EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Opinions: Atomic Crimson or Nordica Jet Fuel?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opinions: Atomic Crimson or Nordica Jet Fuel?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Hello!

I am looking for a "midfat" ski that is versatile. I am from the Midwest and only make it out to west 2-3 times a year. I am a level 8 skier and like to ski fairly aggressively and fast. I find myself in ungroomed/off-piste/crud conditions a lot, but I still like to rip the groomers every now and then. I am 180 lbs and 5' 9". I ski a Salomon Impact 10 boot on Atomic SX:10 Supercross skis.

I think I have narrowed down the choices to the Atomic Crimson or the Nordica Jet Fuels. From what I've read both hold an edge like no other and have excellent versatility. I am a bit worried that the Crimsons might be too much ski. The reports of the relatively quick edge-to-edge of the Crimsons has me intrigued, though. The Jet Fuels have gotten very good reviews and are right in the width and flex that I am looking for. I do like that they are just a bit wider, but I don't know how much 2mm is going to matter...

Does anyone have any opinions on these two skis to share? I'd appreciate any input! Thanks!!
post #2 of 11
So there are some weird things in your post. The Crimson (assuming you mean the Crimson and not the Crimson Ti) is not the one you should be worried about being too much ski. The Jet Fuel is way burlier. I found the Crimson to be VERY easy to ski. Also, I would not say it holds an edge like no other by any means. At speed on hard, crusty, frozen etc snow, it does deflect and chatter. It's a very nice ski for variable conditions so long as it's not icy or hard re-frozen stuff -- great in a few inches of soft snow or spring slush, tracked out snow that's not too deep...very maneuverable and versatile w/r/t turn shapes, not at all demanding. The Jet Fuel (which I was only on for a couple hours) is much more ski. I have not skied the Crimson Ti.

The ski I chose for midfat, versatile, all over the mountain is Elan Magfire 82Ti and could not be happier. I think it's much more of an expert's ski than the Crimson, but maybe more versatile than Jet Fuel for a lighter skier (I'm 5'9" 165#). It's a ski that feels like a detuned race ski, very torionally stiff but w/ longitudinally moderate flex...silky smooth in and out of turns, does a lot better than Crimson on hard or frozen/icy surfaces...easy to ski in pow under 8 or 10".

I saw the recent Crimson review on the member gear review forum where the reviewer found the Crimson stiff under foot and demanding...I was puzzled by that review 'cause that was not at all my experience...I skied it 5 days straight at Solitude last spring in everything from slush to corduroy to 6" dry fresh to icy refrozen crud. There's just no way I would call it a demanding ski at all. I liked it a lot as a do-anything ski but found it a little too wimpy at speed in tough conditions. Clearly Atomic must have heard that feedback from good numbers of people since the new Ti version is positioned as "if you liked the Crimson but wanted a little beefier platform..."

Anyway, try to get on the 82Ti before you buy!

--Josh
post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the reply! I was indeed talking about the Crimsons and not the Ti model. I was afraid that the Ti was too much. However, by what you said in your post it's the Jet Fuels that are beefier. I'm really up in the air. We're heading to Whistler in a week and a half, I think I'll demo some when we're there.
post #4 of 11
Crimson Ti would be a better comparison to the Jet Fuel IMO.

Try both .
post #5 of 11
I totally agree with Re-Skier that the Jet Fuels are much burlier than the Crimsons. I demoed the Tis & the Jet Fuels are burlier than the Ti IMHO. I liked the Tis but want to demo the Crimson as I think they will be better for me because I like a somewhat less burlier ski & want a pair that will serve me well in the bumps.

For what you're looking the ski to do, the Jet Fuel is too much ski or not ideal for your needs. The Crimson would be better although you may want to try demoing other models when you're at Whistler.
post #6 of 11
The Jet Fuel is a really beefy ski.
post #7 of 11
I ski the jet fuel nearly every day and it is indeed a burly ski. If you ride it well it can do nearly everything. I'm 5'10" 160 lbs and ski a 170 and find it to be plenty of ski. I also skied the 178 and liked it, but didn't see any advantage to the longer board.
post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 
I didn't realize how burly the Jet Fuels are. In terms of stiffness, how would you say they compare to my old SX:10 skis? If they are similar, then I might like them just the same. I'd also swap the regular Crimson for the Crimson Ti.

And another question: what makes the Crimson not a great performer on hard snow or icy conditions? I'm interested in learning about what characteristics make a given ski perform better or worse in various conditions. Is there a place someone can point me to that explains aspects of ski construction like "torsional rigidity" and what it is or isn't good for?
post #9 of 11
When I decided the JetFuels were too burly for me I backed down to the Afterburners and have been pretty happy with them in most conditions. Not sure how they compare to the Crimsons though...
post #10 of 11
Q: What makes the Crimson not a great performer on hard snow or icy conditions? I'm interested in learning about what characteristics make a given ski perform better or worse in various conditions. Is there a place someone can point me to that explains aspects of ski construction like "torsional rigidity" and what it is or isn't good for?


A: I own/ski the non-Ti Crimsons. The Crimsons ski just fine on Eastern "frozen granular" (ice). In fact, the day I demoed them was a "blue ice" day at Jiminy Peak, where they outperformed every ski I tried except the 07/08 Rossi Z11 Mutix (a great ice ski) on icy groomers. Give some credit to the tune on the Crimsons that I demoed.

The problem comes when icy chop also has some texture to it (for example, the re-frozen crud Re-Skier mentioned). Under these conditions, the tips on the Crimson get deflected by the ice. The Jet Fuels would probably handle icy crud better (I haven't skied 'em).

I bought my Crimsons for use in relatively soft snow (including bumps, trees, etc.) and they perform well in those conditions. Crimsons also make fine (not exceptional) groomer skis, with good edge hold.

Very few people voluntarily ski re-frozen crud and I don't expect my Crimsons to excel in these conditions. I only ski the stuff (1) to get to somewhere with better snow, or (2) to break through a crust and "liberate" the better snow below (MRG's web site calls this "human 'groomin"). Crimsons are adequate for these purposes so long as you are careful.

Best of luck making your choice.

STE
post #11 of 11
Quote:
I find myself in ungroomed/off-piste/crud conditions a lot, but I still like to rip the groomers every now and then.
A better job description for the Jet Fuel and Crimson would read as follows.......

Quote:
I like to rip the groomers a lot but find myself in ungroomed/off-piste/crud conditions every now and then.
Catch the distinction??

SJ
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 › Opinions: Atomic Crimson or Nordica Jet Fuel?