iain Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Has anyone here used Atomic Sugar Daddies? Obviously good for the pow but how about on the icier days? Bearable? What length do you have? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 forgot to add Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_Hutchinson Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I have skied the Tele Daddies for over a year and pretty much like 'em. I am 175lbs and ski the 183cm which is about perfect, in no way too big (came from the 10EX in 191cm). Don't ask me what the difference between the Tele Daddies and the Sugar Daddies is but I assume the Sugars are stiffer. I have heard the only difference between the alpine and tele skis in Atomic's line is a larger mounting plate but I have owned both the 10EX and TMEX and found the TMEXs softer which made a nice improvement in the flex. I love stiff skis but do not really like the way the weird carbon channels in Atomic's flex, but I am being extremely gear techie critical here (more about that later). Â Regarding your question about are they bearable on ice, the answer is HELL YEAH. All other powder boards terrify me becuase how soft and wimpy they are (Pocket Rockets flex when you even look at them). The Daddies are stable and hold an edge really well. They are actually a pretty versatile ski (not bad at all in bumps and hold speed really well) and I predict they soon will be be the around Atomic board and EXs will become the 22s of the line (replace the old names with the new names). Â My only problem with Atomics (I have owned three pairs) is the flex is not very "round" (which is more important when I am skiing tele) and, because of the carbon channels (or that's what I attribute it to) they will deflect more off death cookies or crud, rather than absorbing them. I think a really wood core ski does better with both flex and smoothness, but with that said, I still have not found a better fat board, especially when it comes to hard conditions. Â I have never seen the conditions that I have not needed to hold an edge someone on a run. Yes, I'm talking Alta on a 30" day: there are still plently of groomers, cat tracks and bumps you need to cross to get back to the lift. Â Bottom line - if I had to buy a fat ski today, and I wanted a versatile ski, the Daddies would still be my first choice. If I were lighter, less aggressive, or wanted a true powder, quiver board, I might look elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 great post, thanks for all the info. I am coming off 3 years on the 184 r:ex, similar to the 10ex/tmex. Looks like I should check these out. Atomic offers them w/o the stupid mounting plate now, fortunately. Amazing how the r:ex ski has become mid-fat somehow. Pretty soon we will have snowboards on each foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Fisher Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Sierra trading post has the Teledaddies right now for $300. I just ordered a pair of 173s. I was looking into the Janaks but decided I could live with last year's model to save a couple hundred bucks. It doesn't look like they have the 183s though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Here's my 2 cents: Â The sugar daddies make an alright ski for firmer conditions (compared to other fat skis), and good for touring since they're pretty light for their size. If you're going to be skiing in-bounds a lot, I would recommend either Volkl explosives, or some K2 offerring (AK launchers), or Rossi XXX. These skis are a little stiffer, and more importantly way more torsionally stiff and will ski the pants off the sugar daddies in mixed ice/firm/powder conditions. The Volkls in particular are an awesome all-around ski, super durable, maybe a little heavy for touring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloggo Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 This is officially the first time I've ever heard anyone say that K2 or Rossi skis are stiffer than Atomics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldHouseMan Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 I have the Atomic Telle Daddies, got them last year. In firm to soft conditions they are great. But in firm to icy conditions they are a lot of work. 99 under foot is a big ski to get up on an edge in icy conditions. Besides, they are a powder ski and that is where they will shine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Crash Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Don't complain... I have some 118 waisted skis that really are tough on icy conditions  RE: the topic: the Daddys are awesome skis, and ski like they are much lighter than they are. They're going to be a pain on frozen stuff though. Anything else: they rock.  I am actually looking at skinnier skis for bc. Am I the only one? Looks like everybody's going for the 100mm waist or beyond. But then I want these skis for ski mountaineering, so different use.  drC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulB Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I am actually looking at skinnier skis for bc. Am I the only one? Looks like everybody's going for the 100mm waist or beyond. But then I want these skis for ski mountaineering, so different use. I just put together a tele setup with 78mm skis because I don't want to do multiday tours on my 88mm skis. The fat skis are fun for day tours and hut trips, but not so fun for long slogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.