I seem to prefer the "worse" version of a ski

[TonyPlush]

Last year I had a weird situation in which I skied two versions of the same ski, and realized I liked the "worse" model better.

Day 1 on the mountain, I skied the 2018 Atomic Vantage 85 (wood core) model. I felt extremely confident in them, like I could pick my lines with ease.

Day 2 on the mountain, I skied the 2017 Atomic Vantage 85 CTI (titanium core). Compared to Day 1, I felt like I had a harder time initiating turns, and struggled more with control in the bumps and trees.

My understanding is that these are the same skis; however, the CTI version is double the price because of its stiffer titanium core. The general advice is that CTI is a better overall ski.

My question is - why would I like the lower model of a ski?

I'm guessing I had more confidence in the bumps and trees because the lower model was less stiff. I'm an intermediate-advanced skier, and I ski about 30-40% blue groomers and 60-70% moguls/blacks/off-piste/trees. I'm 5'9" 165 lbs.

Am I just too small, not skiing challenging enough terrain, or have a specific skiing style that makes me not benefit from the "better" ski?

 

[James]

Maybe your assumptions are off.

The best skis in their current line suffer from 'lower-pricepoint-something-must-be-wrong-with-this-ski' itis. The non Ti Vantage 86 and 97 are just better skis. Fun? Fun you say? Bentchtler 100. If you can't have fun on that ski, something's wrong. And the Backland 117 is an excellent cat/heli/Hokkaido ski. Imho, only the vantage 107Ti seems to scale well with the Ti layup.

 

[Philpug]

First of all the, this is a great question and I understand the confusion. Years ago, I used to do a series called "Steals & Deals". This is where i focused on lower priced skis that were still great values. Second. the regular Vantage is not a "worse" version but as you state later a lower model. This does not mean it is a lesser model just it had a different focus with it's lower price. Also, that was probably $100 less than the CTI, not half. While we have said many times, there are few bad skis but many wrong skis, for you, the CTI sounds like the wrong ski and you found the right one in the regular CTI. Consider yourself fortunate, it takes some skiers many years to figure this out..some never do...including some members people here . You struck oil, stop drilling and go get that Vantage 85C..and NOT the CTI, that might be a better ski, but does not mean it is a better ski ... for you.

You are a smaller, lighter skier with an indermediate-advance skill set, I could see how you would like the non metal version of the Vantage. There are skis that I personally prefer the non metal versions, Kastle FX and BMX series come to mind, I prefer the non metal versions, I find the skis to be more playful. The Blizzard Bushwacker/Brahma CA had a strong following.

 

[TonyPlush]

Very interesting, thanks for the great info @James, @markojp, and @Philpug.

Two follow up questions then...

1. Could it have anything to do with the tune? I did get my Vantage CTIs tuned to a 3 bevel with an all mountain tune, whereas the wood core version was a rental.

2. Am I sacrificing anything by going with the Cs instead of the CTIs? From what I've read, it sounds like maybe a little stability on the steeps (which I rarely ski...) and some stability during high speed carving (which I do partake in on the groomers)?

 

[Paul Tocko]

To add another consideration - I think a lot depends on WHERE you ski, specifically how much vertical and how steep (the speed / energy you will be able to generate). For my 700 foot vertical, family-friendly resort that gets a decent amount of lake effect snow I prefer the Navigator 90's to the enforcer 93/100. Have skied both, own the Navigators and have friends that own the enforcers. But at speeds / energy of less than 45mph (generally) the Navigator just plain works better (at least for me). While my friends are blasting down the hill making few (if any ) turns, I'm making many short / medium turns (and my skis are bending) with my Navigators having a blast!! If the hill was steeper or bigger - I would probably prefer the enforcers as they are bit more stable at higher speeds.

Out west (CO, UT) - Monster 98's (which are a great big mountain ski, IMO) are in my bag and for many days are my go to skis. At 23M radius turns they need a big mountain to even work them.

In other words - its not one ski is necessarily "better". Just better for the type of skier you are (how big, how powerful, etc) and for the terrain you are skiing. I wouldn't get too hung up on where a model ski fits into the line up.

 

[Lauren]

I'm guessing I had more confidence in the bumps and trees because the lower model was less stiff. I'm an intermediate-advanced skier, and I ski about 30-40% blue groomers and 60-70% moguls/blacks/off-piste/trees. I'm 5'9" 165 lbs.

Exactly. Sounds like you spend a significant amount of your time in bumps and trees. There's a reason bump skis are rarely reinforced with metal. Maybe even never...I don't know enough about mogul specific skis to be confident in saying "never". Less weight and softer will equate to the ski being more maneuverable and flex better in the troughs.

Metal is generally added to skis for 2 reasons, to add stiffness and to dampen the feedback from a ski. The stiffness adds stability at speed. If you're spending most of your time in the trees, bumps and off-piste, you're less likely to need this additional stiffness...unless you're going Mach 10 down some steep backcountry lines. Dampening a ski often takes away from the pop and playfulness you can get with a full wood core (the pop is something I personally enjoy while tree skiing). But dampening a ski reduces the feedback...you'll get more feedback at higher speeds, too much feedback can be exhausting.

 

[TonyPlush]

To add another consideration - I think a lot depends on WHERE you ski, specifically how much vertical and how steep (the speed / energy you will be able to generate).

Interesting. I do 90% of my skiing as a destination skier. For reference, the two days spent comparing the Vantages was at Steamboat.

I do like fast carving on the groomers (40-50 mph according to my app) so I supposed I would like the added stability at speed. But I don't remember the regular Cs feeling unstable. Which I attribute to either:

a) me not knowing what I was missing, since I had never experienced the CTIs yet. Or
b) me just not needed the added stability​

 

[Andy Mink]

There's a reason manufacturers build more than one version of a ski and it is more than $$. People ski differently. So should skis.

 

[coskigirl]

I've heard from multiple people that like the previous version of the Vantage and dislike the current version. I have only been on the older one so I can't speak to it but something to keep in mind.

 

[James]

Interesting. I do 90% of my skiing as a destination skier. For reference, the two days spent comparing the Vantages was at Steamboat.

I do like fast carving on the groomers (40-50 mph according to my app) so I supposed I would like the added stability at speed. But I don't remember the regular Cs feeling unstable. Which I attribute to either:

a) me not knowing what I was missing, since I had never experienced the CTIs yet. Or
b) me just not needed the added stability​

In general, skis with metal are torsionally stiffer. Metal doesn't make the ski stiffer longitudanally, but skis with metal are often long. stiffer for other reasons. Note Titanal, the Austrian brand name for the aluminum metal sheet, (contains 0% titanium), comes in different thicknesses. One can also put metal only in certain areas or shape the sheet at the end. Many, many, options.

Apparently, metal sheet has been more difficult to bond so that had a lot to so with small indy brands not using it. Plus probably the association with race/carving skis. We may be over that. Plus lots of indies subcontract now.

Some of the stiffest skis ever built, longitudinally, had no metal in them.

Skiers who can ski with a lot of edge angle early in the turn generally prefer more torsionally stiff skis. A lot depends on usage though- actual racing, free skiing carving, or all mountain use etc. They are good at getting on and off their edges and can feater edges if needed.

Even with torsionally stiff skis as race,cheater race, carving skis, things can be tweaked. You can make the tip less torsionally stiff, same with tail. This will help release the tip/tail to start the new turn.

There are so many design variables and they need to come together. Earlier someone stated the the Monster 98 need a big mountain because of it's 21m sidecut. This is completely untrue. It's the total design package of the ski and the length that might prefer space. Remember everyone used to ski 40-70m sidecut skis in very long lengths, straight skis, on the tinyest of hills.

Fis slalom skis generally have less sidecut and smaller tips/tails than cheater slaloms or carving skis in that length. To me, the fis makes a more versatile ski for general use.

If you say just loved to ski fast and not do moguls, I might say go get the K2 Icon 84. It's made to eat up vertical at an alarming rate. This is enough for some and they don't care so much about ultimate versatility.

Ideally one really likes how the ski they're on performs in at least one area or condition they ski. Then you just deal with it's lesser abilities in other areas.

Maybe Atomic just missed it's design goals and the CTi versions have a narrower range of use/users than intended.

 

[TonyPlush]

1. Could it have anything to do with the tune? I did get my Vantage CTIs tuned to a 3 bevel with an all mountain tune, whereas the wood core version was a rental.

Any opinions on this? Could a 3 bevel tune cause more difficulty with control and turn initiation for an intermediate-advanced skier, compared to whatever stock tune comes on rental skis?

This is pretty much the last lingering question keeping me from trading out my Vantage 85 CTIs for the wood core version.

 

[cantunamunch]

Any opinions on this? Could a 3 bevel tune cause more difficulty with control and turn initiation for an intermediate-advanced skier, compared to whatever stock tune comes on rental skis?

This is pretty much the last lingering question keeping me from trading out my Vantage 85 CTIs for the wood core version.

On the scale of things, this question is not as important as the ones that have already been answered.

If a sharp tune on the CTI can throw your skiing off then it is not the ski for you, and you will also have problems with that ski in (on) difficult snow - no matter what the tune is.

On the ski that does work for you, you will notice far less difference between 2 and 3 degree side bevel, and you might even learn to like the sharper edges.

HTH.

 

[Slasher]

Your name is @TonyPlush. When you decide to change your name to TonyStiff, that's when you should choose the stiffer ski.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Those "worse" models look like fun in the moguls and woods. I usually prefer metal but would happily have some softer skis on hand. They say boots make a difference too as it relates to driving a stiffer ski.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

As with wine, personal preferences are important. Buy what you like and don’t overthink it.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Any opinions on this? Could a 3 bevel tune cause more difficulty with control and turn initiation for an intermediate-advanced skier, compared to whatever stock tune comes on rental skis?

This is pretty much the last lingering question keeping me from trading out my Vantage 85 CTIs for the wood core version.

I don’t know how to answer this question. My suspicion is rental skis are tuned very rarely, the edges are pretty dull and don’t have great structure based on limited recent demo experience.

It is true that I and many others prefer less sharp skis off piste to the point some guys run files and gummy stones onthe edges so they’re dull. I can easily believe you preferred a “less” tuned ski. That said, unless you own the CTIs already I would not worry about whether detuning them would make you like them more.

 

[TonyPlush]

That said, unless you own the CTIs already I would not worry about whether detuning them would make you like them more.

I do own the CTIs already.

But I’m thinking by the time I mess around with “detuning” them I’m throwing away money that could just be used to pick up the wood cores for cheap.

 

[James]

Just get the thing ground and base set to 1 and side to 2.
Rental and demo skis run the gamut from truly atrocious unskiable to very nice. Sometimes the demos are worse than rentals.

I don't know what you mean by "detune" but it could be the start of ruining the ski. Get it ground/set and if you still don't like it and it's not because of a screwed up tune, sell it. Getting someone's butchered ski will have it returned or complained about if not disclosed. That's the #1 problem with used non race skis.

Turn initiation is overwhelmingly controlled by base bevel not side edge. There's plenty of people who ski a near zero to 0.5 degree base bevel. That requires some good control. It's very easy to catch an edge. But properly ground they'll slide sideways just fine.
You want a 1degree. An honest 1 is quite good gor most everything and won't catch you by surprise.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Sharp skis tend to want to track along the edges so resist brushed turns. Removing the sharpness with a gummi will have a pretty dramatic effect on the skis responsiveness (sharper) vs forgiveness (less sharp). I'm guessing from your description of your experience you like your ski forgiving.

An overlooked and undermentioned characteristic of skis is the amount of camber. Some skis have lots of camber, over an inch of space between the bases when held loosely base to base. Some have a lot less or none. The more camber a ski has, the less forgiving it is as the edges are being pressed into the snow more aggressively with more camber.

@James , I hope by detuning the OP means 'softening' the sharpness of the edge. We do that all the time in the shop as the Scout will leave a ski much sharper than most people want, need or can handle. It only takes a few light passes from tip to tail to remove the overly sharp edge a fresh, new tune can have. Additional passes over the contact points and towards the tip or tail of the ski will also make the ski more forgiving.

Many brands make rental skis that have the same names and look as their retail skis but they are of completely different quality. Does anyone know if the Atomic Vantage 85 that was a rental could be rental, not retail, stock?

 

[François Pugh]

Metal and other reinforcement is put in skis so that they will only bend into and carve a turn when a high force is applied. If you use high forces in your skiing, either because your weigh 250 lbs, or you make harder turns at higher speeds than most other skiers, those reinforced skis will work fine for you (given proper technique). If you don't ski faster than the average skier while making sharper turns than the average skier, you are better off and will have more fun on the softer ski, because you won't be bending the stiffer ski enough for the turns you want to make.