After four incredible years, my Fischer Atuas are nearing end of life. The camber is fading fast and when pressed together, the tips resemble a rocker-rocker ski despite originally having full camber and no rocker. One ski has a noticeably different profile.
My 2007 Atuas were demo skis that I purchased on the cheap. They extend the tape measure 186cm with a 129-96-119 sidecut and a 22m radius. Construction includes a full sandwich sidewall and a wood core without metal. They are my current natural snow and powder skis for the lifts. And I love them dearly, though I despise the non-turntable Look PX12 binding.
A suitable replacement would also be a non-metal wood core ski featuring similar sidecut and radius. A little fatter would be acceptable, a little skinnier would not. I wanted to give rocker a try but I was skeptical. Full tip to tail rocker is out of the question as skiing hard pack in between tree runs is a daily necessity. Thus, camber was also important. My first selection was Fischer’s Watea series but the son of the Atua was entirely different in design, style, and function with ski lengths inappropriate for my needs.
Enter the Atomic Theory in 186cm. With a 132-95-121 sidecut, 20m radius, and a non-metal wood core, this ski nearly matches the specs of the Atua give or take a millimeter or two here and there. The sidewall is a cap/sandwich hybrid (Atomic calls this “Step Down 3L Sidewall Construction”) similar to my Dynastar Legend 8000s with a sidewall underfoot and cap construction on the tip and tail. The ski has camber underfoot and “Adaptive Rocker” up front. Significantly lighter than my Fischer Atuas, I was concerned that my bulk might over power the ski.
Before beginning the review proper, I will preference my opinion with a description of myself, my skiing habits, and my preferences. I am 33 years old tipping the scales at 220lbs, and topping out at 6’1″. I’ve been skiing essentially all my life with a hack racing background in high school and college, where I occasionally scored a few points when not DNF’ing.
I got off the groomers post college and aggressively took to the bumps, natural snow, trees, and powder which remain my primary haunts. If conditions are frozen hard pack, I usually don’t ski or I break out the cheater skis to rip fast arcs. I take pride in my technical combination of brute force and gracefulness. I love short “turn on a dime style” nimble turns. However, opening up big arcs in untracked powder is a rare treat that I enjoy. Essentially, I can ski anything and enjoy technical and demanding lines, tight places, and trick-free air.
Aesthetically, I enjoy the Theory’s paint job which is reminiscent of an inverse Atua (red with black highlights instead of black with red highlights). The Atomic logo is well placed on the tip but the asymmetrical placement of the broken two line Atomic name is awkward, though clearly a 2012 lineup style. The yellow line along the bottom of the sidewall is out of place, distracting, and clashes with the top sheet and base.
The squared off tip and tail look goofy to my eye which prefers a very broad and round tip/tail design. The tail is a twin though not a full one and less pronounced than my Atuas. The rocker is hardly noticeable. Much like a tavern wench after two beers, I wasn’t in love but was still looking.
But how does it ski? My demo arena was Bretton Woods on a hard pack day following a rain/freeze cycle the day before. Terrain and conditions were limited to packed powder groomers though I found a few hard pack icy mini-bumps and low angle hard pack trees to get a read on the chatter. The demo bindings were decidedly forward (but not centered) which concerned me but I soon adjusted to the placement.
The lighter weight and less burly construction as compared to my Atuas was evident. But despite the differences in construction, I immediately noticed that the Theory performed way better than the Atuas on groomed snow. Stunningly, actually. I arced turns of varying shape and style and it handled everything with aplomb. Could this be a… nah, couldn’t be. It doesn’t exist, there is no such thing.
Having been skeptical of rocker technology, I was especially surprised at the turn initiation of the Theory. Especially for tight short turns. The rocker catches the snow faster than you expect and begins the arc with confidence and authority. The hook up when the rockered edge catches the snow is fast and delightful, a short turner’s dream.
But that means that wide arcs must suffer for the short turn performance, right? Not so! This ski has amazing pop when edged and weighted in a long GS turn. You can feel the energy build underfoot as you hold the edge and weight the ski. It begs to be released but you have control to let it ride as long as you want. The pop off into the turn transition is wildly fun.
Frozen bumps and icy snow skied about as poorly as you would expect. Torsional stiffness is definitely lacking but that is to be expected. This isn’t a race ski and it isn’t going to cut into ice. But if a ski’s only shortfall is for conditions you never ski, then it isn’t really a shortfall.
To sum up the ski in a few words, I would say the Theory is lively, energetic, and nimble. It has a fun personality and can make turns of all shapes, styles, and sizes eagerly responding to user input. I couldn’t sample natural snow and powder performance but based on its hard pack performance, it should excel in those conditions. And with a name like Atomic Theory, you can’t go wrong (the ski was originally named the “Code”, the new name was a massive improvement).
My last experience with Atomic and their skis was disappointing to say the least. All the Theory reviews sounded good but a $37 insurance policy via a demo was a must considering my last experience with the brand. Consider me converted, both to Atomic as a brand and to rocker as a game changing technology. It might make skiing easier for those learning. But for those already of technically proficiency, it makes skiing more fun. Groomers haven’t captured my attention this much in years.
The Atomic Theory captures all of the qualities I love in my all mountain mid-fat Dynastar Legend 8000 while being significantly fatter and more adept at powder and natural snow (as far as I can tell, at least. Frozen rock hard bumps and groomers make it difficult to extrapolate natural snow performance). I purchased the ski following the demo and will be mounting it with Look Pivot 14 binders.
Is the Atomic Theory truly the much sought after and ever hyped quiver of one? Has my seven year love affair with the Legend 8000s come to an end? Two new pairs, one used pair, one warranty pair, and one mis-matched broken pair later, will I reduce my lift service quiver to one pair of skis?
Nah. Now I just need a fatter powder board.
13 thoughts on “Atomic Theory Review”
Nice review, I have read good things about this ski and had been thinking it would an excellent all-rounder. Personally, I like the yellow line and it will help the ski stand out out a bit in photos. An important feature for influential ski bloggers, you know 😉
Great review rivercOil, I still have yet to see anything bad written about this ski. Makes me wonder why the construction was redesigned slightly for the 2013 model. I was wondering where you would suggest binding placement for an advanced intermediate, I don’t ski bumps or trees, but would like to advance in this direction eventually with lessons, as I’ve progressed about as far as I can without. Would you suggest a completely traditional binding placement or just slightly forward? I want to to add this to my collection for primarily Powder Days, unless I love it enough for them to become my daily drivers.
Having not yet mounted and skied my pair, I can’t give any feedback regarding mounting position. I would be hesitant to make a recommendation for someone else any ways… what works for me may not work for you.
That said, the range provided on the top sheet is set very far forward, IMO. I suspect the forward most mounting point is essentially ski center for a park orientation. For myself, I am thinking about going back 0.5-1.0cm from the furthest back recommendation. Still not sure. I really wish I made a note of where my boot center was on the demo ski.
If you are just using the ski for powder and natural snow, mounting at the furthest back recommended position on this ski probably is the best option. Even the furthest back mark seems just a little too far forward to my eye.
Great review my sincere thanx. I just received a new 2013 186cm theory. I am a hack racing backrounder myself… love that! My go to ski has been a 186 atomic fis D2. I love lapping fast frontside. My oldest son is living in crested butte now for the past 3 seasons and I find myself demoing fat skis on epic pow days to stay with him and his posse… I finally decided to add an all mountain ski to the quiver… the 2013 theory. I am atomic faithful. love the product! and now if this ski lives up to it’s potential I know I will be pleased… the 2013 addition of the carbon backbone and carbon stringers on top are going to make up for the lack of torsion you noticed. My dilemma now is where to mount? I talked with Atomic tech and they advised the “factory recommendation” mark was their prefered center of boot position… It looks way forward to me. I don’t intend on skiing switch intentionally… I know the 10% rocker and twin tip on the tail removes some of the skis length… I may just pull the boot center mark back to the aft most of the 3 index marks… I do appreciate the info my friend. I will continue to hunt online for more… thanks -Mike
Mike-
Check out my latest post for an update on my mounting the Theory:
http://www.thesnowway.com/2012/08/19/simplify-simplify-simplify-2012-2013-quiver
I went 1cm behind the furthest rearward recommended point and I still don’t know if it is enough. I’ll find out this winter. The recommended points are asinine.
-Steve
Hey Steve thanks’ for getting back to me. I read said post. What is your feeling on “bof”… ball of foot target on this ski? When I calculated it out on the 186 theory I came 2.5 cm forward of the factory recommendation mark, that placed my boot mid sole 1.5 cm behind the factory recommendation mark. When I chatted with the atomicUSA techs they recommend for the 186cm theory a mark for boot midsole of 87cm from tail. That mark is 1 cm behind the factory recommendation mark… that puts the “bof’ midsole mark quite close to their recommendation. This is crazy isn’t it?… I miss the ability that I have with my raceX binding on my FIS d2’s to slide the binding forward and aft with the click of a switch! Worth the research effort however when you are about to drill new skis. Planning on using a 5/32 at 8 mil deep… water proof wood glue or gorrila glue? I would appreciate any advice. Thak you, Mike
I have no experience with BOF measurements. I researched it a while back and decided it was too complex for me to do all the measurements solo without an assist. You are on your own there. I have the shop mount them so I can’t help you there either.
All the talk of the suggested binding mounting location is spot on. The recommendations are absurdly far forward. I had the ski tech go 2 inches back vs suggested. Atomic is now admitting they goofed on this. Awesome ski though!
Atomic admitted they goofed? Is there an official press release or notification? I’d love to see it. I am glad I could contribute to the dialog about this issue and alert other skiers to carefully consider their mounting point on this ski.
I am just about wrapping up a full season on the Theory with just over 30 days on them. I am satisfied with their performance but I think I could have gone 1.5-2.0cm back from the rear most mark rather than just 1.0cm. When I eye balled it, I thought 1.0cm back was still a touch conservative but I hesitated to go more than 1.0cm behind the rear most mark when they already had a large range. I guess I should have followed my gut. But the holes would be too close to redrill so I am kinda stuck.
My biggest disappointment with the ski continues to be how easy it is to clip the tails. My last powder board, the Fischer Atua, also had a twin tip. But I never clipped my tails. These tails are too wide and flare out too much. Bumps are the biggest downfall because of this issue. I still use them as a one ski quiver, I still think they are good skis. They are better overall compared to my Atuas but I am still wanting for an Atua with hard pack performance… this ski doesn’t quite hit all the high notes. But having done my first one ski quiver in ten years, I am still satisfied enough that I’ll stick with it for another year.
First saw this ski in Outside magazine which highlighted it’s versatility and price. I’m looking to actually purchase my first pair. Looks like this is a great all-around ski which is what I’m looking for. Recommend for a first time buyer?
This is not a good ski for a first time skier to learn on. I suspect magazines do not review skis for the new and developing skier.
Thanks for the complete and honest review. I purchased a pair of the 2013 Theories at the end of last year and still need to mount bindings. I’m thinking I need them longer. I ski 185 Atomic Snoops (the old wood colored ones) and 181 Atomic Sweet Daddies. I’m 5’8″ 159 lbs and, like you, have skied all my life and am told that I’m an aggressive expert. My new Theories are 177 cm. Should I go with the 186 cm? Thinking about selling to go longer.
I really can’t tell you which size ski to purchase, it depends on so many factors. Though without knowing more of those factors, for 159lbs, I think the 177 would be a better choice than the 186. I’m 6’1″ and +220 lbs and the 186 is right for me. I ski skis as short as 178. But again, there are so many factors regarding skiing style, terrain typically skied, technique, etc. that the only way for you to know for sure is to try them both. Though you’ve had experience with longer skis in the same brand, so I don’t know. The Theory that I have has a slightly turned up tail, for what it is worth. Basically, my input ain’t worth nothing for what works for you. 🙂