 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi there,
I am looking to buy a ski from the Atomic Vantage series, but despite all the research I did I cannot get around which ski to choose in the end. I am an intermediate skier that will mainly be used on the piste, but would also allow me to discover the boards of the slopes from time to time. This is my third season skiing (so not a super smooth technique but always parallel) and I ski on a weekly basis in Switzerland, for now using my 153 cm beginners skis (I am 176 cm and 67 kg). I ski red and blue slopes comfortably, while black slopes and icy patches are still a challenge and make me reduce my speed quite a bit.
Now the options I am considering are: Atomic Vantage 86C 165 cm (maybe too short, not too much an upgrade compared to my current skis), Atomic Vantage 86C 173 cm (maybe too long, might make slow sliding turns on steep slows difficult), Atomic Vantage 79TI 171 cm (less good in powder, maybe on the long side as well). I know it is hard to say from a rough description, but what would be your recommendation to take? Does anyone have some experience with the Atomic Vantage series and how their effective lengths (excluding the rocker) are?
Thanks a lot!
Jeroen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Welcome to Snowheads.
Putting you down as a solid Intermediate of average aggression, I would think 165 in the 86C would be fine, as you are light. 86 underfoot is sensible if increasing the amount of Off Piste you are doing. Coming from 153, this is probably long enough.
If you are being modest and not far off being an Advanced skier - then maybe the 173 would give more headroom....but it depends on how stiff the ski is (it shouldn't be, as they have no metal them).
This ski has an All Mountain front rocker of 10%...so I think an effective length of 149 on the 165....but I have no experience of how it skis.
Can you try which length suits you best?
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 2-03-21 18:29; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
They do have a bit of rocker and if you are planning to ski some offpiste too then I'd think about head height is right. You are fairly light so the 86c in 173 sounds about right to me. If you will be sticking to the piste then the 79 in 171 is probably more optimal. The 165 is too short. Some might say go longer but I I'd say you've got it about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
In case it's of interest - when I was looking about for info/feedback on the 86C, I came across this Question/Answer on Ski Essentials Website:
Lance Jennings JANUARY 7, 2021 AT 3:45 PM:
I haven’t skied alpine/downhill for about 10 years, though I do backcountry XC and AT skiing, and am looking to get back into it as I plan on taking my 3 year old daughter to lessons and participate with her in a child/parent course. I also plan to get some ‘me’ time and do some runs myself or with other parents. I would have categorized myself to be an intermediate level skier and just barely reaching advanced where I could ‘somehow’ get down the entire mountain on the toughest trails and trickiest woods in various Vermont resorts, but without good form or technique...
Would you feel these skis would be the right stiffness and forgiveness for somebody who hasn’t skied in years but is not afraid to send it (maybe not in the park anymore)? I plan on staying mostly on trails with some bouts in the woods and will ski regularly in Vermont conditions, e.g. ice, bumps, skiing powder is a dream but it’s like winning the lottery. I’m 5’7″ (170cm) at 160lbs. I feel the 165cm should be my length because of my height, weight, and skill, and being able to maneuverer around bumps and trees, but wonder if I’ll get the most out of the skis by going with 173cm.
Reply:
HI Lance!
There’s a lot to like about skis in that mid-80’s range and the Vantage 86 is a good one. I do think you’ll get more enjoyment overall out of the 165, with the 173’s being good for those instances when you’re all alone out there on the hill, but it sounds like that’s going to be the case less of the time. I’d go with what suits you and your needs for the majority of the time on the mountain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Just to clarify: I did not go off-piste too much, I mainly would like to have a ski that is mainly used on the piste and but is also capable of being taken off-piste when I feel like it (and to improve my powder skiing). Also, I would be a solid intermediate, but not close to the advanced level. I have indeed read the info as well, but then again I find it hard compare since the guy is 5 kg heavier but 6 cm shorter than myself. I am a bit lost as you might have noticed... 
