EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Reviews: Elan m666, Atomic SG, Atomic RT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reviews: Elan m666, Atomic SG, Atomic RT

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Skis Reviewed: Elan m666 176 flat with Marker 1300 bindings; Atomic Super G 201 50/40 with standard plate and Race 6:14 bindings
Boot Reviewed: Atomic Racetech TI Extra Soft, 25
Skier specs: 6', 150lbs, 24 yrs of age, unsure of level, ~25 days so far on skis
Conditions: soft groomers, powder, grippy Colorado hardpack

Elans: These are wonderful, versatile skis. Hmmm... my first run on these after being on P40s they felt pretty ridiculous, but I quickly got the hang of them. They have more edge grip than the P40s (173 length). They carve round, smooth turns for the most part, however the flex pattern makes them slightly funky sometimes, meaning that they don't always feel as stable as I'd like on hard snow or rough terrain at speed. I'm just used to stiffer equipment, and like a stiffer midsection to help with the flappiness. Being a former alpine snowboarder I am used to soaking up bumps with my whole body. Anyway they are certainly fun to carve and easy at medium speeds. I've taken them pretty fast without any trouble. The nose has a smooth, poppy kind of feel. They can be overpowered. Pretty fun on groomers.

In the powder, I was amazed at how well these floated. I have next to no ski experience on powder, but managed the trees next to blues and blacks without too much difficulty, in 1-3 feet of snow (the one time I fell off I went to my waist, but I think it was a tree well). I'm still getting used to hop turns and short rebound turns in powder. I got them up to a little speed in the open once and they felt even better. It's a funny experience skiing in powder, quite different from snowboarding. I probably wouldn't want these for the steep and deep, but would certainly give it a try within reason.

The time I've spent in the moguls on these is mixed, but overall much better than my P40s. I like the pop they have. I haven't done anything steep with big moguls (besides one run down part of a black which was pretty difficult, but I wasn't really trying and was instead trying to get over to the trees). On the easy blues I can pretty much take the zipper line with reasonable control (I don't carry a whole lot of speed regardless, so this may not be the real zipper, if such a thing even exists on easy blues). They pretty much just ride right over, bouncing all the way, with quick edge sets and such. They are pretty tolerant of mistakes. I will post on this some more as my skill improves.

Overall, I think they are pretty much perfect for me as an all-mountain ski, especially given the amount of tree riding I will end up doing here in Colorado, and because I will want to ride bumps sometimes as well. If I were to have one ski, it would be a Stormrider, but along with my Atomics these do very nicely.

Atomics: What can I say about these? They are the fastest, grippiest, smoothest, and most adrenaline-inducing piece of equipment I have ever used. My first run on these I was amazed at how natural they felt, then at how much speed they produced. They are still taking a little getting used to mainly because of the speed, but with my background I feel at home on this type of board.

I know they are 50/40 flex (they were misnumbered or numbered for a different location) after flexing some 51/41s in the same length which were slightly softer.

After using them about 4 times, I finally got to open them up today on Riverrun at Keystone, with decent hardpack, smooth, and no crowds. I'm not sure how fast I was going, but certainly faster than ever before. It felt like my face should have peeled off or something, and they could have gone quite a bit faster I'm sure. These ski well in a wide stance and with anything from a tuck to very high edge angles (which is why I got them, they just looked like they would rule for laying it over). I need to get in better shape so that I can pressure them a bit more, however I had no trouble controlling them safely. I could easily convert from carve to skid and back even at very high speeds and angles (more so than the Elans or Volkls at any speed). They need constant forward pressure, as expected, and to really charge I can drive the heck out of my inside hip and shoulder, although usually I like making wide arcs across the whole run. I will try being more aggressive with them and see how it works. I am curious about their rebound and acceleration when driven like that. I got back on the tails once today and didn't have any trouble getting forward again. They are fairly soft in the tail, but really feel just right overall.

I once got stuck over at the side of the run where some traversing trails join, and a kid skied out in front of me, very close, while I was going probably somewhere in the 40s, and they stopped on a dime. That was certainly a relief. I've been to Keystone many, many times without really noticing this particular trail and am usually quite conscious about that area (I think I am usually over on the other side at this point out of habit of avoiding the other ones).

Anyway, after every run I stood there breathing in disbelief at what I had just done. Once the adrenaline wore off I realized my legs were shaking. I wish there were more steep trails around here that were groomed. I will end up using these mainly at Beaver Creek (man I'm wishing for Birds of Prey to be groomed) and some runs at Keystone on weekdays (Starfire, River Run).

Oh yeah, I rode them in about an inch of powder one day and they hooked like crazy.

Atomic Boots: Great boots. I don't have much experience with ski boots, other than a pair of rentals and some Lange L8's that were too big for me. I use these for freeskiing as well as grrrrroomers. The boots are slightly softer than I'd like for groomer applications, at least with the race skis (they are plenty for the 666s) but are very close, and I will adapt. I might should have gotten the softs, but unfortunately only this flex and the medium were available in my size, and the fit was perfect. The Lange 130's fit okay, but were looser overall and the Atomics had a much superior flex and feel. The R1s might have worked, but the shop owner thought they would be too much for me. I only weighed 130 lbs at the time.

Going 50-60mph on my SGs the boots felt pretty neutral flex-wise.They may be perfect given the smoothness of the ride and considering that I never had any problems controlling them. I'll have to try some GS sticks, though, I imagine they might be a little soft for those.

I am increasingly thinking less and less about the boots when I'm skiing, because while they actually felt stiff at first they are more like an extension of my body now. Hmmm... it is true that if I think about turning, or whatever I'm trying to do or learn in order to turn, then the boots are just there, it's instant. I think this is a good sign. In order to drive these I must have my hands out in front, sometimes I have to be very aggressive. They have plenty of rear support. In the cold (below 10 F) they feel perfect. I like the gummy, but bouncy flex, which is very, very smooth.

I'm not sure what to think of these in moguls. For a while I thought they may be too stiff, but I am growing into them. Much easier on the 666s than the P40s. Response is instant, which is both bad and good. With the 666s they feel pretty bouncy in the moguls and offer plenty of support. I am able to make quick edges sets and turns with no delay, and am just learning where to place the skis so that I don't get bounced around too much. An aggressive stance makes all the difference.

In powder they are fine. There's not much to say here. Obviously this is a pretty aggressive boot for powder, even with the soft flex, but in what I've done they felt fine.

Oh yeah, break-in. I had to get the toeboxes ground a bit, but otherwise it's been just time. They hurt less now after about 20 days. Sometimes I have to unbuckle them for the lift ride, and they hurt if I stand in them too long or use the footrest on the lift. On cold days my feet can go numb (even with the Hotronics), but that's more of a circulation issue. After about 4-5 runs I start having circulation problems. I'm pretty sure that the solution is just more break-in as opposed to fitting, as there aren't really any hotspots. They are just tight. The liner is wonderful, but very stiff and it definitely takes some time to break in. I don't think pack-out will be a problem for a long time. Overall I love them.
post #2 of 18
Nice review

I'd love to try the atomics. Why did you put a 614 binding on them? A 1018 matches up better.
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
I might should have used a 10:18 but I was afraid the DIN would be too high. I like the metal heelcup though. I'll probably end up maxing out the 6:14s at some point, although at the moment I'm only running them at 9, which is probably unsafe.
post #4 of 18
It is DEFINITELY unsafe, even at your weight.
post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
For sure. If you ever make it to Summit County I will be happy to lend them to you, provided you don't mind riding 6:14s.
post #6 of 18
I'll be in Vail from March 3-12. PM me.
post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 
I just wanted to post an update.

Atomic 201 SG's

I discovered over the summer that the plates on my Atomics were mismounted, with one being off center a few mm. Foothills Ski and Bike sent them in for me and I got 06/07 replacements. They are blue now. The new ones are 48/38 flex, so are a little stiffer, and have the black worldcup plate. The worldcup plate is definitely softer than the other plate with the aluminum. The flex pattern on the ski is much more even now, and the skis feel a good deal smoother.

These are downright incredible skis. I've been skiing at Copper this year, which has some groomed blacks. I still haven't gone full steam down one of those yet. I pick up substantially more speed with these down the blue runs than I do on other equipment. I've found that having strong legs is a huge factor in enjoying these skis.

It's hard to describe how much fun it is to lay carves at high speeds on these skis. I'm finding that they hook up faster than I expect (in a good way), and keep a nice turn shape. When things get hairy, I can ski them kind of like old straight skis, which is fine with me since I've never skied those. I ended up in some moguls on accident the other day, and luckily on the side of the run they were large and not fully-formed. When hitting smaller bumps they don't get jostled much. It can be hard to stay forward, though, given the length.

These are a bit livelier than my previous pair. I think it is because of the worldcup plate freeing up the flex in the center of the ski a bit. I can get some spring out of them in high speed turns, and they have enough pop to make quick turns reasonable with some work (and tight boots).

10 DIN is not enough. I prereleased once on a hard edge set in the semi-moguls on ice, and had what felt like a easy release when I ran over my pole at low speed the other day I had them out.

Racetechs and m666's

I got the inner toeboxes of my boots ground (where the base of the big toe is) and now my feet are settling much more nicely. I am getting a lot more stability out of my Elans as a result. I was alternating between tipping them really early and not getting good weight distribution towards the rear of the ski, and being off-balance towards the rear of the ski. Either of these made them uncomfortable at speed. This has been solved with the boot grind.

DD223, let me know if you're in the the area.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223 View Post
It is DEFINITELY unsafe, even at your weight.
Wjhat you think his DIN is too low???? Come On

A 150lbs. guy does not need a 10.18 binding on a SG ski,. You should nt be telling people stuff liie that. Have you ever read the vermont Safety research articles on so-called pre-realease and the minimal load on toepiece at high speed!

I'll post it for you again!




VSR FAQ for Skiers #8
SUBJECT: SEPARATING HARDWARE PROBLEMS FROM SOFTWARE PROBLEMS
QUESTION: If my bindings are releasing inadvertently, how much should I crank them up?
ANSWER: STOP!! Put away the screwdriver and study the following:
Most retention problems are not related to the release setting and many are not even caused by the equipment at all. Often release, retention, and even performance problems are Software--that is skier--NOT Hardware related. Talk the problem over with a well trained and experienced binding mechanic. If you have trouble finding a shop that will listen, check our SHOP LIST for shops that have sent staff members to the Ski and Snowboard Mechanics Workshop. If they don't have the answer they will at least have an idea of where to find it.
The RATCHET Effect-- A good example of the rush to readjust is what we call the Ratchet Effect on the release adjustment screw of competition bindings. Race bindings are tightened for a variety of reasons (most of them wrong), but are rarely loosened. All research efforts to date show that the magnitude of the load a skier applies to a modern binding toe piece decreases with speed (even during competition) and yet all problems of retention (inadvertent release) are blamed on the binding setting. Over time competitors at all levels employ ever increasing release settings, usually at both heel and toe, to address problems real or imagined. Setting increases are even precipitated by rumors of someone else's bad experience (the Ken Reed syndrome). This practice is dangerous and unnecessary.
PLEASE NOTE: The discussions that follow are intended to motivate the reader to be observant and accurately report problems involving the release/retention system to a qualified shop mechanic. The hypothetical hardware problems are rare, especially for well-maintained equipment. However, the software problems alluded to below can be real for any skier using even the most current binding. To diagnose any retention problem, provide your shop's mechanic with a few critical pieces of information:
What were you doing before you and the ski parted company?
What happened to the ski immediately after release?
Which way did you fall?
What was the position of the heel piece when you recovered the ski?
HARDWARE PROBLEMS
The FLEX Effect--Inadvertent releases experienced by racers and hard/fast skiing non-competitors are often the result of the inability of toe and heel piece to stay the same distance apart during rapid flexing and counter-flexing of the ski--what we call the Flex Effect (or the Effortless Release). The most common cause of this problem is a sluggish forward pressure mechanism in the heel piece which can cause a gap to form between boot and binding and thus allow the boot to escape without releasing the binding. Cranking up the release adjustment screw at heel or toe has no effect on this phenomenon and may even exacerbate the problem.
A Sluggish Forward Pressure Mechanism In The Heel Piece -- If the ski continued to go in the same direction after you two parted company, and the heel piece was found in the closed position, it could be the Flex Effect. Many times your mechanic can solve the problem by simply cleaning, lubricating, and correctly adjusting the forward pressure mechanism. With certain binding models, however, interference between the underside of the heel piece and the top surface of the ski may require the use of shims (small washers) to raise the heel piece slightly.
Thick Lifters And Soft Skis -- But the problem could also be complicated by excessively thick lifters under the binding or a ski which is very soft under foot. If you feel you need lifters, you should consider binding models with a lifter function built-in, and if you are partial to really soft skis, your best bet may be a binding model with a band or bridge connecting toe and heel piece, designed to allow either toe or heel to float with respect to the ski. These free flexing models make flex/counter-flex much easier for the heel piece to handle.
The HOUDINI Effect--On the other hand, if the heel piece is found in the closed position and you are pretty sure from your own trajectory (after you and the ski parted company) that you were leaning forward at the time, the problem may be insufficient forward pressure. In this scenario, which could be called the Houdini Effect, the heel piece begins to open and thus presents an inclined plane to the boot's heel ledge. A little counter flex of the ski can also help to increase the mechanical advantage of that inclined plane, which then drives the heel piece rearward, thereby allowing the boot heel to escape upward from the heel piece. Since the heel piece did not actually release, the heel lug magically snaps back into the closed position, thus hiding its involvement in the affair. This condition can usually be reproduced by a binding mechanic with the aid of a ski binding test device. If the Houdini Effect is confirmed by the mechanic, the solution is usually to increase the forward pressure adjustment. However, if the forward pressure spring is damaged or weak, for whatever reason, you may have to replace the heel piece or more likely, the entire set of bindings.
The JET Effect--Insufficient forward pressure can also lead to an inadvertent separation of the boot from the ski binding during a (pardon the arcane terminology) jet turn. In this case the ski leaves your boot and shoots up and forward as you come off the mogul. This Jet Effect can occur with bindings which offer upward release at the toe as well as with models which are not designed to release upward at the toe at all. However, the problem is most often encountered among models which control upward release at the toe with the forward pressure mechanism of the heel piece. Because the ski flexes dramatically as you come into the mogul and then counter-flexes as you jet from the mogul, the real problem may not be just a weak forward pressure spring, but any of the problems associated with the Flex Effect discussed above.
SOFTWARE PROBLEMS
The BOW Effect--However, if the ski stays in the same place or shoots rearward following release, it may be a totally different problem. It is possible through the execution of poor or inappropriate technique to produce an inadvertent release of the heel piece at virtually any setting. The event has been termed the Bow Effect because, like the archer who allows the bow to slip from his grasp while flexing the bow in preparation for attaching the string, the skier flexes the fore body of the ski in reaction to a bump or rut thereby storing the energy that propels the ski rearward after release.
Poor Technique 'Pulls' The Heel Piece Open -- The inadvertent release itself is precipitated by the skier driving his or her shin rapidly forward at the same time as the forebody of the ski flexes sharply. The inadvertent coordination of these movements by a skier who is otherwise erect and in balance can put the lower leg momentarily in tension, thereby allowing the skier to pull the heel piece open with no apparent effort. This classical example of poor technique (bad software) can only be avoided through education--smoother, better coordinated technique. Cranking up the heel piece is not necessarily the solution. Once learned by our testers, this scenario could be repeated, even at release settings on the heel piece well beyond the setting range of any binding now available to the public.
Wide Tip, Narrow Waist, and Soft Flex -- In theory the Bow Effect is most common with relatively soft flexing skis and skis which are much narrower in the waist than the tip, especially when used in conditions which allow the ski under foot to sink with respect to the shovel. But virtually any ski has the potential to exhibit this effect if used improperly.
You Can't Compensate For The Bow Effect -- The Ratchet Effect is a very real danger for skiers who fail to recognize and deal with the Bow Effect. In the laboratory we have simulated the Bow Effect and compared the results to a simulation of the classic weighted forward fall. In these tests the difference between what our load cell (an instrumented artificial leg) sensed in the simulated forward fall was more than four times what the load cell sensed in the Bow Effect simulation. The lesson should be clear. If you try and compensate for the Bow Effect by increasing the release setting of your heel piece, you will put your leg at risk in any weighted forward fall, and yet you may still not have solved your retention problem.
The SUPERMAN Effect -- Another software problem, created and controlled completely by the skier, is what some might want to call theSuperman Effect. The problem occurs most often at relatively low speeds and is usually precipitated by the environment (snow conditions).
Pitch, Roll, And Yaw -- Release setting requirements are based upon the loads involved in skiing under packed powder to powder conditions. Using the analogy of flying a plane, the movements you make to maneuver a ski are largely pitch (moving your knees forward and backward) and roll (moving your knees from side to side), not yaw (twisting your lower legs clockwise or counter-clockwise). Yaw only comes into play during a transition, as we end one maneuver and begin another.
Torque Is A Consequence Of Less Than Perfect Technique -- A substantial twisting load (torque) is not required to maneuver a ski. Torque is largely a consequence of less than perfect technique. Applying greater twisting loads than are required for the maneuver is like applying excessive rudder control on an aircraft. You probably won't fall out of the sky but by making an uncoordinated turn you may lose speed, and at the least you are going to waste fuel (effort).
Mass, Gravity, And Muscle Strength -- In skiing we are limited by our mass, not our strength, in how great a twisting load we can actually apply to the ski and still remain in control. Under most conditions all we have to work against is gravity. We can in fact consider ourselves one-legged skiers because, in most situations, we lack the ability to work one leg against the other. We can not, for example, engage both inside edges or both outside edges at the same time while applying opposing loads in twist on each leg. If we do, our skis will steer apart or cross. However, when in heavy powder, breakable crust, or just plain crud, we have the ability to use our strength because we have something to push against. But the strongest person you can imagine does not need a stronger steering wheel, shifting lever, or brake pedal--no type of driving requires that--and skiers shouldn't crank up their bindings just because they have the strength to release them in certain situations.
Don't Blame The Hardware...Improve Your Technique -- Unless Superman turns on his powers he is just Clark Kent. In unguarded moments on the slope we are all Clark Kent and risk serious injury if we are using unnecessarily high settings. Don't look to hardware solutions for software problems. Whether you have succumbed to the Superman Effect or the Bow Effect look to improvements in your technique before you blame the hardware and grab a screwdriver.
BINDING READJUSTMENT
When To Re-Evaluate Your Release Settings -- If the ski and skier part company with the ski heading in a different direction and rolling over almost immediately, and if the heel piece is found in the closed position, probably an honest (possibly even necessary) release of the toe piece occurred. Likewise, if you fall forward, with the ski tumbling after you, and you find the heel piece in the open (cocked) position, you probably had an honest (possibly even necessary) release of the heel piece. If you feel the release was unnecessary, the problem persists, and you and your mechanic have ruled out all of the above, it may be time to re-evaluate your release settings.
How To Reclassify Yourself -- You can most easily modify your setting by reclassifying yourself for Skier Type. The Skier Type Classification Chart defines three Skier Types: I, II, and III. But it makes absolutely no sense to crank up the toe piece for a heel problem or vice versa. Therefore, we suggest you reclassify yourself on the shop's service agreement using a [ / ] to separate toe piece from heel piece classifications. So, if you were a Type II and you decided you needed more retention at the heel you could classify yourself as a II/III. Increasing you Skier Type Classification by one category has the effect of increasing the release torque of those units by 15%. But remember, as you increase your margin of retention you decrease your margin of release thus increasing the risk of injury from the ski acting as a lever to cause injury to your lower leg in a fall.
Recalibrating Your Bindings To The New Settings -- If you go ahead with this reclassification, your mechanic will consult a table provided by the binding manufacturer to determine the Initial Release Indicator Value separately for toe and heel piece. In addition to your Skier Type the mechanic will also consider your weight, height, and age. After adjusting your bindings to the initial settings, the mechanic will release the bindings with a Ski Binding Test Device and then compare the results to the Release Torque Ranges provided by that same chart. If necessary, the mechanic will fine tune the binding setting until each unit falls within the proper range. The mechanic will then record the Final Release Indicator Value for each unit on the service agreement.
Marking Your Skis So You Don't Forget -- If retention has not been a problem you might even consider using the method above to experiment with lower release settings. But in any case, to keep track of what you have done, we recommend that you write the Final Indicator Value close to each unit in the area between the toe piece and heel piece with a paint (or indelible) pen. So that you don't forget the Skier Type decisions you made, we recommend you include them as well. To accomplish this for the example above in which we used a Skier Type II for the toe piece and Skier Type III for the heel, you might consider using a convention such as II=[?] (where [?] is the Indicator Value) for the toe piece and III=[?] for the heel piece. That way, if you do find yourself in a situation which DEMANDS an IMMEDIATE correction to your release settings, you can make the temporary change yourself and then later return your bindings to the original setting or reopen the Skier Type discussion with your mechanic.
Caution -- Skier Type is a term intended to help you and your mechanic communicate better. Each definition has two parts. The first part is a brief guide which covers a general description of the type of skiing that applies to each classification. The second part is a warning of the trade-off involved in making each Skier Type selection. Although the second part is an irrefutable consequence of your choice and the laws of natural, the first part should be viewed as a helpful hint which may not work for everyone. It should, therefore, not be considered a hard and fast rule but a work in progress which may be redefined when necessary.--- CFE
10/21/99vsrskr2
Skier FAQ Menu HOME
© VSR 1999
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Wjhat you think his DIN is too low???? Come On

A 150lbs. guy does not need a 10.18 binding on a SG ski,. You should nt be telling people stuff liie that. Have you ever read the vermont Safety research articles on so-called pre-realease and the minimal load on toepiece at high speed!

I'll post it for you again!


No, I hadn't read it. I based the recommendation on having a bunch of friends who used to race speed events, and all of them cranked the DIN, in proportion to their weight, but still to a minimum of 11 or 12, even the lightweights.

I can really do without your arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that has been so prevalent in threads as of late. It is quite possible to disagree with someone and present evidence in favor of your point of view without trying to belittle the other person.

This thread is not the best example of it, but your heading set me off. [/rant]



Oh, and
Quote:
Originally Posted by wassnowboarder
10 DIN is not enough. I prereleased once on a hard edge set in the semi-moguls on ice, and had what felt like a easy release when I ran over my pole at low speed the other day I had them out.
Seems clear to me... :


_________________

Quote:
DD223, let me know if you're in the the area.
I may be there in March again this year, good to hear from you again. I tried to get in touch last year but was unsuccessful. Hopefully we can work something out. I have Nordica Dobermann GSRs and SLRs, so we can trade for a few runs, hopefully. Enjoy!
post #10 of 18
have you lost your mind????

skiing a WC SG ski in moguls??? Absurd! And you would judge your binding setting on that premise?

Yeah, I am arrogant. I am sick and tired of folks on the forum doling out inaccurate tuning info and unsubstantiated dangerous information. In your case completley irresponsible and dangerous information.

(I knew some racers who turned up their DIN so you should too?) Sounds pretty idiotic when you read it does it not?

Then you back up your claim with a mogul incident on SG skis which should never, ever see a mogul field. (although he probably won't have to worry about a pre-release since he will bend his ski before he can hurt himself)And this was not even mentioned in the 1st post!

sounds like a SOFTWARE problem to me! Technique caused these not binding pre release. Missed Poleplant . Slidng sideways weight wron in ski in an icy mogul!

Maybe you'll think twice before handing out off the cuff DIN recommendations and it will save somebody's knee or leg!

150 and a 25 shell is DIN 8 for a Type III and 9.5 for a III+ A binding starting at 10 would be dangerous!

I am 6'0 190 and same boot size category! My DIN type III 9.5. for over 50 8. I ski on 9, have not come out in the last 5 years????
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassnowboarder View Post
I still haven't gone full steam down one of those yet.
You haven't lived until you've gone full steam down a smooth black on speed skis.

Come on A-man, I've skied my SGs everywhere I skied. I bet you did the same with your's too, back in the day. Sometimes you have to get through a few moguls to get to the good runs. Other times, you're lucky and can find a near-cliff to shush that bypasses the mogul run.

Two things to consider. Hitting ruts or some small hard bumps at 75 mph can knock your skis off your boots at 10 DIN even you don't mess up. Some might say skiing that fast off a specially prepped race course IS messing up, but why should the racers have all the fun? However, you will likely break your leg at 9 DIN if you fall poorly anyway. So if your going to be skiing fast on rough conditions you may as well crank them up a bit. It would suck to go into the trees because a binding released, when you might other wise have been fine. Breaking your leg because your bindings are set at 9 is just as painful as breaking it because you bindings were set at 14 as far as I can tell.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
You haven't lived until you've gone full steam down a smooth black on speed skis.

Come on A-man, I've skied my SGs everywhere I skied. I bet you did the same with your's too, back in the day. Sometimes you have to get through a few moguls to get to the good runs. Other times, you're lucky and can find a near-cliff to shush that bypasses the mogul run.

Two things to consider. Hitting ruts or some small hard bumps at 75 mph can knock your skis off your boots at 10 DIN even you don't mess up. Some might say skiing that fast off a specially prepped race course IS messing up, but why should the racers have all the fun? However, you will likely break your leg at 9 DIN if you fall poorly anyway. So if your going to be skiing fast on rough conditions you may as well crank them up a bit. It would suck to go into the trees because a binding released, when you might other wise have been fine. Breaking your leg because your bindings are set at 9 is just as painful as breaking it because you bindings were set at 14 as far as I can tell.
Actually 9 DIN is where he should be for a Type III+, probably won't break anything.

Blasphemy for a 150 pounder to take a BRAND NEW pair of 201 Atomic SG's into the bumps! what a total disregard fo a fine piece of equipment.

Do you use a hammer to undo a screw? How about the right tool for the job at hand!

But he certainly should not judge his DIn setting based on one inadvertent release on those skis in icy-moguls.

and those little bumps at 75 (this guy is not going get going 75 no way no how at 150 lbs. & no speed suit, that is the faster then the JO level J1 & 2's get going in a real downhill at a real mountain in a speed suit with race WAX!) or ruts are not going to knock your ski off unless you are light on the ski in the middle of the turn and sliding. if that is the case it makes no damn difference what your DIN is on, your ski is coming off.

what the heck, he sounds young, he'll heal fast anyway!



And no I didn't and don't ski SG's or Dh's in the bumps! but I did ski my Atomic Bionic Team slaloms in the bumps! 203cm. Different ski, different bumps back then!
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
And no I didn't and don't ski SG's or Dh's in the bumps!
Really?

I would submit that you're missing out. I think skiing reasonable bumps with speed skis helps build good reaction and balance skills.

Skis can always be replaced if you screw up.
post #14 of 18
I guess you always had a quiver. Things were different for me; I could only afford 1 ski, and it had to be a speed ski.

I'm 165 lbs, and my din was set to 7 by a shop when I told them I was a Level III+ skier. I also don't know of any DH racers 150 lbs or more that set their DINs to 9 or less:

As to how fast you can go when you don't have to ski around the gates, but can choose your own line down a mountain and just follow the fall line, I don't want to start that argument again. However, I will say that maybe your hills are more like the ones in Ontario than the ones in BC.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I guess you always had a quiver. Things were different for me; I could only afford 1 ski, and it had to be a speed ski.

I'm 165 lbs, and my din was set to 7 by a shop when I told them I was a Level III+ skier. I also don't know of any DH racers 150 lbs or more that set their DINs to 9 or less:

As to how fast you can go when you don't have to ski around the gates, but can choose your own line down a mountain and just follow the fall line, I don't want to start that argument again. However, I will say that maybe your hills are more like the ones in Ontario than the ones in BC.
7 is of course ridiculously low. racers, (Espescially, younger racers, almost always have their DIN too high.

Thiis is adressed in the article I posted above:

The RATCHET Effect-- A good example of the rush to readjust is what we call the Ratchet Effect on the release adjustment screw of competition bindings. Race bindings are tightened for a variety of reasons (most of them wrong), but are rarely loosened. All research efforts to date show that the magnitude of the load a skier applies to a modern binding toe piece decreases with speed (even during competition) and yet all problems of retention (inadvertent release) are blamed on the binding setting. Over time competitors at all levels employ ever increasing release settings, usually at both heel and toe, to address problems real or imagined. Setting increases are even precipitated by rumors of someone else's bad experience (the Ken Reed syndrome). This practice is dangerous and unnecessary.


All I can say is it seems hese guys know a hell of alot more then i do. And back up there statment with lal lot of research. Not i hit an icy mogul and tripped over my pole andmy ski released, so I cranked 'em up!:


I was talking about a very fast open Downhill course at Mammoth CA, hardly a small slow hill! the botoom 1/2 of the course barely has aturn

In a speed suit in a tuck and much heavier skiers on longer then 201's maxed at about 70 MPH with race prepped skis. And these wer the top 15-20 year olds in the Western US.

I just think if he is going to run at 10, a binding that has a range of 6-14 or 6-17 makes more sense then a binding that starts at 10 where you would be at the lowest setting.

Again a 150 lbs. guy with a 25 shell type III+ = 9.5 DIN.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I just think if he is going to run at 10, a binding that has a range of 6-14 or 6-17 makes more sense then a binding that starts at 10 where you would be at the lowest setting.
agree 100%, the only added value for a 10-18 on his skis is resale value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I was talking about a very fast open Downhill course at Mammoth CA, hardly a small slow hill! the botoom 1/2 of the course barely has a turn
The top part is usually the steep part. If you want speed go straight down the top part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Again a 150 lbs. guy with a 25 shell type III+ = 9.5 DIN.
I imagine the sponsored racers in the world cup have good advice. What are they running for DIN? Then again maybe for them winning is worth the added risk:. Personally, I don't ski that fast these days, but if I were foolish enough to blast close by rock-faces and trees at 70, I think I would crank them to 11. Of course if I broke my leg and through some miracle survived the crash, I wouldn't try to pass on the blame. Out of curiosity, what would you get from your chart for a 165lb III+ skier with a 315 mm boot sole length (Solomon 27).
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
agree 100%, the only added value for a 10-18 on his skis is resale value.


The top part is usually the steep part. If you want speed go straight down the top part.


I imagine the sponsored racers in the world cup have good advice. What are they running for DIN? Then again maybe for them winning is worth the added risk:. Personally, I don't ski that fast these days, but if I were foolish enough to blast close by rock-faces and trees at 70, I think I would crank them to 11. Of course if I broke my leg and through some miracle survived the crash, I wouldn't try to pass on the blame. Out of curiosity, what would you get from your chart for a 165lb III+ skier with a 315 mm boot sole length (Solomon 27).
8.5, Atomic's most recent chart.

Larger the boot sole, lower the DIN, which Salomon you in?
My head RD96 is only 310mm in a 27

I have been told by the Atomic Eastern race rep. (logruve ) they run 16 on the Atomic 10.18 binding. lowest on the world cup

Another friend of mine was at Copper a few years back. He saw Kjus's skis they were set to 23.
post #18 of 18
23: That's like driving without insurance.

There is a bit of attitude "I don't need no schtinking bindings to save me from no mistakes." that I can almost understand.

I'm in Crossmax 10s now. I measured the shell at 315 mm. It's a 27-27.5 shell, flex 100, a nice comfy boot, just nicely worn in. My old Koflachs are 310mm. I don't know what shell size the Koflachs are, but the liners have an "8" on 'em.

Edit: on a whim, I just decided to see how the old boot fit. It was room temperature and after a minute or two trying to stuff my foot into it, I decided not to bother!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Reviews: Elan m666, Atomic SG, Atomic RT