Atomic Elysians vs Armada TSTw (or Blog vs TST)

[Sara Perman]

Hi there,

I'm wondering if anyone has had experience on the two aforementioned skis- the Atomic Elysians, and the Armada TSTws. They are both really intriguing and I'm curious how much differently they react in different conditions.

I'm also actually considering their male counterparts- the Blogs and the TSTs- because they are slightly larger, and in some cases the graphics are better.

What I know so far:
The Elysian/Blogs are twin tips and have tip and tail rocker, whereas the TSTw/TST have flat tails. Does this give the Armada's more overall stability? How do the skis compare if you land a little backseat?
I'm also curious as to lengths- I'm 5'3" and I own last years JJs and stupidly purchased a 165 cm ski because I thought it would be much longer than my 159 Line Celebrities (bad decision because so much rocker cut down on my edge length way too much and I lost so much carving ability because of it). If I was going to do it again I would go with the 174 JJs. I know the Blog has a similar tip/tail profile so I wonder if a 177 is better than a 168. The TSTw with the flat tail should ski longer- but the 165s were so short- I mean SO short- that I'm worried I might need to go up anyways.

Thoughts?

Feedback would be AWESOME! Thanks!

 

[mustski]

I haven't skied either of those skis, but I did want to say WELCOME! The general rule with a rocker ski is go up one size from your carver ski. It gets a little crazy because different companies list their sizes differently. If you can't demo, assume that a tip AND tail rocker will generally ski shorter (edge wise) than one that is tip rocker only. With the Atomics, you will need to go with the Blogs if you want longer than 168 whereas the TSTw comes in a 174 (?). The problem I see is that the Blogs have a much fatter waist than the Elysian or the TSTw so I am not sure that they are really comparable. I have heard a lot of great feedback on the Armada TSTws, but I am sure other divas with experience with these two lines of skis will chime in soon.

 

[Sara Perman]

Thanks! I guess I didn't do my research as well as I thought (oops Blogs ≠ Elysians).

I'm basically trying to find a good backcountry setup, so I really want something light that can handle deep snow, but also has some good handling capabilities for windblown crust and crud. I've been leaning towards the TSTs for a while (I really prefer the mens' graphics to the womens') because they have a tighter turning radius than the Atomics and I like the idea of more edge length/control on a flat tailed ski. That being said everyone I know on the Blog also swears by it and uses it freely in the bc.

If I remember correctly an Armada rep told me once that the TST is their lightest ski and he recommended it the most for the backcountry out of their entire line up.

Any preferences between twin-tips and flat tails in the back-country?

Another driving factor is price. The Blog and the Elysians are definitely more affordable.

PS- any way to change your user name? I don't necessarily love having my whole name visible.

 

[SnowHot]

Apples and oranges.

The Elysian and the TST are very different skis. The Elysian is a great(actually really great) all mountain ski with a strong off piste bias, and some nice behavior in powder, while the TST is more of a powder ski that has some all mountain properties.

 

[shima]

I *love* my TSTw's on powder and soft snow days! I've never tried the Elysian to compare though. I only use my Kenja's instead of the TST's on hardpack groomer days, otherwise I always go for the TSTw's, they just lovely to handle. I don't ski any back country though. Just on/off piste places I get to from trails following Daria and SnowHot around usually

 

[Sara Perman]

Awesome, I've done a little bit of skiing in Tahoe for the last two seasons- and I love it. I had an unbelievable day at Alpine two seasons ago, and my only regret was that my current ski didn't have a wider shovel to keep me afloat because it was a HUGE dump. My quads were dying for the rest of the week, but it was totally worth it.

I think at this point I'm honestly more stuck between the Blog and the TSTw. The Blog is a full twin-tip and skis short so I'm thinking about the 177. I'm torn because its' turning radius is honestly just not that good in comparison to the TST/TSTw and the reviews for the TSTw are great across the board. I haven't heard much about the Blog other than from a few friends of mine who ski them. They appear to be hard chargers with some room for playfulness, and in the longer length carving seems to be decent- but I'm just not convinced they are as close to being the "one ski quiver" as the TSTw. Also I want to primarily focus on backcountry this year and mount a pair of Marker f'10s and I'd really prefer the lighter ski. One question with that: Does having a twin tip vs a flat tail make a huge difference on the ascent/hike? Which is better?

I guess my mind is pretty made up to which I prefer, but the Blogs are cheaper and I'm wondering how much I would be missing out on if I opted for them instead due to price.

 

[SnowHot]

Here is a video claiming the Blog is a one ski quiver, but (even though I live in Tahoe) I still have a hard time believing that anything with this kind of rocker and 110mm waist is a good one ski quiver. I still like to have a groomer ski to balance things out.

 

[shima]

I personally think you need to demo both of your top picks before you buy either. "skiing is believing"!

 

[Sara Perman]

Hey! I grew up skiing with his little brother Travis! That's awesome..

I probably wont get the opportunity to demo them until December, but I'll do my best. In the meantime let me know if you get the chance to try out the two. I'm thinking about replacing my too-short JJs with a correctly fitting pair of last years Blogs which are significantly cheaper than buying either a new TST or Blog

 

[Sara Perman]

Back to the board!

I bit the bullet and bought a pair of Blogs, and I LOVED them. I bought the 177, and they are phenomenal. I've had a great time in chop, powder, and because they are long, even groomers and ice and completely manageable.

All that being said, they are heavy, and it quickly became obvious that I wasn't going to take those in the backcountry. I took my barons off my 165 JJs- sold the skis, and mounted the barons on the blogs to be used as a strictly inbound ski.

Then last fall I was at an pre-season blow out sale and found an unused pair of 171 Atomic Access skis for under $200 and I had to jump on them. In shape they looked almost identical to the TSTw. I mounted a pair of Marker F-10s on them and used them a bit in the backcountry. After a week trip skiing out of a hut I decided that while I like the skis, I wasn't in love and the bindings were really making bc skiing tough. I've since lined up a friend who wants to buy them and it's been back to the drawing board.

I decided on a late night whim last week to finally cave and get the TSTw. They didn't have the 165 in the year/price range I was looking for so I bought the 174. (Thought process: If I can ski the 171 access and the 177 Blog, then 174 shouldn't be too crazy right?) I decided to mount a set of Dynafit TLT Radical ST bindings on them. Here begins my most recent concundrum- the mounter (and bf) mounted one ski backwards (...) I can't just remove the bindings, flip the ski and remount because the current holes are too close (<1cm) from where the new ones will need to be. Instead I have to shift the mount position either forwards or backwards. I called my favorite shop and they suggested 1-2 cm backwards since I can afford that room (I'm 5'3"). My question now is if anyone has played with the mount position on their TSTws and has any feedback.


Thanks a million!

Pray for snow!

 

[Sara Perman]

This is the ski quiver pre-binding massacre :(

The trend for me has definitely to go long.

 

[DeweySki]

Hi @Sara Perman! I don't have anything to offer on the mounting conundrum, but just wanted to chime in here to see how you like the TSTs (if you've had the chance to ski them). I am currently on the Line Celebrity 90s @ 158 as well, and looking for a more powder specific ski, so I'm super interested! I came THISCLOSE to buying a 2-seasons-old pair of the TSTw's in a 174 today at a ski expo for a great price but freaked out because of the size. It sounds like that's the right size though. The fact that the turn radius is similar is also appealing. This was compounded by the fact that I was talking to an Armada rep...but the Solomon rep has also recommend them, so maybe they're on to something. Anyways, please keep us posted!

 

[bounceswoosh]

Hi @Sara Perman! I don't have anything to offer on the mounting conundrum, but just wanted to chime in here to see how you like the TSTs (if you've had the chance to ski them). I am currently on the Line Celebrity 90s @ 158 as well, and looking for a more powder specific ski, so I'm super interested! I came THISCLOSE to buying a 2-seasons-old pair of the TSTw's in a 174 today at a ski expo for a great price but freaked out because of the size. It sounds like that's the right size though. The fact that the turn radius is similar is also appealing. This was compounded by the fact that I was talking to an Armada rep...but the Solomon rep has also recommend them, so maybe they're on to something. Anyways, please keep us posted!

It's a bummer they don't still make the Celebrity 100s. I loved those skis. The Soulmate 98 is supposed to be its successor; I haven't skied it to say, but I'd imagine it's pretty darn nice.

 

[lynseyf]

I'm not an expert on this at all but have read before that people with small feet often benefit from having the mount a little forward, I'm guessing since you are 5'3 you have pretty small feet so if anything I would go forward. What did your shop mean by "since I can afford that room (I'm 5'3")"?

 

[bounceswoosh]

I'm guessing since you are 5'3 you have pretty small feet

I'm not sure that follows. I'm 5'5 with size 10 (42ish Euro sizes) feet.

 

[Xinga]

I just put a couple of early season days on my new 2015 TSTw 165s. Overall positive impression. Compared to my VJJs (also 165) and my Ski Logik Goddess TTs (short 157), they do not feel as nimble, but held an edge well in the hardpack man-made snow. It took me a day to feel like I could turn as quick on them as the other two pairs, but I was also using brand new boots too, which adds significant confusion to the cause. I am still unsure if I'm going to like the TSTs in the bumps due to the perceived lack of nimbleness. 5'5" foot size 8, 170 lbs for reference. I was looking for something that skied hard pack better than my VJJs, so in that sense, I am happy.

 

[lynseyf]

I'm not sure that follows. I'm 5'5 with size 10 (42ish Euro sizes) feet.

Actually I should know this as one of my friends is 5'2 and a size 40-41

 

[snow addict]

I had TST for couple seasons - they are identical bar the graphics to TSTw, at least they were when I bought them in February 2012. I really liked the skis, very maneuverable, great in bumps and powder and good on hard pack. I screwed them by changing bindings to Fritschis - they became fairly horrible on hard pack and lost versatility. I already had powder skis so I sold them after I got a new touring rig with tech bindings. TST's don't have flat tails, it's a twin even that the tail is not rockered.