New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic R:ex's

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Cool. I just found this forum. Awsome, other skiers.

I currently ski on the intuitiv 74's in a 182.
I'm considering the R:ex's in a 177
they have been skied 50 days and were previously mounted with fritchsi freerides for backcountry use. I intend to ski them as an alpine setup, lift accessed skiing.
I'm 5'10", 180#'s and a decent skier, mostly off-piste if the conditions allow.
Any feedback concerning the ski itself, its previous use, or anything else related?

Thanks.
post #2 of 16
Welcome to Epic. Iam going to move this over to the gear section where you will get soem more play.
post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks man, Totally new to this.
post #4 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tayk View Post
Thanks man, Totally new to this.
No problem. Weclome. If you have any questions, please submit them in writting and someone will get back to you in 10-14 business days. Oh, and keep your feet off of the furniture. Be careful too, there are people here who will try to talk you into buying more gear, pay no mind to them.
post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tayk View Post
I'm considering the R:ex's in a 177
they have been skied 50 days and were previously mounted with fritchsi freerides for backcountry use. I intend to ski them as an alpine setup, lift accessed skiing.
I'm 5'10", 180#'s and a decent skier, mostly off-piste if the conditions allow.
The R:EX's sound like a good choice for your size, weight and intended use.

I ski the M:EX's, which are a bit softer in the tip and tail than the R:EX's, but similar in dimensions, with classic Atomic edge-hold.

I love the M:EX's in powder, crud or hard-pack. They're a true go-anywhere ski.

The R:EX's were more popular than the M:EX's, and still have an avid, loyal following. They were one of the first "big mountain" designs, that could be used for more than just soft snow.
post #6 of 16
I don't know much about the R:EX except that two seasons ago when i was contemplating throwing down on some M:EX's (in a 175 and I'm 5'11", 185#...found the 185 too unwieldy for my taste) I had several shops try to sell me R:EX instead. I kept brushing them off as I thought they were trying to clear out old inventory instead of selling me the ski I wanted (oh how naive i can be sometimes...how often do you have a shop trying to get you on a much loved/revered cult ski AND save you some $$$?).

I haven't seen any R:EX's laying around lately, but one shop owner here in the SF Bay has the R:EX's in his active quiver (which also included the Libtech NAS and a pair of Explosivs), so it's a respected and I would assume pretty solid ski.

BTW, I'm still hunting down some M:EX's as I loved that ski as an all-around ripper, exceptionally good on post-storm days (usually like 2-3 days post).

Anyway, I'd say you scored.
post #7 of 16
Dookey: Go for the 175, or even the 165 in the M:EX.

A 185 cm M:EX is meant for linebackers. Seriously, you'd need 230 lbs to have fun on the 185's (check the Metron Index).

I'm 205 lbs, 6'1", level 8, and 175 cm on the M:EX is plenty of ski.

I know Atomic deleted the M:EX in favor of the Snoop Daddy. But, the M:EX is in the top two skis I've ever owned (I've owned almost as many as PhilPug).

The M:EX is an absolutely killer ski. I appreciate it more now than when I bought it.
post #8 of 16
I am 6'5" 210 lbs and ski the 184 R:EX for my all-mountain ski. Like you, I tend to avoid packed runs and gravitate to the crud and powder. Although I have a wider powder specific ski, I have skied my R:EXs in 20" of day old untracked at Solitude and found them to work wonderfully. I also have a pair of them in a 191cm mounted AT that I have been using for 3 years.

I think they are the best "do everything" ski I have ever been on. They carve great on hard snow and have a pretty even flex for the bumps. They rule in the crud. The only drawback is that they have rather low profile tip. If you can get a deal on R:EXs I would not hesitate to buy them because they sound like just what you are looking for. If I understand you correctly and they are used with 50 days on them, which is a lot, but if it was all in the backcountry then it's hopefully light duty use. A hard skier could use a pair up in 50 days, so make sure they still have some life in them.

If you still want M:EXs check out the Sierra Trading Post web site. They have them with bindings for $499, and Sierra is a reputable company. I have bought lots of stuff from them with no problem.
post #9 of 16
The R:Ex is a wonderful ski.

If you're out West somewhere and you are a truly good skier that skis pretty fast then you might want to consider the 184. To me the R:ex seemed pretty user friendly - I loved them in bumps and on hard days - but I got rid of mine because I like burlier skis and I seemed to exceed the 184s top end in most conditions (I'm 6' 175). I just picked up a used 191 that I'm stoked to try though

If that didn't convince you to go longer then I'll have to try the old method of questioning your testosterone levels by telling you my wife really likes her 177s
post #10 of 16
seems like some skiers are always trying to over compensate for other shortcomings.



i feel like I'm on TGR (where my manliness was recently questioned because I have a pair of Titan 8s, which max out at 175 in length).

post #11 of 16
I have read on this forum numerous times that people think the 184 R:EX is a lot of ski. I have skied the 191s in steep soft bumps with my AT boots, and I have skied the 198s in powder and found them to be smooth and quite manuverable, considering they don't have a big sidecut. I am not sure what people did not like about them, but compared to something like the Titan 9 or many other skis out there I think they are on the softer end of the spectrum of top level skis. I weigh 210, so I definitely have the weight to bend them, but you do not have to be going mach 9 to make them turn.

I got my 184s from an intermediate that thought they were too much ski. At 180 lbs. the 177s would certainly work for tayk, but if he is a good skier that likes to go fast he may wish he had a little more ski, especially if they have 50 days on them and may be softening up quite a bit.
post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
thanks all for the replies. Now that you mention it, I've ridden the pocket rockets (175's) a couple of days, one day in a couple feet of fresh and the 175 felt too short, the 185 would have been perfect on the steep and deep. Thanks for the suggestions, I may have to stay above the 180 length.

I have a friend that would give me a pair of never used G4's @ 188 length.
Any recomendations on that, I always thought it would be too much ski.
post #13 of 16
tyak:

Keep in mind that the Pocket Rockets are a twin tip and therefore the 175s actually have the same running surface as about a 168. The R:EXs have a straight tail.
post #14 of 16
Short skis suck, long skis truck

seriously though, the 177 R:exs are probably perfect - I was just mentioning that if hypothetically you like to ski fast then the 177 may not be quite enough; especially, as mudfoot mentioned, if they're decently broken in. Lot's of 184s on ebay lately so maybe keep your eyes peeled.

The 188 G4 is a lot of ski - very stiff and burly - it's basically where you'd go if the 184 R:Ex wasn't enough ski.

and dookey I was just matter of factly stating that the 184s were not enough for me and tayk may have a similar experience with the 177s...I just asked my wife if she thought I was compensating for anything and she said "no dear"
post #15 of 16
it's all good.

i actually think i may have under compensated on a few of my sticks (mantras and karmas in 177) but i may rectify that with some 181 Titan 9's

at any rate, to get back on track the R:EX's sound like a good deal, providing the condition they're in.

and yeah, Tayk, you need to take into consideration how the ski is actually measured. as MF said, the PR's are a twin, so the actual length of the ski with contact on the snow is shorter.

case in point my 176 Armada AR5's are actually physically longer than my 177 Karmas (if you stand the skis next to one another the Ar5's are a good .5-1cm taller, which leads me to believe that Armada measures their skis based on contact length while Volkl probably measures there's based on tip-to-tail). If you figure out how Atomic measures their skis, then you'll be golden.

again, i have no experience with the R;EX, but have ridden their bastard offspring the M:EX in both 175 and 185. I found the 185 to be clunky and unweildy (granted i was riding with boarders that day and was spending a lot of time in the trees, so the extra 10cm was hurting). I'm 5'11' and usually hover around 180-185 (though the summer and the holidays have added a few extra lbs around the belly this season).
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-EastCoaster View Post
Short skis suck, long skis truck

seriously though, the 177 R:exs are probably perfect...

The 188 G4 is a lot of ski - very stiff and burly - it's basically where you'd go if the 184 R:Ex wasn't enough ski.
I totally agree with X-EastCoaster. The 177's are likely the ticket. I have owned both the 191 and the 184 (prefer the 84...still have them) and since the 177 EX is a lot more ski than the Int-74's, I don't recommend going longer. Also, the G4's are speed-machines that you could probably ski, but you'd likely be wiped out before lunch.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion