I haven’t yet skied the Automatic 109’s in fresh powder or soft chop, but I am expecting them to be predictable and intuitive here, especially when conditions are consistent and smooth. The softer flex of the Automatic’s shovels and tails, combined with the ski’s more tapered shape ought to limit how hard it can be pushed in soft, tracked up conditions, but I’m just not sure how much at this point. And there are some other factors to tease out as well…
Things I’m Still Wondering About
While I still need to get the 109s in fresh pow, I’m also wondering about how snappy the ski will feel on groomers. Given how rough the conditions have been so far, that’s been difficult to assess very accurately. And on a related note, I’m looking forward to working the 109 around more as an all-mountain freestyle ski. So far I’ve played around off a few little airs and have done a couple tail presses, but I don’t have a great sense of exactly how jib-oriented the Automatic 109 is. How much rebound will the tail provide on landings? How well does it ski switch? How does the ski feel with a more forward mount point (say, ~2cm back from center)?
So far I can’t say I’m too worried about the 109’s swing weight—I think I’ll be able to spin the 109 about as easily as the Rocker2 108 and the Kastle xx110 West, but I’m especially curious about how it compares to the Line Sir Francis Bacon and the Rossignol Soul 7 in this respect, and on every other front…
Bottom Line (For Now)
So far, the Atomic Automatic 109 seems very much like a narrower version of the original, powder-oriented Automatic. It has a light, quick feel, but also fares relatively well in challenging, variable conditions, thanks in part to its fairly big sweet spot.
We still have more to learn about the Automatic 109, but I’ll be very surprised if its own set of characteristics don’t prove to be quite popular among an already popular class of skis.
But for now I can say that if you consider yourself more of a finesse skier who prefers lighter skis that let you work with subtle variations in the terrain and snow surface rather than blast through them, I think you’re going to like how the Automatic 109 performs.
Thanks for the review, Will. I was waiting to see what you guys had to say about this ski as I’m looking for a ~110 underfoot ski for resort skiing in the front range. With that said, can you make any comparison to the Soul 7 based on your days so far? Thanks!
Hey James,
Unfortunately I’ve yet to ski the Soul 7, but I’m going to asap this season in order to draw some comparisons to the 109. (I’m also curious how the 109 compares to the 190cm Line SFB.) Sorry I can’t be of more help right now.
Will
Will,
My current quiver is:
1) 2012 Kastle MX78 – 176
2) 2012 Kastle LX82 – 172
3) 2014 Blizzard Brahma – 173
4) 2013 Kastle FX94 – 176
5) 2014 Nordica Soul Rider – 177
6) 2014 Blizzard Bonafide – 173
7) 2013 Blizzard Cochise – 177
8) 2013 Atomic Automatic – 179
I know it is a lot of skis but I enjoy owning gear. I am 5’6″ and weigh 165 lbs. I take 2 to 3 trips a year to Alta/Snowbird and am going to try and get to Jackson Hole this year. I am an advanced skier who spends most of my time on steeps and in chutes. I also like skiing bumps. I obviously don’t need a new ski but have decided to get myself one new ski this year. It is between the Atomic Automatic 109’s or the Line Supernatural 108’s. Now my Atomic Auto 117 is my alltime favorite ski. I love it in any conditions and anywhere on the mountain. However I have wished for a thinner version. Am I correct in thinking that the 109 will fill that void? Also I have a concern of skiing the 182. I almost feel like the Automatic 117 in size 179 is about as much as I want to handle. Am I right in thinking that since the 109’s are a tad narrower that I’ll be fine in the 182 or should I look at the 175? Or should I forget the 109’s and look at the Supernatural 108’s in 179? Thanks for your input and advice. Your site has helped me in purchasing all of my skis.
Hi Chuck,
If you’re looking for an all-mountain ski with similar qualities to the 117 Automatic, the 109 would be it, so I think you’re on the right path there. As for 182vs 175, I guess I would lean towards the 175 if your 179 Autos feel like they’re about as much ski as you want. The 109s will feel quicker edge to edge in any length, but the 182cm 109s will present you with more material to swing around than what you’re used to. Unless your 177 Soul Riders (which I consider a pretty quick, nimble ski) feel like they’re almost too short for you, I think you’ll be ok with the 109s in a 175.
Best,
Will
How does this match up in terms of playful ness against Volkl Shiro? I have Shiros in 193 and to be honest I hate them unless I am going in a straight line I think the turn radius is something like 30m. This year I would like a softer more playful ski that I can do short 3/4 hr tours on. I bought Atomic Theory’s in 177 two seasons ago an love them but they are just too small now I’m advanced(and fatter) so I do like the Atomic line. Do you foresee a big difference between the 117s and the 109s?
Thanks
Hi Timbo,
I haven’t skied the Shiro yet myself, but other Blister reviewers have had similar impressions about their stability, specifically in chopped up snow.
I hadn’t really thought about the 109 as a touring ski for day trips, but if you are looking for something with a predominantly playful feel that maintains decent stability in variable snow (which you may encounter in the backcountry), the they could work well. As I say in the review, I haven’t set skied the Rossi Soul 7 yet, but it might be a good option as well, as it’s pretty light – I would ask Jason Hutchins what he thinks of it as a touring ski in his review.
Hope this helps!
Will
Soul 7 would make a great touring ski. Light … quick … easy to ski. Can’t comment on the auto 109. It’s a bit heavier, but from this review I would say it might hold up a bit better in rougher / variable conditions.
Thank you for the test. I miss only a profile picture ;-)
I am also interested in a comparison with the line sick day 110.
Flex comparison?
Thank you .., your site is really unique in the world!
Adrian
Thanks for the excellent review, and forthright answers to the posted questions.
Thinking of the 109 as mostly resort based and slackcountry ski. Japan, for example…
Don’t mind a bit of weight for short distances/times, but I’m coming from a pure backcountry (read Dynafit) background….
How would I contact Jason?
Thanks!
Any 2nd Look on this ski coming? Or a review of the Automatic 102?
Wondering how these automatic 109’s compare to the Fischer Big Stix 110’s? I’ve been looking around for a ski in this twin tip category, and I’ve been playing with both of these skis at my local ski shop. I have to say, they kind of appear to be very similar in profile, and flex. I’m wondering if anyone can chime in and let me know if there are any big differences in skiing these two skis. I’m leaning toward the Fischer’s at the moment due to great deals on them, but would like to know if the automatic’s are worth the extra money. I guess I should tell you what i”m after in a ski. Basically, something easy and fun to run in and out of the trees. I own stiffer flat tail skis, so now interest in something easier on the legs and very maneuverable in the trees. Any help would be appreciated.
Just to revisit this. I bought the Atomic Automatic 117s with Dynafit beats in 186. Tried the 109 in the 190 and just didn’t see the point in it compared to the bigger ones. Best skis iv ever had :)
@ Timbo
you mean the 109 is better or just as good as the 117mm? Even in deep snow?
I ride the 117 with G3 (model 14/15). Unfortunately, the ski is relatively heavy.., but great!
I thought the 109 was just average at everything, there is nothing the bigger 117 can’t do just as well if not better. In powder its a dream for me 109 was ok but a bit more hard work as you would expect. I am at least 200lb bollock naked so when I add avi bag, rope, axe crampons etc I’m probably closer to 250 never noticed the weight to be honest feels lighter and more nimble than my old Shiro’s. 117 is just awesome :)
Hiya
Cheers for review. Pondering between automatic 109 in 182cm or century in 175cm. Looking for an all rounder (lready have shiros and lightweight touring skis) to stick on dynafits to use for everday use and lift assisted touring. am female 5’9″ and 75kg (dunno what this is in pounds). any opinion which size to go for? or indeed difference between century and automatic, apart from century being a tad lighter? in shop the weight difference between the two skis was 120grams.
cheers
Smadge obviously I am fair bit bigger than you but I came off Shiros 193s and wanted the same as what you are describing. In the end I tried the 109 and the 117 and couldn’t notice any difference uphill so decided to get the better down hill option which was the 117. I have beasts on mine the 117s and they rock. You could easily skis 186s with zero problems.
Dear friends!
Thanks for the another great review!
I have got Atomic Automatic117, 186 (happy owner) and feel good on them off the trails!
Now i think about Automatic 102 (combined with Marker EPF 12 tour) for all other conditions except deep days. Advanced (not expert) freerider, 180 pounds/81 kg, 6 feet/183 cm. About 30 days in Alps and South Eastern Europe. Wanting these babies for all mountain needs and touring to the peaks.
BUT, I cannot choose between 180 and 188 cm! I know- every asks the same question, sorry about the spam, but I’m helpless and stuck in the middle! Thank you in advance!
P.P. I have now Salomon Shogun 100 11/12 184/measured 182 cm, and need replacement of them.
Hey how would you compare the 109 to the Soul 7 and Sick Day 110? I am looking for a new ski for this season at the Canterbury club fields here in NZ. Good intermediate skier. Prefer to do more turns, slower speed, popping off lots of little features, ollies, butters etc instead of going fast and straight lining. Had the 192cm Armada TST last season and found them a bit too chargy. Also the tails felt quite long and seemed to get caught up a bit in turns. Looking for something easy and fun to ski that can still handle all the variation of club fields here.
Cheers for your thoughts!
Mark
Thanks to Blister reviews I have settled on my all mountain front ski, 180 cm Blizzard Brahmas. I love how hard I can drive them in a variety of turn shapes. Now I’m looking for my all mountain back skis to use at Wolf Creek, Mary Jane trees, Eagle Wind at Winter Park, Copper Bowl, and so on. I am considering the Volkl 100Eights, the Rossi Soul 7s, and the Atomic Automatic 109s. I have only skied the Soul 7s and loved how well they turn in the trees, but didn’t like them as much back on the skied up groomers. Any advice? I’m 47 yrs, 6’1″, 175 lbs, aggressive, old school skier.
Steve,
I ski the190 cm 14/15 Sir Francis Bacon, tried the ~190 cm Soul7 the other day. Souls pivot far easier (in moguls) and larger tip rocker helps it ride up over bumps much easier than the Bacons.
Bacons have much less chatter at speed and longer sidecut radius for a calmer feel in big radius high speed turns.