or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2004 Models

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
This is my first post on the board but so far I am impressed with what I am reading.

My wife and I started skiing last January.

I have never skied on straight skis. I learned on 130s and went up a size each time until I purchased my Rossignol Cobra X's in 160s and my wife purchased Atomic 8.18s in 150s.

I am 5' 7" 180 pounds and my wife is 5' 5" 150 pounds.

We went skiing so much last year that we went from never skiing to being solid intermediates to lower advanced.

This past Sept we purchased new skis. I got Volkl Supersport 4 Star 168s and my wife got the Volkl Carver Motion 20/20s in 163s.
We have advanced to bump runs and steeps this year and love anything hard. We have been skiing blacks and some doubles at harder resorts like Sugarloaf and Sunday River.

We both liked the skis but we had some problems. I bent my tail once while not even wiping hard and my wife bent her tip the other month and this past weekend in Tremblant bent her tail.

We both demoed some Atomics that we were told would be too stiff for us by our shop but ended up loving the more solid feeling.

I tried the Supercross and my wife tried the 2003 rides.

We have returned both skis to Volkl and are getting credit at out Ski Shop. I do not want to waste any more time and money on Volkls. We got our skis tuned each time we got a new pair because the base bevel on the factory tune was like 2 degrees and we like it a little under 1 degree with 2 on the side.

My question is:

Should my wife get the new 2004 Atomic R10s in 160s and should I get the new 2004 Atomic R11s in 170s?

We both want a wider waste for crud and I have not heard of too many people bending Atomics.

Unfortunately our ski shop gor a pre-pack and only got limited sizes.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
post #2 of 21
Thread Starter 
Help Help

Please

[img]smile.gif[/img]

I am going to the Ski Shop shortly to get some demos.

I may just demo the 170s for me and the 160s for my wife.
post #3 of 21
You sound a lot like me. My wife and I are late starters, having only gotten into alpine skiing about 4-5 seasons ago. We've accelerated from beginner to level 8 in that time. It sure helps when you put on the mileage. We average 50-60 days a season. I've gone from some Rossi Salto to Xscream Series to Atomic 11.20's.

I really love the 11.20's, especially for the heavy west coast snow we get out this way. It cruises effortlessly through the crud and wind crust, where as my Xscream's used to get knock around. It's even great on the groomers carving solid gs arcs as fast or slow as you want to go. It is a stiff ski, but the solid platform allows you to ski the roughest most variable conditions with ease. What really surprised me was how quick and nimble it was. Moguls were no problem and they are very quick in the fall line when you're skiing the steeps. I'm on a 160, but then I'm a light weight 140lbs 5'5", and the shorter size definitely makes for more versatility.

I've demoed other midfats such as the Bandit X, XX, Atomic 9.22, Crossmax 8 and 10's. None of them compare to the 11.20's as a powerful all mountain ski. The Bandits were too sluggish, the Crossmax were too soft, the 9.22's didn't feel solid enough.

So what are you waiting for? Go for it! =]
post #4 of 21
wow, rank beginner to Level 8 in 4 years?

Level 8 somehow must be mid-range in Vancouver. Is that Level 8 on a Level 1-15 scale?

self-delusion is quite powerful!

[img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #5 of 21
gonzo,
We're on the canuck scale over here, where our 8 is worth 1/2 of the yankee That's why we measure everything in metric, so that it makes everything seem like more.
post #6 of 21
Holy Crap! After half a season of experience, you know more about edge bevels than Volkl, and won't even ski on their junk now! Tell us all you're just pulling our collective leg before we all quit skiing in disgust with our own incompetence! :

DH
post #7 of 21
If you like the Atomics, go for it! I don't know if there's a ski that can't be bent, and I've seen bent Atomics before, so I wouldn't say to buy it for that reason. Just buy it because you like it. Anyone here can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think bending the ski is probably more of a technique issue than a ski problem. Still, if you get a ski with less metal, it'll probably be less likely to bend. For example, an Atomic 9.22 or R:9 has carbon tubes instead of the 11.20 or R:11's Titanium tubes. It will probably be less likely to bend, but will certainly ride differently. After all, it is a different ski.

Anyway, if you are still exploring and learning bumps, be prepared to kill more skis.
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the input.

We are going to demo the Atomics this Sunday at Cannon so we'll see how they do on steep ice.

I'm going with the 11.20s in 170 and my wife will try the 10.20s in 160.

Wizard,

I'm glad that you talked about progressing so fast. I have been skiing with my friend this year who has been skiing since he was 6 and raced in Maine growing up. He is extremely surprised by how good my wife and I are and that we can keep up.

I totally attribute alot of it to being athletic when I was younger, having good balance, and learning on new equipment which allows people to progress really fast.

When I learned last year they do not even teach the wedge anymore. They teach you modern parrallel technique.

Epic,

I agree that the extra metal in the Volkl's prolly makes them more succeptable to bending. I don't think we bent the skis from bad technique because we never bent a single ski last year learning and beating the crap out of the skis

Also, wife bent the front of her ski the first time and the tail of her ski the second time. There is no way that bad technique would bend the front of a ski.

I am looking forward to seeing how the Atomics perform.

The reason I was asking about the Atomics bending was because I don't want to spend $1000 to replace them next year.

Well I might want new skis next year anyway.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for all the help
post #9 of 21
I haven't seen a tail get bent in the bumps, but I've seen plenty of tips pointing strraight up.
post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
So the fronts of skis get bent in the bumps?

I swear I will try my hardest to break my demos Sunday.

post #11 of 21
How do I get info on 2004 models, any brand?
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by gonzostrike:
wow, rank beginner to Level 8 in 4 years?

[img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
Not unheard of...

I went out with a buddy o couple of years ago... his second day ever. He was carving hip to the ground turns, and pulled a 360 off the table top on the way down. I think he was on Elan SCX's that were too long for him. Admittedly he's an amazing snowboarder, but still... 2nd day.

Anyway, ditto the recommendation of the R:9 and R:11. I don't know why you had a problem with Volkl's... they're rep for durability is pretty much the best on the market, but if you're not happy with them, there's plenty of other great skis on the market. I'd check out dynastar too (Skicross 9, Intuitiv 74). They generally have a little less sidecut, which is nice in the bumps, but tougher on the groomed. And you don't have to get an Atomic binding if you don't want it.
post #13 of 21
keep smoking that stuff, flip. it's working.

: [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
Well I just got back from Cannon Mountain.

The 2004 Atomic R 20s in 170 rock. They were alittle heavy but holy crap, they held a turn way better than I thought they would. The were good on ice and awesome in powder. The morning conditions were nice hardpack and the edges didn't slip once.

My wife was equally impressed with her R 10s in 160s. The R 10s this year have titanium instead of carbon rods and both models have the new ceramic edges on the bottom.

Really the only difference between next years 10 and 11s are the color and the binding.

I have never seen my wife hold such a tight turn at a high speed.

The skis are very unforgiving though and at slow speeds they are difficult to control.

Granted I have only been skiing a year but I think I may buy both of these skis.

I would highly recommend the 2004 models as a very good all around ski.
post #15 of 21
Scalce,
I'll be interested to hear the results of your demos when you get back.

Gonzo,
There are some people out there with natural innate abilities for certain things, where as some others have to work harder at it. My sister and her husband got into skiing at the same time that we did. We put on about the same mileage each season. They're stuck at a level 4 and are having trouble progressing beyond that. However they are not active at all and don't participate in any sort of other sports. They are the type who have to work harder to achieve the same results on skis.

On the other hand, my wife and I are quite active and do a variety of other sports. We're not expert skiers but are much closer to that goal than my sister/brother-inlaw even though we've all started at the same time.

One of the things that has really helped us is inline skating during the off season. There are no skis that are as unforgiving as pair of inline skates. Your balance has to be perfect at all times. The balancing and accuracy in foot work needed is a lot more demanding than what is required on skis.
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Scalce:

My question is:

Should my wife get the new 2004 Atomic R10s in 160s and should I get the new 2004 Atomic R11s in 170s?

We both want a wider waste [waist] for crud and I have not heard of too many people bending Atomics.
Hmm...

R.EX? Crud is best when experienced with boards 80-mm or more under foot. Oh, isn't a 170 a bit short for a R11 for your size?
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard:
One of the things that has really helped us is inline skating during the off season. There are no skis that are as unforgiving as pair of inline skates. Your balance has to be perfect at all times. The balancing and accuracy in foot work needed is a lot more demanding than what is required on skis.[/QB]
I do not agree. I'm pretty good in both sports
(skiing and ice/inline skating). Sure ice/inline skating requires good balance.
But can you really compare your body work while skating at some city park with work required to perform while flying over some ungrommed dims/2-dims with natural bumps?
No, you can not. Unless you skate some specially built extreme
terrain. Or, may be, just skidding mentioned before dims/2-
dims.
post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
The reason I think inline skating and skiing aren't totally correlated is because the ankle is almost imobilized in a ski boot where in an inline boot you can bend it all different ways.

Inline skating definately strenghthens your stability muscles though and forces you to balance.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by gonzostrike:
keep smoking that stuff, flip. it's working.

: [img]tongue.gif[/img]
No sweat, brah.

It made me feel like a tool too. But the kid's an anomaly. He has the best balance and muscle control of any person I've ever met, pro athlete or otherwise... grew up on XC skis, and a snowboard, and danced ballet in his youth. So he was comfortable on edge leaning downhill, comfortable
on thin sticks, and really comfortable spinning in the air and spotting his landings. It was still only his 2nd day on skis. Point is, some people are really gifted. Don't let it get you down.

Scalce, the R:11s are great. If the 170 felt good, go for it. If you're thinking you might eventually move to the trees from the bumps, try the R.ex before you plunk down the plastic, but otherwise I'd say you're good to go.
post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
thanks Flip

I think I am going to go with the R 11's.

The R:ex would be too fat for most days in NE.

I was talking to some woman on the lift yesterday and she wouldn't beleive me that I just started skiing last year and I only took one lesson. My first lesson.

So she wanted to take a run with me and my wife but she skied too slow and sideways.

post #21 of 21
I would defintly say that progression is different for everybody. I know it was for me. When I learned to ski with friends of mine, they were still snowplowing on day 4 while I was beginning to rip easier blues. Your athletic ability and the other sports you play make a huge difference. I skate occasionally, bike, work out, do some rock climbing, and play soccer. I'd say that soccer and skating made the biggest difference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion