EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic D2 VF 73 167cm This good for me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic D2 VF 73 167cm This good for me?

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

I've recently decided on finally buying my first pair of ski boots and skis.  I have family that live in Utah and i try to visit them once or twice a year.  I love skiing, but i've never had a reason to buy skis because we get free rentals.  But after last year i'm tired of renting boots that always hurt my feet.  I bought me a pair of Atomic Hawx 100, and once i get back out to Utah i plan on getting them heated up and blown out in a few areas.  Even though they aren't molded to my feet yet, they still fit a lot better than any rentals.



But this isn't about my boots haha.  I went to a ski shop close by to me because they were having a labor day weekend sale.  The guy picked out a pair of Atomic D2 VF 73 length 167 for me.  I have never really had to decide on my skis just because my grandpa is the Skiing Guru so he always tells me what to wear haha.  But i'm in Tennessee and he's in Utah so he can't really help.
But this is what i want out of my skis and my skiing ability.  I want a set of all mountain skis.  I want to be able to go through powder and crude alike.  I do ski a lot of blacks, but i'm still working on improving my skill.  I'm 6ft and i weigh around 210-220.  I'm a pretty big guy.  The last time i rented skis i was told that shorter skis was what people were using these days with all the advances in skis.  But I had a terrible time on them.  I don't remember my length, but they came to somewhere around my chin.  I thought this was odd, and i was right. I had a terrible time controlling myself once i got going even slightly fast.  So is 167 long enough for a big guy like me?  Are these skis right for me?  These are the newest models, i don't know if that makes a difference.  The double decker technology in them peaked my interest.  Even though i couldn't go very fast on them other ones, i did enjoy the moguls and how responsive they were.  It seems to me that these Atomics would be great for me, but i've never bought skis so let me know what you think.  
post #2 of 9
Thread Starter 

any advice at all would be appreciated, this is my first time posting. 

post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

Needing some advice.... Don't want to make a bad investment

post #4 of 9

I have never skied that ski, but based on reviews, it sounds good. It looks like it would be better for groomed snow than for powder, which sounds fine for how you said you ski. There are many options in that area, so if you're not set on that particular ski, you can likely shop around and find a great deal online (Starthaus has great prices on some Nordicas that would serve a similar purpose).


As for length ... everyone has an opinion ... but the rule of thumb is that the ski length should be between the tip of your nose (if you are less advanced or like to go slow and turn a lot) to top of your head (if advanced or you like to go fast). Shorter skis make it easier to initiate turns; longer skis are smoother at higher speed, allowing you to go faster and turn less often. My opinion, fwiw: I'd go 174-180cm or so, but as I said, everyone has an opinion. What ultimately matters is what you're comfortable on.

post #5 of 9

At #210 the 167cm is definitely too short - go up at least one size. I'm #160 and rides a 167 cm D2 VF82 - love the ski.  


I love Atomics (3 pairs - SL-10, Blackeye, D2 VF82) for the skiing in the east (35 days/yr) - great edge grip. The D2 construction allows for a silky feel. You see the death cookie but don't feel the chatter, will hear the ski cutting thru the ice but no slip. Out west (45 days/yr) I like wider and softer skis.


Skiing Utah (no skiing in Tenn??) think more about mid 80 underfoot with a sandwich construction. The D2 are too edgy for the soft snow. Most post in this forum are bias towards the western soft snow experience. There are lots of post that covers skis for softer snow.        

post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 

The guy had picked them out because i told him that i would be skiing both East and West coast.  Do you think i need to be looking into a different ski?  I've already talked to him about me wanting a longer ski.

post #7 of 9

The Atomic VF75 is strictly a groomer ski. Too edgy for western snow (off piste).


If you want to stay with Atomic - look at the Nomad series.

The 09/10 Blackeye Ti is a good all around fun ski - still better east than west. The older non Ti version is dirt cheap an still skis well.

The new 10/11 blackeye get a bit fatter underfoot (82 mm) - good edges back east while still provides a bit more float out west on soft snow.


If you put in more than 50% of your ski days out west - Atomics would not be my first choice.

There are many threads in this forum for the right skis for softer snow while still good on eastern hard pack.


For your height & weight - stay in the high 170 to low 180 - and this is from a short ski guy.  




post #8 of 9

At your ehight and weight I would suggest 170 something would be better. Just my 2cents. I skied the D2 , the white one , last year. My friend loaned me his when I went to Vail and he had a conflict and could not go. I liked it, skied mostly groomers and it excells at that.

post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 

Yeah the more research i do, the more i am seeing that Atomics may not be what i'm looking at.  As far as percentage wise, it'll be about 80% out west, 20% East.  Has anybody heard about the Line Prophet 90?  I've been seeing good reviews on them as an all mountain ski, plus they don't look to be extremely expensive.  

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 › Atomic D2 VF 73 167cm This good for me?