or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Blackeye Ti

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

I've become really interested in the Atomic Blackeye Ti's and have really set my mind on them. I know all of the specifications and such but I would like to compare the deimensions to something just to get an idea. All I really want is a relative comparison of the Blackeye's dimensions. If you have any pictures of these pair of skis that would be extremely helpful. I'm am going to get the 174 blackeyes.Thanks. Also as I am an early intermediate to middle intermediate would this ski be good for me?

Edited by Shadowfax - 9/18/10 at 6:38pm
post #2 of 10

Well, according to REI, the blackeyes are 121/79/107.  But you already knew that I guess.  For comparison, the K2 Pontoon is 160/130/120.


Here's some pictures for you: http://www.google.com/images?q=atomic+blackeye+ti


Honestly, I can't tell what info you're really looking for here.

post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 

I'm sorry about that. I was just wondering like what the width could be comparable to. LIke your fist or something like that. It will help me get a better idea of the dimensions. I also have another question. What are some other skis in th e all-mountain category for intermediates that are a good bang for the buck?

post #4 of 10


I recommend you pony up the $20 bucks to Peter Keelty's subscription site "expertskeir.com".  Then you would have access to info such as 2011 Blackeye Ti in a  174 cm length has shovel, waist and tail widths in mm of 125.5/82/110.5 (16m turn radius), but the 2010 Blackeye TI in the closest length (171 cm) is 112.2/79/106.5 (17m radius), along with a lot of other info on the skis and other similar skis to compare them too.


The 2010 dimensions in inches are

4.417323 3.110236 4.192913

How wide is that?  Well 4 inches is about half the length of my.... never mind.


Its significantly wider than my  2002 104/68/90 Volant McGs which according to Keelty's site were considered a serious deep snow ski back then, and which according to me work great in 18" of heavy wet snow tracked out or fresh ( no powder to be found in Ontario).


You've probably mentioned somewhere in another thread, but where are you planning to ski?

post #5 of 10
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the help.  I do most of my skiing in Big Sky near Bozeman, MT. One of my biggest questions I have is, is the atomic blackeye not worth for me to purchase? I'm not the greatest skiier but plan on getting beter. My level technically is about a 5.5-6. what are you thoughts? 

post #6 of 10

I think you would be fine on the Black Eye TIs, but I haven't skied any powder in many a year; the last time I saw really deep soft snow, I was on straight skis. 


The Black Eye TI seems like a very good all-mountain design.  There may be better skis for the "light powder" that Bozeman MT is known for.  I've driven through MT, but haven't skied there.  It may be that the type of conditions at Bozeman would lead you to deviate from a very good all-mountain design to one that is a little more suited to powder (wider and softer).  Even if the Black Eyes aren't perfect, they should still be good.

post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 

Would you recommend any other good all mountain skis? I have taken a look at the Fisher watea 84 but didn't really like them as much, plus they're more for deep snow i think. Anything you could recommend would be great.

post #8 of 10


Originally Posted by Shadowfax View Post

Would you recommend any other good all mountain skis? I have taken a look at the Fisher watea 84 but didn't really like them as much, plus they're more for deep snow i think. Anything you could recommend would be great.

The interwebs tell me that deep light snow is what you find in montana.  I haven't skied those conditions or any of the skis that would be great in them, but the web site I referred you to has dozens of them, going back many years; if you buy a good left-over from a previous year, you recoup your subscription fee.  Maybe some bears from Montana could help you out.

post #9 of 10

Big Sky?  I've skied it dozens of times.  Personally, if you're an atomic guy, I'd go wider, and look at the Crimson ti.


Regardless of brand, if I was locked into one ski at that area, it would be an 88-ish ski for float, with reasonable sidecut to keep the groomers fun.

post #10 of 10

I am curious why you are looking more for information on how they look rather than how they ski. For the look it's best to compare them to a ski you do know and then put on the extra mm. In my experience just judging with your eyes some skis look different then they are in width, probably because of print, color and binding. As for how they ski (the new 82mm version) I can say they feel a lot slimmer than they are on groomed/crud terrain. This is probably due to their small radius (16,5m@181cm) and the fact the're very very forgiving. For your level they are great I think, but if you want to go into loose powder I'd go a little bit broader (as my neighbour upstairs said. The blackeye is basically a very comfortable allconditions-groomerski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion