182 or 192 Atomic Atlas

My first post here, I'll start by saying thanks.

I'm a 5'8" 160lbs (before pack and gear) semi aggressive skier (read 100+ days a year for over 8 years running but I'm not jumping off anything much larger than 20ft).

I currently have a pair of Fisher Big Stix's 181 (sounds like these may be the only pair that didn't delam) that are my daily drivers and I love them. My only complaint is they can feel a little short and soft for those super deep heavy days here in the northwest.

I'm considering a pair of the Atlas for the deep day / big line ski but cant decide on the 182 or 192. Sounds like the affective edge is quite short for a big ski but I'm fearful of 192 number (bigger than anything I've ever rode) I know I'm a puss! I ski a lot at Steven's Pass and as I'm sure some of you are aware we have a lot of trees and quite a bit of billy goating so is the 192 out of my league.

Anyone in my size class own the 192?

Cheers. Let it snow
Schaefer

I'm 5'10" and own the 192, it's the best powder ski ive ever skied. I heard DaronR likes the 182 very much too, it's a tough call.

I am about your size, have a deep maritime snowpack, lots of trees and also fast open spaces. I find the 182 to be fine, possibly a bit much for me at times due to constant tired touring legs and because I am not a great skier, and even with a pack, I am a lightweight.

The 192 seems an all round much bigger ski than the 182, almost a different model. After skiing the 182 quite a bit, I reckon I could almost monoboard my skinny frame on a single 192.

I posted this before, Sage saying that the 192 is a bit big for him
http://www.backcountry.com/atomic-atlas-ski-ato0323

The Atlas seems to have fallen through a hole and for what ever reason not many people talk about them. Seems odd. It strikes me as a very legit ski for solid skiers.

The 192 is a totally different ski from what I've gathered.
I haven't skied either personally but one of my main ski buddies has a pair of 192's.
He complains about them only wanting to turn when going 30mph+.
He's a big guy, aggressive skier, 6'1" 200lb FWIW.

Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hohes

I am about your size, have a deep maritime snowpack, lots of trees and also fast open spaces. I find the 182 to be fine, possibly a bit much for me at times due to constant tired touring legs and because I am not a great skier, and even with a pack, I am a lightweight.

The 192 seems an all round much bigger ski than the 182, almost a different model. After skiing the 182 quite a bit, I reckon I could almost monoboard my skinny frame on a single 192.

I posted this before, Sage saying that the 192 is a bit big for him
http://www.backcountry.com/atomic-atlas-ski-ato0323

The Atlas seems to have fallen through a hole and for what ever reason not many people talk about them. Seems odd. It strikes me as a very legit ski for solid skiers.

---

ya i saw that comment. While the general trend at tgr is to grab your balls and get the biggest fucking ski you can. Honestly if someone like sage who's basically your size says a 192 is a little too much ski for him, i wouldn't really hesistate to go with a 182. While it will ski shorter with the rocker, it still should be plenty of ski for you to enjoy imo.

It's too bad they don't split the difference and make it in a 187 with a 120 waist. The ski would be money for a lot of people in that length.

It sounded like Sage said that in regards to spinning and stuff, but maybe I'm just reading into it too much. I am about 5 10 165 and ski on the 192. I like it for pretty much everything but steep, tight coolies. I haven't tried the 182 but it looks very different dimensionally. I got the 192 since I ski big, open stuff more often than not.

For Stevens go with the 182- lots of places where you need to turn fast and few places you need the stability.

Do not billygoat on the 192's.