2013-2014 Atomic Automatic, 193cm

Will Brown

Boots / Bindings: Salomon Falcon Pro CS / Atomic NR ffg 12

Mount Location: Factory Recommended Line

Test Locations: Alta Ski Area

Days Skied: 2

As Jonathan mentions above, I haven’t skied the 186cm Automatic, and my time on the 193cm was in primarily steep, tight terrain around Eagle’s Nest at Alta. With that relatively limited experience, here are my thoughts…

Will Brown, Atomic Automatic, Blister Gear Review
Will Brown, Alta Ski Area

I can’t think of many reasons you’d really want to have 193cm of material to swing around down a narrow chute, and with that in mind, I was a little unsure about diving into Eagle’s Nest on the 193cm, expecting it to be a hassle. Sure enough, with respect to the physical length of the ski, I did find myself thinking that I would have rather been on a shorter version in that particular situation. Jonathan (and Joe below) both talk about the 186’s super quick, easy feel, and in hindsight, that probably would have been nice to have. Sometimes the material in the rockered tip of the 193 would get a bit caught up against the steep banks of moguls / troughs that had formed in the chutes, but really that could have been the case with pretty much any ski this size.

In the variable, firmed-up snow we were skiing, to me it seemed like the general shape of the Automatic was more important to the way it affected the ski’s handling than its length. In certain ways, the Automatic’s dimensions helped me manage its size. Yes, sometimes the shovel of the 193 felt difficult to fit around trees and moguls, but so long as I had enough space to pivot the ski, I was easily able to do so.

At low speeds in the steep terrain, the 193 felt surprisingly quick—I didn’t feel like I had to fight to haul the weight of the ski around, I just needed to be somewhat deliberate with my turns. Why? I have to think this was due largely to the ski’s 20m sidecut radius—that’s pretty tight for a 193cm, 117mm-underfoot ski.

Whatever the case may be, the 193 was pretty tolerable through those quick turns. I could count on being able to get the ski back and forth across the fall-line when I needed to—the shovel swung around quickly, and the tail never felt like it was hanging up behind me.

However, I found this relatively nimble feel to have its tradeoffs. When I made more aggressively edged, hard-set turns in the steeps that put much more force on the whole length of the ski, the shovels would sometimes catch and bite, quickly pulling uphill while the tails washed out and felt like they were dropping down the fall-line behind me. I didn’t feel like I could trust the Automatic if I needed to shut down speed fast or make a hard slarve turn in variable conditions.

I happened to spend a few runs prior in the same terrain on the 190cm Moment Bibby Pro. The Bibby has less sidecut than the Automatic (so it has a longer 26.5m radius) and a little less taper from tip to tail (the widest point of the Bibby’s tail is closer to that of it its tip). The Automatic was definitely easier to move around in the trees and tight chutes, but the heavier-feeling Bibby seemed significantly more stable and predictable when it came to those more aggressive turns in the variable snow.

This wasn’t news to me. In his review of the 186cm Automatic, Jonathan has this to say about the Bibby vs. the Automatic:

“For those of you who think that the Bibby Pro might be more ski than you want or need, that it might be too much work or too stiff, the 186 or 193 Automatic deserve a very serious look.

“The 190 (and 184) Bibby Pro charge harder than the Automatic, period. But the 186 Automatic feels very quick (quicker than the 190 Bibbys), predictable, and forgiving, yet still lets you stand on it a good bit. Again, not as much as the Bibby, but that might be OK with you.”

I don’t disagree, but I actually think there’s an even better case to be made for a ski that’s a slightly friendlier Bibby: the Salomon Rocker2 115. The 188cm 115 has a 21-meter radius, which is close to the Automatic’s (markedly tighter than the Bibby’s, so it’s easier to pivot around for its size), yet it has less taper from tip to tail and less tail rocker than the Automatic, so it feels more balanced and predictable  in variable conditions.

In the interest of keeping this three-man review in line, I’ll stop here with the comparisons, but if you are considering the Automatic as a powder ski to take out on more than just fresh powder days (or everyday like Joe), then you should also consider the 115. It’s a more forgiving Bibby that I find more balanced and dependable than the Automatic when the snow is chopped and firm.

But while I think the Salomon Rocker2 115 handles chop and variable conditions better than the Automatic and isn’t as demanding as the Bibby, the 115 won’t provide the same, surfy feel of the Automatic in fresh conditions—and that surfy feel may be more important to some folks than the differences in the skis’ crud performance.

In the end, it probably depends largely on where you’re skiing, what type of terrain, your ability level, and what the rest of your quiver looks like (or if this ski will be your quiver of one).

 

NEXT: JOE HANRAHAN

 

10 comments on “2013-2014 Atomic Automatic, 193cm”

  1. I got this ski 2 weeks ago and apon toying with the idea I decided to mount it at team. I’m 6’3″ 200 pounds and ever sense I have been staring at them wishing I mounted them +1. Here in the PNW we are waiting for snow and I hope I like them at team but I think they are gonna be hyper sensitive to mounting to the mounting position, any thoughts on how sensitive they are?

  2. My friend just bought the 193 Automatics with Dukes and I had a chance to compare them to my 2011 Bibby Pro’s (190 cm). Side by side the Automatics felt only a tiny bit longer, but when skiing in groomers the shovel felt distinctively longer (both mounted on the line). Could be because the Automatics have a longer and higher tip rocker profile?

    And also I think that the Bibby Pro’s felt more stiffer and stable in high speeds…

  3. I also posted in the original Automatic thread, but this might be helpful for some readers here too. I’m 6ft4, 80kg (180lbs) and have about 20 days on my 193 Automatics now, mounted at +2.5 (the “Team” or “Recommended” line is -10.5 from cord centre, so pretty far back compared to the line on skis like the S7 or JJ). +2.5 is the centre of the camber and the centre of the sidewall section, so this made sense to me and looked right when eyeballing the mount. For me this is a good compromise position for all soft snow conditions; trees, wide-open faces and a little jibbing. If I was spinning more I’d go anywhere up to +5 and I think they’d still ski fine. If I only ever skied high-speed open faces I’d go around +1.5. Mine feel slightly hooky in wide-open spaces which is a little disappointing, but they’re still much nicer here than my old Super 7s. Not as pivoty in tight trees as the Super 7 but still workable, especially if you keep your speed up.

    At my weight I’m pretty sure I could have gotten away with the 186 but I’m tall so short skis just feel weird. I consider myself a strong skier and the 193 is very manageable in tight spots. I consider it an everyday soft snow ski, not an all-out powder ski, and it works well for me all round.

  4. I skied them yesterday in 5 inches of fresh and I too choose not to detune a ski until I have skied it and this ski definitely needs to be detuned. I felt that having it at the team mounting point it was a but hard to find the right balance on the ski, to far back you wash out to far forward it would get pretty hooky so ill be taking them back out tomorrow in what’s forecasted to be another foot at mt hood and have my final verdict on if ill be remounting them to +2 or not.

  5. Just saw some photos of the new Automatic at SIA. Do you know if there are any changes to the ski for next season besides graphics?

  6. I have a set of the 2015 Auto117s in the 193cm length. I started out at +2cm mountings, and went back to the factory line. I think they float and plane up on light snow so much better mounted there I was willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of maneuverability. (As a side note, at 6’1 and 245lbs, I need all the help I can get to stay on top on pow days… )

Leave a Comment