EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic R:EX - Help with length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic R:EX - Help with length

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I am considering buying these skis, however my local Atomic dealer carries everything except the fatter, powder skis. (Powder and deep snow is nonexistant in Ohio!) A demo here would probably be next to worthless anyhow. I am 5'10" 170lbs and my current big ski is the K2 Axis X Pro 180cm. (Last year's model, not the fatter current model) I like this ski a lot but am looking for a little more for my ventures out west. Also, if I were to see a bump run that I couldn't resist and these skis happen to be on my feet at the time, does the extra 7mm cause a big problem. I am currently thinking either the 177 or 184 would do.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
RC
post #2 of 25
I am 5'10" 160lbs expert skier. I have skied and owned in the last three years the 10EX and REX in 198,191,184,and 177. I am presently on the 177 and can ski it everywhere from steep and deep to large moguls and high speed cruisers. The 184 will be too big if you want versatility. Go with the 177.
post #3 of 25
The R/ex in 184cm is alot of ski , you may want to consider it in shorter lenghts. It has a beefy feel to it and awsome stability , at 170 lbs. the 177 would be more than enough . You might also want to consider the R11.20 or 10.20 in 180cm, they are awsome skis and would do better in your area and much better in the bumps if you happen upon them ...like you say.
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thanks. I was able to demo a 180cm R11.20 this year at my home area. This was a limited demo (ie no powder, crud or high speed). I liked them a lot however they seemed too similar to my K2 to justify the $800 expense. I found them to be slightly quicker edge to edge and about the same in our small bump run. If I didn't already own the K2s, I would have the 11.20s.
post #5 of 25
I'm 6'2, 195, level 9 and ski the 10.ex in a 191. I probably should have gotten the 184 (I debated between the 2; availability drove the decision); but difference not enough for me to complain.

The above recommendations should work. Should also consider getting the Atomic bindings. The varizone feature can effectively adjust for length differences. I've frequently moved the bindings forward when warranted (skiing chutes, hard snow days, skiing with wife on crowded groomers, etc.).
post #6 of 25
You lucked out on this post - very good advice from all. I bought the 184 (6', 185 lbs) and found it to be too much ski - I ski in the East and in tight spaces (glades, bumps) it is mucho work to maneuver. I will be trading it in for the 177cm at some point this winter.
post #7 of 25
I skied with a friend today who demoed the volkl g40s. It has similar measurements to the r:ex. He's 5'11"/190 and skied 178s. He struggled a bit with tight turns in the woods, definitely not for short-radius turns.
post #8 of 25
I am 6' 190 and ski last years 10EX in 184. No problems with tight spots at Jay. Absolutely loved it in wide open powder and cut up crud. My ski (used) came with lifter plates though, so that may be helping a bit.
post #9 of 25
I Demoed The Atomic Rex in a 184 last year and really liked how that ski felt. It was my 2nd choice in a Big Mountain Fatter ski. My 1st choice was the Fischer Big Stick 84 in a 180 lenght. The Rex 184 loves to go big. It's a great ski except in bumps and tight spaces. In Aug of this year I came across a great deal on a pair of the Rex in both the 184 and the 177. It was a deal so good I could'nt pass it up.After much tought I went with the 177. I never had the opportunity to ski the 177. It was a bit of arisk but I just felt that the 177 would suit my needs better then the 184. I don't feel as if I have given up much in the way of That "beefy" feeling of the longer Rex. The 177 is an Ok ski in bumps, but it really isn't at home there. My K2 Axis X is a much better ski for that environment. IMHO the 177 is a more versatile ski then the 184. Short turns are still work but not as much work as the 184.
post #10 of 25
I don’t know if you have decided yet but I had to make the same decision this fall, a 177 or a 184 R:EX. Based off feedback and passed experiences I went with the 177’s.
I am 210 lbs 5’11’’ and have no issues with the 177’s. I ski these bad boys all over the mountain hard and fast. The only adjustment I made was with the binding, I mounted the Atomic R614’s and I ski them one position back.
Hope this helps
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I ordered the 177s but the shop owner is getting some 184s also. Hopefully they will be in this week. They should have been here today, but it is MLK day and nothing travels. I have a couple more trips planned for the West and I will put them to good use.

RC
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by rcasto:
Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I ordered the 177s but the shop owner is getting some 184s also. Hopefully they will be in this week. They should have been here today, but it is MLK day and nothing travels. I have a couple more trips planned for the West and I will put them to good use.

RC
Yo what biders are you throwing on these? I am probably getting 177 R.EX soon also. I am about the same size as you. I already have Xentrix 4-12 bindings and I like the "varizone" feature, but would like a little more lift and not sure how to accomplish this.
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 
I am going with the Atomic 412 variozones also. I talked to the shop owner about some additional lift, probably about 10mm, and he said that he had a plate that would work. I'll know a little more when the skis come in. Hope that's tomorrow.

RC
post #14 of 25
I'm Not a big fan of adding lift to a ski that is going to be used in powder,crud, bumps and other 3D snow conditions. The Rex is wide so you don't have to think about Bootout on groomed runs. Atomic bindings are fine,but a Pain in The A$$ to put back on if you lose a ski in deep snow. I mounted my 177 Rex with a look P12 binding. This is the first look binding I have ever used and I am vary impressed with it. I have used Salomon for years. They are also a vary good binding. However with Salomon I have had to set my din up at least two numbers in order not to perrelease with the look I have them set pretty low at 5.5 and They hold great, even when skiing some pretty nasty conditions.

[ January 21, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Utah49 ]
post #15 of 25
I have to agree with Utah49 regarding adding lift to the R:EX. As far as bindings go I like the Atomics mostly for their Variozone and floating heal, I have played with the different settings on a bunch of skis and it real does make a difference, also (I am sure you know this) make sure whatever bindings you decide on the brakes will clear the wide body.
post #16 of 25
Semi-related question:

Has anyone skied the 168cm R.ex or G4? I couldn't find them in a demo shop around here....

At 5'8" 160, I found the 178 G4 to not be as quick as I want for east coast trees... haven't tried the 177 R.ex, but I'd expect it to be similar.

Worried the 168 is just too short though. Too bad none of the midfats come in a 172 +/-
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by flip:
Semi-related question:

Has anyone skied the 168cm R.ex or G4? I couldn't find them in a demo shop around here....

At 5'8" 160, I found the 178 G4 to not be as quick as I want for east coast trees... haven't tried the 177 R.ex, but I'd expect it to be similar.

Worried the 168 is just too short though. Too bad none of the midfats come in a 172 +/-
I ski 167cm, but 10:ex from last year. They probably ski differently for me: I am 5'6" and 122. They work fine for me, although require a bit more work in bumps and not very quick in trees (I had XScream series before), but awesome at speed/crud/pow, even hardpack.. For your height/weight they would probably be quicker..
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by rcasto:
I am considering buying these skis, however my local Atomic dealer carries everything except the fatter, powder skis. (Powder and deep snow is nonexistant in Ohio!) A demo here would probably be next to worthless anyhow. I am 5'10" 170lbs and my current big ski is the K2 Axis X Pro 180cm. (Last year's model, not the fatter current model) I like this ski a lot but am looking for a little more for my ventures out west. Also, if I were to see a bump run that I couldn't resist and these skis happen to be on my feet at the time, does the extra 7mm cause a big problem. I am currently thinking either the 177 or 184 would do.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
RC
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by rcasto:
I am considering buying these skis, however my local Atomic dealer carries everything except the fatter, powder skis. (Powder and deep snow is nonexistant in Ohio!) A demo here would probably be next to worthless anyhow. I am 5'10" 170lbs and my current big ski is the K2 Axis X Pro 180cm. (Last year's model, not the fatter current model) I like this ski a lot but am looking for a little more for my ventures out west. Also, if I were to see a bump run that I couldn't resist and these skis happen to be on my feet at the time, does the extra 7mm cause a big problem. I am currently thinking either the 177 or 184 would do.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
RC
post #20 of 25
You made the right choice with the 177 length. I am 5-10" and weigh 180lbs and love the 177. If at all possible do not, I repeat do not put an Atomic binding on these skiis if at all possible. I initially had the 614 varizone binding on my 10EX's and had numerous pre-release problems. I took them back to the shop and had a Tyrolia free flex binding put on it. End of problem. I pre-released out of the binding over 12 times with the Atomic and ZERO with the Tyrolia. This is a widely known problem with Atomic bindings and after checking with serveral shops and skiers made the change. At a recent ski-show a rep actually told me that Atomic is aware of the problem. I checked on the net and found 4-5 pages of negative reports on Atomic bindings. I will never use them again. I do ski aggressive in varying snow. Good luck, you purchased a great ski. I've used them all over the northwest and Utah and SunVally and they've worked fantastic.
post #21 of 25
I have over six pair of skis mounted with Atomic 614 bindings and have had no problems. I am 5’11’’/210lbs and have skied that binding for about three years and only pre released once (and that was on a powered day and I suspect I had snow under my boot). If there are problems with that binding I have not experienced it
post #22 of 25
Per the pre-release problem on the 6.14, I had one let go in a masters GS race on the headwall last year. There were no ruts or crud, I was set on 8.0 din front and back, and boom, out the front I went towards the trees.. thankfully I didn't ride it out and survived a little scraped up in the face.

I called the factory because I got the usual BS from everyone else. They told me to turn the back adjustment screw in a turn (effectively tightening the match with the boot heel)and that I would have to turn the bindings up for racing and down for cruising. At 52 yrs and 195lbs, that meant 9.5 back and 9.0 front din for racing and 7/7.5 for cruising. This is probably much higher than I would have thought, but I have not had pre-release problems since.

[ January 23, 2003, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: Sudsysul ]
post #23 of 25
Atomic bindings have never given me a problem, and I have skied a lot of them.

I have the R-ex in a 184; weight about 180. I find the sweet spot is one notch forward on the binding.

These skis are the best free skiing skis I have ever been on for all-out runs under any conditions other than blue ice. With a pair of shorty slaloms in the quiver, all bases are covered for free skiing.
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by donnyb:
I am 5'10" 160lbs expert skier. I have skied and owned in the last three years the 10EX and REX in 198,191,184,and 177. I am presently on the 177 and can ski it everywhere from steep and deep to large moguls and high speed cruisers. The 184 will be too big if you want versatility. Go with the 177.
I am 5'11" (6" if I stand upright which doesn't happen often enough) and 185 lbs. Would you also recommend a 177 for me to demo, or would the 184 be just fine? I want versatility (powder and bumps).

Thanks,
YA
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Ladede:
I am 5'11" (6" if I stand upright which doesn't happen often enough) and 185 lbs. Would you also recommend a 177 for me to demo, or would the 184 be just fine? I want versatility (powder and bumps).

Thanks,
YA
I'm 5'8" and 170 lbs. and love my 184's. They rip the pow, but are merely marginal in bumps. The 177 might be better, but the REX is pretty beefy and wide to be a great bump stick. Try a XX. You give a bit up in pow, but will rage in the bumps.
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 R:EX - Help with length