or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic R:EX D-Money

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Hi, I am new to the forums and i am looking to buy a set of ltd edition Atomic R:EX skis with Neox Bindings? All for about 480 on ebay. What do you think? Any pointers on the skis? or what to watch for? Are there any other models Atomic Makes that are comparable. I am also looking to couple those skis with the Nordica Beast 10 Boots. Are those good boots? what other boots with a flex or 80-90 are there that are not that expensive. Although, when i tried on a pair in a pro shop they felt awesome and fit like a glove so i will probably buy those? Sorry about all the questions but i always ask the experts in the area before i buy

Oh, i live in Ohio and will be mostly skiing at Perfect North Slopes in Indiana with biyearly trips to Peak n' Peak and maybe Winter Park next year.
post #2 of 22
Hey, being somewhat of a noob myself, I can tell you that folks around here are gonna ask you for the following information before they offer up any advice:

Age (optional)
Skier ability
Days skied each season
how long have you been skiing
where do you ski
what type of terrain do you enjoy most

Also on the boot front, make sure you go to a good shop and get fitted. I skied with boots that were way too large for me for many years (at the time I was only going up 5 or 7 times a year, so i just figured it was from not having been in them as opposed to them not fitting properly). I wouldn't just buy some boots without first getting fitted.

In terms of the R:EX, I believe that's the model that turned into the M:EX. I skied the M:EX several times and loved it (am even considering snagging a pair this season). Can't comment beyond that.
post #3 of 22
Rex will be a good ski for winterpark, maybe a bit wide for PNS, but oh well.
The neox's are a bit heavy... I think you could find a better deal out there

$319 here
add in a $100 binding (sollie, look) and you are at 420
Better than the neox and cheaper too
post #4 of 22
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post

In terms of the R:EX, I believe that's the model that turned into the M:EX. I skied the M:EX several times and loved it (am even considering snagging a pair this season). Can't comment beyond that.
much much different skis
post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
6' 1", 215, 18 yrs old, Intermediate/Expert, Mostly groomed surfaces with the occasional jump in the terrain park.

That is the site on ebay im getting them off of, 20 of that is shipping plus the cost of the bindings. are there any other bindings i should look at off that site, i would like them to mount the bindings, and drill if needed.

What about the boots RJP? Any other i should look at?
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
ttp please
post #8 of 22
I've got a used pair,,been out perhaps 4x,,,,the're cherry,,,i'll check size etc when i get to ski house this wk'nd and get back to you.I'm not going to hold out for "big bucks".
post #9 of 22
The R:ex is a fantastic ski- it is my every day ski under most conditions. It is very different from its successor (M:ex). It is ideally suited for big mountain skiing, cut up powder, crud, but has incredible edge hold and carves well on hardpack. It is somewhat stiff, has incredible torsional rigidity and has a relatively small sweet spot, making it a more demanding rather than forgiving ski. FOr a lightweight skier (like me) it serves very well in powder, too. It has a near cult following for backcountry use when mounted with AT bindings, and is very light weight for an alpine ski. If most of your skiing is going to be on a smallish mountain in the midwest, most likely you will better served by a ski with a smaller turn radius, although you will find them terrific at WP (but not ideally suited for the bump runs at MJ).
post #10 of 22
Thread Starter 
i am a newb on this forum, and i love it! Thank for all the advice, and snodancer, get back with me on those boots!
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
post #12 of 22
I have a friend who bought the Beast 10 boots. Their designed for anywhere from a mid-intermediate to a lower advanced skier. As everyone recommended you should get your boots fitted by an experienced bootfitter. Buying boots off the internet is risky. A boot that feels very comfortable and "fits like a glove" in the shop may be too big. There's been plenty posted in the past on how to buy or fit boots. The best advice, as previously mentioned, is go to an experienced bootfitter.

Also, you describe yourself as an intermediate/expert skier. That's quite a range of skill level. Depending on your ability the R:Ex could be too much ski for you. It's my everyday ski as well and I echo DP's comments. It's definitely not a good ski for an intermediate or probably not good for a lower advanced skier. It is pretty demanding and if you get into the back seat you will be punished. As long as you stay on the sweat spot I found that it does fine in the moguls. If you're more mid-advanced to expert you'd be fine. You'd probably want the 177cm or maybe even 185cm. 177cm if you want it to be a bit quicker turning and 185 if you want lots of stability at very high speeds in big GS type turns. If you're looking for a ski for mostly groomed terrain, there are much better ones out there. If you're looking for a ski for off-piste, crud busting, big mountain skiing the R:Ex fits the bill.

IMHO, the Beast 10 boots don't really go with the R:Ex skis. Most people in a Beast 10 boot are probably on a much more forgiving ski. If you have the skills for the R:Ex you'd probably need a stiffer boot.
post #13 of 22
Thread Starter 
post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 
what oher sksi should i look at? preferably atomic
post #15 of 22
At your size I think you will do fine on the R:ex. Something about the construction of that ski being all foam-core light, yet stiff and snappy - larger skiers find them more of an easy skier; while they seem to be quite stiff and burly skiing for a lighter person. I'm not even big 6'/170# (but I do ski really fast and hard AND I'm out West) and the 184 was not even remotely enough ski for me - although I liked them in firm moguls. I hypothesize that I would like the like the 191cm immensely but who knows.

Anyway, I'm wondering what is attracting you to the R:ex though. Are you specifically looking for a ski that is mid-80's waist for versatility? Sounds like your early in your ski career and are winging it (which is cool, I did the same) - so I would recommend feeling your oats with cheap used skis until you get feel for what you like with respect to length, width and flex. R:exs were very popular a few years ago so it's pretty easy to find cheap used ones (I got my wife used 177s in great shape for $100 last season). Maybe take snodancer up on his offer.

As far as boots, I think the 80-90 flex would be fine - just make sure it fits prefectly. I'm on a nordica boot with a 100/120 adjustable flex and to me that range is about the perfect 'freeskiing' flex for a high level skier. fwiw -I really only run the 120 flex when it's warm or when the snow is hard.
post #16 of 22
Thread Starter 
Yeah itattracted me because it was a mid-fat type ski made by atomic, adn it has versatility. i have skied on rental skis for the past few years and want a pair i can call my own and not have to worry about rentals. las year i skied on my dads kastle 210's, holy **** were they long, but they were a strait ski. i though about twin tip atomic stomps but then they are a little to wide for here in the midwest. aer teh boots you are running the speedmachine 10's? do the liners of nordica pack out very much? i tried on a 28.5 nordica beast and it was a little tight in the toebox, but a 29.0 was just perfect. what size should i go with? what other boots with a flex of 80-90 out there on the market?
post #17 of 22
Originally Posted by mgoblue06 View Post
Yeah itattracted me because it was a mid-fat type ski made by atomic, adn it has versatility. ?
As good a rational as any I think. I'm cringing saying this but I think the 84mm waist is on the fat end of what you should be considering. Lot's of good options in the 75-85mm wiast range that would treat you well too - just keep your eyes peeled for deals. If it's hard to demo, then ebay, Craigslist and epic/tgr gear swaps are your friends

Originally Posted by mgoblue06 View Post
i tried on a 28.5 nordica beast and it was a little tight in the toebox, but a 29.0 was just perfect. what size should i go with? what other boots with a flex of 80-90 out there on the market?
The nordicas I have had all packed out a lot. My gut says the Beasts will break in a good amount too so go with the 28.5 (and get a better footbed). You can always have a bootfitter grind or punch the toe area if it is a problem - it's much tougher to make a boot smaller.

Are these the boots you were looking at?
post #18 of 22
Thread Starter 
what is a footbed and where can i get one at?
post #19 of 22
The footbed is the foot-shaped thing in the bottom of your boot that your foot rests on. When you buy a pair of boots, they come with one that is kind of like a thin piece of rather flexible foam and costs the manufacturer about 1.5 cents to make. It performs just like it's value. Ideally, most people need something that will support their foot and often will correct abnormalities in their stance- kind of like an orthotic. You need to see a good custom bootfitter to analyze your stance and boot fit, and get one made(see list here on epic of recommended fitters). Unfortunately this isn't cheap ($150-$200), but is the best spent money in skiing. A temporary alternative is one of the better aftermarket non-custom footbeds that you can get at a good running or outdoor store like REI. There are numerous manufacturers and they cost $25-30.
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
thanx for all teh info guys this site is amazing! i think i am gonna settle on the R:Ex with the beast 10 boots, i still dont know about bindings. free or not free? im thinking free b/c i will take these skis through the pipe and park every once in a while and i dont want to blow a binding out on a hrd landing.
post #21 of 22
I hope you're going with a R:EX that's a reasonable length for your weight. I owned a pair of 183's, and at 165 lbs, would not want to ski them in the midwest. More for Alaska on a choppy day. Keep in mind that they are stiff and do have a small sweet spot; these are serious skis that perform wonderfully - and relish supersonic speeds - if you pay attention. They'll buck you if you don't.
post #22 of 22
I am 6'5", 210 lbs, and ski the 184 R:EXs as my all-mountain ski. Because of my weight and ability they work pretty well for me, but as many others have pointed out it is generally considered on the stiff side and with a small sweet spot, so it is not very forgiving. I have Atomic CR 412 adjustable bindings and move them forward when skiing a lot of bumps. I live in Colorado and probably ski a lot more soft snow than you do.

I also have the 10:EXs (the previous model, which I believe are virtually identical to the R:EXs) in a 191 that I have mounted with AT bindings, and I had a pair of 198 10:EXs that I loved for powder skis.

The bottom line is that I think they may be a little wide (considering the fact that they do not have a lot of sidecut) for an everyday mid-west ski where you will be skiing mostly hard snow. You may want to consider something a little narrower, or you might be better served by the new M:EX, that has about the same waist but more sidecut. They have a 1/2 price deal on those on the Sierra Trading Post web site right now with the Neox bindings for $499. I think it is recommended that those be skied in shorter a length than the R:EX, but I am certainly not an expert on that issue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion