or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic 10.20 2003 what are they?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic 10.20 2003 what are they?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Confused about these. Who & what are they for?
Did Atomic wimp this model out for 03'?
I have heard it is a womens model ski now, is that right?
Thanks in advance.
post #2 of 13
Do you mean the 2003-2004 Atomic 10.20?

My wife has the new 10.20s in 160.

The only difference between this years 11.20 and 10.20 is the 11s have an extra metal sheet (whic makes it slightly stiffer and heavier) in them and the more expensive bindings. Also the 10.20s this year have titanium rods instead of carbon rods

I would not say that the 10.20s are a woman ski though.

They are heavy and solid.

My wife if not petite and she is still learning how to make this ski bow because it is stiff.

We both love the Atomics and are happy we bought them.
post #3 of 13

I'm interested in both the 11.20 and the 10.20. My understanding is the 11 is a bit more demanding than the 10. It's a ski you really have to stay on top of (the 11). Is this the case? My specs: 6'/170 lbs, advanced, aggressive skier- all terrain. Appreciate any input.

Oh, and I'm interested in the current model of both skis, not next years which I'm beginning to see in the shop.

[ February 19, 2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: ski_steep ]
post #4 of 13
Originally posted by ski_steep:

Appreciate any input.
ski_steep, there are tons of info on Atomic 10.20 vs. 11.20 in these forums. I suggest you do a search and then read, read, ... I bought 11.20 last year and I remember reading great reviews, a lot of advice and personal experience. For example:

see this

or this one
or this one
or this one
or this
and this.

And there are many more hits out there.

Hope this helps.


[ February 19, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Mirek ]
post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 
I'm always confused about the model year date. I mean available all this season. They [10.20] are a grayish color w/blue I think writing on them.
How do they compare with old 10.20 models
I have the orange w/black year 2-3 yrs. old. 190cm and a bit much for me & thoughts of 180cm.

Shouldn't we all just drop one of the years model numbers off? Can we start something here?
You know, if the bulk of the season is the current year [like this season] it would simply be 2003. Next season 2004. Nah, too easy & makes too much sense.
post #6 of 13
I have next years models so I can't comment on the past models.

The 2003-2004 model Atomic 10.20 and 11.20 have titanium rods visible on both sides on the top of the skis and they have a grey ceramic/p-tex material on the sides of the base.

The 10.20 is grey and turns purple/blue in the sun.

The 11.20 is orange and sparkles orange in the sun.

If you are talkin about this (or last) year's models, than like Mirek said, do a search because there are tons of reviews.
post #7 of 13
I Have skied both the 11:20 and the 10:20. The 11:20 is a solid all Mountain ski. It's stiff and demanding Not the best ski for bumps but in just about any other terrain, if yiu have the skills it will excell. One thing I will say is demo a 11:20 shorter then you think you would like. I demoed both the 180 and 170. With the 170 I din't feel I was giving up much in the way of stability for what I gained in Mogul performance. If you want a one ski quiver then 11:20 would be a good choice.
The 10:20 is no weak littel sister to the 11:20. It is also a solid stabile ski. In the 10:20 the 180 was the right size for me. It was solid at speed, good in crud and not to bad in bumps. I think a lot of skiers would be happy with this ski. Atomics have a feel that some don't like. They are more suited to long turns, short turns take some work.
post #8 of 13
I'm kind of curious why everyone looks at only the R10 and R11. Why not the R9?

I've skied all 3 and love them all, but the R10 and R9 are much more fun on a wide range of terrain.

The R11 is an extremely quick turning ski, especially with the bindings moved forward, but a bit of a bear in the bumps if you get back on the tails even slightly.

The R10 is more forgiving yet still holds up great when putting the hammer down.

For here in the East, I've found the R9 to be the best of both worlds. It rips through the bumps and while not as aggressive as the 10/11 at high speeds, still holds well. If I were skiing longer runs where I could open it up further, the 10 would be my choice, but for around here, the 9 seems to be the better choice for an all day/all mountain board.

This of course is just my humble opinion, for what it's worth, I skied 170 in all three.

I'm going to demo the 9 again in Steamboat, I'll see if my opinions of it change with steeper, deeper, faster terrain.
post #9 of 13
Thanks for all the input. I was considering the 9 as well, until I was told by a shop employee it was geared more towards an intermediate skier.

It appears that the more information I gather, the broader range of opinions I recieve. Hopefully I'll have an opportunity to demo them soon. Headed to Tahoe in a month.
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
Is everyone talking about the 2002-3 10.20?
I know my 2-3 yr. old ones have Titanium topsheet in them & were s'posed to be the top o line then. Replaced w/11.20 I presume. Don't see many 10.20 in stores this year, therefore the curiosity.
Currently on 9.20 beta race, 10.20 beta ride & 9.22 beta ride, all 190cm. 10.20 is the only one that feels too big, just don't need all of it. So 180 in a do it all ski is what I am thinking.
My ski summary: All Atomic - All good.
9.20 race, hard snow, haul ass, bumps. Catchy in deep. Great ski.
9.22 ride, powder, [if we could please] crud, skiddish on hardpack& at speed, sorta dead in bumps.
10.20 ride, 190 too much for all day, bumps. Heavy suckers. If I had a 180 I could do it all.

[ February 19, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Jc-Co ]
post #11 of 13
Originally posted by ski_steep:
Thanks for all the input. I was considering the 9 as well, until I was told by a shop employee it was geared more towards an intermediate skier.

It appears that the more information I gather, the broader range of opinions I recieve. Hopefully I'll have an opportunity to demo them soon. Headed to Tahoe in a month.
Sounds exactly like the type of thing a shop employee trying to sell a more expensive ski would say.

I'm certainly not an intermediate skier and can honestly say that the R9 is a fun, versatile ski. Give them a try, you may be surprised at how fun they are. I've pretty much demoed everything from Atomic this year and the most enjoyable have been the R9, 10, 11 and SX11. The R10 and R9 are the two I'm most likely to buy, depends which one I find the best deal on. These two also seem to be the most versatile of the bunch for everything I like to ski...which is anything that's open
post #12 of 13
Jc-Co I think you have it pretty sorted about the same as I feel. The old orange 10.20 was a widened GS race ski. I skied it in a 190 and it was a bunch of ski and liked to stay in the fall line. Always ended up going fast on it but it was stable and could handle it and plowed through anything.

Silver 10.20 I ski this in a 180 and it is super nimble and versatile. Turn short, go fast and gives some zip out of the turn. Great for powder, bumps and the steeps.

11.20 is very similar to the 10.20 but has the titanium. I actually find it a little softer than the 11.20 especially in the tail. Better dampening though and so more stable at speed and plows crud real nice. Soft tail takes the snap out of the turn and just not as quick or nimble as 10.20. Picked the 10.20 twice over this ski.

9.20/GS9(.21) more or less same ski and I love it on groomed. In the new GS9 this year I went down to a 180. Wish I had stayed with the 190 I had the 9.20 in. Next years GS9 is a much different ski and I'd probably ski it in a 180 but I would also probably take the SX11 over that ski.

Like you said the 9.22 is still a great ski, light and quicker than the 10 or 11 and 2mm wider throughout. Not so great on hard pack but probably a little easier to ski in powder/crud especially for a lighter guy. No pre mounted plate so you can put any binding on not just Atomic. A perrenial favourite in backcountry because of lightness and performance.

The ski to watch for. Next year's 11.20 with the titanium inserts on the beta profile. It seems to combine the best of the 10.20 and 11.20. Skied it once and it is a smokin' hot ski.
post #13 of 13
Just to clarrify a few things.

The only construction difference between the 2002/03 R:11.20 and R:10.20 is the 10 has Carbon Power Channels and the 11 has Titanium Power Channels. Carbon does not absorb energy so it feels more lively, while the titanium absorbs vibration engergy so it feels more damp.

For 2003/04, the cuurent designations do not apply anymore. Gone are the approximated radius numbers in the name. Instead, the ski will be categorized into series (R, C, SL, GS, SX, E, TM...) and models within the series (5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, EX...) or named (SugarDaddy, BigDaddy, Stomp, Tweak, TeleDaddy...). Aswell, there will be a few women specific models (R:10W, C:9W...)

When asking for advice (here, at a shop or at a demo), refer to the proper model name. If you ask about a R:10.20, it will be for this current model year. Next year the proper name is R:10 (or R:10W). Previously it was Ride 10.20 and before that Beta Ride 10.20. Beta has been dropped from the name, since all intermediate to expert retail skis have Beta construction, and there is no need to be redundant. Only a few junior models use non-Beta construction ( and SG and DH race skis too, but they are not retailed).

So, that being said (or ranted depended on your interpretation), what models do you want to know about?
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 10.20 2003 what are they?