Poster: A snowHead
|
A friend suggested I demo a pair of Atomic R9, however they do not seem to exist on the Atomic site. Have the ski's been re-named? or what similar ski is now in their range?
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
IZOR now have 72mm waists.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Atomic Metron Series is the replacement for the R Series
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
AlpineWalker wrote: |
Atomic Metron Series is the replacement for the R Series |
The Atomic R9 is called the Diran for 2005/2006.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
fragglerock, It makes you wonder if there is one ! I subscribe to 'Realskiers' and checking back over the last few seasons there does not appear to a 'like for like' replacement in the 'All Mountain ' category for the R9.
They do appear to have been 'replaced' by the Metron series - chronoligically- ( and in terms of suitability in terms of ability specifically by the M11), but as we all know from various postings here the Metron are a different 'kind' of ski. This year the Izor range have been added to the Atomic range as a similar type ( All Mountain) ski according to realskiers and the 9:7 is for similar ability levels but they state that it has a piste bias. Unlike the R range the 9:7 is the most advanced ski in the series but still only for upper intermediates. Their site doesn't list the Diran so Davidof will have to help there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eEvans wrote: |
Their site doesn't list the Diran so Davidof will have to help there. |
You may have to look under Telemark skis. The (2004/2005) R9 = Diran = MX:9 - all the same ski but with different markets and prices! That said I'm told the Diran is better than the MX:9 because it uses black rather than transluscent P-Tex and this is apparently tougher. Apart from that they are all the same ski with different graphics - to paraphrase the rep from Atomic: its all marketing bullsh*t [1].
As the poster above suggests Atomic may now have other skis that better fill the role of the R9 for resort use.
[1] His exact words were that the 'skis were positioned for different market segments but were completely identical'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fragglerock, SMALLZOOKEEPER is offering R9s for 300euros elsewhere on this site if you're interested. I have a pair of R9.22s (R9's predecessor) which I'll let go for £50. They are 190cm long though...
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Loads of places selling the R:9 still and loads of people still using them (Davidof??). It's a cult touring ski. I've the R:11's which is supposed to be a better ski, and probably isn't, but they're indestructible which is a good selling point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
fragglerock wrote: |
I am 6’ish and 17+ stone |
Ah...don't go for the 170s then! I'm 181cm, about 90kg and my day on 170cm R9s was the most frustrating and annoying day I've had on skis yet. It was my first day touring (and I loved that), but as soon as the snow turned anything less than hard-packed the skis sank like a stone and basically stopped (tipping me out the front a couple of times) - even on slightly slushy tracked out snow. The next few days out I was on 190s which were much better, although way too long for tight stuff in the trees. I'd also skied the 9.22 precursors (at 180cm) and found them really too floppy for what I wanted.
Basically I hate these skis. I know they're a cult tourer, but I can't for the life of me see why. I'm sure you'd do much better with Legend 8000s (I have them in 184, 178 didn't give enough flotation if I was being moderately cautious), or probably even better the 8800s for your weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, have to say I agree with you. I graduated from my R9.22s to Dynastar Intuitiv Bigs (old ones so roughly similar to the Legend 8000s) and found the Dynas miles better, although harder work to drag up the hill. Hence the R9.22s up for sale for a mere £50.
I think maybe the reason why tourers like the R9/R9.22 is that they come to them having been using narrow short noodly touring skis and are amazed at the performance of a proper alpine ski. However, they can't let go of the weight issue enough to move onto something a bit beefier end even better. There are some very interesting models coming from the touring mfrs now which are bigger than classic touring skis but also light due to the use of carbon. Looking forward to seeing reviews of Dynafit's latest offerings for example
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I've still got a soft spot for my 9.22s in 180cm and am planning to put touring bindings on them (once I've got a blown out edge repaired).
Fragglerock -
I worked a season 10 years ago and was given terrible skis (at the time I'd done a similar amount of skiing to you). I ended up buying some ex-demo K2s in resort. I suspect a cheap deal on 180cm R9s would be fantastic value for money for you given your level of experince/ability and the fact that you will spend a lot of your time off-piste. I now ski on something stiffer (Stormrider XLs) and they are significantly better for the way I ski now but I think R9s would be a very good option for you.
*if Arno's skis are in good nick and you are not reasonably heavily built - £50 for his would be a great deal
J
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
jedster, fancy getting your magnifying glass out? He's not exactly built like a high-jumper.
fragglerock, at £50 getting those 9.22s are probably a no-brainer. If you don't get on with them you've only lost £50 - which is about a week's hire! My only concern is if you'd find the length a bit tough if you're only just getting off the piste. I certainly would suggest you go no shorter in that style of ski though. About the time I was skiing on those Atomics my own skis were Rossi XXs and I heaved a sign of relief every time I got back on those (although I'm not so sure I'd like to be heaving them uphill - we're all talking about skis in a touring context here but I doubt that's going to be quite your thing just yet).
Re-reading though, if you're getting free ski hire in Chamonix, you'll have no end of Dynastars available, so certainly try the 8000 and 8800. You'd probably find a shorter fatter ski much easier to use if you are just getting going in this stuff. Maybe even try some Pocket Rockets or the like (although you'll find them much tougher to deal with on-piste). You'll probably also come across some of last year's B3s which you should also try - or this year's for something not quite as wide. At least one of those should give you the breakthrough you're after. I really would forget the R9s though.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
jedster, GrahamN, thanks for the promotion of what I reckon is an excellent deal
still, with free ski hire in cham, i'd probably try what is available and work out what i like, then attempt to get a deal off a local. never tried it but i would have thought there would be a huge trade in second hand skis around cham
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
despite the impression my previous post may give, i do want to get rid of those skis!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
sorry fragglerock see that you did declare your weight - 190 would be right for you. I'm 5'9", 13stone and have been very comfortable on 180
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
How about this for bumping up an old thread!
I need help. My beloved R9s are on their last legs: numerous base repairs and grinds have left no more scope for repair. I'm in mourning, but won't let go (they're not quite dead yet).
Do Atomic still have these in their range, but in a different guise? If not, any suggestions for something very similar. I do a mix of machine-assisted downhill and day-touring on the R9s and Fritshi Diamir bindings. I don't want a quiver - these have served me well for five years or so as a do anything, go anywhere ski.
Any advice gratefully received. Or, if anyone has a pristine pair of R9s in their loft (170cm), I might make you an offer (it will save buying new skins as well, if nothing else!)
|
|
|
|
|
|