2013-2014 Atomic Automatic, 193cm

Will Brown

Boots / Bindings: Salomon Falcon Pro CS / Atomic NR ffg 12

Mount Location: Factory Recommended Line

Test Locations: Alta Ski Area

Days Skied: 2

As Jonathan mentions above, I haven’t skied the 186cm Automatic, and my time on the 193cm was in primarily steep, tight terrain around Eagle’s Nest at Alta. With that relatively limited experience, here are my thoughts…

I can’t think of many reasons you’d really want to have 193cm of material to swing around down a narrow chute, and with that in mind, I was a little unsure about diving into Eagle’s Nest on the 193cm, expecting it to be a hassle. Sure enough, with respect to the physical length of the ski, I did find myself thinking that I would have rather been on a shorter version in that particular situation. Jonathan (and Joe below) both talk about the 186’s super quick, easy feel, and in hindsight, that probably would have been nice to have. Sometimes the material in the rockered tip of the 193 would get a bit caught up against the steep banks of moguls / troughs that had formed in the chutes, but really that could have been the case with pretty much any ski this size.

In the variable, firmed-up snow we were skiing, to me it seemed like the general shape of the Automatic was more important to the way it affected the ski’s handling than its length. In certain ways, the Automatic’s dimensions helped me manage its size. Yes, sometimes the shovel of the 193 felt difficult to fit around trees and moguls, but so long as I had enough space to pivot the ski, I was easily able to do so.

At low speeds in the steep terrain, the 193 felt surprisingly quick—I didn’t feel like I had to fight to haul the weight of the ski around, I just needed to be somewhat deliberate with my turns. Why? I have to think this was due largely to the ski’s 20m sidecut radius—that’s pretty tight for a 193cm, 117mm-underfoot ski.

Whatever the case may be, the 193 was pretty tolerable through those quick turns. I could count on being able to get the ski back and forth across the fall-line when I needed to—the shovel swung around quickly, and the tail never felt like it was hanging up behind me.

However, I found this relatively nimble feel to have its tradeoffs. When I made more aggressively edged, hard-set turns in the steeps that put much more force on the whole length of the ski, the shovels would sometimes catch and bite, quickly pulling uphill while the tails washed out and felt like they were dropping down the fall-line behind me. I didn’t feel like I could trust the Automatic if I needed to shut down speed fast or make a hard slarve turn in variable conditions.

I happened to spend a few runs prior in the same terrain on the 190cm Moment Bibby Pro. The Bibby has less sidecut than the Automatic (so it has a longer 26.5m radius) and a little less taper from tip to tail (the widest point of the Bibby’s tail is closer to that of it its tip). The Automatic was definitely easier to move around in the trees and tight chutes, but the heavier-feeling Bibby seemed significantly more stable and predictable when it came to those more aggressive turns in the variable snow.

This wasn’t news to me. In his review of the 186cm Automatic, Jonathan has this to say about the Bibby vs. the Automatic:

“For those of you who think that the Bibby Pro might be more ski than you want or need, that it might be too much work or too stiff, the 186 or 193 Automatic deserve a very serious look.

“The 190 (and 184) Bibby Pro charge harder than the Automatic, period. But the 186 Automatic feels very quick (quicker than the 190 Bibbys), predictable, and forgiving, yet still lets you stand on it a good bit. Again, not as much as the Bibby, but that might be OK with you.”

I don’t disagree, but I actually think there’s an even better case to be made for a ski that’s a slightly friendlier Bibby: the Salomon Rocker2 115. The 188cm 115 has a 21-meter radius, which is close to the Automatic’s (markedly tighter than the Bibby’s, so it’s easier to pivot around for its size), yet it has less taper from tip to tail and less tail rocker than the Automatic, so it feels more balanced and predictable  in variable conditions.

In the interest of keeping this three-man review in line, I’ll stop here with the comparisons, but if you are considering the Automatic as a powder ski to take out on more than just fresh powder days (or everyday like Joe), then you should also consider the 115. It’s a more forgiving Bibby that I find more balanced and dependable than the Automatic when the snow is chopped and firm.

But while I think the Salomon Rocker2 115 handles chop and variable conditions better than the Automatic and isn’t as demanding as the Bibby, the 115 won’t provide the same, surfy feel of the Automatic in fresh conditions—and that surfy feel may be more important to some folks than the differences in the skis’ crud performance.

In the end, it probably depends largely on where you’re skiing, what type of terrain, your ability level, and what the rest of your quiver looks like (or if this ski will be your quiver of one).

NEXT: JOE HANRAHAN