 Poster: A snowHead
|
Just had a great week on my new Nomad Crimson's in Val Cenis/Termignon, France. Here's my thoughts on the skis:
My stats:
175cm; 95kg; Diablo Fire boots fully balanced; advanced level skier trying to improve off-piste ability.
Ski Spec:
176cm
128 / 86 / 114 sidecut
18m radius
Great crimson colour!
Other skis owned:
06/07 SX:B5’s in 166cm.
Previously owned skis:
I’ve recently sold my beloved 04/05 162cm Metron B5’s after 7 weeks of use & my 04/05 175cm M:EX’s which I’d used for just one week. I’ve also got a pair of 03/04 Sugar Daddy’s in 173cm which are reluctantly up for sale.
Requirements:
Looking for an all mountain ski with an off-piste bias to make up a two ski quiver with my SX:B5 piste skis.
Atomic Neox 412 bindings were required to match my SX’s so I can take both pairs of skis ‘in the flat’ & just take one pair of toe & heel pieces in my carry-on luggage. I can then get both skis & my avi gear within the 12kg ski bag limit.
Weight Comparison, per pair:
03/04 173cm Sugar Daddy’s c/w CR412 - 7.28kg
04/05 175cm Metron M:EX c/w Neox 412 - 7.76kg
04/05 162cm Metron B5 c/w Neox 412 - 7.72kg
06/07 166cm SX:B5 c/w Neox 412 - 7.32kg
07/08 176cm Nomad Crimson c/w Neox 412 - 6.39kg
Prep:
Prior to use I’d trimmed back the sidewall, polished the factory 3 degree side angle & deburred the edge, hot scrape cleaned the bases & done two applications of Zoom base renew wax & one Zoom lime uni wax – all with loads of brushing etc.
As usual I had the Neox 412’s set to the forward position which matches my +9cm balancer setting. I usually have to be a cm further forward than this to achieve my balancer setting so the mounting plate must be positioned slightly further rearward by the factory than on my other/previous Atomics.
Conditions:
The first two to three days skiing were typical spring conditions with hardpack first thing which softened slightly to perfect piste snow mid/late morning, turning to spring corn later in the day. Most of the snow below 1800m was man-made. The temperature dropped mid-week & there was snow each night which gave us great powder skiing in anything from boot to thigh depth depending upon the location. There were also certainly a few places were I could push my 125cm poles right down to the grips. The resort was so quiet (not one lift queue all week) that I was still finding fresh powder on my last runs of the last two day.
Performance:
I hadn’t demo’d the Crimson’s before delivery so I initially went through my usual testing drills to get the feel of them which comprises of side slipping into braquage turns into skidded long, medium, short turns & then long carved turns progressively tightening the radius to as short as possible. The Crimson’s gave me a lot of confidence during these drills & definitely have the Atomic ‘feel’. Low speed manoeuvrability was noticeably good. I was initially aware that a bit of patience was required for them to respond compared to my super turny M:B5's but once I’d got used to their longer length (these are the longest skis I’ve owned) they handled well very indeed, especially in some tight Termignon tree runs.
Whilst my other Atomic’s are noticeably heavier than the Crimson’s they had a low swing weight & did ski light so to be honest I didn’t notice any weight difference in the Crimson’s whilst on the snow. However carrying them to the slope every day & backpacking them up a ridge is really were their relative lightness paid off.
The skis are pretty quick edge to edge for an 86mm underfoot ski & I could confidently ski ‘slalom type’ lines without feeling that I could trip myself up.
The Crimson’s are softer than the M:EX’s which makes them even softer than the M:B5’s & noticeably softer than the SX:B5’s. Whilst both B5’s are certainly better hard snow performers I was surprised how well the Crimson performed on hard snow, certainly equalling if not surpassing the M:EX’s. Whether the ‘TFC Sectors’ & the ‘Nano Technology’ actually works or not I don’t know but these skis are definitely very torsionally stiff which is really noticeable on hard snow, giving the usual great Atomic edge hold both on steeps & when carving blues. As with edge quickness, the higher rail mounted Neox’s help in this respect.
The Crimson’s have less rebound than my other skis & they don’t give you that same kick-in-the-pants response when driven on piste compared to my other skis but that’s exactly what I’ve got my SX:B5’s for. However their softer flex did allow me to bend the ski into a wide range of radii when carving which allowed me to vary the turns & not just ‘park & ride’.
Also their softer flex gave me waaay more pressure control in powder which is exactly what I wanted, as opposed to the on/off switch on my Metron’s. The 86mm underfoot gave my fat frame plenty of float in the depths I was skiing & my powder skiing has really progressed due to these skis – which I put down to being able to progressively manage their flex & to do it more evenly over both skis.
The only bumps that I encountered were small, soft & easy so were no test for the Crimson's however anything softer flexing than my SX:B5's is gonna help me in bumps!
The terrain I was skiing was not really suitable for a super high speed test but I certainly skied them on-piste as fast as I felt comfortable & had no stability problems or tip vibration etc. I was able to straight line schuss one red run & they were rock steady when flat (without that disconcerting squirrely feeling that my M:B5’s had) & I felt no need to keep them slightly on edge.
Another snowHead has commented on the durability of the top sheet on another model of Nomad ski. I must say that the top sheet does seem soft compared to my other Atomic’s & Deb’s bomb proof Burnin’ Luv’s. However it’s certainly not as soft as that on the Scott Missions (one of the Crimson's main competitors) on which I’ve done a number of repairs for my customers. Base & edge durability on the Crimson’s was well up to Atomic’s normal standards based on the lack of damage caused by the few hidden nasties that I hit during the week.
Conclusion:
The Crimson’s were superb all week in all of the conditions I encountered & they certainly make a great all mountain one ski quiver with an off-piste bias. When combined with my SX:B5 piste blasters they fulfil my requirements perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
how was Val Cenis as a ski area???
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| srobbo wrote: |
| .......Does this mean no more ski buying this year?... |
Never say never 
| kitenski wrote: |
| how was Val Cenis as a ski area??? |
Well srobbo is the real Val Cenis expert & it was on his recommendation that we first went last year, also in mid-March.
The valley is certainly a best kept secret but not for long as it's starting to be developed more now. I think Val Cenis has about 110km of piste & the 'to be linked this summer' mountain of Termignon has another 40km. There's also other great local mountains which, like Termignon, are just a short bus ride away - namely Valfrejus, La Norma & Bonneval, although I personally haven't skied Bonneval.
Don't let the small km of piste put you off though as the area has superb & easy access off-piste (which no-one seems to ski) & great tree skiing. For this reason the area is best considered more like a US resort were you ski the area not the km's.
There's a wide variety of terrain to suit all abilities & the snow record is excellent, as is the snow quality. Cheap too with a 6 day lift pass inc carre neige for Val Cenis & Termignon costing £88!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
spyderjon, Sssshhh !!
| Quote: |
The valley is certainly a best kept secret
|
Details like that should be kept to PM's only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
>> superb & easy access off-piste
Yeh,that's the reason it's on my list of places to go 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| Don't let the small km of piste put you off though as the area has superb & easy access off-piste (which no-one seems to ski) & great tree skiing. For this reason the area is best considered more like a US resort were you ski the area not the km's. |
I've heard this said a number of times, and never understood it. I've skied Tignes, Val d'Isere, Les Arcs and a brief visit to La lagne in the last few days. Believe me, people are skiing these areas as a whole not just the km's of piste Everywhere the eye can see is skied, not just the pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I agree that many people do look at the area as a whole - which is why any fresh in the major resorts gets tracked out so quickly.
But I also know a bunch of piste-only skiers that make their resort selection by km's only, judging their day by the km's covered etc. Each to their own I suppose, which is a good job as the off-piste would get tracked out even quicker if everyone was doing it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
>> Everywhere the eye can see is skied, not just the pistes.
IMHO That's the reason to goto "smaller" resorts, the off piste doesn't get tracked as quickly.
regards,
Gerg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kitenski wrote: |
>> Everywhere the eye can see is skied, not just the pistes.
IMHO That's the reason to goto "smaller" resorts, the off piste doesn't get tracked as quickly.
regards,
Gerg |
Hi Gerg, is the skier density less at smaller resorts, or do they attract a larger proportion of piste-only skiers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
spyderjon,
Wow, comprehensive report.
I know a fellow Instructor, that was in Val Cenis, last week. He has had a bad accident involving being launched into the cable of a drag lift, all I know is that his arm is broken in 2 places and he has been airlifted home. Did you hear anything while you were there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
>> is the skier density less at smaller resorts, or do they attract a larger proportion of piste-only skiers?
No idea Rob! All I know is what I've seen.
If you take places like Val D'Isere or Chamonix which are well known for lift served off piste, then you really do see a "powder frenzy" after fresh snow, if you take lesser well known resorts like Gressoney, Engelberg, you don't seem to have so many people off piste?
I've also found resorts with a rep for "intermediate" skiing like La Plagne allow fresh tracks to be had days after a storm!
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| ...I know a fellow Instructor, that was in Val Cenis, last week. He has had a bad accident involving being launched into the cable of a drag lift, all I know is that his arm is broken in 2 places and he has been airlifted home. Did you hear anything while you were there? |
Sorry no. Saw a couple of blood wagon rides & one chopper evac in VC during the week but only from the other side of the resort.
Also came across a local who'd taken a tumble whilst skiing off-piste in Termignon by himself ( ) & who'd banged his shoulder up pretty badly. He was only about 20yds off the side of a blue run when he fell but there was no one around & visibility was poor. He said that he'd been down about 10 minutes when I spotted him (well heard his shout actually) & I was the first person he'd seen.
By the time I'd skied down, got the pisteurs (no mobile signal) & their sled & we got back up on the lift about another 20 minutes had elapsed & the guy was absolutely frozen (approx -10C plus some wind chill) & looked to be in a bad way. The mountain was so quiet that he'd not seen another skier since I'd left him to get help!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
spyderjon,
Thanks anyway, been trying to get hold of news as to how he is. Sounds like a bizarre accident, the cable must have caught up or something, because he was pulled of the ground up in the air and into the cable. Never heard of anything like it before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kitenski wrote: |
I've also found resorts with a rep for "intermediate" skiing like La Plagne allow fresh tracks to be had days after a storm!
|
That's my experience in Les Arcs as well, perhaps because of its reputation as a family friendly resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi. I was just sold a pair of 176 Metron Crimsons by an Atomic rep who seemed to know what I wanted and what he was talking about. I have a similar stable of Atomic skis (162 Mex's, 170 SX10s, 170 10-18s) and am just a shade shorter/lighter than you so I had similar concerns with that length. I would have loved to have installed a Neox 4-12 binding on them (I have those on both the Mex and the SX10), but this is the no-chassis 2008 model and I was sold some Atomic FFG 14's instead (same as a Saloman STH 14 Driver) which have no lifter, plate, and exchange elasticity for free-flexing gizmos. So mine will run a little more free-ride I suspect, something to get used to.
My main questions were on bumps and in trees. The short Mex's had their strengths and weaknesses, quick turning in the trees being a strength, and I didn't want to surrender tree skiing for open bowl big dump performance.
You said everything I suspected when I examined the flex characteristics of the 176 Crimsons: stiff in the middle, and HUGE flex area in the shovel. I had seen comments like "strong turn initiation" and "seemed to ski short", but your review was on the money. Happy to see I sacrifice nothing. My nephew will enjoy the Mex's until he is big and strong enough to go "big mountain" too.
Atomic changes its stripes so fast it's hard to keep up with. The Metron's were all about short and curvy, and were abandoned like a spent mine. I wasn't sold on the concept, but the Mex had a radius I was used to and the width I was looking for. The Crimsons remind me of a high-tech super-light version of the old R-ex from the ride series, which I had been building up to before they discontinued them, and the Atomic flip flop from short and curvy back to long and lean had me confused.
If I were you, I'd trade in those ultra-short SXB5's of yours for something more old-school too. I love the SX10: super-stiff, amazing edge-hold making GS turns at blistering speeds in boilerplate. I've yet to run into someone who can keep up with me on them. But I've never been a fan of slalom skis.
Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
