EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone still using Atomic 10-ex's (crud ski?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone still using Atomic 10-ex's (crud ski?)

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
I currently ski Dynastar Legend 4800's (184). They are great everywhere but in crud (tracked up powder). One of my brothers lives in Idaho and has a pair of Atomic 10 ex's, 191 in good condition. He will send them to me if I pay shipping. My ski days are not very spontaneous and as a result, I do not get that many huge powder days. I am also not an expert skier, so the powder gets tracked up rather quickly where I am skiing and turns to crud. I was thinking about using these for those days. Anyone have experiences good or bad with these skis in the crud?
post #2 of 14

R-EX, the beast

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt7180 View Post
I currently ski Dynastar Legend 4800's (184). They are great everywhere but in crud (tracked up powder). One of my brothers lives in Idaho and has a pair of Atomic 10 ex's, 191 in good condition. He will send them to me if I pay shipping. My ski days are not very spontaneous and as a result, I do not get that many huge powder days. I am also not an expert skier, so the powder gets tracked up rather quickly where I am skiing and turns to crud. I was thinking about using these for those days. Anyone have experiences good or bad with these skis in the crud?
I used to ski the R-EX, same ski. I had issues with it, so used is as a spring only rock ski, the ski has an uneven flex pattern, stiff under foot, softer to the tip and tail, not my preference. It skied like a beast in crud, my experience, skied like it was longer than it was, more of a stiff bending action that a dynamic flex. What is your weight and experience level. that is a huge ski. in a tight situation, you could find it as beastly as I found mine. anyhow, get back with the data if you can. for that 191, I'm thinking you should weigh in around 200 and be an expert.
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post
What is your weight and experience level.
Thanks for the response. I am 40 years old(seven years skiing), 5'10" 200-210lbs with athletic build. I am not sure about my experience level. I ski Blue trees, blue and black bumps (not great, still learning). Extreme for me is the bowls at Copper and the Timberline area down through the trees and bumps on Mary Jane. I am not a speed freak! I have skied everything at Loveland except right under chair one and what you have to hike for. That is a little steep for me.

I was wondering about the length being an issue in the trees and bumps. However, I did not plan on using them that much, just the ocasional day when everything is cut up, and I do not feel much like being in the trees.
post #4 of 14
I am 6'5", 215 lbs. and an expert skier. I have skied 191 10:EXs for the last 4 years as my AT skis. I have been unsing 184 R:EXs (same as 10:EX) as my everyday ski for 3 years and just bought 185 M:EXs (almost same ski) last year to replace them. I used to have a pair of 198 10:EXs for fast skiing in deep crud and powder. I find my 185s to feel too short in crud an powder.

IMO the 191 10:EXs (and for that matter the 198s) are not any stiffer than the 184s. You have the weight to bend them and the slightly turned up tails take a little length away. I have seen many comments similar to davulri's about this ski being a "beast," tank" and "hard to ski." I have not had that experience, but I think it it because of my weight. IMO it is one of the best crud skis around because of its flex and low profile tip that rams smoothly through the snow. I do not like my 185s in powder because of the low tips, but I thought the 198s were the most fun powder ski I have ever been on because the flex kept the tips up and let me ski fast and smoothly over just about anything.

You are the right size for the 191s and you can get them for virtually free, so why not go for it? Your ability level and tendency away from fast speed may work against you, but if you take them out in powder or curd where you have just a little room to let them run I think you will thoroughly enjoy them. I have no hesitation taking my 191s in any condtion or tight spaces and have even enjoyed them in steep bumps in the right snow conditions.

For the cost of shipping you would be getting an excellent pair of skis (the ski of choice for many heli guides in their day). If you don't like them you can mount the bindings on something else and you haven't lost much. It sounds like you've got nothing to lose and maybe you'll find them as much fun in crud as I do.
post #5 of 14
I am 5'10 165# expert and have retired my 184cmREX's as I found them to be too stiff in the shovel when skiing in crud... had problems with tips diving and ski not having a broad sweet spot in variable snow conditions (like cascade concrete/pacNW powder). Replaced them with 185cm volant FBs (really 191s) which rip in crud and powder. Other issue with the REXs were the rather straight profile and longer turning radius ... I prefer more shape for a frontside ski and have the nordica nitrous 178 which has replaced the REX when I ski bumps and spring snow. I think you could do better than the REX if you are looking for a forgiving crud ski.
post #6 of 14
ripnbud: You bring up some valid points, there are certainly other skis that may work better for the crud, but Matt weighs 40-45lbs more than you. If you combine that with a little speed the 10:EXs will bend quite easily for him, keeping the tips higher and making a lot more of the ski a sweet spot.

Regarding the low profile tips, I have 4 position-adjustable bindings on my R:EXs and found that they ski much better in crud with the bindings set back a little.
post #7 of 14
I still use my R:EX (177) for powder and mixed condition days. The 177 length is perfect in that it is agile enough and stable through crud and variable conditions. I like the less shapelyness of the ski in powder and crud. I come in at about 200lb. My quess is that the 191 will be too long.
post #8 of 14
If 177s are appropriate for all 200 lb. skiers, and they also made the 10:EX in 184s, 191s and 198s, then how much would you have to weigh to ski the 191s effectively? Are the 198s designed for 300 lb. skiers? Probably not.

After skiing R:EXs in 185 and 10:EXs in 191 and 198, it is my feeling that the 191s and 198s are not any stiffer than the shorter skis, just longer.

krmorr may be absolutely right that the 191s would be too much ski for matt7180, but probably not based on his weight. My rational is that he is looking for a good crud ski (which the 10:EX is), and he can get them for the cost of shipping ($30), so why not give them a try. OTOH Matt states that he is "not an expert skier," and the 10:EXs need to be worked to come around, so a shorter crud ski would be a better choice. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the cost of shipping (and maybe remounting) to give them a try.
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripnbud View Post
.....185cm volant FBs (really 191s)
I'm afraid you are wrong about that, they are actually 188 cm tip to tip.
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
I'm afraid you are wrong about that, they are actually 188 cm tip to tip.
Verified 188 ... and am rightly corrected by the original "man of steel"! btw, do three pairs of volants (2 chubbs (one bent) and 1 FB) qualify me as a "man of steel"? Does skiing on flexons help?
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
krmorr may be absolutely right that the 191s would be too much ski for matt7180, but probably not based on his weight. My rational is that he is looking for a good crud ski (which the 10:EX is), and he can get them for the cost of shipping ($30), so why not give them a try. OTOH Matt states that he is "not an expert skier," and the 10:EXs need to be worked to come around, so a shorter crud ski would be a better choice. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the cost of shipping (and maybe remounting) to give them a try.
Thanks for all of the input. I think I am going to give them a try. These things will be used mostly on days when the runs are cut up and it sounds like they will be good for that. If I am looking for soft spots in the trees, I will simply use the legend 4800's. I really love the 4800's, but they suck in the crud. A guy I rode the lift with at Loveland told me it was not the length, but the tip shape that made them get tossed around. If these do not suit me, they will just have to find another home.
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
The skis are on the way!

If you see me barreling down Sleeper at 65mph unable to turn my skis, get out of the way, "tell my children I love them very much", and remember, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
post #13 of 14
I skied a pair a few years back in a 184. Thought they were quite fun. Felt like a quicker Volant. Felt like I was going to break it like a Volant. THought aboot buying a set for myself this year, then decided on a pair of 777s.
post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt7180 View Post
The skis are on the way!

If you see me barreling down Sleeper at 65mph unable to turn my skis, get out of the way, "tell my children I love them very much", and remember...
You have just stepped up from a sports car to a Cadillac. If you drive appropriately you should enjoy some luxury smooth cruising. In cut up powder you can just squint your eyes a little an pretend it's untracked because it'll feel so smooth. My only advice is that you need to put almost all your weight on the ski to really make it work. So just stand on the left, stand on the right, and hopefully start smiling. Let us know how they work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone still using Atomic 10-ex's (crud ski?)