s wouldn't be longer than 160 but that would be a dumb move for Atomic.
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 › 2004 Atomic R11, R10 question