(hover to zoom, click to enlarge)

Atomic Ultimate 78 Ski

Brand: Atomic
Model: Ultimate 78
Shipping: FREE*
Availability: In Stock
Price: $699.95 From $419.95
    - or add to package
* Ski Length:
   - OR -   

A wider version of the Ultimate race ski, the 78 is an elite mountaineering ski made by Atomic. Inspired by Kilian’s transition from racer to extreme alpinist, the Ultimate 78 is designed to go high and fast. An all-mountain rocker and innovative sidewall give confidence when you need it. The light wood core and carbon laminates keep your legs fresh for when you need them. Good luck talking yourself out of needing these skis.

  • 78mm width is great for ski mountaineering in unknown conditions.
  • 16m radius and 15% tip rocker turns quickly and overcomes obstacles.
  • Step Down sidewall is thickest under the binding to improve dampening and edge grip.
  • Half-cap construction near the tip and tail is lightweight yet resistant to damage.
  • Wood core is made from Karuba Paulownia and poplar, making it light and lively.
  • Core is laminated with carbon fiber which is the light way to make a rigid ski.
Lengths (cm) 158, 164, 170, 176
-> ounces
945g [158]
1035g [164]
1075g [170]
1145g [176]
Weight (pair) 1890g [158]
2070g [164]
2150g [170]
2290g [176]
Dimensions 111-78-101 [158]
112-78-102 [164]
113-78-103 [170]
114-78-104 [176]
Turn Radius 15m [158]
16m [164]
17m [170]
18m [176]
Skin Fix Tip notch, flat recessed tail
Specs Verified Yes
Profile 15% rocker, 85% camber
Shape Round tip, steep-ish sidecut, flat pintail
Construction Step down sidewall w/ carbon laminates
Core Karuba Paulownia + poplar
Skimo Co Says
Usage High level ski mountaineering
Notes Wide "rockered" parallel skins available
Bottom Line Competitive all around
Question from Martin
Wondering about length for this type of ski. I currently ski Salmon Q105s in 174 (first ski), goal for this ski would be PCNW volcano and other Skimo. Would 170 be too long for someone 5' 9"?
Answer from jbo
Hi Martin, the length can depend on usage. Generally folks go a bit shorter for mountaineering vs general touring, so you're headed the right direction. I wouldn't say 170 is too long for your height, in fact it might be your sweet spot (noting weight can also be a factor).
Answer this question:

by thomc (used product regularly)
I used these to break into the skinny ski (<80 mm waist) clique. I have some stelvio trabs and denalis, and really like them both, but was looking to lose some weight (nothing new.) Jason suggested these when I was looking at Hagens which he thought might be too soft given my size (6'2" 195lbs). I have had numerous other Atomics over the years, all good (my BD approach skis were made by them and still going strong about 15-20 years in, and I have some killer tele boards...if I ever tele'd anymore.) These are just amazing - to try them out I've been mostly skiing the east (ie man-made snice) with my kid and they have been just terrific on piste. I took them off piste out west and they were great there. Not as soft a rocker as the Denali, not as good an all arounder as the Trab, and certainly no floater, but good for me, especially since I'm skiing on a 170 (I ski the trabs at 178, the Denalis 184). Given how I crave an advantage on the up, and need a torsionally stiff ski for the down, it is hard to imagine a better ski, and it was an incredible value. I think this might be my go-to ski mountaineering ski, and it has some competition in the quiver.
Comment on this review:

Question from Gaby
Hi, apart of the atomic skins for the 78mm waist width other mohair skin could you recommend me (with race tip fix)? Maybe coltex pdg 68mm or is too narrow to have good edge grip?
Answer from jbo
Hi Gaby, 68mm is a bit too skinny for these. Best bet besides the Atomics is to puts some race tips on some material off the rolls. Colltex 80s would be good for a fast skin, or go to something like the Ski Trab WC Race 95mm race roll or wider for more coverage.
Answer this question:

Question from Alastair Brunton
What is the recommended drill size for mounting bindings to these skis. I cant see a specified size? Can you help?
Answer from jbo
Hi Alastair, Atomic recommends a 3.6 bit for their wood core skis.
Answer this question:

by Randolph R (downright abused product)
I must admit - I have likely never been so satisfied with a pair of skis as I am with the Ultimate 78. The weight to performance ratio is simply unlike anything else I have tried. I own some race class skis that I consider to be versatile enough to take out in more demanding terrain (eg. Movement Gold Fish), but the level of performance increase that comes at the price of a few hundred grams is killer. The ultimate 78 skis like a much larger and heavier ski and thus doesn't really require any adjustment in skiing style, in contrast to a more race oriented ski. I think this is mostly a product of its high torsional stiffness (really solid through the middle of the ski). Add in just enough rocker and I've had zero issue going full speed with big arcs on powder days. This hasn't been a killer snowfall season so they've seen their share rocky runs and the occasional down climb/dry ski - durability hasn't been an issue.The waist is just narrow enough to feel solid on steeps over 50 degrees, but not quite as solid as something 6 or 7 mil narrower. I wouldn't use them to race, and they're not an optimal resort ski. But for everything in between (short of hardcore freeride) they are just the ticket! Very happy.
Comment on this review:

Question from Randolph R
Any thoughts on these vs. the Hagan Cirrus?
Answer from jbo
Hey Randolph, will know more after a season on 'em! Fairly similar in weight, sidecut, etc, but these feel a bit more refined. They have a metal reinforcement plate in the binding area and a slightly stiffer flex. Both are fun skis...
Answer from Jeremy G
Just wondering if you've had anymore thoughts on this. These are two pair I'm trying to decide between.
Answer from jbo
Hi Jeremy & Randolph, my two cents on the skis. The Cirrus is a little more playful and float a bit better than the Atomic due to the big tip. Both are capable and carve well on smooth hard snow. The Atomic is stiffer and meaner, and probably a touch more durable. I retired my Cirrus last season and already thinking about getting some Ultras (aka Cirrus 2.0)!
Answer from Jeremy G
Thanks for the update! I ended up purchasing the ultimate 85s. I'll let you know what I think once I've gotten the chance to put some miles on them.
Answer this question:

Question from Randolph
I notice that the Atomic website lists these at 980g per ski. What gives?
Answer from jbo
Hi Randolph, it is fairly common for ski weights to be off unfortunately. It's partially due to the iterative process that goes into ski design & production, and partially due to wishful thinking. We weigh them all so you get the real story, look for "Specs Verified" in the Specs section.
Answer this question:

Write a Review Ask a Question Post a Comment

Your name: (or )

Your e-mail:

Overall rating:
1 star 5 stars

Your review:

What is 7 + 7?

Your website (optional):

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
» Compare to other Low-fat Skis 
© 2016 Skimo Co
View Full Screen Version