Atomic Theory Ski

When in doubt, as a novice, go shorter.

When I’ve had a rental that was too long it felt like the ski was running away from me. You will feel out of balance and typically end up sitting back to compensate for what feels like too much weight in front of you. This does nothing for your technique making it harder to turn and you risk entering the vicious circle of: inefficient technique means turning is hard which means you get tired which amplifies inefficient technique; repeat until you run out of patience/energy/talent and retire early for the day.

Also on a ski that is too long shorter radius turns are that much harder, you’ll still be going straight when you should really have initiated the turn earlier. This might not be a problem on empty wide open runs but on narrow tracks, busy pistes or in the bumps it could be a concern (not least to those around you).

On a longer ski you will also have more stability at higher speeds, but if that ski is too long all that means is lulling you into a false sense of security and suddenly you’re not in full control at a higher speed.

I understand that for its size the Atomic Theory is reasonably light and ‘poppy’ so it should be manoeuvrable. This may mitigate some of the characteristics that come with having a ski as long as 186cm. I think if you’re fit, having some instruction and benefit from typically good snow conditions where you ski i.e. not predominately hard pack, you may well be able to ski 186cm at an intermediate level if it skis closer to 181cm.

There are plenty of ski length calculators on the internet but I’d recommend going and talking to stockists, even something as simple as standing in the middle of a ski in the shop and registering your instant gut feel for the length can help (sounds silly but it’s probably no different to things we instinctively do many times a day when judging distance/size/position etc).

Instruction I received for off-piste was based upon building up skills on-piste (six week intensive all-mountain course in Fernie, Canada), you want to learn techniques on easier terrain and then transfer them into harder terrain. So what you need to watch is that your on-piste learning isn’t being adversely impacted by an incorrectly sized ski in the hope that it will all come good when you get into the deeper stuff.

I am by no means expert on these things so do go and talk with the professionals and be honest about ability and ambition. No one, me included, ever likes to describe themselves to the sales assistant as what amounts to ‘average’ so we all tend to talk ourselves up. In fact I suspect sales people are trained to take everything we say with a pinch of salt anyway.

If you do end up purchasing this ski I’d be really interested to hear how you get on, so do post a review.

Thanks Martin. What are the negatives of buying a ski that may be too long?

I haven't skied the Atomic Theory so can only pass on the advice I've received from speaking with European based retailers about this ski. I’m 5’11” 175lbs advanced skier currently using 178cm Dynastar Sultan 85 and skiing all-mountain. I have used 184cm Sultan 94 in backcountry.

I’ve been told the Theory with twin-tip and rocker will ski 5cm or so shorter than its actual length, so the 177 will ski like a 172 and 186 like a 181. For my build and ski level I was told 177cm if predominately piste based but with capability to have fun throwing them around all-mountain; but that given my experience I’d have no problem with the 186cm which performs that bit better in powder. As the Theory will be a touch lighter than my current set-up and I’m specifically looking for better soft snow performance I’m inclined to go for the 186cm.

Looking at the K2 Silencer I’d say the 169cm is too short and too light for you, hence instability at speed. If you were at an advanced level with your build I’d say 186cm, but as you’re intermediate, still predominately on-piste and potentially increasing both length and width I’d say go for the 177cm to build all-mountain confidence. At this point the limiting factor off-piste is likely to be your experience more than a few extra cm of ski length.

An alternative ski of similar dimensions and target audience is the Scott Venture. It’s apparently stiffer than the Theory so needs to be worked a bit harder but supposedly has great on-piste performance – 178cm might suit you.

Although the trend is for ever wider skis you would undoubtedly benefit from just increasing the length and leaving the width sub-90mm. The Theory and Venture are considered advanced skis here in the UK so maybe look at something a little bit less demanding like a Scott Mission again in 178cm which by all accounts is a great all-rounder and as I think Scott haven’t really changed it for some time if you can find it a model from the last couple of seasons it may be a bargain.

As ever demo if you can. And continue with instruction.

Currently I ski 169cm @85mm K2 Silencer. At speed they feel unstable. Ready to step it up. Not sure if 186 is to long. Mostly groomed runs, but planning on venturing off piste with these skis or another(open to recomendations). Not purchasing till Jan. '12

What do you ski at present and what sort of terrain do you ski?

Well, looking at the Atomic homepage, and their pictures of the adaptive rocker it doesn't show any tail rocker.

But pressing my skis together I notice almost as much rocker at the tail as I have in the front. (I didn't bother trying taking them apart and measuring the uplift of one single ski.

But I would definitely say that it also rises at the tail..

You are correct. The Atomic Theory has Adaptive Rocker Technology. When ski is weighted, there is rocker in the tip. No tail rocker in this ski. Backcountry needs to change this description because it makes a big difference.

186cm is 8.46 lbs, 177cm is 7.85, and 168 is 7.75 lbs