2011 Atomic Access All Mountain Freeride Skis

If you are looking for a ski that not only has great versatility but also a price tag that won’t break the bank then look no further than the Atomic Access Skis. One of the best values on the market and with a 100mm waist the Atomic Access Skis are perfect for an intermediate level skier to expert level skier looking for a one ski quiver ski. Many guys have also been putting AT Bindings and Tele Bindings on the Atomic Access skis and with the forgiving flex they have really been getting great reviews. So if you are looking for a 100mm waisted ski that is versatile in all snow and terrain do not hesitate to get a pair of the Atomic Access skis for 2011.

21 Replies to “2011 Atomic Access All Mountain Freeride Skis”

  1. Tested the 171cm length. Not a huge amount of rocker so I would stay around head height. The more rocker a ski has the longer you want to get them.

  2. How do you think the Access would handle in the park? I know it’s a freeride ski so it’s not designed specifically for hitting the park. But how do you think it would fare? Landings would be pretty stable right, but how about hitting kickers? I want a ski that can handle a bit of powder but still strong on piste. I’m torn between these and the Line Blends (2011)…..

  3. These will actually do really well in the park as they have a forgiving flex. They are a true All Mountain ski however if you are looking for versatility I would have to say that the Line Blend is going to be a more versatile ski. If you want a softer flexing ski that is more forgiving then go with the 2011 version, if you want something hat will allow you to charge a little harder than go with the 2010 Line Blend.

  4. Thanks for your reply mate. Yeah, think I’m going to go with the Access. Had a look at the Blends instore; pretty cool, probably more versatile, but not a fan of the graphics, and reviews are pretty mixed. Would love last year’s but can’t find any online.

    So any suggestions on length? I can’t decide between the 171 and the 181? I see you demo’d the 171, but what weight (and height) are you? I’m 5Ft10 and 69kg. I would say I am a confident skier, probably lower end advanced. 181 would be just over head-height, think it seems a little long, but did you find it skied short (with the rocker) or anything? For example did you have any worries pushing the ski at higher speeds?


  5. Just got back from a cat skiing trip with my new Access’s. Let’s see, nice and quick in the trees, not enough girth for the bowls at 100 mm’s, but the base caved in beside the edge under foot from a possible hit, although no other evidence of impact. Before the trip, I did a few laps at my resort and found they carve a nice GS turn, don’t mind some speed, good tight line resort scrap hunter but I felt they were flimsy. Not convinced with the Step Down sidewall. She’ll probably like the Century though.

  6. The Access is a ski that will allow people to get into a wider ski for not a whole lot of money. It is certainly not a high end freeride ski but for the money it is a great ski. Perfect for lighter weight skiers especially tweener skiers. A 100mm’s for us is still too narrow but it is a great ski for people who want to bridge the gap into wider skis.

  7. I am 5’6″ and 185lbs. I would personally ski this in the 181cm if I were to buy and for you it really comes down to what you want. Do you want more stability at speed and more float in powder or do you want more versatility in more of a variety of terrain. There is not a ton of rocker in the ski and only at higher speeds did I find the ski to not be as stable, but for the money you can’t really go wrong.

  8. I recently skied these at both 171cm and 181cm (I am 5’9″ and 185lbs) and to be honest there’s not much difference between the two – in a good way. The extra 10cm barely made any difference, they were still v easy to turn. The only thing I noticed was that he rocker seems to be bigger on the 181cm so you get a bit more flapping on piste at speed…

  9. I have a set of Atomic Triplets 172 right now, as a 5’10” 200 lber that typically likes to go directly down the fall line, regardless of mountain shape, and have mostly been having trouble with them in the real wet stuff we get here (Vancouver, BC) as well as some issues with the hip-deep untouched stuff that I was hiking to at Whistler, with the skis simply not floating over it the way I would have liked. Is there anything I can do with my current stuff to make it work, or is it time to begin looking at a new set of skis? (Note-First season as a serious skier and have gone from having issues with 3 foot pops to now thinking a 10 foot drop is something that needs to be done at pace for it to be tough, so the level of skier is rising very quickly, and the next set I get needs to last awhile)

    My other question, is I want to upgrade my bindings as they aren’t always holding through my jumps, most recently halfway lost grip off an 8 footer and just got lucky to keep it all aligned so my boot re-locked, and don’t want to break the bank too much. Currently I’m on Look NX11’s, and they just don’t seem to have enough strength for what I like to do on the mountain anymore.

  10. Great questions. Your current skis are just not going to cut it for your ability and what you plan to be skiin in the future. Triplets were great for groomers and park but that is where their ability stopped. For what you are skiing you want to be something in the 100mm range and the Access would be alright for that but as you are 200lbs you may want something with a little more rigidity if you are going to be dropping stuff over 10′. An Atomic Blog or Atomic Coax are 2 great skis to look at that will allow you to progress further than the Access will. As for bidnings the NX are a sport binding and are not made for people to be as aggresive as you are. You can do PX12 or better yet STH 12 or Griffon would also be a better choice than the NX Binding.s

  11. @ Steep ‘n Deep: did you ever find out what the deal was with the base cave? I just had (briefly) a set of 181’s that were demo skis, and returned immediately when I found a crack showing above the edge, which was a little bit ‘warped’ under foot–with no signs of any external impact. The cap (it’s not a full cap under foot, but you know what I mean) was de-laminating from the sidewall, and the edge just below that ‘crack’ was warped down. To me it looked like maybe there was a weak spot in the structure/core right by the edge there which let go and pushed the edge down and the cap up. I really liked the skis, even with a little flap at speed (the 181’s do ski short with more rocker than the 171’s) for their ability to carve a turn in basically the same way on any kind of surface, powder or hard pack. Was hoping to replace them with an identical ski, but now that I read your description, which sounds potentially similar to what I saw, I’m not sure if these are durable enough. Granted I don’t know what caused that, but it seems like anything that would do that to the ski should have been a hard enough hit to leave evidence, and there was none. Waiting to hear what Atomic says right now, since the shop offered to sell me the replacements if they come through, so I guess I might have a decision to make.


  12. I’m 6’1 155lbs, I found some 161s second hand… too short? I ski smaller mountains and resorts in Maine. Thoughts?

  13. I tried these out on the big demo day at Alta last spring. I had tried about 10 pairs of other skis before trying these. There was about 18″ of new fluff. While not the hardest charging skis, these were my favorite. They were easily the most versatile. They did the powder and the crud with ease, but they were also surprisingly good in the bumps. I recommend buying them longer than the length you are used to skiing. The rockered tip costs edge engagement length.

  14. While this is a good ski for lighter weight skiers and is versatile it is a great ski for skiers who want to get into a wider ski but are not ready for a more advanced ski that will allow you to charge harder. Value they are one of the best out there and yes they should be skied a little longer as they do ski short as well. Fun in the bumps because the ski has a softer flex.

  15. Bought the 12/13 model last spring, skied it for six days this far. The ski is by far to soft for me, I’m 5′ 10 and 190 lbs and ski the 181-version. Didn’t ever work for me, neither on of off piste. God for backcountry only on the way up with skins as they’re light.

  16. If you are an aggressive skier or strong skier it is easy to overpower this ski. For your height and weight you may want something with more of a backbone like the Prophet 98. The Access is certainly a strong Intermediate level ski and like it said in the review that it has a forgiving flex pattern, meaning it is perfect for backcountry or tele as they are so light. This ski is certainly made for light skiers and if you want something with more power go with the Line Prophet 98 or something like the Iceltantic Nomad which is light and powerful.

  17. Another park question… im considering the 2013 atomic access 171 cm but knowing that they are a wider ski how would they hold up in the park? When I’m in town I go to the small ski hills staying in the park mostly hitting rails. But when i go to the mountains about 3-4 times a season i do more powder and moguls. Would these skiis even be able to do moguls? would the amount that i even go to the mountains be worth getting a wider ski as i mostly ski park? if you have any other recomendations please tell me. Im looking for an all around ski which can easily handke powder yet have control in the park.

  18. Hi Adam,
    These skis will certainly ski both park and moguls with no issues. I use 192cm Mr. Pollard opus skis in the bumps with no issues so you can easily ski an Atomic Access in the bumps. Many park skis are in the mid 90’s now so at 100mm these aren’t much wider than that and the versatility you will get from being able to ski everywhere on the mountain will be worth it.

Leave a Reply

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