AT Setup - Havoc vs. Pocket Rocket

[Climzalot]

Any Thoughts for a fatty AT setup?

[Trav]

Pocket seems better because it is not as stiff as the havoc. However the pocket rocket is stiff enough under foot for good control.

[thelawgoddess]

i personally wouldn't go for either of those skis. i have skied them both. but it really depends on you - what kind of skier you are, what you're going to be skiing, what kind of ski you like ... etc.

[cracked]

Tele skiers call the PR soft, go figure.

[iain]

Skins might stay on the Havoc a little better as the tail is not as turned up. You will be spraying your friends with a roostertail of snow with the Pocket Rockets. Man those BD skis are expensive. I'd rather have some Atomic Sugar Daddies if I'm already laying down that kind of dough.

[cj001f]

Pocket seems better because it is not as stiff as the havoc.

I wasn't aware soft was a good thing in a ski.

[savaiusini]

For a fatty BC rig, I use the Rossignol B3 with freerides...waaay more stability than the PR. I own PRs as an alpine rig and like them alot, in fact they are my primary ski when at a ski area or lift served BC. The thing you will want to be careful about with the PRs is this: they don't have much stability at speed, they LOVE TO TURN!!!

So, depending on your skiing style, you'll either love them or hate them! The B3 is a solid ski! If you like big fast swoopers, you should check them out.

Here's to the coming season

[thelawgoddess]

Pocket seems better because it is not as stiff as the havoc.

I wasn't aware soft was a good thing in a ski.

 

some people like soft skis. i'm not sure why. i would think they'd only be "nice" in superlight pow, and even then i wouldn't be convinced. (i like a little more backbone myself.) i really think the pr is overrated, but you sure see a lot of people skiing them at resorts.

 

i haven't skied the sugar daddy. the tele daddy rocks, though! atomics on the whole are pretty sweet skis. they are solid and still energetic. i would definitely go there ...

 

[edit: on second thought, that's not what i meant to write. i meant that VOLKLS on the whole are pretty sweet skis ... (i got a little confused about the brands.) while i did think that atomic's tele daddy rocked, it is basically only good for one thing - and i wouldn't go there for a single set-up.]

Edited September 22, 2004 by thelawgoddess

[Sloggo]

Atomic makes BD skis, so I can't imagine there's any big difference in models with similar dimensions. I've been eyeing the Havocs, too (lots of good reviews at ttips), and am wondering if there are other fattish boards out there that are in the same weight range (8 pds +/-) that aren't noodles. Also, is there anywhere you can demo Havocs or other tele-type gear with AT bindings in WA?

[cj001f]

and am wondering if there are other fattish boards out there that are in the same weight range (8 pds +/-) that aren't noodles.

 

www.dbskis.com

 

Fat, Light, and not noodly (by all the reviews).

[Sloggo]

Those Surreals look fahq'n sweet, but they better for $800.

[JoshK]

Check out weights, that makes a big difference in the BC. You are going up 10x more than down.

[Sloggo]

i personally wouldn't go for either of those skis. i have skied them both. but it really depends on you - what kind of skier you are, what you're going to be skiing, what kind of ski you like ... etc.

Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the Havocs?

[thelawgoddess]

Atomic makes BD skis, so I can't imagine there's any big difference in models with similar dimensions.

 

you're right - i edited my previous post. i was thinking of volkls when i said atomics. (except for the tele daddy, of course.)

 

Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the Havocs?

 

i'm not in any way saying the havocs are bad skis; they just didn't make *me* ooh and aah. other people love them. (snoboy? ) they were too damp for me. i generally like a ski with more energy. k2's for instance. (i am also smaller than most guy skiers and unisex skis my size tend to ski stiffer.)

[neversummer]

you're right - i edited my previous post. i was thinking of volkls when i said atomics. (except for the tele daddy, of course.)

 

 

You were starting to worry me there TLG... Atomics what? Can't go wrong with a Volkl.

[Dr_Crash]

You were starting to worry me there TLG... Atomics what? Can't go wrong with a Volkl.

 

My AT setup is 188 cm Volkl G4 plus Alpine Trekkers and alpine boots. It rocks on the downhill and what doesn't kill me uphill makes me stronger

 

This said, the R:Ex is supposed to be a great similar ski (look at the dimensions) for AT because it's lighter. And the Sugar Daddy (Tele Daddy) is sweeeet. Of course, being a wood core snob, I'll stick to my Volkl until I can get my dirty paws on some Shuksan at a cheap price, or fork olver the big money for DB skis...

 

drC

 

fixed the quotes

Edited September 22, 2004 by snoboy

[thelawgoddess]

i was trying to avoid saying "wood" ... but i'm totally in that camp. my current at setup consists of naxo bindings on dynastar little big fat skis. (and for tele i have targa bindings on k2 public enemies.) not that wood is the be-all end-all, though - rossi's b2 and b3 also ski too damp for me.

 

ps - there are some havocs and tele daddies and whatnot on evogear.com ...

[kdewit]

I did a lot of research and demo of AT gear last year, and what I purchased totally rocks!

Atomic TM:EX, dynafit comfort binding, Garmont Mega Ride Boot.

Totally light, lighter thatn my lightweight tele gear, fat, fast, awesome for climbing, sweet in pow and crud. I took these out for a test at the resort and it was like Alpine-lite. Skied all the normal drops, chutes, trees, pow, and even bumps. Great in the bc, light and durable. The skinning is superior to my tele, and the boots have a walking mode that is great.

I also tried K2 Shuksan, Rossi T3, and researched others. This was the standout. Snappy and a great shape. kd

[Gaper_Jeffy]

Atomic makes BD skis, so I can't imagine there's any big difference in models with similar dimensions.

 

Uh that's not correct. While an Atomic factory manufactures BD skis to BD's specifications, their skis definitely do not use the same construction as Atomic skis. Atomic uses the Beta construction (which they purportedly refuse to license) in their high-end skis, while BD uses "torsion bow" construction.

 

If you're thinking about the Havoc then also consider the Atomic TM:EX (aka R:EX, 10EX, and M:EX). Their dimensions are almost identical and for primarily resort use I'd consider Atomic well before BD. In the same category of ski the only factor BD has over Atomics is less weight. Performance wise--in my experience (I own both Miras and 10EXs)--BD skis are relatively inferior.

[cj001f]

Uh that's not correct. While an Atomic factory manufactures BD skis to BD's specifications, their skis definitely do not use the same construction as Atomic skis. Atomic uses the Beta construction (which they purportedly refuse to license) in their high-end skis, while BD uses "torsion bow" construction.

 

That's the distinction someone from marketing would make.

 

The beta "technology" is based, best I can tell, around a patent titled "Ski with a profiled top" (patent 5366234) which describes a ski with a...profiled top because of varying the thickness of the core and an intermediate layer. If you look on Atomics website, their description of the Beta technology matches this patent. I'm no lawyer but the wording seems broad enough to cover the "Torsion Bow Technology"

 

Both Atomic Beta Skis and BD Torsion Bow skis have the same design characteristics (externally) - long ribs with a curving shape. They are made in the same factory. You be the judge.

[Gaper_Jeffy]

Anyone have pairs of TM:Exs and Havocs we can cut in half?

[Climzalot]

Right on guys. Thanks for the dialog. Very helpful and informative.

 

I think I am leaning towards the Havoc for a couple of reasons. The stiffness, weight, and the price. I can get the Havocs for significantly cheaper than the PR's and I haven't really heard overwhelming support for the PR's making the extra expense worth it. I hadn't looked into the Atomic's. Great. Just when I thought the decision was cut and dried. Sounds like they might be close to the same in design and weight anyhow right?

 

I have an inbounds set up that works well and I am pretty much only going to be using these guys off the beaten path.

 

Thanks again.

[Timcb]

i haven't skied the sugar daddy. the tele daddy rocks, though! atomics on the whole are pretty sweet skis. they are solid and still energetic. i would definitely go there ...

 

[edit: on second thought, that's not what i meant to write. i meant that VOLKLS on the whole are pretty sweet skis ... (i got a little confused about the brands.) while i did think that atomic's tele daddy rocked, it is basically only good for one thing - and i wouldn't go there for a single set-up.]

 

TLG- So I'm seeing both Atomic TM:RXs and Teledaddys on Sierra Trading Post, and hearing good things from you all. So the teledaddys are great skis, but you wouldn't want them as your only setup? Is that cause they're too fat and you'd only want them for the powder? I'm sort of a noob when it comes to AT, so excuse the obvious questions, but it looks like maybe they wouldn't tour very well.

 

How do the TM:RXs differ from the TM:EXs? The TM:RXs look pretty sweet- real light for certain. I've only skied BD's Crossbows and liked them, but now I'm looking to buy.

[pete_a]

Tim- don't confuse the 'RX's with any ski from Atomic that ends in 'EX'. they are different shapes entirely.

the 'RX's are the on-piste, groomer ski, pretty narrow waist....the 'EX' (10:ex, R:ex, TM:ex) are all 84mm in the waist and atomic's all-mountain/powder stick shape.

[thelawgoddess]

yeah, the teledaddies are 99mm under foot - that's fat. gonna make busting trail quite some bit of work. they are really a pow ski. if you're only going to ski pow, go for it. if you're going to ski other stuff, too, and only want one ski, i would definitely get something more well-rounded. my opinion.

 

i don't believe i've skied the tmex or the tm rx, but here's what i would think ...

 

the atomic tm:rx is a bit narrow for around here. (64mm under foot?!?!) it would be good for skiing hardpacked groomers perhaps but once it gets deep you're gonna be working way too hard. would probably be pretty light, though - don't know the weight stats. i'm not saying narrow won't work for bc stuff. i demo'ed some volkl mountain norbert joos on a big pow day that are only 70mm under foot and i would definitely buy those if i could find them for cheap. (please pm me if you find some!!!) imho, the norbert joos is a wicked ski. (volkls really do rock.)

 

the tmex is a mid-fat. (84mm under foot.) the crossbow is 82mm under foot so the tmex is going to be the closest to the crossbow out of those 3 atomic skis. i can't remember if i've skied it and can't really tell you much else. mid-fats are good all-around skis if you can only have one set-up. again, my opinion ...