or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

10 EX Length

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Not sure if I should get 184, 177, or 168. Leaning towards 168 or 177, but 168 seems so short. Smaller guy, 5'8", 155 lbs, level 8 skiier. Instructer, racer. On 180 BR 9.22 curently. Looking for combo of float and crud busting power, with agiltiy and stability at speed (30+).

Thanks all
post #2 of 12
Most of what i've heard about the 10.ex, largely on this forum, suggests that it's better to go short. I'm 5'10" and 170lbs and went for the 184. Haven't skied them yet but i'm pretty confident it's the right length.

Seems like 168 would be a bit too small for you. At your ability level i'm sure you wouldn't find the 177 unweildy and would probably enjoy the additional float and stability in crud and the light stuff.

Bring It
post #3 of 12
Great to here that the 10.ex is coming in shorter lengths. I skied the 10.ex a number of times last year. About 4 days at Grand Targhee with some new snow each day in January, then not again til the end of the season. Skied the 10.ex almost exclusively in April in Powder at the first of the month (Brundage Mountain, Mt. Bachelor) and then in the mush at Mammoth and Heavenly Valley at the end of the month. My last day of skiing to end the 00/01 year in April was on the 10.ex, so it has had a special place for me all summer long.

The 10.ex is very quick given it's very large size. It is maybe the lightest Super Hero Free Rider ski around. May not be for everyone, but a great great ski.

Jim from Idaho
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback. Will probably go with 177.
post #5 of 12
Just curious on where it shows the new lengths. Looking at the 01/02 site and it only shows 184/191//198 as lengths. I'm either getting these boards or XXX's but I'll prob stick around the 180 length for a more versatile ski.
post #6 of 12
The 10:Ex for this season come in shorter lenghts as said before, and it´s getting softer the shorter ski you choose. I´ts not the same stiff ski for all the lenghts. Atomic want the ski to fit many kinds of skier (include girls). It´s agreat ski anyway!

post #7 of 12
I've heard it said a few times that the 10.ex is coming in shorter lengths for 2001/2002 but I don't see that anywhere on the Atomic web site or on sites that review next years skis. They all say 184 is the shortest. How does everyone know this very important pieces of info? And is it indeed true? I'm a very aggressive female skier who will be spending 5 weeks in Utah and Jackson Hole and want a versatile powder ski. Would these do the trick? I'm 5' 7" average weight. Usually ski on 178 or shorter. Would 184 be too much ski for me? Thanks for your help.

post #8 of 12
I had the new 10EX for the later half of last season and found them to be unbelievably stable in 184 cm. The biggest difference between the 191 and the 184 was the shorter ski being a bit quicker feeling, but these things feel like GS planks in all lengths.
Worm , I would suggest staying shorter , you'll be much happier .
post #9 of 12
Thanks LeeRoy. I sure hope the 10.ex gets shorter this year. I WANT that ski!

Happy ski dreaming.
post #10 of 12
Worm , heard tonight that the 10EX should be coming out down into the 160-165 cm range (163 I think was the length), it also has softer flex in the shorter lengths. Another interesting thing is the skis that will be available in Nov. ...twin tip fats! (based on the 10EX platform)
post #11 of 12
Just got off the phone with Atomic USA:

The 2002 10EX will be available in 168, 177, 184, and whatever else people already know about.

I think the 168s might be just the ticket for my girlfriend. Sweeeeet!

EDIT: Worm, if you'd like, drop me a line when you get to Utah and we'll shred a little pow. I lived in JH the winter of 98 (570" of snow!) so I'll have some stories. As for Utah, I'll probably still be finding my way around a bit but it could be fun.
SkierShop.com <-- Dig it.

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by phUnk (edited September 14, 2001).]</FONT><FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by phUnk (edited September 14, 2001).]</FONT>
post #12 of 12
My opinion: Unless the 168 is much softer than the ski I've tried, it's still quite a bit of ski for a 130 lb woman unless she's agressive. Definitely demo before you buy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion