New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic R11.20

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
As some of you know I have recently purchased some Bandit XX and am very happy with them. Now my younger brother is trying to get some new planks and says he has been offered a great deal on some R11.2O in a 180 I think. He skis similar terrain to myself (mostly with me) but if anything is a stronger skier than me. He is looking for a ski that is 60/40 piste/off-piste and he has a tendancy to enjoy trees and bumps. He completely refuses to entertain the Bandits as I now have a pair and is keen on the Atomics. I know a lot of people rate this ski but I have heard some horror stories about the bindings, can someone offer some insight into a) whether the ski is suitable and b) binding performance. He is 26 years old, 5'11'' and abot 180 pounds. Thanks everyone.
post #2 of 22
I'm 6'1" and was about 220 pounds last season. I ski the 11.20 in a 180 length with the 6.14 binding. For the sake of comparison, I switched from 4x4 Powertracs (186) w/ Look bindings early last season. Have about 25 days under lots of conditions on them. At least for me, the Atomics do everything better than the 4x4s. Easier big arcs on groomers. Tighter turns on and off groomed. Very stable in crud. I find it hard to imagine an all around ski I would like more.

The Atomic bindings seem no better and no worse than the Looks. Once I got my DIN settings where I wanted them, they stayed on when they were supposed to and did the auto-eject thing when needed. I may play with it some more, but the couple of times I used the variable front/back settings on the bindings, I did not like the result and promptly put them back on the "neutral" setting.

A few observations... Last year we had lots of big dumps here in the PNW. On the days that tended toward waist deep powder, I could have used a bit more float (confession: better skiers than I am were on G3s, Pilots, 11.20s, etc and did just a wee bit better than I did ). I'm somewhat bump-challenged - so I can not really address how these handle under the command of a really good bump skier. Better than my old 4x4s though. I'm very happy having gone fairly short with this ski. If he's really into bumps and trees, your brother may want to consider going even shorter than than 180...
post #3 of 22
Not that my comments are related to this thread, but sharing anyway...

I'm glad to hear that the 180 length worked out for you. I'm also 6'1"; also 220 lbs (oddly enough). I just purchased a pair off 11.20s, 180 length. I hesitated before buying--I've been skiing for about 17 years, and it's been hard-wired into me that one should ski on LONG skis. Being an advanced skier, it's still odd to be taller than my skis.

In any case, I can't wait to try them, and it's good to know they worked out well for at least one other.

Quote:
Originally posted by spindrift:
I'm 6'1" and was about 220 pounds last season. I ski the 11.20 in a 180 length with the 6.14 binding. For the sake of comparison, I switched from 4x4 Powertracs (186) w/ Look bindings early last season. Have about 25 days under lots of conditions on them. At least for me, the Atomics do everything better than the 4x4s. Easier big arcs on groomers. Tighter turns on and off groomed. Very stable in crud. I find it hard to imagine an all around ski I would like more.
post #4 of 22
I ma 6" 0" and 180 to 187lbs, depending on where and what I have been eating. I am on a 180 R11.20. They do it all. skied on a friends 190cm who is much bigger & heavier than me, they were tanks. I would think you two bigger guys are a little short on a 180cm, but to each his own. I ytthink your brother would be perfect on the 11.20 in a 180. 2 of my other friends who are quite a bit smaller & lighter than I am also ski on the 180. so I think that particular length is appropriate for a wide range of heights & weights.

As far as the bindings go, both my boys race on Atomic skis and bindings & they have been excellent. My older son is 6'0 190 and skis all four events on them. Also, easy to mount, adjust and variable position on the ski are all pluses.

By the way I have a pair of 180cm last years 11.20's for sale with matching Xentrix 6.14 bindings. Identical to this years ski except graphics! In excellent shape. Bought last January. I am keeping my R11.20's

Any interest email me at Volklman@aol.com

Over & out!
post #5 of 22
Hey JamesT:

What horror stories have you heard about the xentrix bindings?

By the way,

I've demo'd these skis side by side - very different animals: atomics stiffer, lightning fast ski. I like that ski. Bandits softer tail, performs relatively better in bumps...also like that ski. Bandits come with a twintip this year, which should improve performance.
post #6 of 22
I'm 5'9 and weigh 130 and just got a pair 180 atomic 9.22(almost the same as the 11.20) I think I'm way to short for 180s but maybe not, I'm fairly advanced doing double blacks ect.. not to much moguls tho.

oh yeah, I had a pair of 2 year old xentrix 4-12's which had some problems, so I sent them back to atomic and they mailed me a new pair for free!

BoB
post #7 of 22
I have the 1999 Bandit X at 191 cm. and the 2001 Atomic 11.20 at 191 cm. and I have skied the 2000 Bandit XX at 191 cm. I am 6’ 1” and weigh 235 lbs. I am an aggressive skier and I ski everything on the mountain. I liked the Atomics the best. They are stiffer and provide the pop I expect coming out of the turn, they are more stable and handle the crud very well. Oddly, I also liked them in the bumps even though the Bandits were slightly softer. As of last year I thought the 11.20 was the best all around ski for me.

Mark
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Maddog1959:
I have the 1999 Bandit X at 191 cm. and the 2001 Atomic 11.20 at 191 cm. and I have skied the 2000 Bandit XX at 191 cm. I am 6’ 1” and weigh 235 lbs.
Mark
235lbs! You could fit 2 of me in you I guess I'm going to have start packing a 100lb weight in my knapsack so I can properly flex my 11.20's [img]smile.gif[/img]

Don't know how the XX's are at speed, but I've tried the 9.22's and found those not to be stable at hi speeds.
post #9 of 22
I've been following this thread, and need to give a bit of input.

The longest R11.20 is 190cm, not 191. If you ski a recent 191cm Atomic, it is a 10.ex or R:ex or a GS:11.

Though the Bandit XX and the R:11 (or Ride 11.20 and 10 series) share similar shapes, the skis perform very differently. Chances are that someone who likes the Rossignol might not like the Atomic, and vice versa. I found that the XX was best skied with a more old school technique requiring more steering and pivoting while the Atomic can be tipped onto edge, letting the shape and flex make the turn.

I use 190cm 11.20 or R:11, but I'm 6'3" and 230#. 180cm is fine for the original poster's brother. I sold my 11:20 quite early into last season and used 180cm at times without any ill effects.

Though there were some issues with certain bindings, I would not refer to them as horrors. If there is any concern, the 614 Xentrix should be considered over the 412. Slightly heavier, and slighly more pricey though. The issue with earlier 412s and 310s have been addressed, so there should be no concern.
post #10 of 22
BetaRacer:

Right you are 190 cm.

wizard:

If you really weigh 118 lbs and are skiing the 11.20 in a 190 cm. (you do not say the length but imply this in your post) you are about 30 cm. too long. No, I seldom have trouble flexing any ski, although I did not like the Bandits in the 198 cm length. I suspect you have to be careful in ski selection to make sure you can flex the ski. I found the 9.22 to have the flex pattern of limp noodles. Not a real fun ski for me.

Mark
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by BetaRacer:

Though there were some issues with certain bindings, I would not refer to them as horrors. If there is any concern, the 614 Xentrix should be considered over the 412. Slightly heavier, and slighly more pricey though. The issue with earlier 412s and 310s have been addressed, so there should be no concern.
Betaracer,
Could you elaborate as to what the issues were with the earlier 412/310's? Also how can you tell the difference between the newer vs older 412's?

Maddog,
You're right. A 190 would definitely be too much for me. I'm in a 160, which should be about right for me (140lbs 5'5"). Thank god the trend towards shorter skis, which makes it a lot easier now for me to find the short lengths in a variety of models. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #12 of 22
I won't go into details for obvious reasons. All I can tell you is that Atomic has addressed the issue with the newest versions.

The bindings with the transparent areas are the newest revised ones.
post #13 of 22
I also have just purchased a pair of Atomic Beta Race 10.22 170cm. At 180# & 5'10",OK skier. I am wondering how thse boards will do in deep powder and high speed carving? Will they be like my 205cm slalom skis? I also have a pair of 200cm Beta X Carv 9.26's. They seem like a very stiff ski and not much shape to them. Thanks for any imput. Mt.B,Or. opens 11-22 wooo-hooo!
post #14 of 22
Well, I don't know how to put this, but I'll be as tactful as possible.

The shortest BetaRace 10.22 was 178cm. However, the longest BetaRace 10.22 junior is 170cm. If you do have the 170, you have a ski for a larger kid, but not one as large as you.

Chances are that you will out-ski the 10.22jr very easily, especially when the snow gets firm. As to soft snow float, it doesn't have any.

I guess it comes down to buyer beware when E-bay is concerned.
post #15 of 22
Originally posted by BetaRacer:
The bindings with the transparent areas are the newest revised ones.

BetaRacer,

Could you be a bit more specific?
post #16 of 22
I believe what Betaracer is refering to is the top plastic piece on the heel and on the piece just below the boot sole, which are orange translucent on the newer 4-12 bindings. The older ones were not translucent. At least that's what I noticed when comparing the older vs newer bindings in the store. Mine happens to be the newer one
post #17 of 22
FYI: I'm skiing the 11.20 in a 180. It's close to be the best all around , all mountain ski I've skied in over 40 years. I came off a pair of K2 MXPs in a 188. No loss of stability at speed by going down 8cm. The TI metal sheets make this one stable board! The 11.20s are a great front side /back side ski for the PNW snows. Punches thru crud floats pow and cranks on the groomed. I'm 5'10'' and weigh in at 195. I have not found the redline on these boards! Love em'. I have 4 friends skiing these as well.
post #18 of 22
Betaracer,

what is the current recommendation for tuning the 11.20s?

I have a pair that is 2 yrs old. Would the current recommendations for sidewall and base apply to those skis?

thanks,
John
post #19 of 22
anyone out there...to da top.
post #20 of 22
to that top, pt2.
post #21 of 22
I don't believe that the edge/base angles have changed at all, still 3 and 1 as with the rest of the Atomics. At least that's what they tuned my son's 3yr old 9.22's to when I brought them in this week.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard:
I don't believe that the edge/base angles have changed at all, still 3 and 1 as with the rest of the Atomics. At least that's what they tuned my son's 3yr old 9.22's to when I brought them in this week.
Right On!

Ski with the wind MF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion