2016 Atomic Vantage 100 CTI Ski Review


2016 Atomic Vantage 100 – 180cm
Carbon Tank Mesh
Titanium Backbone 2.0
AMT Rocker
Weight: 3.9kg (188cm pair)
Dimensions: 138-100-125
Turn Radius: 18m @ 180cm

There are times when you are testing skis that you just know that you are going to love a ski just but looking at. The Atomic Vantage 100 CTI Skis was one of these skis and boy did it deliver! Typically you will not finding me getting excited about a ski with metal or at 100mm in the waist as that is just not my skiing style, however the Atomic Vantage 100 CTI is a game changer of a ski. The Line Prophet 98 was always the ski I would go to for skiers looking for a versatile All-Mountain Ski. I knew that 95% of the people that bought that ski would love it and I was disappointed when
Line went away from that ski as the Supernatural 100 is just not the same. The all new 2016 Atomic Vantage 100 CTI Skis is now going to be my go to All Mountain for people who want a ski around 100mm in the waist. It is so much lighter and livelier than that of the Volkl Mantra and pretty much any other ski in this category. The Atomic Vantage 100 CTI is a ski that when you get on it you don’t want to take them off. They take so little effort and with an 18m turn radius they will make any turn shape you want and with out even having to think about it. I had these skis going 60+mph and they were stable thanks to the Ti Backbone and when I wanted to scrub speed it was easy to do. You do not have to power this ski, it is not work like that of the Mantra. Thanks to the forgiving shovel they were awesome in both bumps and in the trees. The skis may be light but they do not get deflected like you would expect and that is thanks to both the Carbon Mesh used along with the Ti Backbone. There is nothing bad I can say about this ski I loved everything about it from its perfect shape to the very well designed graphic. One thing I will say about all of the Atomic Vantage Series skis is to not ski them short, these skis ski short so be sure to stay on the longer side when ordering.

60 Replies to “2016 Atomic Vantage 100 CTI Ski Review”

  1. I was looking at a pair CTI 100 how long should i go?
    Im 170 cm tall 75 kgs and 57 years old with 2 bad knees, but im a good skier, my natural instinct would be to go for the 172 cause i feel comfortable around that length. What do you advise and how well do they handle icey conditions?

  2. Even for your height and weight and age the 180cm would be the more appropriate ski length as they ski really short. The early taper and early rise on the ski make the ski, ski so much shorter than its actual length. If you are not very aggressive at all then you can do the 172cm length but these skis ski amazingly short. They handle icy conditions with ease and are one of the most easiest skis for all levels to ski.

  3. Thanks, one more thing how do they compare with a Boneafide 172 in swing weight and feel, i skied them at Whistler in January and thought they had balls but i think after 2 days they would become work.
    Fun and performance is what i want. I just broke a pair of Annex 98s…they were easy to use but they could have been a little stiffer.
    back to you

  4. Night and Day difference from the Bonafide to the Vantage 100. Not only is the Vantage lighter and quicker they also have a much tighter turn radius and unlike the Bonafide the Vanatge 100 will not wear you out after a day or two of having to work the ski.

  5. Thinking its time to upgrade from my Icelantic Shamen’s. Not sure what length – I’m 5’8″ and 160lbs, was thinking the 172cm but then again…….

  6. I really relate to Peter’s situation …. similar age, weight and knees! I too tend to go for that 168-172 cm length as well. I’m not a charger .. more a finesse skier (is that code for “old school?”)
    I have skied primarily in Australian ( probably like the east in North America) and my favourite ski the last few seasons is my 2011 Mantras in a 170cm (Cambered)
    I’ve just moved to the Canadian Rockies for 2 years and need to get skis. I’ve been researching Mantra, Bonifide, Fischer Ranger & Motive 95 ….. and now I see these Atomic 100’s.
    Your review makes me think this could be the one … are they really that good … and do you think they work for guys like Peter and myself?

  7. Like I told Peter you guys can go with either a 172cm or 180cm. If you are more comfortable with the 172cm go with it. These skis do ski short and much quicker than a Mantra or Bonafide and will not wear you down nearly as much as those skis will either. The Vantage 100 is a go to one ski quiver ski.

  8. Peter; I have skied the Atomic Alibis for the last two seasons and love them as a 98mm one ski quiver. Will I notice a big difference between that ski and the new Vantage 100?


  9. Hi Dave,
    I have skied both and there are a couple big differences that you will notice. The first is that they turn quicker than the Alibi does and the other is that they also ski much shorter as well. Still super stable and playful just with more versatility.

  10. I living in Canada my present skis are the automatic 117 but the last couple of times I’ve been to Europe the conditions haven’t been that good. Would the 100 cti be still as capable if I was lucky enough to get some good powder days there

  11. I just received my 188cm vantage 100’s. They seem really long (actually taller than my Rossi Squad 190cm…) I am 5’10” and weigh 170lbs with expert level ability skiing around Tahoe. Would you suggest sticking with the 188cm or going down to the 180? Was you’re review on the 180cm? Thanks in advance for the reply

  12. Nope not long at all they are actually 188cm… Rossi Squad is a short thing at 186cm, almost 2 inches shorter than its advertised length. They ski super short and you would not want shorter than the 188cm. Once you get out on them you will see quickly and how easily they ski.

  13. Hey Adam, Im about 5’6″ on a good day and 175lbs. Early 30’s and work at DV and ski the Cottonwoods on my days off. Was a park skier when I was younger but more of just a fast cruiser and tree skier now. I love the Theory’s in a 178 & Automatic 102’s in that 172 and my everyday ski is the Armada ARVTi in a 178. Im trying to decide what to go with length wise in that regard with these 100’s? I have read everything youve said about how they ski short and I can understand that with the Automatic. Will I be losing that much ski if I go with the 72’s or since ive been used to a long nose rocker ski in the armada will the 180cm length be nimble enough in the trees and in the steeper stuff in the Cottonwoods? Thank you

  14. Hey Dan,

    I’m 6ft tall, 180lbs and would be classified as an advanced skier. I like to mix it up on the hill and tend to gravitate towards a shorter ski as I like to be nimble in the trees and bumps. Should I go 180cm or 188cm?


  15. Hi Adam,

    I am also not sure which size to go. I am 5’6″ weighing 139 pounds.
    I would classify my self as a very good skier would think based on your comments that the 172cm could be on the short side.


  16. Hi Adam,

    I recently demo’d the Vantage 90 in 184s. It was a good ride but I’d like something a little fatter and faster, if that’s possible in this series. I’m an ex racer from the Northwest; I like to rip GS turns on hard pack but also drop into shutes and blaze through chop. Is the Vantage 100 a good option? At 5’8″ and 150, what length should I be looking at? Thanks!


  17. Hi Scot,

    Yes, the Vantage 100 will be a little fatter and more versatile in all conditions. At your height and weight certainly the 180cm would be a great choice. I was very pleased at how well the Vantage 100 turned at higher speeds and its ability to grip the snow.

  18. Hi Adam,

    I’m coming off a pair of Nordica Hot Rod Afterburners (170). Ski mostly Northwest US conditions, am 5′ 10″ and 195. These seem like a great upgrade in a 180. Also looking at Nordica NRGy 100s. Any thoughts? Thanks for the awesome review.

  19. In the Atomic Vantage 100 you would absolutely want to go to the 180cm length. Nordica NRGy 100 is also a great ski I just like how light the Vantage felt underfoot more. They really did a great job with this ski and it has been a long time since I have been on anything from Atomic in this range of ski that I have really enjoyed until now!

  20. Hi, I am skiing Japan in 2 weeks & am looking at the Atomic Vantage 100. I have skied 30+ years, ski aggressively and love making lots of turns in powder & trees, I this the right ski for me?


  21. If you are looking for a straight up powder ski there are other skis that would work very well, but if you want one ski to ski groomers and off piste the Vantage 100 would be a great choice for you.

  22. How aggressive of a ski are you looking at? If you want more of a Powder Ski you may want to look at something such as the Volkl 100Eight, Line Sir Francis Bacon, Head Cyclic 115 and the K2 Shreditor 112.The Monster 108 is an amazing ski but built more for hard charging.

  23. You really seem to know the vantage ct 100 well. I am really curious about this ski. I have now had 2 days on the ct 90 at 184 length. I can say, without reservation, it is the best ski I’ve ever skied on for west coast groomer snow……it rips. I am thinking the ct 100 would be a great ski for more variable conditions. I’m 5’10, 175 lbs. I have skied the ritual for a couple years at 181cm, so I am curious what you might suggest, with your experience. 180 or 188?


  24. Hi Kevan,

    Glad to hear you enjoyed the CT 90 so much, that too is an excellent ski. As awesome as the CTi 90 is the 100 will be even more versatile. If you are skiing Ritual in the 181 we would suggest the 180cm in the Vantage 100. If you weighed another 30lbs heavier then we would say the 188cm but for your height and weight the 180cm will work well.

  25. I currently ski a vantage-Theory 177cm (I am 176cm and 71kg) and love everything about this ski….Short turns, carving and powder are all great. I ski about 50 days/year and about 60% are piste days and whenever possible off-piste. I never feel that the Theory (95mm/waist) is too wide. I need a replacement ski due to damage. So I not looking for a narrower/wider ski as such but maybe a ski to bring things to the next level.
    Would you advise sticking with the 95C or going for either the 90CTI or 100CTI. Many thanks

  26. I currently ski a vantage-Theory 177cm -I am 176cm and 71kg and love everything about this ski….Short turns, carving and powder are all great. I ski about 50 days/year and about 60% are piste days and whenever possible off-piste. I never feel that the Theory (95mm/waist) is too wide. I need a replacement ski due to damage. So I not looking for a narrower/wider ski as such but maybe a ski to bring things to the next level.
    Would you advise sticking with the 95C or going for either the 90CTI or 100CTI? Many thanks

  27. I would suggest moving up to the 180cm length in the Vantage 100 CTi it will do everything your Theory would do and more. The 100 is just so versatile there is no reason for you to replace with the 95C. If you were lighter then maybe i would say the 95C but for your height and weight the 180cm in the 100 CTi is the best option for you.

  28. Hi Adam
    You are so generous in your replies , thank you.
    I am deliberating between 90 Cti @ 176 ( does it also ski short) or 100 @ 172. I am ” ambitioned” – advanced on a good day! I am 174 cm 90 kg ie 5″8 190 lbs . If I went the 100s could I manage 180s . Thanks again

  29. Hi Chris,

    Thank you! The 90 CTi also skis short like the 100. For your height and weight the 180cm is easily going to be the correct length in the 100/ If you are doing the 90 CTi you cna get away with the 176cm because the ski is a stiffer ski than the Vantage 100 is. Can’t go wrong with either ski. If you are going to spend a majority of your time on groomers then I would say the 90 will be ok, but if you are spending as much time as you can skiing the sides of the trails and seeking out any fresh snow go with the Vantage 100.


  30. Hi Chris,

    You have provided the most useful information on the vantage line anywhere! Many thanks!! Sorry to ask yet another question about height/weight/length. I had been considering the 90cti in 176cm, but your last couple of replies make me think I should be on the 169cm. I’m 177cm tall, but only 145lbs/64kg, advanced when everything goes to plan, but not extremely aggressive. I ski mostly on piste (which is why I’m thinking about the 90cti instead of the 100cti), but want a bit more versatility for powder and chop than my current skis provide. What do you think? I’m also considering the Fischer Ranger 90ti, but I think it might be too light even for me. Again, many thanks for your help, and apologies for asking such a dull question!

  31. No worries! Both factors have to be taken into account. If you are 177cm tall then the 176cm in the 90 CTi would be what i suggest if you are an aggressive skier. If you are not super aggressive then you could do the 169cm length. With skis like the Vantage Series i would always prefer to go longer than shorter since the amount of taper and rocker on these skis make them ski much shorter than they actually are. If you don’t feel you need the metal in the ski you could also go with the Vantage 95C which has Carbon instead of Ti.

  32. Adam,
    Many thanks for all the replies on sizing. We all appreciate it very much.
    The Vantage series is really opening up a new world of fun to all levels of skiers and your super knowledgeable help seems spot on every time..

  33. Wow Adam!
    You tried almost all skis that are presently on my list! I’m an east coast skier (6′; 215 pounds) that is presently searching for a ski that would be very easy edge to edge but still floaty ( so looking for 92 to 102 mm) that would be use primarly for bumps, trees and thight trees (so smeary, very nimble: tip and tail rocker; less than 188 cm) but could still be fun to carve on hard pack…
    My list so far consist of Vantage 100 (180: too short? 188: too long?), Sir Franci Bacon in 184, Pinnacle 95 or 105 in 184, Invictus 95 ti , Supernatural 100, Head Venturi 95…
    What would be your picks in that list? Is there any skis you wouldn’t recommand for what I intend to do or for someone my size?

  34. Skis you should be looking at are the Bacon, Blend, Head Collective 105, Pinnacle 105 and the Vantage 100. Venturi 95 is fun but the Colelctive 105 is more versatile of a ski when you get it in bumps and and tight trees.It is hard to say anything bad about the Bacon for me that is always a go to ski.

  35. Thanks Adam!
    You said the collective 105 would be more versatile than the venturi 95 in bumps and thight trees… Could you elaborate because usually a 95 would be more versatile than a 105 except after a big dump…
    And if a 105, Collective or Pinnacle? Do you see me on a 181 Collective at 6′ and 215 pounds? Because I don’t see myself on a 191 cm ski in thight trees… In fact, let me rephrase this: on which skis that you recommanded me, would you see me on a shorter lenght without too much compromises?
    Thanks again!

  36. Width is only one variable when comparing skis, you also have to take into account, rocker, running length, construction and early rise and taper. When i am going out to ski bums my go to ski is the Cyclic 115… It is soft and nimble and is right in my wheelhouse for skiing bump lines. Most people that may be to wide for them but for me my everyday ski is right around that 115mm width even for skiing bumps. The Collective 105 is actually a softer and more nimble ski than the Venturi 95 which is stiffer and going to throw you around more than the Collective 105 will when you get into bumps and skiing tight trees. You could ski the 181cm in the Collective 105 since you are skiing tight trees and bumps, if you were telling me you were skiing bowls and more wide open I would say 191cm. – http://www.untracked.com/p5617-15_head_collective_105_skis_w_tyrolia_attack_13_bindings.html

    If you were to get the Bacon in the 184cm that would be the same length as the Collective as they measure about 180.6cm.

  37. Makes sense! Recently I gave some thoughts about widht and arrived to the conclusion that when you think of skis in regard to skiers weight, one should not just think of going longer but also going wider like some companies ( not enough) adjust also widht of their longer skis… For me, a 184 cm and 104 mm ski for a 6′;215 pounds should be similar to a 184 cm and 98 mm ski for a 6′ and 175 pounds skier…
    Crazy that a 184 and 181 skis are the same lenght…
    So I reduced my choice to SFB, collective 105 and pinnacle 105! The advantage of the Pinnacle is that it is a true 184 cm but looking of videos of the Collective, it looks like a better carver… Thanks again for your help!

  38. Trust me this is the ski industry… there is nothing logical about how a company publishes a ski length. K2 had skis for years that were published as 179cm were they really measured 184.5cm… There are very few companies that their published length is the actual length… much like ski boot flexes. A 100 form one company can feel completely different from another 100 Flex boot even from the same company but in a different model.. We honestly feel anyone and everyone can benefit by going to wider than 95 in the waist unless purely carving on groomed slopes.

    Pinnacle 105 actually measures 185,5cm in the 184cm length. You can’t make a bad decision with those three skis you have chosen. The Collective 105 does carve slightly better than the Pinnacle but they are very similar skis from 2 different companies. Bacon is awesome too but if you are not use to a ski that is mounted just a couple cm back form Center and you like to drive the tip at all you will want to decide between the Collective and Pinnacle 105.

  39. Hi Adam,
    Great review. This sounds like the type of upgrade I am looking for.
    I been using Watea 94’s at 178cm since 2009 as my powder skis on regular trips to Niseko Japan.  OK, I know some might say they’re a little skinny for powder skis, but I like to be IN that powder, not skimming over the top, and I love skiing short turns – a finesse type of skier. I am not a hard charging/power skier. When I’m in the (Niseko) powder, I’m not in a hurry to get to the bottom at mach 2 speed, I want to savour every moment – turn turn turn, face shot face shot, face shot…….

    Anyway – I am 173cm/5’8″, 65kg/145lb, and I have been thinking at times when the snow is a little heavier, or in tight places, I could do with a shorter (= or more nimble ski).  That said, I have never liked short skis.  Until I bought Blackeye Ti at 173, for my front side ski, I had never skied anything less than 175 that I liked.  I love the Blackeyes.  The early rise tip makes the ski so versatile.  I can make any shape turn I like.  I digress.

    I have read some good reviews on the 2016 Ranger 98ti, especially for my low weight. It sounds like this might provide the improvement I am looking for, but I see that the Vantage is getting much better reviews, including, and especially in powder.

    Reading all your other recommendations on length, I suspect you might recommend 180, since my watea’s are 178, the Vantage have smaller radius, and early rise tip should give me the extra manoeuvrablilty/nimbleness I am looking for.

    The only other options that have caught my eye are Salomom Q98, nordica enforcer or should I go for the Automatic 102 as a more dedicated powder ski – although this ski has slightly longer turn radius, and has been reported in reviews as competent but not exciting performer.

Leave a Reply

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