or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line SN92 vs Atomic Vantage 90 CTI
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line SN92 vs Atomic Vantage 90 CTI

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

Looking for new skis, and seeking opinions on the Supernatural 92 versus the new Vantage 90 CTI.  I'm a level 7+ (skiing for 30 years, but with a few years off in the middle), 5'6", ~145lbs, and this would be for skiing Eastern Canada (mostly Quebec) with forays into Vermont or the Rockies every other year.  They'd need to deal with the usual scraped down hard, icy east coast stuff, as well as groomers, but I really like a playful ski, something that is maneuverable through the bumps and trees and can be slid around when needed, rather than being dedicated carvers. Obviously, a little float to enjoy the rare new snow days can't hurt

 

I've scoured the reviews and the forums, and dismissed some popular options (Brahma, Kendo) as probably being too stiff, and others as being a bit to carving/frontside specific.  The new Vantage 90 in 169 (or 176?) seems to meet my criteria, or I could save some cash and grab a pair of last years Supernatural 92 in 165/172, although I'm open to other suggestions.

 

Being in Ontario, demos are not really going to happen, so I'll just be paying my money and taking my chances!

post #2 of 5

I haven't skied any Line skis but I have skied the Atomic Vantage 90 CTi.  I work part time in a ski shop and the owner, myself and two others went to Big Sky last March to demo Salomon, Atomic and Nordica skis.  The owner had previously decided he wasn't bringing in any of the new Vantage series skis.  He and I both skied the 90CTi and were really impressed with it.  It had very good edge grip, it was snappy and it was just plain fun to ski.  If I needed to replace my current 90mm ski the 90CTi would be it.  If you get them, get the 176.  I'm an inch taller than you and a couple pounds heavier and I would not have wanted the ski to be shorter.  It has tip and tail rocker so it skis short, more like a 170-172.

 

And we now have these in stock in our shop, that's how impressed the owner was.

post #3 of 5
Quote:

Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
-

If I needed to replace my current 90mm ski the 90CTi would be it.  If you get them, get the 176.  I'm an inch taller than you and a couple pounds heavier and I would not have wanted the ski to be shorter.  It has tip and tail rocker so it skis short, more like a 170-172.

I'm the OP's size and also interested in the 90cti.

Am hoping to demo, however trees will likely not be in play here in the East for early season demos and I'm concerned about the length in tight east coast trees.

Going from my current tip rocker Kastle BMX88 168cm to a 176cm 90cti seems like a jump. Longest tip/tail rockered ski I've demoed has been a 172cm Soul 7 and Solly Q-98, didn't have the chance to do trees.

What do you think, would I grow into the 176 or struggle? Same situation with the other new skis of interest, Pinnacle 95 and '15/'16 Kendo, both available at 170 or 177.
 

post #4 of 5
My 90mm ski is a four year old 170cm Steadfast which has been my primary ski for trees. My primary ski for trees this year will be a 177cm Soul Rider, twin tip and rocker makes it ski shorter than 177, maybe even shorter than 170. I will also have 184cm Billy Goats and will ski them in the trees too, but they ski really short. 8cm is only 3.15".
post #5 of 5

Thx, that helps put it in perspective.

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 › Line SN92 vs Atomic Vantage 90 CTI