Atomic Thug - all new construction?

**Sockerfarsan** · 02-08-2006, 08:56 AM

Ok, major techno weenie talk here, but I just saw some pictures of the new Thug and to my surprise the top sheet was all "flat" and it had vertical sidewalls. Not the good ol' beta construction. Have I missed something? Wood core?

**dirtybryan** · 02-08-2006, 12:21 PM

Atomics Freeride skis have are being produced the snowboarding facotry now, so they are going to be sandwich construction, which I applaud.

**Powdurr** · 02-08-2006, 12:23 PM

Only the Thug and Triplets will be flat, sandwich construction.

**freak** · 02-08-2006, 02:47 PM

yeah, the daddys will remain beta

but i saw sandwich AND beta triplets at the ispo...

freak~[

&

**Telepath** · 02-08-2006, 03:48 PM

Thug's look and feel nice I think.

Clicky clicky...

Looking forward to gettin a pair or two; i guess I can find a use for them as supertechy minigolf line skis or something. Dunno about the core; if it's wood they're surprisingly light, but then so are the Bro and others.

**splat** · 02-08-2006, 04:50 PM

B - your toe has a halo; did it die and go to heaven?
From that site:
Also getting a pintail design instead of the racing inspired tail shape of the current Big Daddy will help the ski perform like itâ€™s supposed to, letting it slash and smear a lot better.

just after this:

New Big Daddy dimensions are 145-125-19

I'm assuming the tail is 129 or 119, right?

**lemon boy** · 02-08-2006, 04:56 PM

145-125-129

**Telepath** · 02-08-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by splat

I'm assuming the tail is 129 or 119, right?

Thanx, it's been fixed. As LB says it's 129, so I guess it's not a true pintail really, but compared to the 140 I was afraid it would end up with (the current BD would be such a sweet ski without the massive girth of the tail) I'd say it's close.

Toe pic. Hehe. Nail died as it often does, toe is still around. I guess that assatar style changed but Iæm known to be a tad slow on the uptake (I still haven't fully understood this whole short ski craze either

).

**splat** · 02-08-2006, 05:23 PM

I want to ski that ski. I've been thinking about shaving a mm or two off the tail of the Bros and blowing them out a little wider to the Big Bro (yes, I heard you, marshal). We've been debating this since the first Bro. I'd love to see what they've done with the BD. It sounds along the same line of thinking, maybe even moreso.

edit

**Telepath** · 02-08-2006, 05:31 PM

The thug did feel very similar to some Bro's I've seen, though definately not as stiff as the stiff Bro's.

Thugs have too much sidecut imo to be an allround ski at that size (120waist to 134 tail) and will probably not smear and throw around as well as I perosnally think it should. It should be very playful at lower speeds though and also I guess I'd like it for minigolf and stuff, where it's short contact length (true twin = loss of length, contact length is like 7-8cm shorter than new BD I guesstimate) will be handy. If I had to choose between the two I'd pick the new BD any day though.

Would be fun to see what you could do with a larger footprint and your current construction I think

**Rippinsick** · 02-08-2006, 05:40 PM

May have to get my hands on a pair of those THUGS for next season. They sound pretty cool. Look forward to some more reviews. I like what Vicious had to say about them.

**splat** · 02-08-2006, 07:04 PM

'Cuse me, I meant to say the new BDs, not thugs....

**Vicious** · 02-08-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Telepath

The thug did feel very similar to some Bro's I've seen, though definately not as stiff as the stiff Bro's.

Thugs have too much sidecut imo to be an allround ski at that size (120waist to 134 tail) and will probably not smear and throw around as well as I perosnally think it should. It should be very playful at lower speeds though and also I guess I'd like it for minigolf and stuff, where it's short contact length (true twin = loss of length, contact length is like 7-8cm shorter than new BD I guesstimate) will be handy. If I had to choose between the two I'd pick the new BD any day though.

Would be fun to see what you could do with a larger footprint and your current construction I think

I don't think the Thug have too much sidecut at all. In fact, I'd consider them to be fairly straight in comparison to many skis out there. Perhaps you meant they are simply too fat for an everyday ski??

**marshalolson** · 02-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by splat

I want to ski that ski. I've been thinking about shaving a mm or two off the tail of the Bros and blowing them out a little wider to the Big Bro (yes, I heard you, marshal). We've been debating this since the first Bro. I'd love to see what they've done with the BD. It sounds along the same line of thinking, maybe even moreso.

edit

2 words: FKNA

**jonnyquest** · 02-08-2006, 11:45 PM

[QUOTE=freak]yeah, the daddys will remain beta

but i saw sandwich AND beta triplets at the ispo...

The urban triplets are sandwich, the others are still beta construction.

**Telepath** · 02-09-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Vicious

Perhaps you meant they are simply too fat for an everyday ski??

No, I meant what I said. I know that many people believe otherwise. A preference thing I guess; I have never liked the Pistol/Vicious either due to (among other reasons, but largely) the massive sidecut. The last thre years I have deliberately rounded off my BD edges on the rear half metre to make them hook less in variable (they still do in soft) in order to try and negate the rear width. I'm all for a fat tip; but a tail like the new BD I've wanted for years. Should be fun.

Though I aggree, 125 underfoot might be a centimetre too much for an everyday ski (BD's have been my everyday si for 3 years now); but if they're a lot better in soft I'll gladly use something else those other boilerplate days. I think they'll be ok allround too though.

**Vicious** · 02-09-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Telepath

No, I meant what I said. I know that many people believe otherwise. A preference thing I guess; I have never liked the Pistol/Vicious either due to (among other reasons, but largely) the massive sidecut. The last thre years I have deliberately rounded off my BD edges on the rear half metre to make them hook less in variable (they still do in soft) in order to try and negate the rear width. I'm all for a fat tip; but a tail like the new BD I've wanted for years. Should be fun.

Though I aggree, 125 underfoot might be a centimetre too much for an everyday ski (BD's have been my everyday si for 3 years now); but if they're a lot better in soft I'll gladly use something else those other boilerplate days. I think they'll be ok allround too though.

I still wouldn't categorize the Thug as having alot of sidecut. It's definitely not even close to the same ballpark as the Pistol/Vicious in terms of amount of sidecut.

Perhaps the edges on the pair you rode were just too sharp and were hooking on you??

I'm definitely an advocate of using big skis on an everyday basis, but my current everyday skis (m103 and ANT) are 103 and 106 underfoot. 125 underfoot wouldn't be bad everyday if you aren't in tight spots alot, but could get to be a bit much in tighter trees or terrain that's a bit bumped out.

**flip** · 02-09-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Telepath

Thugs have too much sidecut imo to be an allround ski at that size (120waist to 134 tail)

For reference that's 7mm of sidecut, waist to tail
A Rossi Axiom (a pretty straight ski by all accounts) has 5mm, waist to tail
A Head Supermojo has 7.5mm, waist to tail.
A Seth Vicious (a ski you don't like) has 10mm, waist to tail.

I'd say the Thug sounds about perfect.

The new BD, if it really is 120mm to 129mm (4.5mm), is really damn straight.

**lemon boy** · 02-09-2006, 12:08 PM

I think that you guys are missing to a degree what TP's saying and getting hung up on his Danish choice of words (goddamned Danes fucking all kinds of shit up lately).

BTW- the new bd is 125-129 w/t not 120-129

**lemon boy** · 02-09-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Vicious

Perhaps the edges on the pair you rode were just too sharp and were hooking on you??

Which one of his 15 pairs of BDs do you think that would be exactly?

**Vicious** · 02-09-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Which one of his 15 pairs of BDs do you think that would be exactly?

I meant the Thugs. However, now that I reread his initial post, I'm unsure if he actually rode the Thugs or just fondled them.

**Hutch** · 02-09-2006, 12:30 PM

well, I like the look of the new BDs but think the Thug is ugly.
this thread also introduced me to coreshot.com, which looks pretty goddamned cool.

**Telepath** · 02-09-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Vicious

However, now that I reread his initial post, I'm unsure if he actually rode the Thugs or just fondled them.

Didn't ski the Thugs, just played with them. I just tend not to like skis with similar sidecuts - a dislike that's bigger the wider the ski is. I aggree that when just looking at the numbers from an objective standpoint it's not a lot of sidecut; but I tend to prefer straight. Hence my belief that they'll be sweet for minigolf and stuff; but for my preferences that's it - not the least as they're bound to ski rather short. After switching from Head & M103s I started skiing Big Daddies as they're one of the only skis with larger sidecut numbers that I for some reason seem get along with; partly negated by some pretty to-the-rear mounts and my own edge rounding.

Heh, yeah, this english stuff is difficult at times.