2012-2013 Atomic Automatic
Heavy, Wet Mank
So far, I am actually most impressed with these in steep, super dank mashed potato snow. In similar terrain and conditions, I was struggling to get the Praxis MVPs to release (I am 99% confident that this was a tune issue, first and foremost), but I have had no trouble with the Automatic.
These skis are not catching or hooking in some very grabby, wet snow. I’m still dealing with a knee that could be better, and another knee that is feeling close to 100% for the first time in about 16 months. Wrenching the hell out of my knee in grabby snow because my skis aren’t cooperating is not something I’m into. And for this reason among others, I have loved the Automatics this trip.
Jonathan Ellsworth, Ícaro, Las Leñas Ski Resort.
Refrozen Death Chunder
One afternoon as we were skiing Nausica, a sun-baked, northeast-facing slope (remember, we’re in South America; it’s flipped here), I saw some “death-chunk-mixed-with-slushy-mank” rip the ski off of a very good skier who was simply making a right turn.
This was snow that could mess with you at any moment, and also mess you up. (Of course, reviewer Jason Hutchins was skiing this stuff like it was perfect powder. I hate him so much.)
The Automatics didn’t dominate this stuff. But what they did do was stay predictable. And when you’re skiing sketchy conditions, you know what’s nice? Not being scared that your skis or boots or bindings are about to screw you.
In this murderers’ row snow, the Automatics impressed me quite a bit. They didn’t “slay” these conditions—I’m still not sure what ski would—but for a soft-ish, playful pow ski, these didn’t get weird precisely when what I needed most was for a ski not to suddenly hook or grab.
And this is a quality of the Automatic that bears noting: in tricky, variable, bumped-up conditions at speed, I could get the shovels of the Automatic flapping quite a bit. The 186 Automatic is definitely not as stiff or damp as the 184 or 190 Moment Bibby Pro, or the 190cm Rossignol Squad 7.
But in big, open sections of this refrozen crud, I would see and sense the tips and shovels of the Automatic undulating rapidly (weird analogy alert: picture a stingray sliding down a mountain, sideways), but I was not getting bucked around or knocked off balance. The tips and shovels could get flapping, but I felt isolated from all that, able to remain centered and not get tossed around.
In this specific regard, the 186 Automatic feels similar to the 184 LINE Sir Francis Bacon and feels less like the 190 Moment Bibby Pro or the 190 Rossignol Squad 7. I don’t expect the 193 Atomic Automatic to feel worlds different from the 186, but we’ll see….
For this reason, I wouldn’t call the 186 Automatic a “charger”; it plays more than it charges. And yet… this ski holds up well when conditions get difficult. It doesn’t get unpredictable or create a struggle to stay balanced. And this quality comes with a big upside. Namely, in…
Tight Terrain
The Automatic is dumb easy to ski. Stupid easy. Awesomely easy. As I’ve mentioned, these skis are much better than average when carving turns, but they are crazy easy to pivot and smear, and super quick to turn. In some steep, narrow, icy entrances, I appreciated just how easy, stable, and responsive the Automatics were. All ski design involves compromise, but the Automatic feels less like a series of compromises and more like the best of all possible worlds. (If Gottfried Leibniz were around today, he would definitely rock the Automatic.)
Moguls / Tree Skiing (despite the fact that Las Leñas doesn’t have either)
You have to search far and wide to find anything resembling a mogul field at Las Leñas, but in short sections (usually near chairlifts) I could already tell how incredibly easy the Automatics would be in bumps. Here, the narrow tips and tapered shovels felt pretty ideal and didn’t slam into each other, and, as noted earlier, these are pivot machines. Carve if you want, or pivot like a madman. Either way.
I’m not a huge fan of skiing bumps on 115+ mm skis, but I will rip the @%&! out of bumps on the Automatics. (In this regard, they remind me of the Armada JJs, another good 115mm bump ski.)
It’s also why I am convinced that these will be exceptionally good skiing trees. Intuitive, not hooky, very quick, easy to turn, forgiving. Again, I always liked the Armada JJ in trees, and I believe that the Automatic will be at least as good.
Furthermore, I’m wagering heavily—but waiting to prove—that the 193 Automatic will be easier in tight trees (and bumps) than the 190 Bibby Pro or the 190 Rossignol Squad 7.
Cut-Up Crud (and some light pow)
I haven’t actually skied any true, tracked pow on the Automatic, but I have had it in cut-up crud. Here, the story is largely the same. I have not been bucked forward. When I’ve gotten in the backseat, the tails provide support, don’t just collapse on me, and have helped me stay balanced.
Personally, I’d prefer to be on the 190 Bibby or the Squad 7 in this stuff, but I’m more than happy to ski it on the Automatic. And if you think that the Bibby or the Squad might be a little more ski than you want or need… there’s this ski out now called the Automatic that you should probably check out.
NEXT: UNTRACKED POW
Where to Buy:
Comments:
Questions? Comments? Tell us what you think.
Related Posts:
2012-2013 Atomic Ritual
The Atomic Ritual can be easily slashed and skidded, but is still a substantial ski to use as an everyday all-mountain charger.
2012-2013 Atomic Access
In Jackson Hole, Emily Cleveland has found the Atomic Access to be lightweight, playful, and really easy to ski.
2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm
More than just a review of the new Jaguar Shark, here's a user's guide to MOMENT's all-mountain / freeride collection to help you make sense of it all.
September 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“If Gottfried Leibniz were around today, he would definitely rock the Automatic…”
Reason #526 why Blister rules…
September 4, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Ha. Thanks, Zak.
September 4, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Awesome review! What advantages would the JJ’s have over these, if any?
Also, when can we be expecting a review on those Tracker 16′s? Any hints?
Thanks
September 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Honestly, for a directional skier, I’d say there is no advantage to the JJ. But on groomers and in trees and bumps, the JJ and Automatic are very close, and it might be a matter of preference.
Where it seems that the JJ might have an advantage – and maybe a significant one? – is for people looking to trick and ski switch.
Re: the Tracker 16, all I will say for now is that I regard it as a fully legit downhill binding. Fully. I had zero reservations about its downhill performance, but we want to get some more time touring on them. We’ll try to get a First Look up within a week or so.
September 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Great review! What’s the measured length of the ski?
September 5, 2012 at 1:38 am
Also interested to know the true length. I’m pretty sold on this ski, if it’s long enough.
September 5, 2012 at 8:30 am
Hey, guys – a straight tape pull on the 186 Automatic measures at 184.2. So the 193 will likely come in at 191.2.
September 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Great review, and we all should pay homage to Leibniz as we approach the limit. I think I may hear some of my comments in here in regards to the Bibby Pro, which was just too much ski for me to get that snow feel I like at my weight (166lbs), while it just crushed everything. At Alta last year I had a transcendent day on the 184 Rocker2, while the JJ was just sort of “ok it works” -, but I hesitated due to it being so light and airy (which makes it so fun) for my usual Tahoe skiing. Maybe this would be a nice blend? Have a great time and stay safe, the snowpack looks a little thin.
September 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Yep, Sam – I specifically had you in mind, actually. And I do think that the Automatic would be a nice blend for what you’re looking for. I don’t recall whether you were skiing the 108 or the 120 Rocker 2, so I don’t know how the Automatic would compare, but I have a hard time imagining that you’d be disappointed in the Automatic, and I’ve found them to perform beautifully in some Tahoe-esque snow.
September 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Great review. I love the sound of this ski but like you, my old lady is my 190 bibby pro. If this ski were 10 mm thinner I’d buy it to complemet my bibby for non pow days or techy trees. What ski do you think is the 107 automatic? BTW you guys are killing me with the las Lenas photos. Need to get back there. Have fun!
September 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Thanks, Tom. Short answer: I don’t know what the 107 Automatic is, but for “non pow and techy trees, seems like the 101 PB&J – the skinnier Bibby – could be a great option.
If you really want to stick closer to the 107 width, then while it IS NOT an Automatic, the 108mm Blizzard Cochise is a damn good ski that is as predictable and smearable as the Automatic, and I actually think it would be a nice compliment to the Bibby (if you don’t go the PB&J route).
September 4, 2012 at 8:47 pm
how did you feel about the mounting point? would you move it or leave it as-is now that you’ve skied it a bit?
-pete
September 4, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Hi, Pete – because our Automatics are mounted with Tracker 16s, I wasn’t able to play with the mount point, and my boot sole center ended up at -.5cm. But as I think you can tell from my review, there was nothing about the ski’s performance that had me searching for ways to improve it.
But personally, if I was going to mount up a pair with alpine bindings, I would probably just go on the Team line…for no especially good reason…rather than .5 cms back. This doesn’t feel like a ski that would be hyper-sensitive to that .5cm change.
September 5, 2012 at 12:18 am
Can you compare a bit to the 112rpc-which seems very similar
in rocker profile and design goals?
Sound like you loved this but liked the DPS.
Also, would you say the Automatic, esp in a 193, would have enough
float for AK or something similarly steep and deep? Or would you be reaching for something wider?
September 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm
HI, Mike – I actually think that the original Wailer 112 is closer to the Automatic than the new Wailer 112RPC. The RPC has a VERY stiff tail; the Automatic doesn’t. Unfortunately, my time on the RPC was very limited, so I can’t say a whole lot more than that yet. But the Automatic is super easy to ski (more like the 112RP) and that tail of the RPC wasn’t intended to be “super easy.”
As for AK, I don’t think that the issue with the Automatic will be float; it floats great, and I don’t think I’d really NEED wider. When you say “steep and deep,” the question for me would be “How steep, and how fast?” the issue for me would be stiffness. There are more charging-oriented pow skis – Rossi Squad 7, Moment Bibby Pro, Praxis Protest, and my question is whether you would need / want the stiffer flex. But I’d happily take the 193 Automatic to AK and go find out!
September 5, 2012 at 5:12 am
I wonder how different the review would read if you 145lbs (I’m a cyclist, but I’m as tall as you).
did anyone of the lighter folks get a spin on the 186 ?
I’m on a 4frnt EHP 186 now as pow stick and love the smearability and control in pow (which makes it awesome) but dislike that it does not really allow to be ridden on edge in harder snow (which makes it tiresome on big verts)
September 5, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Our reviewer, Ryan Caspar, weighs 145 lbs. and actually put several days in on the 193 Automatic in Jackson this season. You can read Ryan’s comments on the Automatic in his “One Ski Quiver Selections.”
Long and short, if I was 40 lbs. lighter, the only difference I’d expect is that the Automatic would feel even more stable. And regarding the EHP, I definitely think you’ll find the Automatic to be an improvement in harder snow.
September 5, 2012 at 9:20 am
Can you compare this to the Line Pollard Opus. The Opus as far as I can tell is more symmetrical but is supposed to be another playful pow ski suited for lighter skiers. Looking into a pow ski for this season and the Automatic 179 seems great for a 5’5″/150 guy. Pollard is on my demo list, and so is the automatic they both got really good reviews.
September 10, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Unfortunately, I haven’t skied the Opus. But I think at your height / weight, the Opus and the Automatic make good sense. Having had many conversations about the Opus with Jason Hutchins, I believe that it will be at least a bit softer than the Automatic, more center mounted, and much less directional. So if you’re spinning and skiing switch much, the Opus seems like the better bet. If you’re not, I highly doubt that the Automatic will disappoint.
September 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Thanks for the feedback! Will demo the Automatic for sure!
September 5, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Thanks for another great review!! How would you compare the Automatic to the BD AMPerage? Did you enjoy one over the other?
Thanks for the continued excellent work!
September 10, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Thanks, Nick. There are a lot of people out there (including our own Andrew Gregovich) who really like the AMPerage. But for me, and as I wrote, my biggest issue with it was the tail, and I had no complaints with the tail of the Automatic. Aside from the tail: in deep pow, I think both skis are very good. And on groomers, the AMPerage MIGHT get the nod over the Automatic. But personally, I’ll take the Automatic everywhere else.
September 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm
So the boys at BC seemed to think that the Automatic was a burly burly ski. Reading your review made me want it, but this video makes me not want it:
http://vimeo.com/48527669
Can you respond to their review? Think that is the difference between the 193 and the 186? I’m trading away my 192 Bentchetlers because I want something smaller for trees but it will still be my pow day ski. I have a charger (RC112) and a couple of all mountain rides (4FRNT turbo, G3 Zenoxide). I really want a 186 Bentchetler but I don’t mind a stiffer ski and I would actually perfer more tail on than what I get on the BC for moderate hucking. I never ski backwards on purpose.
Thoughts?
September 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm
As I note in my review, I’ve only skied the 186, not the 193. But I asked specifically about the flex differences of the 186 and the 193, to make sure that Atomic wasn’t doing something like Volkl did with the Katana: significantly stiffen up the 198cm and the 191cm models over the 184cm. (If Atomic had beefed up the 193, we would have taken it with us, since it would have then been the obvious choice for Las Leñas.)
I was assured that the 193 was only “proportionally stiffer” – that is, it might run a little stiffer given the additional material length.
So the 193 is not supposed to be a much different beast than the 186. And if that is so, then I have no idea what they are talking about in the video, saying the Automatic is “super burly,” has no speed limit, and has a pretty unforgiving tail.
So unless Atomic’s product manager – who skis the 193cm length – is way off base, I don’t know what to make of some of these claims. But no part of me expects to suddenly find a “burly burly ski” when I get on the 193. In fact, our reviewer Ryan Caspar, who is a strong skier but weighs only 145 lbs., loves the 193cm Automatic, still thinks it’s super easy and fun, and is considering it for a one ski quiver at Jackson Hole.
September 7, 2012 at 1:35 am
I’m guessing the dude reviewing was the guy skiing in black…
September 11, 2012 at 10:31 am
So funny, I was thinking the same thing when I saw that BC review. But honestly, there isn’t many magazines or stores I trust with reviews anymore. One paragraph isn’t a review….it’s a sales pitch. That’s why we come here. Jonathan and the staff here are top notch, no BS. 4 page reviews are standard also with quick responses to questions. Blister is the sh*t. Thanks for the countless reviews. Already got my AUTOMATICS!
September 11, 2012 at 11:37 am
Thanks for the kind words, RR. I’ll just say that the ski review industry is…a very peculiar place. Anyway, let us know what you think of the Automatics.
September 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Hi Jonathan,
Great reviews – love the site. I did my best to come up with an intelligent target ski for my current quiv. I ski 50+ days in CO, mostly Basin, Wolf Creek, Silverton, Vail, occasionally Taos. My everydayer is a 187 XXL, the Volkl Kuro 185 didn’t get out much last year obvi (wish I had the 195 now). I ski directional for the most part and generally like a ski with a tail but am curious about the Bibby Pro 190′s (which I can’t find anywhere except Powder 7 in Golden – says they can order). The 117-120mm “sweet spot” makes sense as the gap fill – Squad 7′s, Bibbys or Praxis Rx – stiff, with the custom stiff carbon layup? Or any others? I’m getting frustrated that I can’t find the Bibby’s, the Jag Sharks could be another option but they aren’t around either? Thanks in advance,
Dave
September 9, 2012 at 5:17 pm
or the Automatic could be “the one” in 193?
September 11, 2012 at 11:54 am
Hi, Dave – what’s your height / weight?
I don’t think I’ve got enough info to say which ski seems like the best fit for you. The Squad and Bibby are certainly the most similar to each other; the Automatic is the softest, easiest, and most playful of the bunch; and the Rx is definitely the most traditional ski of the bunch – no tail rocker, almost no tip rocker.
So do you want the more conventional shape / feel of your XXLs? Then the Rx. Do you ski a ton of bumps at A-Basin or Taos? Automatic. Are you mostly looking for big mountain stability? Squad or Bibby, though neither of those skis is an XXL. And as for the Jag Shark – think of the Jag Shark as sitting between the Automatic and the Bibby. No tail rocker, stiffer and less super-surfy than the Automatic, but a slightly softer shovel than the Bibby with a bigger side cut radius than the Bibby, Squad, or Automatic.
September 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm
5’10 175…
September 10, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Hey,
So I am stuck deciding between the two sizes offered in the skis. I am 6 ft tall, 190 lbs, with a racing background. I would instinctively go for the 193, but am worried about the length in the fairly tight trees at Revy. Would you think the 186 would be a little short and unable to charge at my size? Do these skis generally ski to length. For reference, I like the Blizzard Cochise in the 185, but wished there was something before 193, as I felt those were a little much for me in the tight spots.
September 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Hi, Garrett – I’m close to your height / weight, and I am a big fan of the 185 Cochise. I don’t view it as a pow ski at all, however, and wouldn’t use it as such; that’s why I wasn’t tempted by the 193 Cochise and have never felt like I needed the additional length.
I am, however, very tempted by the 193 Automatic. As I say, I love the 186, but if that 193 bumps up the stability even a little, I’d mount a little forward (on the line or +1) and probably be very pleased.
I think the biggest consideration is how well you need the ski to perform in chop at high speeds. If that isn’t really a priority – but tight trees are – then I think you could safely stick with the 186. If speed in chop is important, I think you might want to bump up and deal with the additional length in trees.
Finally, as a point of reference, the 185 Cochise charges harder than the 186 Automatic. So if the 185 Cochise is leaving you wanting, then it seems like you’d almost certainly want to bump to the 193 Automatic.
September 14, 2012 at 7:00 am
Hi guys. We saw you in line at Marte end of August. I was not familiar with site but now I definitely am. Great reviews and I love the 2nd and 3 rd visit. I have made errors choosing skis from one day even though I thought I had skied a bunch of different conditions on them. How do you compare the automatic to the super 7 at 188 cm. I skied my bonafides during the trip. A friend and I hiked to La Banana a couple of times. He had the squad 7 and as you know conditions were not optimum for them. He preferred the run with his experience 98. I am interested in the squad as a replacement for the super 7 however the automatice in 186 sounds like it needs a try. Sage I think was instrumental with the s7 and the automatic seems to be fashioned after that ski. What do you think?
September 14, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Hi, Robert – if you haven’t already read Jason Hutchins’ review of the Super 7, you should. Jason and I are in perfect agreement about that ski. Basically, I think the Automatic is better in every way. Lots of people still love the Super 7, but I wouldn’t choose it in any condition / application over the Automatic. (Nor would I choose the Super 7 over the Squad 7 for anything other than MAYBE groomers – but that’s just me).
I love the Squad 7, however, and as I mention, it is more ski than the Automatic: more stable, less playful, not as quick and super easy to turn as the Automatic. I’d rather ski the Squad in chop and variable snow, but I’d rather ski the Automatic in bumps and really tight trees. For now, I can’t say that I’d have a clear preference in deep pow. (And as I mention in the review, maybe the 193 Automatic will narrow the stability gap between the 186 Automatic and the 190 Squad 7.)
I don’t know where or how you ski or your size, but those factors would likely break any tie between the Automatic and the Squad 7.
September 14, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Jonathan
Thank you for the reply. I did read your 2 reviews and thought they were great. I did have over the handle bar issues and wheelies with the s7. I found the super 7′way better. I ski chutes and tight trees on snowcat trips and at Squaw here. I have a pair of 183 shiros and think I would like longer ones mounted 2 cm forward better.
I did have the 112 wailer and thought they were too light, getting bounced around in some conditions.
I am not a big gs let it rip skier. At las Lenas we were skiing chutes with lots of turns.
I would like to try the squad but I was not a fan of the 190 bibby. I think it was the 183 I liked better. More turnkey.
It sounds like the Automatic is the one I really should try. I like the atlas in the 180 not the 190. Super 7 in the 188 not 193 or 195 whatever it is.
I like playful, Seth, Seth pistol etc from the past.
Super 7′is close so maybe the automatic or Squad.
September 15, 2012 at 10:47 am
Yeah, Robert, if you weren’t a fan of the 190 Bibby, then I would definitely wager that you will prefer the Automatic to the Squad. Let us know what you decide to do and how it works out.
September 14, 2012 at 6:04 pm
How do these compare to the Line Influence 115?
September 17, 2012 at 10:44 am
Both the Influence 115 and Automatic are easy skis, but the (short) 186 115 felt even “easier” than the 186 Automatic. Beyond that, I had these two skis in almost exactly opposite terrain and conditions: Niseko, Japan (low angle trees, deep pow) & Las Leñas, Argentina (steep, techy lines & big, open lines, variable conditions) so I need to be careful here. But the Automatics are probably a bit more substantial, and I would trust them more at speed and in chop. Having said that…I REALLY want to ski the 192 Influence 115. And while I will probably size up to the 193 Automatic, I like the 186. But I would definitely size up to the 192 Influence 115.
Both are quick, both are easy, no tip dive on either. But for some reason, I never thought of the 115 when I was on the Automatics, and now, I’m not really sure why. Would definitely be good to A/B them this season, and I hope to.
September 16, 2012 at 12:13 am
Any idea on the exact position of the reccommended mount in relation to true center on these?
September 17, 2012 at 11:40 am
A couple specs, Isak:
Our straight tape pull is 184.2cm, so true center is 92.1cm from tip or tail.
Atomic has two mount point recommendations: “Center” and “Team.”
By “Center,” they mean “center-ish,” because that line is 100cm back from the tip.
Their team line is then 2.5cm back from there, at 102.5cm from the tip.
September 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
Great review and site! Just curious, is there a ski from last year that would be most similiar to the Automatic?
September 17, 2012 at 10:51 am
Thanks, Jeremy. I’ve been thinking about this for a bit, and honestly, I can’t think of anything that is super close. But since you simply say “most similar”…sort of the 184 Bibby Pro? Sort of the DPS Wailer 112RP? Sort of the Black Diamond AMPerage? That’s all I’ve got, and probably in that order.
September 19, 2012 at 10:55 am
Just wondering when you think the Pettitor review might be posted? Skied the 179 for a day last season and loved it, but unsure about length. But now your Automatic review has me reconsidering. I look forward to comparing your reviews on each of these skis.
September 19, 2012 at 11:52 am
Jason Hutchins’ initial review of the Pettitor should be out by tomorrow, possibly later today.
September 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Fantastic review Jonathan. I am a 6 feet tall 235 pound 43 year old skier (picture a worn out linebacker) I Learned how to ski in my late 20s and am a capable advanced east coast skier. While I ski all the east coast blacks I have hiked out (up) of a couple of western double blacks that threatened my longevity, thus I am advanced-not an expert. As my body is starting to show the wear and tear of years of sports I am more appreciative of lively quicker skis than heavier charging skis. For the last couple of years I have been skiing Fischer Watea 94s on the east coast and when I head west.
Last season I rented some Atomic Coaxs at Solitude and loved their versatility, quickness, playfulness, and ability in crud. I have never been on any of the style of skis listed In your review and realize the Coax is an Entirely different animal, but wonder if you could compare the coax and automatic on groomers and in quickness. Though neither ski is an ideal east coast ski I had Fun skiing the coax and your description of the automatic (easy, predictable, versatile) reminded me of some of the coaxs best traits. Could you imagine the automatic being a fun (not the best -but fun) east coast ski for playful skiing? Or would it really be a ski you would only go to with at least 6 inches of fresh?
Thanks for your great work.
Bill
September 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Thanks, Bill. I’m afraid that I haven’t skied the Coax, but it sounds like maybe that’s your ski since you already know you like it. The Automatic did fine on groomers (mostly spring, slush groomers), but I’m not endorsing it as an excellent choice for EC hardpack / boilerplate. But if you’re on soft snow, sure. And if you’re on a couple inches of fresh, definitely. So no, it doesn’t need 6″ of fresh, but since you don’t seem to be looking first and foremost for a 115+ versatile pow ski…seems like that Coax is still making good sense?
September 24, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Another question from an east coast Clydes !
Jonathan, your reviews are simply fantastic and unique. You make it easier to wait for the first storm of the season :-)
Your review of the Automatic just added another contender for my next skis. I am 6’4″ and 225 and a good skier, I should say Telemarker. For the past 4 years I Telemark about 40-50 times/year, this include 1month per year on the west coast dedicate to skiing. Mainly resort with à little backside here and there.
BD Custom boots (rigid) and 22designs Axl bindings. My current skis:
K2 Pon2oon 189
Voile Charger 191
K2 Hardside 189
I am looking to get a pair of 110-120 mm fun, playfull skis.
When its realy dumping, the pon2oon are great, but the day after its a lot of ski.
Looking for something ultra maniable for the trees on the east coast and to bring with me while travelling on the west coast.
Considering Bibby Pro 190, AK JJ, Jaguar Shark 192, influence 115 192 and now the Automatic 192.
Help Jonathan Help :-)
September 24, 2012 at 8:08 pm
I’ll try to help, Frank, but with the pretty big caveat that I don’t telemark. So, grain of salt….
If “ultra manageable in trees” is the most important factor, then I would give the nod to the 193 Automatic or the 192 Influence 115. And on the “fun and playful” criteria, I’d probably still give the nod to those two skis – especially at slower speeds. As I always say, the Bibby is a playful charger; I am confident that it will charge harder (and probably be a bit more work) than the 192 Influence 115, and I’m not sure how much the gap will narrow between the 190 Bibby and the Automatic when I get on the 193 Automatic.
Lastly, while the Jag Shark isn’t going to be the quickest ski out there, I know a number of telemarkers who aren’t in love with tail rocker. If that’s you, then the Jag Shark ought to be considered. Hope that helps at least a tiny bit.
September 26, 2012 at 10:17 am
Thank you for the quick response.
I knew you were not a tele guy but any info is good for me at this point.
It is almost impossible to try skis with à tele set up of a suitable size for me. So every little bit of info I can get is appreciated. The comments section of each reviews is also full of good info. I will go throught it and decide then.
Thanks again.
Frank
September 25, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Automatic or Squad7 or Moment Death Wish for and everyday ski? I mainly ski at Mammoth
September 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Hi, Paul – all 3 are good skis, but I’d need to know a lot more than where you ski to make a recommendation. Height / weight? Directional skier, or skiing switch? Spinning? Trees / bumps, or wide open? Where do you want these skis to really excel?
September 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Superb site – fantastic work, and some of the most detailed reviews around. I have been on the fence between the 186 and 193 Automatics… I ski the local club fields (mostly Broken River and Craigeburn) in New Zealand, with a trip to Japan or the Canada. I’ve been skiing Rossignol Scratch BCs 186, and loved that they could ‘run’ and arc at high-speeds, but still found them to work well in the powder. I’ve been meaning to replace them for some time. I demo’d the Bentchetler but found them waaaaay too soft for the variable conditions we get here! I’m about your height and weight, but really want a versatile ski that’s not going to be too much in the trees on the odd trip to Canada or Japan… Have settled on the Automatic – it’s just the length….. I love the trees, and handle a regular 186, mid-fat at speed, so think the 193 will be manageable (although I’m pushing 40) – but will the 186 feel…. short? Am going to throw a pair of Tracker 16 bindings on them, as we do a lot side-country here. Be keen to see your review once you’ve been on the 193s. I’ll be needing to pull the trigger mid-December when I head to BC for Christmas.
September 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Thanks, Nick. Hopefully, we’ll get enough snow for me to get on the 193s before you need to make a decision. But as I wrote, I don’t feel like I have to move up to the 193s with these, just that I might like them even more.
October 2, 2012 at 8:52 am
Hi Jonathan
First, let me echo the praise for your great reviews and feedback! Blister Gear Reviews has transformed online ski information – so thank you…but I am hoping to mine a little bit more info from you if you don’t mind.
I’m heading to Hokkaido for 2 weeks at the end of January, and will probably be booking some guided trips with Black Diamond Tours (since it looks like you guys had a blast with them). I plan to take my 187 Praxis Protests, but am trying to decide on a second ski to take. My only other ski at the moment (other than some old race skis) is a 2009 185 Line Mothership. It’s a great ski at the right time, but a lot of work, especially in tight trees. Do you think the Automatic would make a suitable second ski for days when conditions aren’t right for the Protest and some limited slackcountry touring (would probably mount with a Tracker / Guardian)? Or would you recommend going with something narrower and / or more suitable for hard snow (eg, my Mothership or something new like the Cochise?). If you can’t tell I’m trying to justify another ski ;). I’m 25, 6’1, 175, ski 20 ish full days per year my whole life and like to ski fast but not crazy and suspect that I generally prefer making more turns than the general trend on this site. I do small drops, but rarely ski switch or spin etc…
Thanks for listening and sorry for the long post.
Tim
October 4, 2012 at 12:39 am
Thanks, Tim – The Protest + either the Automatic or Cochise will be sick in Hokkaido. And yes, you’ll have a blast with Clayton and Black Diamond.
And man, the Automatic would be such a fun tree ski for Japan…but really, the Cochise would be, good, too, when things aren’t deep. The primary difference here is that I regard the Automatic as a MUCH better pow ski than the Cochise, and I’d rather ski the Cochise the more firm conditions become and the faster we’re skiing. (The Cochise is better in chop, too.)
So Protest + Cochise will leave you with less overlap, but the Automatic (as I hope I conveyed) does a good job when things get firm, especially when considering how well it handles deep snow. I think you’ll be psyched either way, you just have to decide what matters to you most.
October 3, 2012 at 7:44 am
I have a question that I am hoping you can answer. I currently own 2010 Prophet 100′s in 172 and 2012 Line Influence 105′s in 179. I am going to add one more daily driver Bonafide or Cochise and a powder ski this year. I live in Michigan but get out west 8-10 days a year. Going to try and go to Jackson Hole and will make it to Snowbird/Alta this year as well. I am 44, 5′ 6″ and weigh 165 lbs. I am an aggressive expert skiier. I lived in Aspen from ’91-’95 and skiied over 400+ days when living there. However with age and not living in the mountains anymore comes limitations, mainly I am not as strong a skiier as I used to be. I love skiing steeps, chutes, trees and bumps on steeps. I don’t go crazy fast on this terrain and only occassionally take air. I don’t ski switch and want the powder ski I buy to have good crud and skiied off powder capabilites. I am looking at these three powder skis and was wondering which one would fit me best.
1) Armada JJ 185
2) Atomic Automatic 185
3) Line Mr. Pollard Opus 185
Thanks for the great reviews and the help,
Chuck
October 4, 2012 at 12:13 am
Chuck, off this list, given what you say you’re looking for, I’d rank them as a clear 1-2-3: Automatic, JJ, Opus, and I think sifting through the comments section will explain why. (I would also prefer to ski the Cochise the more firm the conditions get, but I don’t really regard the Cochise as a true pow ski….)
October 8, 2012 at 10:00 pm
So I ended up buying the Bonafides and got them in 180. I am pretty sure I am going to add the Atomic Automatic as my dedicated powder ski. I haven’t skiied the Bones yet but am pretty sure I am going to love them. I feel like the Influence 105′s in 179 is the perfect size for me. Knowing that would you recommend the Automatics in 179 or 186 for me? I will be using it on powder days and will be skiing mostly steeps. steep bumps and trees. Thanks in advance.
Chuck
October 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Difficult for me to say, Chuck. I imagine you’d be fine with either, though if this is really a dedicated pow ski, then I highly doubt you will be disappointed that you “sized up” to the 186. But if the 179 seems like the safer call, the Automatic isn’t a ski that I think *must* be sized up.
October 11, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Thanks Jonathan. I liked your answer because it pretty much agrees with what I was thinking about the ski. I ski in the trees alot on powder days so I like the quickness of the shorter size. The 179 it will be.
Thanks,
Chuck
October 14, 2012 at 12:48 am
hey guys. great review! i bought it because if it. just one question: what mount location would you recommend? team – 1/2?
thanks!
October 15, 2012 at 1:22 am
Cool, Dominik. As for mount, without more information, I’d have to recommend the line. (See comments above about mount point.) I think this is a ski that you could go forward a bit, but they are already quick.
October 14, 2012 at 1:14 am
Hi Jonathan! How would you compare the Automatic to Salomons Rocker2 115? They seem pretty similar on paper.
I’m 5’11 and 195 lbs and the Automatic/Rocker would replace my 10/11 Katanas (190 cm, mounted +1,5 cm). I really love the Katana, great charger but I’d like to try something more relaxed and floaty that’s still capable of handling variable conditions.
Another option would be to stick with the Katana and add the Rocker2 108 (190 cm). No one seems to really like the 108 though… Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!
October 15, 2012 at 1:31 am
Hey, Magnus – I’m afraid that I haven’t yet had time on the 115s, so all I can do is point you to Will Brown’s review of it. As for the 108, Jason Hutchins actually likes it quite a bit so far, though I wonder whether someone who loves the Katana (as I do, too) will be into the 108. (Very different ski. But I look forward to skiing the 108 this season and finding out.)
And at your weight, if you really need / expect the Automatic to be “capable” in variable stuff – especially if you’re used to a Katana – I would definitely go with the 193.
October 17, 2012 at 3:15 am
I got my 193 Automatics this week. Definitely stiffer than the 186 I flexed back in February, but that could have been a pre-production model. Stoked to get out on them anyway!
October 19, 2012 at 10:37 am
Hi
Great review of the Automatics, and I’m using this page as an info site when i need to “gear up”. Right now i’m kinda in a dilemma. Just sold my Dynastar XXL (187) with duke, my Liberty Genome (187) with Jester 16 and my old Volkl mantras with tele setup (my touring gear). Thats what happens when you go from ski bum, to family guy, and don’t want to travel with 10 sets of skis when on the hill++ And i want to replace my old setups it with one ski that can cover everything from the Mantras to the Genome. I was thinking the Automatic (tested it one day last year, and loved it.), the Dynafit TLT Radical FT 110/130mm Binding and a pair of boots that can work from hard charging/cliff dropping to touring ( considering the SCARPA Maestrale RS,Tecnica Cochise Pro Light AT boot or the Vulcan/Mercury TF)
Still have my Salomon Ghost 130, but they too are up for grabs.
Just wondering if this really is the ski that is gonna cover it all (kinda feels like it), and if i’m gonna go for the 186 or the 193. And if it really is possible to make room in the garage for my kids gear, or if i’m gonna keep all my toys:)
I’m an experienced skier, 160 pounds , 5’9 and skiing mainly on the west coast of Norway.
Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!
October 24, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Hi, Jorgen – I’m not exactly sure what you’re specific question is, but my main thought is that, yes, the Automatic could serve as a one ski quiver—but to be clear, it is not going to carve / handle like your Mantra. But you know that, since you’ve skied it.
I think that is far and away the most important thing: you skied the Automatic, you know exactly how it handles, and you liked it. Sounds like you’ve made your choice?
October 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Figuring out where to mount my 193s now. There is no “Team” line though, just “Recommendation”, “-3″ and “+3″, the recommended line being 85.3cm from the tail. Any ideas how these correspond to the “team” line mentioned here and elsewhere?
October 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Hey great review thanks for the detail. Wondering what you think. I am looking to replace my 183 Shiros and 179 EHP (originals). I’m 5’5 140 and ski and slackcountry around Whistler on the daily. I love my EHP but wanted more float as I found they nose dove a lot. I also liked the Shiros but wanted more personLity from them and hated how wide the tips were. My real concern is that the automatic will be too soft but don’t know how it compares to either EHP or Shiro. Thinking 179 or 186 and mounting a bit forward….. Cheers!
October 24, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Hey, Heff – I basically hated the 183 Shiro last February in Japan. It skied crazy short. I would love, however, to ski the longer length, and in this case, I could see my opinion changing quite a bit.
At your height / weight, I think I can recommend the 186 Automatic. It didn’t remind me of the Shiro at all, really. And I don’t know the ’08 EHP (only the new Hoji). The Automatic floats much better, and is overall a far more straightforward, versatile ski. The Hoji is cool, it just felt to Jason and me like a pretty specific tool, in a way that the Automatic doesn’t. But if you’re a pretty strong skier, I’d recommend the 186, and I highly doubt you’ll be dissatisfied. I’ve got you by 40+ lbs, and while I don’t regard the Automatic as a charger, it holds up. I think you’ll be fine, and I think you’ll love it. Go 179 only if you intend to be ripping a ton of bumps, where additional length just doesn’t help.
October 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm
…. And by EHP’s I mean the Pilsner topsheets, ’08 I think.
October 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Hey, quick question I get frustrated that ski companies don’t disclose the weight of their skis. Do you know the weight of the 186 automatics and if not exactly, could you benchmark their weight against other skis?
October 24, 2012 at 6:18 am
Another question, you guys and the atomic website has the tip-waist-tail listed as 140.5-117-129.5, but every other website I’ve seen has them listed as 130-117-119, any idea where the discrepancy comes from and can you shed some light on the actual measurements?
October 24, 2012 at 7:05 am
The pre-release topsheets and stickers were printed wrongly. Correct dimensions are 140.5/117/129.5 in the 186 and 141.5/117/130.5 in 193. 186 weighs 2210g per ski, 193 is 2434g.
October 24, 2012 at 8:27 am
Hard to believe the poor job dealers and magazines do! How could anyone believe the dimensions would be 130-117-119? I was also intrigued by the discrepancy since every other place but here and atomic had wrong dimensions.
October 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm
For the record, we put calipers on the Automatic just to make sure about the dimensions, and our tip, waist, and tail measurements were all within a millimeter of Atomic’s stated measurements. As for the “Hard to believe” part, Almeida…you’re right.
October 24, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Lorne, did you weigh the 186s and 193s, or did you dig up stated weights?
October 25, 2012 at 2:43 am
The 186 weight is from a catalogue spec. The 193 weight is from my pair on my scales.
October 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Great review.
quick questions. I’m 5’7″ and 145 lbs. 53 yrs old advanced skier. Is the 179 a good size for me?
has a 179 Poonton and really enjoyed the last 3 seasons except on hard icey bumps.
Thanks
Eddy
October 28, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Thanks, Eddy. And I can’t say whether you’d most prefer the 179 or the 186. Maybe some of my other answers about sizing in the above comments will help. The other thing I would do is do a straight tape measurement of your Pontoons. If your “179″s actually measure 182, then I would probably opt for the “186″ Automatics…which actually measure straight at just over 184…..And yes, this could all be simpler. Whichever length you decide to get, let us know what you think of these.
November 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm
I am 5’9″, 160 lbs, 58 yo. I ski 175 cm JJs. Terrific in the trees – forgiving, turns “on a dime”. Nevertheless, they ski a bit short at speed and get knocked around in the heavy crud. Would you recommend 179 or 186 cm Automatics? I’ve read the comments, but most of the skiers are young, strong, and “immortal”. I (on the other hand) am old and quite mortal. Am also considering the Influence 115, Opus, and Pettitor.
November 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Hi, Alan – if performance at speed and in crud is your top priority, then I would recommend the 186 Automatic, as I would have recommended the 185 JJ over the 175. I’d only hesitate here IF you would be reluctant to size up the JJs. I.e., 185s would increase stability, and I do not believe that you’d find them to be sluggish or unforgiving.
November 4, 2012 at 12:24 am
Thank you Jonathan.
Just picked up the 179 at local ski shop and install the baron binding which was previously mounted on my old Gotama 178
I was considering the dps wailer 112 and salomon rocker 2 108 but think the Automatic will be more stable and fun specially in the PNW here after talk to local shop and read the review, plus the graphic and color is much cooler :-)
I will still ride my beloved Poonton in epic day and my Blizzard magnum 87 as a ice skating stick but Automatic should be the daily driver.
Lets pray for the snow……
Eddy
November 19, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Nice, Eddy. Let us know what you think of them!
November 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
Jonathan,
Thank you for your excellent review of the Automatic, and for your exceptional work on this site in general. Your reviews are the best in the industry! I have just ordered the Automatic 193′s and am now wondering about the mounting point for alpine bindings. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
About me: I am a former 100+ day/yr. ski bum,now living in SLC,UT. I am 42 years old, 5’10″, 195 lbs, have skied for 31 years, and am an advanced/expert skier. I still
average 50+ days per year. I am planning to use this ski as my dedicated powder ski for the Wasatch, but also plan to take it to BC for some cat skiing. I love to ski open bowls, but I regularly seek-out steep chutes and the trees as well.
My previous powder ski was the 183cm Bent Chetler, with the bindings mounted 2.5 cm behind the team line. I felt these skis were too soft and too short for me – especially since I don’t ski switch.
For the Automatics, I am considering mounting my bindings 1-2 cm in front of the team line. Thanks in advance for any feedback you may have, and keep up the good work!
November 19, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Thanks for the kind words, David. I think you’d be fine mounting at +1 or +2. If I had to drill a pair of 193s right now, I’d probably go +1 in front of the line, but that’s just me. Sorry I can’t offer more solid advice on this one yet.
November 17, 2012 at 8:17 am
Thanks for info. I know you kind of already answered this, but I’m looking for some clarification – can you compare these in 186 to the 2011/12 Line Influence 115. I think you previously compared it to the newer 2013 version, because you mentioned 192.
Anyway, looking for a deeper snow complement to my Belefonte’s in 182. Maybe need to go even wider, but we don’t get too big of dumps here, so I’m thinking the fairly stiff older Influence 115 with fat tips might do fine for deeper days? And I could still spend sometime with the wife on groomers if I had too. Anyway, thanks in advance and I’d appreciate any advice given my other Ski is the Belafonte. PS not skied anything wider than 106 yet, so this is all virgin territory for me.
PS – live in SW Idaho – and am also a warn-out ex linebacker (loved the guy who previously labeled himself as such – so me too)
November 19, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Hey, Ribs – I won’t just rehash my 11/12 Influence 115 review, but if it were me, I’d probably opt to pair the Belafonte with the Automatic. Belafonte + 11/12 Influence 115 seem more similar than Belafonte + Automatic. Then again, if you go Influence, you’ll have a phenomenal fat carver with a traditional twin, (more similar to the Belafonte) that will definitely be better in pow than the Belafonte. So it really depends what you’re going for: more overlap, or less?
November 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Hey Jonathan,
Thanks you for the great review of the automatic!
I am seriously considering buying a pair of automatics, I am 6 feet and 200lbs. I have ski raced at the provincial and national level here in canada and am looking for a ski that can charge the steep and deep (sometimes heavy) stuff at whistler. Also I want I ski I can lay over and arc some gs turns on the groomers. My main questions concerning the ski is length 186 or 193, performance on groomers, and where to mount ( once I know the appropriate length). I will ski 90% of the year at whistler. If you have any other skis you would like to recommend that fit my needs please let me know!
November 19, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Hi, Ben – at 6′, 200 lbs, definitely 193 if you go with the Automatic. But at your size, and if it’s really, seriously about “charging,” I would take a look at the 190 Moment Bibby Pro, 191 ON3P Billy Goat, or, if you’re willing to go narrower, the 193 Blizzard Cochise or 191 Volkl Katana. (I’ve only skied the 186, not the 193, but I can’t confirm that the strongest suit of the 193 Automatic is charging; it wasn’t the STRONGEST suit of the 186.) Also, I think you’re going to need to decide whether you most want this ski to excel in the deep, or excel at pulling GS turns.
November 20, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thanks for your feed back! I am fine going narrower. The blizzard cochise looks like a great ski. I did some more research on a ski with narrower dimensions and stumbled across the salomon rocker2 108 in the 190cm length. It seems like a ski that would handle the groomers better than the automatics. would you agree? As of now I would like a ski that I could use whenever whistler gets hit by a storm or gets any amount of new snow. It also important that the ski performs even after the first fresh pow days have passed.
November 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Well, Ben, you’re sort of in luck. I skied the Salomon 108 the past couple of days at Taos, and was very impressed with its early season hardpack performance. Honestly, I sort of expected this ski to be just a dumb, fun, soft, trick ski (read: noodle). So far, it seems far more interesting than that. On consistent groomers, the Automatics performed well, too, so I am not willing to say yet that the 108s are clearly better. But I am pretty shocked by how much I liked the 108s – and Will Brown felt the same way. But Will, Jason, and I all need to get the 108s in a broader range of conditions. But the 108 seems like it’s going to warrant One-Ski-Quiver consideration for certain skiers. But my hunch is that you could think of it as a more playful, less stable, less directional Cochise. But again, if you’re serious about the charging part, and you’re not skiing switch or spinning, then the 193 Cochise still seems like the safest choice.
November 19, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Hi Jonathan,
I know its been awhile but could you elaborate more on your experience on the 186cm Automatic versus the 185cm JJ. I have skied both on groomers for a couple of laps. Mostly curious about off-piste, soft snow, and powder performance comparisons.
Thanks,
JP
November 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Hi, JP – it has been a while, but the biggest difference for me was that while I would occasionally get tip dive on the JJs, I never did on the Automatics. This could probably just be chalked up to the more centered mount of the JJ vs. the Automatic. Neither the JJ nor (186) Automatic destroy chop, they just require a lighter, more centered stance.
Bottom line: I’d love to get back on the JJ, and both the JJ and Automatic are good skis. But for directional skiers, I think the Automatic is the safer recommendation. If you’re skiing switch a ton, I’d recommend the JJ. If you’re spinning, I’d still recommend the JJ – or at least mounting those Automatics just a few cms behind center.
November 25, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Automatics vs. Opus? Would you compare the two re:
1. Performance in the powder (which floats better?), groomed (including hardpack), crud, bumps
2. Performance in the trees
3. Forgiveness
November 25, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Sorry, Alan – I haven’t skied the Opus yet, and Jason hasn’t skied the Automatic yet. Jason ought to be getting on the Automatic soon, so we’ll tryt to get those comparisons up shortly.
November 26, 2012 at 3:19 am
Hi Jonathan,
The reviews on this website are on a different level to anywhere else on the web – great job!
I’ve got my heart set on the Automatics but I’m not sure about the length. I was wondering if either you’ll be trying the 193 anytime soon, or Ryan Caspar the 186, or another member of the team was in a position to compare the two? I’m looking to pull the trigger on a pair before New Years for a trip to Niseko. I’m 26yo 6ft c.165lbs, worked a season in Tignes a few years back but now consigned to two weeks on these each year. Currently ski the 179 Scott Crusade which I find prone to tip dive in soft snow where it is also a little heavy to turn. I’ll be fitting them with Market Barons (or equivalent), but want the ski to be able to tackle both steep bowls at a decent speed and tight trees /couloirs at slower speeds. I’m a little reluctant to size up and mount the binding further forward in the event this makes the ski feel less balanced (I don’t intend to spin). Any advice you could offer would be much appreciated!
Cheers,
Rich
November 29, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Hi, Rich – really appreciate the compliments. We hope to be on the 193cm soon, but we’ll need the weather to cooperate, too.
But I will say this: I have no reservations about going +1 at 193cm, and in this case, I have no worries that the ski will feel unbalanced at that position. If anything, a case could be made that the recommended line is fairly far back on the ski.
But obviously, I’ll be able to speak with certainty rather than confidence if I just get on that 193….
November 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Jonathan, first off, let me say that this has become my “go to” site for reviews. There are so many review sites out there, but this one is head and shoulders above the rest. Great technical detail, and truly gives the reader a feel for the product(s). I’m an advanced skier, 41 years old, 5’9″ 175lbs, and in process of buying the Automatics based on this review. I am going with 186cm. I have the DPS 112RP Pure in 184cm now, and really like that ski, but want to add to my quiver. I like the 112′s best at +1 mount position, so my question to Jonathan is, should I make an assumption that I would also prefer the mount point at +1cm with the Automatics, or just go with the Team Line position? I thought about Schizo’s, but not sure I want to go that route due to additional weight and potential reliability issues that have been sited by some skiers. Any input on the mounting point for me would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you Jonathan, and keep up the great work. Your readers appreciate it!
November 29, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Jason. As I noted above, I don’t think this ski is super-sensitive to mount location, and I have no reservations about going +1. Obviously, I can’t say for sure what you’ll prefer, but if you’re leaning +1, do it.
December 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Great reviews! I’m 39 years old, expert level, 6′, 175#s geared up and been skiing for 35 years. I have the birdhouse Super S7 195 with Schizos, and after a lot of movement I liked them most all conditions @ +1.5. I’m looking to sideline the S7s and replace with with another easy all around ski. I have a Protest 195, and the Blizz Bods 196, so I’m considering the Autos @ 193 to replace the Supers. Is this a good compliment and if so, how should i mount @ +1.5 also?
thanks!
December 1, 2012 at 3:25 pm
BTW, I’m also considering the Squad 7s, so and comments with that piece of info is appreciated. thx!
December 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Hi, John – Protest + Bodacious + Automatic / Squad 7 strikes me as a pretty unusual 3-ski quiver, but if “easy” is the criterion – I’m inclined to say the 193 Automatic. I’m hoping to get on a pair soon, and if I do, I’ll let you know what I think of +1, we’re I’d be inclined to at least start.
December 8, 2012 at 9:57 am
6’1″, 180lbs, 35, ski Squaw. The question: 186 or 193? In the past, I’ve found that a 185cm flat-tail or 190cm twin-tip feels about right for me. Is the 193 Auto a no-brainer?
Thanks for the great reviews.
December 11, 2012 at 12:20 am
Sure, Alex. And given your height / weight, and given that the Automatic is a tail rockered ski, you have answered your own question, right? (The Automatic doesn’t only have a twinned tail, it has a rockered tail – even shorter effective edge.)
And as I wrote in the review, if in doubt…size up.
January 2, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Here is some follow-up after 3 days on the Autos at Jackson Hole. The 193s were easy as pie to ski at 6’1″ and 180lbs — I second the recommendation to size up if in any doubt. I found them to perform amazingly well all over the mountain as snow quality gradually degraded over 3 days following a big storm. Floaty and smooth in fresh, confident (if not Cadillac-damp) in crud, quick and easy on the steep stuff, nimble in bumps, shockingly competent on firm groomers. In all, they felt like hero sticks that make everything easier and more fun. Only drawbacks I’d note: (1) although the tapered tips perform as billed, the big shovels leave me wanting to keep a narrower ski in my quiver for truly firm days, especially in bumps; (2) as with any rockered ski, the shorter effective edge and raised tip mean they don’t feel quite as locked-down and in charge as a traditional ski; and (3) while solid, they didn’t feel as creamy-damp as my old metal-sandwich Nordica Blowers.
December 15, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Jonathan. You guys continue to kill it with your reviews. Thank you again. You have compared the automatic to the bibby pro. Not sure if it has been to the 190 or 184 or both. I currently have a 2nd gen 190 bibby and love em but want to replace them with either a 184 bibby or 186 automatic. I have never skied the 184 bibby and was hoping to get your thoughts on the comparison between the 186 automatic and the 184 bibby.
December 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Thanks, Tom. I think if you look at the Automatic / Bibby Pro section again, you’ll see that I am referring to the 190 Bibby (with one mention of the 184). But the 184 Bibby Pro is still a stiffer ski than the Automatic, and (obviously) quicker and a little lighter and not AS stable as the 190 Bibby. I’d probably rather ski the 186 Automatic than the 184 Bibby on a pow day, and I’d rather ski the 184 Bibby rather than the 186 Automatic in chop / variable, because its stiffer than the Automatic.
Since you’re going shorter, both the Automatic and 184 Bibby will be quicker and easier to manage than your 190s. So, which sounds better: the softer flex of the Automatic, or the stiffer flex of the Bibby?
December 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Thanks John. Really looking forward to your feedback on the governor in comparison to the 190 bibby as well. I have been skiing the original on3p Jeffery’s and judging from your reviewers, and their comparative ski styles, the new version of the jeffery would interest you and your crew. . Just imagine, a sir Francis bacon in single A minor league ball meets and old veteran named hoji and juices for a while and decides to take on a more north shore approach to the game – your major leaguer would be named Jeffery.
December 18, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Governors are being mounted up as I write this….And I’ve been very interested in the Jeffrey since it first came out. Definitely hope we can put time on it this season. Oh, and I like the idea that Sir Francis Bacon was on the needle. I’m sure it helped him drum up the scientific method.
December 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Hi Jonathan,
Fantastic site you guys have here. I can get my hands on some Bibby Pros but unfort the 184s. Ideally I am looking at the 190 or the Atomic Automatic 193. I am 6ft, 180pds, strong skier that skis mainly in Europe (steep glaciers, tight colouirs, tight trees – all sorts of snow) and want one ski that can do most things. I have a classic racing background but lazy nowadays and like to play mo and more.. Would the 184 Bibby be too small a ski for me? Could you also please advise on the 190 Bibby vs 193 Automatic for a guy like me?
December 21, 2012 at 7:46 am
Given the words “lazy” and “play,” I could see you enjoying either the 184 Bibby or the 193 Automatic. I love the 190 Bibby, but there are easier skis out there.
And good news: we are FINALLY getting on the 193cm Automatic today at Taos. Won’t have them in a full range of conditions, but I can’t wait to get on a ski that I’ve only been able to speculate about since this summer in Argentina.
December 21, 2012 at 2:58 am
Sorry, some CHEAP USED 184s it should say above..
December 21, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Thanks Jonathan, looking forward to hear what you think of the 193s! Out of curiousity, where did you mount your 190 Bibbys and where you preferred to mount the Automatics?
December 27, 2012 at 12:56 am
To date, I’ve skied the 190 Bibbys on the line. And I have some time on the Automatics, and I’ve got the 193s mounted at +1. So far, so good, but I’ll continue to play a bit with the mount and report back soon.
December 28, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Quick review of my own: (33 yo, 6’1″, 180) After reading the reviews, and doing some extensive research, I went with the 186 automatic over the line influence 115 and bibby pro. 1st day at vail – christmas – 8″ fresh. Loved them in the powder – float, quick and playful, and so quick in the tight trees back in blue sky. No hesitation to turn just like you said. At mid day found some sun baked untracked with some crust underneath…flying down with no hesitation, no catching, just perfect. Great confidence stomping some medium and small drops. Day 2 at beaver creek and had knee deep powder – felt perfect – floaty and nice and surfy if lean back on the tails, but felt good power and turn confidence when leaned on it and moved weight forward. Groomers the skis felt very quick, no tail wash, and had complete confidence to go fast with almost no tip chatter when opened up for GS turns. Not a feeling of ‘on rails’ as with my old line prophet 100 with the GS turns on soft snow, but quicker slalom turns were actually much better which surprised me. Overall – I am extremely happy with these skis and could not imagine a better choice for my type of skiing. Just hope this helps anyone elses decision process any easier.
January 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Nice, Mike. Thanks for the report, and glad they’re working out for you.
December 31, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Hi Jonathan,
Great site/reviews!
I really do not need another pair of skis, have many pairs now…..but……I could not pass picking up a pair of new in the wrapper Atomic Automatics 186cm for a great price.I have not mounted them as of yet, and before I do, or don’t, I would appreciate your input.
Me: Live in the midwest, moving west in the next 2 years. Starting skiing again 5 years ago after a 27yr lapse, 52 yeras old, 6ft, pushing 200# hoping to get back to 190#. Ability: I would call myself Advanced on groomers, minimal crud, soft crud etc, but a lower level as I learn the deeper snow, trees, and steeper pitches out west, but I can confidently say……keep getting better every year. I Like to ski, or try to ski most of the mountain, except moguls, I pick thru them as needed. I like playing around, also ripping groomers and also a did a lot of of GS nastar racing last year. Ski out west 20+ days a year, ski about 40 days a year. I started visiting my brother in western Montana for 1-2 weeks every year were we will go ski the ma-pa areas. We like to ski them after they have been close for 2-4 days during the week, so alot of the time your skiing 10-20+ inches of settled and/or wind blow snow.
I skied my 186 S3 outwest last year for powder, trees and soft groomers, I like them alot, but after skiing my 2012 Sickle 186 about 3 days now, hard groomers, a little crud, and one day 15″ of heavy cut up snow, I think the S3 just got replaced except for maybe the trees. I also have 2012 K2 Obsethed 189 but have not skied them yet.
So……..I am wondering, in your opinion:
1) how would the Atomic Automatics compare to the Sickle and the Obsethed?
2) would I be pushing skiing the Automatic in 186 vs 193 per my ability and now weight of 200#?
Sorry so long…….I appreciate your time and input.
Have a great new year.
Doug
January 3, 2013 at 7:48 pm
Thanks, Doug.
2nd question first: I think you’ll be fine on the 186s, and especially when you get to 190lbs. I’ve been skiing the 193s, and to be honest, I’m still not sure which I prefer.
1st question: I haven’t skied the Obsethed, and I didn’t get nearly enough time on the 11/12 Sickle. But I have no doubt that you will find the Automatic to be quick, good on groomers, and good in pow. I’d be less confident making assessments about how you’ll find the Automatic (vs. the Sickle) in tricky, technical terrain.
So confidently go forth, mount up the 186s, and report back!
January 4, 2013 at 9:29 am
Jonathan,
Thank you very much for you input, it is greatly appreciated. I’m getting them mounted up today……will be in Utah next week, hopefully some new deep snow to play in. I will report back…….will be taking the Automatics, the Sickles and………
Doug
January 2, 2013 at 7:55 pm
How would you compare the Automatics to Bent Chetlers? Which is more capable in the trees and powder?
January 3, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Hi, Alan – we’re going to start testing the 192 Bent Chetlers shortly, and will let you know.
January 9, 2013 at 1:24 am
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for another great review. I bought the 11-12 Sickles based on the great review by Jason and absolutely love them. I ski them in the 174 length (106 underfoot) as I am 5′ 7″, 155 lbs and still working on my technique. I had them mounted +2 of the factory recommended line and really liked the more centered position on the Sickles.
I am looking for a wider ski than the Sickle to ski powder in Whistler so I tried out the Automatics in the 179 length and really liked them (even though it hadn’t snowed in over a week and conditions were pretty hard packed). After a little bit of adjustment (I had never skied anything wider than 106 underfoot until then) I found them pretty easy to ski. I could get them to carve/skid easily and they felt pretty stable at speed and they also felt really smooth.
I was wondering, in your opinion:
- how does the Automatic compare to the K2 Pettitor or the Salomon Rocker 2 115′s & 122′s ?
In the shorter lengths that I am looking at, the Salomons only come in at 113 or 115 underfoot.
I would really appreciate your thoughts and thanks once again for a fantastic website.
Ian
January 11, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Thanks, Ian. I’m afraid that I’ve yet to ski the other skis you’ve named, so I’m of little help. Jason is going to be spending time on the 193 Automatic, so hopefully he can weigh in on the Automatic vs. Pettitor in the next few weeks. But comparisons to the Automatic & Pettitor or 115s will be at least a few weeks out, I think. But it sort of sounds like you may have already found your ski in the 179 Automatic, no?
January 14, 2013 at 11:42 am
Hi Jonathan
The shortest length available on the Automatic is 179cm and being only 5′ 7″ (169 cm), my thinking is that the shorter lengths available in the Pettitor (169 cm) and the Rocker 2 115/122 (168/170 cm) might be easier to handle in tight situations like trees etc. I look forward to the Automatic vs Pettitor vs Rocker 2 comparisons.
Thanks
Ian
January 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I’m kinda on the same boat, I’m 5’5″ / 150 but I don’t think the 179 auto would be much of a problem to handle even on tight spaces. Unfortunately no 179 for demo here… but I will try the 186 to get a sense on how it behaves. I think based on what the guys here on blister said on reviews that the rocker2 115 in 178 would be harder than the auto 179 to handle, but at the same time 168 looks too short if you are looking for a pow ski like I am.
January 15, 2013 at 10:53 am
Yes, I will see if I can demo the Rocker 2′s this weekend. No fresh snow in the forecast so it will be groomers, moguls and crud.
January 10, 2013 at 10:40 pm
I am looking seriously at the Automatic but am having a hard time deciding between the 186cm and the 193cm length. I weigh in at 200lbs and ski all terrain at an advanced level. I like to tree ski but reality is most terrain I hit up is open and steep. I prefer a nimble ski that turns easily and am concerned that the 193cm length may feel sluggish and take more effort to turn. What would you recommend?
January 11, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Hey, Doug – if quickness and ease of turn initiation is the priority, then the 186. I’m a bit on the fence, too, about which length I would personally choose first. Even mounted at +1, the 193 felt like it gave up more of the ridiculous quickness and ease of the 186 than I wished, and I didn’t feel like I received a big bump up in stability. It’s all about compromises, but for me – and where I spend most of my time skiing (Alta, Taos), and the fact that I wouldn’t only be pulling out the Automatic on big deep days, I’m personally inclined to stick with the 186. Worst case, that 186 might feel a little short and soft to you and not be ideal for high speeds in serious chop, but that doesn’t sound like a priority for you, and I am certain that you’ll find it to be very quick and easy to ski.
January 14, 2013 at 11:59 am
Hi!
First of all great review i really like it.
wanted to ask you an advice buying a new free-ski: i have to choose between the Automatic and the Salomon Rocker2 122. I am 186cm and 78kg (170lbs i think: i’m italian sorry for the units conversion! :) ).
As a skier i’m quite aggressive and quite expert as well even though my background is more slopes and (few) races oriented than free-ski (that’s where my style come from). When it comes to free-ride i like skiing in the woods and steep terrains and i like to be more central on the skies than having to lean back. I’m not looking for an everyday ski but for a true free-rider which though could be good as well in the days when there is just few powder left. For the length i’m oriented around the 190s cause usually i’m used to work it a bit more to have my skies turned. What do you suggest me? Do you have any other ski to recommend?
January 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Hi, Matteo, thanks for writing – and your unit conversions are just fine. We haven’t skied the Rocker 122, so I can’t say, though we’ve been impressed with the Rocker 108 and 115.) If this is going to be a soft snow ski primarily, and assuming you’ve also read our 193cm Automatic review, then I’m afraid that I don’t really have a more specific recommendation at the moment. There are certainly skis that are better suited for deep chop and variable snow than the Automatic, but I assume you’re already clear about that. But let me know if you have any specific questions about other skis.
January 20, 2013 at 5:57 am
Hi Johnathan, great reviews on all the skis you have been on. Having skied a few of these skis on your list, now I know why your lady is the Bibby Pro 190. I absolutely LOVE these skis!!! They are truly unique skis and they are making me a different type of skier… My question is if I was looking to buy a more pivoty version (quick and shorter turns, and quicker to get edge-to-edge) of the Bibby Pro 190, would you say that the Automatic 186 would answer the call? Obviously I know that the Automatics are not going to be as stiff and stable as the Bibby. But if I wanted to give up the least amount of bad assness and stability of the Bibby 190 to gain the most amount of quicker turns and quicker edge-to-edge with similar deminsions and rocker profile as the Bibby, would the Automatic 186 be that ski or you recommend another ski? I have the Bibby 190 , the Pontoon, and the Line Opus 185 and I’m thinking about replacing my Opus with the Automatics since the Opus is too soft for me (and a bit short) but I love the playfulness of the Opus and its rocker-camber-rocker profile. I just wish they were a bit longer and also stiffer. Keep in mind I’m 5’10”, 170 lbs and that I’m a directional skier. .. Please let me know what you think. Thank you
January 23, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Thanks, Dan. And yeah, I think the 186 Automatic might be the ticket, though given what you’re looking for, Will Brown keeps assuring me that I need to ski the Salomon Rocker 2 115. (I haven’t skied it yet because another reviewer is currently on it.) It sounds like the 115 might not be AS quick as the 186 Automatic, but might provide a stability in the tail that is closer to the Bibby. Can’t confirm that yet, unfortunately….But I can certainly confirm that the 186 Automatic is quicker and easier than the 190 Bibby.
January 24, 2013 at 11:39 am
I have demo’ed both the Rocker 2 115s (178 cm) and the Automatics (179 cm) in mogul and hardpack conditions in Whistler (no fresh snow for over a week) and the 115s definitely felt like it had a stiffer tail than the Automatic. It also felt more stable and damp while the Automatics felt more pivoty and very quick to turn. In the moguls, I found the Rocker 2 115′s a bit of a handful and quite a lot of work to get them round (my Sickles are much better and easier to ski in moguls). On the groomers, the 115′s were very stable and smooth (despite the significant tip rocker) and a ton of fun while the Automatics did not feel as locked down. Bear in mind that I only skied them both for a couple of hours and conditions were less than ideal but the impression I got was that the Rocker 115′s was definitely the more substantial, stiffer ski of the two.
January 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm
HI Jonathan,
Thank you for your time with all of your responses. Now that you have been on the 193 Automatic, what is your thought for length? 186 vs 193? I’m 42, 5’10″, 165lbs. I’m looking to fill the Powder ski spot in the quiver. I ski Squaw daily. Can ski the whole mountain with no hesitations. The deal at Squaw is, our powder days only last minutes. So we ski chopped up powder after a storm pretty quickly. I do like skiing fast with big turns but I also love finding the powder left in the trees or between the rocks and it is inevitable that we must ski through bumps after a storm. So do I get the 186 and mount on the line or maybe 1 cm back? Or do I get the 193 and mount them 1cm up? Thanks in advance for your thoughts Jonathan.
January 23, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Hey, I assume you’ve read my 193 Automatic review, where I compare the two sizes directly? I don’t have much to add beyond that, except that I’m not sure I would choose the Automatic if you’re buying something especially for (deep) Sierra chop. Pow and soft chop? Absolutely. Firm, set up chop? You might find a better match, like the ON3P Billy Goat, Moment Bibby Pro, etc. These other skis will definitely be more work than the Automatic (maybe more than you want). Also, please consider my reservations less relevant if you are keeping speeds at a moderate level and not really looking to mach through set up chop.
January 24, 2013 at 11:15 am
Thanks a lot Johnathan for the reply. As always we all really appreciate your feedback and your awesome reviews.. I just wanna run something by you real quick and see what you think. I was looking at the rocker profile of the DPS Wailer 112 RP in 190 and I noticed it’s very similar to that of the Automatic. I did some research on their website and looks like the RP112 has a turn radius of 15 and I read your review on them as well and I thought maybe they could be a great option for what I’m looking for, which is to lose the least amount of stability of a Bibby and gain the most amount of quicker turns, shorter turns, and playfulness. I was wondering what you would say about going with the 112 RP in 190 instead of the Automatic. I have a feeling the 112 RP is going to be a dash more stiff than the Automatic but just as pivoty and quick as the Automatic if not more. I was also considering the Praxis Concept but I’m not really sure about the triple camber or as Moment will call it the “Dirty Mustache Rocker”. The older version of Concept (rocker-camber-rocker) could be a good optipn though. And re the 112 RP, you would obviously recommend the Pure as supposed to Hybrid, right?
Please let me know what you think. Thanks again.
All the best,
D. Kash
February 6, 2013 at 1:07 am
Dan, the Automatic and 112RP question is an interesting one. The Automatic feels ‘looser’ through the tails than the 112RP, and more pivoty. I’d really need to ski them back to back to be much more specific. But mostly, I think it’s important to say that the 186 Automatic and the 190 112 really aren’t slightly dialed back 190 Bibby Pros. The Bibby’s are certainly more work than either ski, but they are much more solid in chopped up / variable. The Automatic and 112RP absolutely shine in pow, not deep firm chop. Just want to make sure that you aren’t getting the wrong idea here.
And no, it’s not obvious that I would recommend the Pure over the Hybrid. More and more, I think it really depends on skier style and the terrain you’re skiing. Some will prefer the more reactive and precise Pure layup, some the Hybrid. If you’re skiing consistent groomers or consistent pow, it’s tough to beat the Pure. If you spend more time in variable, the hybrid construction will likely be a better call for a good number of skiers. In variable, the pure construction requires the skier to be very quick and adjust to the snow / terrain, not rely on the ski to smooth out the snow / terrain.
January 27, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Hi, I was hoping you guys could give me some opinions on some ski’s for me as I am looking to trade up to something wider.
I currently ski 185 scimitar,love the ski and bought mainly on your reviews. I am an intermediate skier and live in Fernie,BC Canada 44years young and took up skiing in the last couple of years I am a healthy 245lbs, think more weightlifter than couch potato, as Iam still very athletic and sporting if a little soft round the edges. I am looking for a ski for the pow,after storm crud,cut up chop and ungroomed more challenging runs. Pure pow performance is not the most important as l get up to the hill on the weekends so conditions are variable.
I was thinking Bibby Pro 190, rocker2 115, Automatic or AKjj. I may be able to demo the ak or automatics in town but your thought,opinions would be great fully received.
Keep up the great work,love your site and all the reviews
Chris
February 6, 2013 at 1:09 am
Sounds to me, Chris, like you should try to demo the Rocker2 115. Seems like the most likely match. I’d nix the AK JJ from your list. If the 115 isn’t enough ski, check out the Bibby. If the 115 is too much, check out the Automatic.
February 1, 2013 at 9:59 am
Hey guys, LOVE the site! I’m 27, 5’10″, and ~165lbs expert skier. I’m am getting ready to buy new skis for the first time in ~9 years. I grew up skiing MT but recently moved to the Seattle area and I’ll be skiing Crystal mainly. I like steep techy stuff, big open bowls, and trees and I like to ski fast although sometimes like to slow down and play more. I’ll cruise groomers on occasion if there isn”t fresh snow to be found, and ski bumps if they get in the way of where I want to go. ;) Unfortunately, I don’t have a ton of experience here yet so I don’t have the normal conditions dialled but I’ve heard lots of new snow but generally the heavy type. Based on the amount of people that ski the mountain I assume it gets tracked up and choppy pretty quickly. I’ll also ski Bridger Bowl/Big Sky a few times a year. Right now I’m looking for a 1 ski quiver with a soft/new snow bias that can do a bit of everything. Do you think skiing PNW would be better suited to something like the Automatic or the Cochise? I do hope to demo, but right now I’m thinking Cochise, Automatic, Rocker2 108/115, or Sickle. Which of these would give the best blend of performance for the conditions I described? I realize that these have some different charateristics, but for now I need one ski to handle everything I mentioned. I will likely add to the quiver in the future to round out areas neglected by my first choice (ie: I’ll add a ~88mm ski for harder days and if I got a cochise I would like to add a true powder ski like the Automatic eventually, but I may be skiing only the Cochise next couple seasons).
Thanks so much for any insight. Sorting through all the skis these days is quite overwhelming!
February 6, 2013 at 1:13 am
Hey Matt – I’m inclined to recommend the Cochise or Sickle to begin with (Cochise will be more stable; Sickle, more playful) then add an Automatic or something comparable later. A lot of this, though, comes down to skiing style, so these definitely aren’t definitive conclusions. Let us know what you decide to do.
February 6, 2013 at 9:02 am
Thanks, that’s what I was starting to think and I have Cochise on the brain. However, I forgot to mention another ski I’m fairly interested in – the Moment Bibby Pro. Would a 184 Bibby be a good option instead of the Cochise? I like it because it seems I could kill 2 birds with one stone moreso than the Cochise – daily driver and powder ski. The problem is I likely won’t be able to demo the Bibby. In reality, whatever I get now could very well be my one ski quiver at least for a while. I’m a directional skier and I think my style would lean more towards charging than anything else, but I like to air off stuff around the mountain if it happens to be in my path. A spin here or there and an occasional back flip, but not much tricking. The one time I really slow down is when I take the Mrs out, so it would be nice to be able to ski around slow from time to time as well.
Anything else that I’m missing for a daily driver in the PNW (lots of heavy snow and crud)?
February 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Jonathan- Thanks for the reviews-excellent source of info! I rented 186cm for my last visit to SLC. Skiied a good storm at Alta and Snowbird. I punched powder, trees, bowls, groomers, and bumps. I was amazed how versatality of this ski. I am from Michigan and have Volkl ac50 (170cm) as my main skiis. I had brought these along on this last trip as well and skiied them at Solitude (day 4) when things had iced up a bit. I couldn’t believe how much I was craving to be back on the 186cm Automatics as they were fast and just felt like a dream in comparision. Anyway, I am going to splurge and buy a pair of Automatics 186cm
I am 5’9″ 195# 43y/o who still likes to play hard, but after ACL surgery 2 years ago have eased my style. I still seek out steep and deep, trees, occasionally bumps, but won’t barrel of cliffs or jumps anymore regardless of landing. So, I am curious about mounting position. Mount center line or thinking back 1-2 marks. What are your thoughts?
February 10, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Hi, Brian – I see zero reason (or advantage) in mounting back from the recommended line. But the most obvious question is, where were they mounted when you loved them so much at Alta / Bird? If you can answer that, then repeat. But otherwise, I’d go recommended. Glad to hear they worked for you!
February 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Jonathan: These skis, the Wailer 112RP, and the Armada JJ have made my short list. Quick question, would the 186 Automatics and/or the 185 JJ be too small for me at 6′, 205 lb? (23 years old) The 190 Wailers seem like a good size, but I can’t seem to get any straight answers from my local shop regarding the others. Thanks in advance!
February 10, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Maybe not a quick answer, JP. Would have a lot to do with your skiing style and where you ski. But assuming that you’ve identified skis that will, indeed, work well for you, then I would not say that the 193 Automatic is CLEARLY the better call. If this will be a pow ski, then I would worry that you’ll get dive on the 185 JJ. You aren’t going to get tip dive on the 190 112, nor do I think that ski will feel like too much for you, at all. Again, if you think the 112 or the Automatic seems like a good fit for how & where you ski, the 190 112 might actually be the safest bet here.
February 14, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Awesome review, I’ve really come to appreciate this site and all the effort you guys put into every review on here. That being said, I’ve just got to ask a question. I’m looking into purchasing a new set of skis and my #1 choice at the moment in the Automatic, skied it on a warm day after a warm week in some icy conditions and it matched this review; it was predictable, and easy to ski despite being non-ideal conditions. Over the next weeks I skied the Armada JJ in 6 in. of fresh snow, it was fantastic and handled beautifully, but I thought it was too soft for me, was a little sketchy in crud, and didn’t offer enough of an advantage over my current skis (4-5 yr. old Rossi S5′s). I also skied the Patron, which was also an impressive ski, but felt a bit much for me, too heavy and stiff, not precisely what I was looking for as I do quite a bit of bumps, trees, technical terrain. I have yet to try the Squad 7 or Super 7, but could get my hands on them, I have yet to try the Chochise, and could get my hands on that, and I wish I could try the Bibby Pro, but there’s nowhere near here I could get a demo pair as much as I wish I could.
I am 5’9″, 155 lbs. I ski mostly steep technical terrain, some trees, bumps, I’m looking for a longer ski to help me push my boundaries with confidence and stability at speed, but realistically my home mountain doesn’t have a whole lot of that terrain, so I’ll still mostly be doing steep chutes, couloirs, trees, bumps, etc. The skis above have been my focus and I’m thinking the Automatic may be the best choice, provided it doesn’t feel too soft. I also really, really liked the Skilogik Howitzer, which felt like a very, very light version of the Patron, with less rocker, but sacrificed maneuverability for stability, and I’m not certain the sacrifice was entirely worth it.
What’s your take? Any ski I should definitely try? Should I just shut up and buy the Automatic?
February 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm
Thanks, Chris. If the Howitzer and Patron felt like more ski than you were looking for, then I would scratch this year’s Squad and Bibby Pro, and I just wouldn’t recommend the Super 7 for what you’re describing. The Cochise is a tougher call. Definitely better in crud than the Automatic, but it isn’t as easy or quick. And since you’ve already skied the Automatic and liked it, it seems like a pretty safe bet. The only caveat I’ll add is that several of us who have been skiing the Automatic have come to see it more and more as a soft snow ski. Yes, it handles uniform moguls very well (it’s quick), firm variable bumps at speed is probably it’s weak point. If that’s where you need a ski to shine, then consider the Cochise, but again, might be more ski than you’re looking for. You might also check out our reviews of the Salomon 108 & 115, and the 12/13 Line Influence 115 to see if they sound interesting.
March 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Hello Jonathan. Thanks for the awesome review!
I just got the 2013/2014 Automatics 186 cm and I will mount the with F12 Tour EPF.. I was skiing off piste since 3 years with the Bent Chetlers 183cm mounted at +2,5 from the classic mount.
I am really considering If i should mount them at the recommedent point (team line) or if I should go +1cm? ( I am skiing only directional). As I am looking at them it kind of looks way to back on the team line..
Thank you in advance.
March 5, 2013 at 12:38 am
Hey, Orestis – I don’t know your height / weight, but I don’t have any reservations about going +1 on these if you think they look too far back. Go for it, and let us know what you think.
March 9, 2013 at 5:20 am
Hello Jonathan, thanks for the answer..
(correction of the previous message: the last 3 years I am skiing with the Bent Chetler)
I am 77kg (170 pounds) and 175cm tall (5.7 feet).
I am afraid that if I go forward 1 cm I will loose perfomarce on icy conditions and hardpack.. what do u think?
March 12, 2013 at 11:36 pm
I have zero worries that moving forward 1 cm will make this ski sacrifice performance on hardpack / ice. But keep in mind, this isn’t some 98mm or narrower flat tailed ski with a bunch of metal in it. It’s a fun fat pow ski that’s great in soft snow and good on soft groomers. No tip and tail rockered ski is exceptional on ice, whether you mount on the line or go +1. Just want to make sure you’re being realistic about that.
March 7, 2013 at 8:29 am
Jonathan, now I know why your favorite skis are what they are. When I bring 3 pairs of skis to snowbird/alta and I still find myself wanting to only be riding the BP 190 as supposed to the other ones regardless of the conditions, from some fresh pow to wind blown mashed potatoes, that really tells me something about the skis. I went + half a cm off the line and I honestly can tell you I really dont need any other skis and they have become the perfect combo of a charger yet fun and playful ski. I owe that all to you and your great unbiased revoews. I Seriously thank you. G-d bless!
Cheers
March 12, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Wow, thanks Dan. We always appreciate the feedback, and I’m really glad we were able to help steer you toward a ski that’s a good fit for you. Happy shredding!
April 24, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Jonathan,
I’m having a tough time deciding between these and the bibby pro. The general sentiment seems to be slightly in favor of the bibby pro, but I’m concerned that it might not be the right ski for me. The main thing that concerns me is my size; I’m only 5’10″ and about 145 pounds with all my gear on and I’m concerned the bibby might be too demanding. However, What draws me towards it is its stability. I ski a lot of crusty and tough conditions here in colorado and I think a more stable ski would give me a good ski for storm days as well as the days after. I also will be taking trips to silverton and jackson hole in the near future, so either option needs to be relatively playful in deeper snow and trees. I realize there is not really a question in there so here are a couple: do you think I would be better served on the bibby pros or the automatics? or am I completely off base here and should I be looking at something else?
(these will also be used to complement my Volkl bridges, so groomer performance/ early season(no snow) performance are not the primary focus)
Matt
April 25, 2013 at 12:09 am
Hey, Matt – as always, it really comes down to where you most want a ski to shine. If you told me you were looking for a super quick ski for tight trees on pow days, I’d probably steer you toward the Automatic. But as soon as you mention “crusty, tough conditions” the Bibby is the better tool for that job. It isn’t as quick and easy as the Automatic, but I don’t think it will overwhelm you, either. Basically, I agree with Dan K’s comment below, given what you say you’re looking for.
April 24, 2013 at 8:53 pm
I think Bibby Pro sz 184 would be perfect for you