or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sugar Daddy & Plate?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I have heard the Atomic Freeride team pros are taking the plate off of their Sugar Daddys and are mounting the binding directly on the ski. Just wondering if anyone has tried this & how they liked it? I am considereding it.

Over & out!

Atomicman

Ski with the Wind MF!

[ January 28, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #2 of 18
Different ski. They are using a version of next season's which will have a flat deck for the mounting of any binding.
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
OK, why did they take the plate off next year? They could have designed a plate to accept any binding?

I have heard it removing it really improves the ski in powder and on the groomed. Provides a more round carve.

thanks for the info

[ January 28, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #4 of 18
Atomicman,

I have not seen next years Atomic stuff yet, but have read that alot of people are removing them on the Big Daddy and Sugar Daddy for tele and touring bindings, plus regular bindings. Some people do not like or having problems with Atomic bindings.

I know that is why they have left the R9 or 9.22's without bindings. A lot of Tele people ride them.

I have been on my 10.20's for 3 years now and have skied POW and hard packed with no problems.

Check out Biglines.com and Powder mags forums, I think I have read a couple of posts about the above.

It would make sence that the big POW ski's have the option. I have the same opionion about the Salomon Scream's (hot, extra hot, etc.) I like the Rossi B series, because they do give you the option of tele, touring or standard bindings. Do not get me wrong, I really do not have a problem with intergation of ski and binding, but that is another topic.

Hopefull, I have helped you out or given you some more info. Good luck.
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Calma:
Some people do not like or having problems with Atomic bindings.
Kinda off topic here, but what's the deal with Atomic's bindings? I know that many of the shops in my area either don't carry or have stopped carrying Atomic. When I've inquired as to why this is the case, the response is always the same, "Great skis, great boots, poor bindings, and we don't want to deal with their binding issues". I know that skiers have their favorite brands, but when I hear this kind of info from many different shops, it's got to make you wonder what the deal is. I assume they manufacture their own bindings. Maybe it's time they turn this over to someone else or take a look at their current technology.

[ January 29, 2004, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Coach13 ]
post #6 of 18
Re: Atomic bindings - just my .02c, but between my wife and I, we have four pairs - 6-14s on my Big Daddys, 4-12s on her Sugar Daddys, a 4-12ish binding on my 10.20s (I think, orange with black ski, a few years old), and some Centrix 3-10s on her little blue intermediate Atomics.

She's light, and an intermediate skier, but her bindings have given her no trouble.

I'm not light (250+), solid advanced skier, used to break Look 99RS' in the 80s with disturbing regularity (strip out the threads in the toe-wing screws, the heelsprings used to shatter), have had no troubles with Marker, have had no troubles with mid-90s Tyrolias (I know, shudder, but a friend of mine was a Head/Tyrolia rep, wound up skiing on his stuff a LOT), not owned too many Salomons, but those I have owned were the "race" models with metal heelpieces - the plastic heelpieces on the 957ish era bindings - mid 90s - used to break; the tab that the heel of the boot pushes down on would break off, making it into a Marker MRR clone - it was still usable, but you'd have to reach down and pull the release lever up as you were stepping in. The metal ones were -bomber-, though; I can see why Salomon people are Salomon people.

Both my BigDaddys and orange 10.20s (that's what they are, maybe 99/00 model year 10.20 Beta Rides in 190cm) were demo skis. The 10.20 has a demo binding on it, a piece of plastic that surrounds the demo-release has broken off, but the binding works fine. I'd guess these skis had 40-50 days on them when I bought them - lots of topsheet issues, bases were good, but they're just about tuned out (they were $99 with bindings 3 years ago). The BDs had less use, I'd guess 10 days on them.

Since I got the BDs, I've skied them, ohh, 40-50 days, some hike-backcountry(ugh), some catskiing, etc - they've seen a fair bit of use. I've prereleased a couple of times when I did not think they should've let me go, but in terms of _problems_, I've had none. They work. I ski them at 11, make sure the boot is clean, shrug, dunno what the problems are, but I've not had any.

I was hesitant to buy the $99 10.20s, ehhh, but I decided that I'd risk it - no regrets. I've always been a Marker guy, had good luck with them, but I liked the 10.20s/Atomic (ess, as far as I know, by a different name) enough to buy the BDs to replace my K2 AK Launcher (with a Marker race binding, forget the model, basically the M51R in this day and age, no pistons, nothing fancy, just a binding).

I've had no issues.

When I was working in shops, none of us really _liked_ the Ess binding, which I believe turned into an Atomic binding, but I don't remember any "issues" with them.

Maybe there is something up with the Atomic binding; I don't know. I've not run across any issues with them, though.

.02c, YMMV, etc etc etc, but out of 4 pairs, the only problem is that broken piece of trim plastic (which does not affect function at all, it has been that way for 2 seasons, and when I'm skiing my BDs, a friend of mine skis the 10.20s - they get some use).

Iain
post #7 of 18
Alot of people complain of prerelease issues but I think you will find people say that about every company.

Personally I have not had issues with my 412 CRs and my wife has been happy with her 310 CRs.

[ January 29, 2004, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Scalce ]
post #8 of 18
Coach - I've heard something very similar. Atomic apparently wants each ski shop to carry skis, boots AND bindings, and not just their skis or just their boots. A contact at one of the big local shops told me that they didn't want to be dictated to in this way, so they opted out of dealing with Atomic entirely.

Tom / PM
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
Prerelease my ASS! That is probably a technique problem. Light on the outside ski at the wrong moment in the turn or too much rotary movement! We have beat the shit out of this subject on another thread.

There is nothing wrong with Atomic bindings. We have 21 pair on 21 skis. This includes race skis and freeskis. 3 racers in the family and my wife. Atomic bindings have worked flawlessly on all of our skis for 5 years.

There was a time period when there was a known problem with some older 3.10's that were replaced on warranty. other than that, no problems.

By the way we
post #10 of 18
I was looking at some Atomic Sugardaddys on Telmark Pyrenees last season they had removed the Atomic Plate and put on a nylon mountiing plate that would allow a Tele binding or an AT Binding to mounted on the ski. I have also heard that by removing the plate The ski has more flex and is a better Powder ski with out the plate.
I really don't have to many issues with Atomic bindings except for skiing in deep snow. I have the R412 on my R11 skis. I don't think I would ever use an Atomic Binding on a a deep snow ski. The reason being, You have to really get all the snow cleared out of the binding to get them back on. Thats not an easy thing to do while standing in knee deep Powder. I mounted Look P12s on my Rex.
post #11 of 18
Atomic binders do generally work, but the Look/Rossi design is much better in terms of elastic travel. I have had both. My looks have never released on me when I didn't want them to, but the atmics did occasionally. This is a well know issue with the atomic binders. They are also heavy.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Calma:

Some people do not like or having problems with Atomic bindings.

I don’t like Atomic bindings. I really wanted to like them, since I love my 9.16’s.

I had been skiing on Look / Rossi bindings for years when I got my 9.16’s. I had always had my Looks set at a DIN of 6.5 (less than recommended) and had my Atomics set up the same way. The Atomics pre-released on many occasions and the Look / Rossi’s have never pre-released.

I had my bindings checked, and they were fine. I had the forward pressure checked, and even increased it on advice from some Atomic fans.

What I finally determined was that, to get the same level of retention with MY bindings, I have to set the Atomics on 11 (higher than recommended) and the Looks on 6.5 (less than recommended). This is based on 2 sets of Atomics and 2 sets of Look / Rossi’s, and my personal experience.

I know many people are very happy with their Atomic bindings, more power to them. When they say they have no problems with their bindings, I believe them. I can’t argue with their experience. Their experience is just different than mine.

If I hadn’t skied on the other bindings first, I probably never would have known about the difference in DIN settings required for my skiing and most likely would have increased the DIN setting to get the retention I want.

I am not comfortable skiing at a DIN of 11 when I know I can use my other skis with the DIN set at 6.5, so I very rarely ski on my Atomics anymore.
post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
We are way off point here!

The question at hand is; Has anyone skied the Alpine Sugar Daddy without a plate? How did it affect the ski?
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by mxp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Calma:

Some people do not like or having problems with Atomic bindings.

I don’t like Atomic bindings. I really wanted to like them, since I love my 9.16’s.

I had been skiing on Look / Rossi bindings for years when I got my 9.16’s. I had always had my Looks set at a DIN of 6.5 (less than recommended) and had my Atomics set up the same way. The Atomics pre-released on many occasions and the Look / Rossi’s have never pre-released.

I had my bindings checked, and they were fine. I had the forward pressure checked, and even increased it on advice from some Atomic fans.

What I finally determined was that, to get the same level of retention with MY bindings, I have to set the Atomics on 11 (higher than recommended) and the Looks on 6.5 (less than recommended). This is based on 2 sets of Atomics and 2 sets of Look / Rossi’s, and my personal experience.

I know many people are very happy with their Atomic bindings, more power to them. When they say they have no problems with their bindings, I believe them. I can’t argue with their experience. Their experience is just different than mine.

If I hadn’t skied on the other bindings first, I probably never would have known about the difference in DIN settings required for my skiing and most likely would have increased the DIN setting to get the retention I want.

I am not comfortable skiing at a DIN of 11 when I know I can use my other skis with the DIN set at 6.5, so I very rarely ski on my Atomics anymore.
</font>[/quote]That is odd!

I spoke with the Atomic national race tech rep and he said all the World cup guys on Atomic ski at lower DIN than everyone else!
The Rossis and Llooks I have seen have a ridiculous amount of ramp angle! I know this could be fixed with a plate under the toe or I hae heard there is some plate in the heel that can be removed, but what is that all about?

[ January 29, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomicman:

I spoke with the Atomic national race tech rep and he said all the World cup guys on Atomic ski at lower DIN than everyone else!
I'll remember that when I make it to the World Cup!

Thanks for the vote of confidence!!!!!
post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomicman:
We are way off point here!

The question at hand is; Has anyone skied the Alpine Sugar Daddy without a plate? How did it affect the ski?
The question at hand is; Has anyone skied the Alpine Sugar Daddy without a plate? How did it affect the ski? I didn't ask for everyone's 2 cents on Atomic bindings.

[ January 29, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #17 of 18
I have a bud that skis the Tele Daddies with Naxo's. He likes the skis, not so big on the binders. You may have a hard time finding non team riders without the plate. Nobody wants to void the warranty if you pay for them.
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomicman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Atomicman:
We are way off point here!

The question at hand is; Has anyone skied the Alpine Sugar Daddy without a plate? How did it affect the ski?
The question at hand is; Has anyone skied the Alpine Sugar Daddy without a plate? How did it affect the ski? I didn't ask for everyone's 2 cents on Atomic bindings.</font>[/quote]Mike W heli ski has a custom made atomic Heli daddy that has a thicker base, black base, same dimensions, NO PLATE, and a softer tip. It is lighter and skis better as it is softer.
I have not tried to ski or mount any old sugars without the plate as again we had a custom plate made so that we could use salomon bindings on the sugar daddies and big daddies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion