Test Ski Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT

Test Ski Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT

Mini Atomic - SkiReviewer

 

The Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT is Atomic’s interpretation of how a brand should build a pair of race skis to satisfy all kinds of race skiers. It’s never an easy endeavour, and at the end of the day the result can be wonderful or a nonsense failure. However, if intelligence persists there are chances to succeed.

Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT © ATOMIC Austria GmbH

Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT
© ATOMIC Austria GmbH

This ski is only built in one size. And everyone knows the “one size fits all” rule is a failure. The Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT is 175cm long for everyone. A shorter size could have resulted on a short turn ski, which was not the original idea. A longer one could have resulted in a no go for most skiers since not many modern skiers are able to handle long “narrow” skis. However, they could have gone for a two size offering although they have not. Economical and technical reasons could be found behind that decision since the difference sizing could have resulted in two different molds, increasing production costs. And everyone in this industry is trying to make some money.

The skis profile has the race pedigree with quite narrow dimensions of just 65mm under the foot. It is clear enough maneuverability was in Atomic’s designers minds when they were drawing the Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT. Beyond that all the skiers I’ve talked about the Redster range claim the same: the shovels easily come into the new turn. The tail’s shape looks more agressive than the GS model, and that’s because this ski is designed with carved clean turns at any speed in mind.

The technologies in the Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT are the Powercore Cap, the Ramp Tech and the Tappered Sidewall. There is not much to say about a cap construction method. Some claim it’s crap, some others talk about it like if it was a miracle. All depends on what’s inside. And Atomic has always made good products although quite often they have shown a preference on chemistry, using injection instead of using a proper combination of woods or even well engineered synthetic cores. The RAMP technology consists in elevating the heel in relation to the toes and finally obtaining a ramp up to 10 degrees, as it has been already explained in the Atomic Race overall article. Atomic thinks it is a good idea and they have done it with good intentions. I think it is a bad idea since that kind of cheating won’t really help the end user.

Now, the bullet. This is what Atomic states about the Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT: “With its 65.5 millimeter waist and a 15.5 meter radius, the Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT is super agile even at top speeds and a perfect blend of GS and SL performance features. The perfect ski for amateur racing or coach level.” The verdict is: This is false. Amateur racing has two other models to choose from in this very range which are called GS and SL respectively. And a coach won’t ever use the Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT as a ski to ride with. Coachers quite often use skis as a transport method. If they want to ski they take the real good ones, not the cheaters.

This post is also available in Versión en Español.

Albert Valbuena - English (84 Posts)

My name is Albert and I am from Barcelona. I started skiing when I was 10. At the age of 32 I started this project called Ski Reviewer after having been professionally involved into the skiing world since 1999. I started from the bottom but after several years of dedication and hard training I achieved the official Ski Instructor Certification (ISIA certified) in 2006 at ETEVA. From then on I spent several seasons as an instructor as well as a kid's trainer in the local club. I was also a member at the core team in the ski resort for racing and events management. That period ended on 2011 and now on 2014 I've started Ski Reviewer.


by

14 comments on “Test Ski Atomic Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT

  1. Adi says:

    Did you actually skied with those skies, because this review doesn’t say much about the good/bad sides of the ski while really using it on slopes?

    • Albert says:

      Hi Adi,

      The quick answer would be “yes”, but even if it was “No” both answers would be incomplete. I’ll explain…

      Actually, there’s a brief comment in the review on how it behaves and even how other people feel about it. Yes, that’s an admittedly brief comment there. The thing is, we want our SkiReviewer tests/reviews to give some information and technical details that we know aren’t found in other places. Sometimes that means that we don’t repeat some empty words that we read over and over across the Internet: “great”, “fast”, “cool”… Those words can be truly honest, but when they are repeated again and again from one ski to another, we feel that the reader is left with a bunch of adjectives and no real information.

      That said, we could throw some catchy words at every ski we cover, but most times you will feel something completely different of what I or another user may feel. Obviously it will depend on our skills, shape and experience, but it’s also a matter of taste. When we started SkiReviewer, we decided to give as much information as we can and some guidelines as to how things work, who is that particular ski aimed for, etc.

      In fact, we expect to see what you readers have to say about all the skis we cover. It would be really great to see what actual users/owners of any particular ski have to say about it.

  2. Charliecalderwood says:

    this is not a review, you morons. It is the sales pitch from the manufacturers website. Get off your fat arses and go ski the damned things.

    • Albert says:

      The last thing we thought somebody could say about us is that we just repeat “the sales pitch” from any brand. Of course, being called “morons” is not the last thing we thought we could see. Let’s pick some of the article’s points:

      everyone knows the “one size fits all” rule is a failure
      However, they could have gone for a two size offering although they have not. Economical and technical reasons could be found behind that decision
      There is not much to say about a cap construction method. Some claim is crap
      I think it is a bad idea since that kind of cheating won’t really help the end user.
      This is what Atomic states about the Redster Doubledeck 3.0 XT: ……. The verdict is: This is false.

      Charles, honey, could you tell me where these five points above can be found on the Atomic’s pitch sales? I doubt you can find such comments on any other website with serious ski reviews.

      And one last question: how moron is someone who needs to call a review author “moron” on his first comment? Please, get some education and be nice to other people. This is our first and last warning on this matter to you. You won’t be allowed to comment here again if you can’t be more polite.

  3. Charliecalderwood says:

    You talk a lot of nonsense my friend. We all want to know if this ski is good and what type of skier would benefit from it. Also why it is good or bad. You use a lot of words to say nothing. 5 minutes of my time wasted. Thanks.

    • Albert says:

      Only 6 minutes later you’ve been able to reply without insulting… congratulations, in just two hours you’ll get the Nobel Prize on Quantum Physics, man.

      It seems you still don’t like our review. Well, maybe you could help by pointing us to some article, test or review where the author dares to say things how they are -like us- on the technical side and without repeating what the Atomic’s website says.

      Maybe you could try to re-read our review, perhaps you’ll discover that your questions are already answered. Or maybe you have some comprehension issues.

      • Fero says:

        So the verdict is ??? Would like to know, how do they real behave on the piste…

        • Albert says:

          Easy: we don’t like them.

          Better options out there. And there’s the big problem pointed out on the review: Atomic knows better about the things a brand should not do. We think we said it crystal clear on the article. We may be wrong, of course (on that being clear, I mean)…

          EDIT: I forgot to add: better options even in Atomic’s own Race range. This was also on the article for all to see.

  4. Steve says:

    I skied this ski yesterday (3/1/15). First, all ski manufactures hype their products. That’s not a crime. But you do have to read between the lines. In talking to the rep the ski is a cheater skis for “beer league” or NASTAR racers. To me, that means it’s a ski you can use before and after the race. No need to bring your all mtn ski and a race ski to the mountain. I’d call this a high performance front side ski. It does everything a ski of this caliber is made for. Carves very smoothly. Holds very well, does not wash out in very hard/hip leaning turns. Initiates/exits turns very well. Grips the snow but does not require a lot of work to change edge. It’s well balanced, a bit on the heavy side in my opinion but I don’t find that as a fault at all. Just an observation for those that think weight is everything. It’s well damped but not dead. Good rebound out of a turn, ski engages the next turn smoothly even when putting max pressure on it. I found it torsionally firm which gives it it’s holding power. Over all flex seemed on the firm side (subjective observation). So long story short I liked it. True Atomic has a line of Race skis, for “real racers”. If I was a real racer I’d be looking at the Race line. This ski in trying to fill a niche. The ones size fits all is always false. I don’t think they intended for that to be the case. But it probably fills the needs for that part-time racer. I hope the price comes down.

  5. Ondra says:

    This is mix of GS+SL. I was a bit sceptical, how someone could combine these very different skies. But it is works! Not for all, but for those who love speed in any curve. This was my favorite within large ski test. As Steve wrote, I guess, this it perfect for part-time racers. Albert is far away alone with its opinion, god knows, if he even tryied XT. One size is not a nonsens. How you can combine SL with 12-13m and GS 17-19m? It has to be somewhere in the middle. And how you can do this with different lenghts? You can, but it cannot be profitable, keep in mind, this is business.

    • Albert says:

      Hello Ondra,

      I am glad to hear from others with a different view. I get your point perfectly about the “one size fits all, it has to be somewhere in the middle” thing. I share this view but that falls short to cover everyone. Some individuals are just very heavy and tall, so this “one size” can fall short for them. Quite the contrary to some skinny super light skiers, such as many ladies. It is quite strange that some models have four-five sizes and two of them are somehow well on the extremes. This model ought to be a popular one, so why just building it in one size? Costs? That could be an explanation as you have pointed out. Maybe it’s success has been a surprise for Atomic too.

      Anyway, I just want to thank you to share your view here. Thanks for sharing.

      Best regards.

  6. Stephen says:

    I tried these skis late last year (Dec 2014) and I thought they were fantastic. And that could be because I’m probably Atomic’s target audience for this ski. I’m an excellent skier. I don’t race, but I ski like a racer (since I grew up skiing with racers so one tends to learn!), which is to say I arc (carve) my turns on the hard-pack and generally know what I’m doing. I’ll make SL turns one run, and then want to open it up GS style on the next. I spend 90% of my ski time on hard-pack, Eastern Canada (ie, cold) conditions. I only need/want (my wife keeps trying to explain to me the difference, but I digress!) one ski for this terrain, and this Atomic ski is it. I’m currently on Salomon XWing Tornados, and the XT blows that ski out of the water. I can’t offer as much detail description as Steve above, but if you’re an excellent skier, and looking for a high performance ski that can cover a lot of ground, I would recommend this one. (And if I could find one now for a decent price, I’d buy it. $1200 was pretty steep at the beginning of the season.)

  7. Carlo says:

    Some time has passed now but I have to agree with most of the comments out here:
    – I also suggest you say how the skis actually behave, rather than (arrogantly?) quoting and destroying the factory description…
    – of course they are not proper racing skis, the radius is a lot lower than what’s allowed in races!! they are for a racer that wants to have fun outside of the poles, which is my case and why I was reading this review
    – they actually did the 182cm now :). there is a point in the one size fits all strategy, which is why most ski shop managers I spoke to said that now that the 182 is out everyone still buys the 175
    – I find the comments on the technologies interesting though, so keep doing that!
    Cheers

  8. Lewtus says:

    I wanted an all around race ski and these seemed to fit the bill. I weigh 245 6-3″ and race bikes.. Track TT and sprints and have skied many years. I did not like these at first., or third try… After that I figured them out more.. You need a very neutral stance all the time and they hate soft crud and powder.. The are stiff in tail and bumps with my weight
    Not a light ski áll but really shine at speed hard pack and ice short and wide arcing turns
    Was reluctant to go fast on them but as they broke in and I got used to them I was seeing 65-70mph on groomers.,. Don’t try on bumps! Lot of work on any form of powder and bumps. Leave then home those days. I bring two pairs and live in Colorado… Reviews were hard to find on these so wanted to add how they do. On snow! Overall they are growing on me and very damp, solid stable and edge grip…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *