 Poster: A snowHead
|
Dear all,
sorry if this is a silly question,but I am considering to buy a new X9 atomic skis, which really feels like the right ski for me (mix between slalom and GS), but I am a bit lost as it comes to selecting the right size...
It comes with the following choices:
169
175
181
I cought 2 years ago a slalom ski, which I opted for 165cm at the time, but here I am not quite sure whether 169 or 175 will be best for me. SOme stats about me:
- height: 171 cm, weight: 79 kg
- level - intermediate, wanting to progress
- skiing style: on-piste, trying aggressive/fast skiing
What would you guys say is teh right way forward?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
My suggestion normally would be 175....but it might be too much ski for an Intermediate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
169 plenty long enough for what you need..... might actually be too stiff at this point..... have you look3d at the x7 wb model.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
169 will be the ones to choose. I'm 186 tall and tried the 175's, which were fine. Seriously classy ski - very stable and capable of varying radius turns. Fast too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I’m 182cm and ski the 175s. I’d recommend you go for the 169s... try and test them at a snow dome
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
IME. Weight (and ability), is much more important than height when choosing the length.
IMO. "If" this ski puts the driver in the back seat, due to being too stiff and race orientated for an Intermediate standard - then it is likely to do more harm than good - whether 169 or 175. I think dropping down a model was a good suggestion.
In order to learn to ski fast - then learning to ski in control is essential. This is learned at slower speeds. The X9 is a ski for skiers who can already ski in control at speed - rather than a tool for learning to do so.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 9-10-19 19:24; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you haven’t already check out the Head Supershape iMagnum... it’s another good technical ski that’s good for carving. I came close to choosing it but I preferred the X9...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MancSkier wrote: |
| If you haven’t already check out the Head Supershape iMagnum... it’s another good technical ski that’s good for carving. I came close to choosing it but I preferred the X9... |
IMO. The Magnum is a better ski in this case, as it will be more forgiving, yet has great headroom for improving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
The I-speeds are more similar to the X9's. I have I-speeds (177) and absolutely love them, they are totally unshakable on every type of piste, from sheet ice to slush. They need a bit of force to get the best out of them but they are impeccably behaved. I found that the X9's were similar but more forgiving and easier to ski. My I-speeds were £500 cheaper though and there isn't £500's worth of betterness in the X9's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have a go on a pair! Sounds like they may be a bit less forgiving for an intermediate skier such as the OP and myself.
I do like my X9s though and thankfully got the last pair in Ellis Brigham’s sale April before last!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| MancSkier wrote: |
I must have a go on a pair! Sounds like they may be a bit less forgiving for an intermediate skier such as the OP and myself.
I do like my X9s though and thankfully got the last pair in Ellis Brigham’s sale April before last! |
These comments are taken from a couple of reviews:
"Skiers without a pure carving technique, or who don’t want to max out every carve they make will find the X9 too stiff and unforgiving, and will find themselves spending a little too much time in the backseat".
“This ski will punish any mistake you make.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The solid bright green top sheet can be seen from a satellite! This ski has the shape of a GS-Super-G ski, and indeed, skis like a GS-Super-G ski (and requires this terrain, skill level and profile to go with it), even though its stated turn radius in this length is 16.2m, and the rep seemed to think I would like its short turn characteristics???? WHAT! This ski is designed to do one thing.....high-speed-long-radius turns on groomed terrain. You want to try a turn other than this skis designated turn radius.....forget-it! Take this ski off of a prepared groomed slope....forget-it! Other skiers in your way.....call the ski patrol! It has a tiny sweet spot, and is unforgiving. It required a constant steady tongue pressure at all times. The ski felt as if it was always forcing you into the back seat, even if you do maintain constant forward pressure. Perhaps moving the binding mount position forward may have offset some of this syndrome, but I did not have the opportunity to experiment with this, nor the desire! If your skier profile dictates high speed-straight line skiing, with slow edge change, on wide open groomed terrain, then this might be a board for you to try. Perhaps the 175cm length would have been more appropriate (not available for this test). Based on my profile (preference for short turns, and off-piste conditions), this Atomic will never make it under my boot again. One of the most challenging skis I have ever ridden!
Bumps
Anything other than wide open prepared groomed piste conditions...FORGET IT!
Who is this ski for?
If your only focus is high speed skiing and GS-SUPER-G turns, and you have the skill level, open terrain, and training to support it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
If it was me if get a pair of redster slalom in 165.
Oh wait a Mo... I did  great ski and will improve you. Then when you can rail those get something longer and GS like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, those reviews sound a bit OTT! @MancSkier and myself have found them to be great to ski. My first impression was that they were silky-smooth and refined , rather than angry and bitey! You can definitely get a good lean-on and look all Dave Ryding when you are on piste. You can turn them down as well when you need a break. I am a purist though... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
i agree with thinking that the x9's would be too stiff and hence i suggested x7's in the wb version as that will give you a hand in variables etc too, a bit softer..... i am getting some x9's for my level 3 tech module.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Thank you all for your replies.
Somehow moat reviews I found said that x9 is good for intermediate who wants to improve, but maybe I was wrong. I will check x7 and make my mind.
Either way 169 is what I will go for, regardless of the model
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
length wise for that type of ski really the length to consider is somewhere between your nose and your chin..... i am going to go for 160's and i am 177 in height, 80 kg in height
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I do not think they make skis shorter than 169... So i cannot get that 'in between node and chin' length  @ajc2260626,
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Hold on - X7 is not a GS ski, more a slalom ski, which I did not particularly like... Or did I miss sth (@ajc2260626, @Old Fartbag) ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
yep you did miss something 
x9 and x7 are very similar ski..... but x9 isn't avail in shorter length and is stiffer, thats it really...... x7 has slightly more of a side cut but similar length skis of each version only have about a metre difference in turn radius according to the website, so again they are practically the same ski in that respect , as you will see they are both described as a half way house between slalom and gs, its just that the x7 comes in shorter lengths
bottom line is that you will be able to ski both skis but one will be harder work (x9) as its stiffer and more demanding, thats not to say you shouldn't have it but thats the reality
length wise as a rule of thumb this sort of ski should be somewhere between your nose and chin, if you followed that mantra you would be about 160 etc, you can go longer, shorter, stiffer, less stuff etc, at 169 length thats practically your height, again doesn't mean you couldn't ski them but won't be a nimble / forgiving etc.
in my opinion for am intermediate, shorter and softer is better than too long and too stiff
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ajc2260626 wrote: |
| length wise as a rule of thumb this sort of ski should be somewhere between your nose and chin, if you followed that mantra you would be about 160 etc, you can go longer, shorter, stiffer, less stuff etc, at 169 length thats practically your height, again doesn't mean you couldn't ski them but won't be a nimble / forgiving etc. |
As people keep writing, the ski doesn't know how tall you are only how heavy. Why not go for the middle length ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bober02 wrote: |
| Hold on - X7 is not a GS ski, more a slalom ski, which I did not particularly like... Or did I miss sth (@ajc2260626, @Old Fartbag) ? |
I think you've been given good advice by @ajc2260626 re the sort of ski you should consider.
Ps. The lengths you have quoted seem to be Last Year's ski (The Green one). This year's X9 has been widened by 10mm and has the same dimensions as This Year's X7 (as linked to).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, they still do the green one but have also added the wider one - I have just bought some
I agree with you both that the X7 sounds like a good fit for @bober02, if you are anywhere near an ellis brigham and a snow dome you can try them. I think either the 160 or 168 could work for you, probably 168, ideally try them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| sledger wrote: |
@Old Fartbag, they still do the green one but have also added the wider one - I have just bought some
I agree with you both that the X7 sounds like a good fit for @bober02, if you are anywhere near an ellis brigham and a snow dome you can try them. I think either the 160 or 168 could work for you, probably 168, ideally try them. |
It's confusing, as I don't see the Green ones on the Atomic website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Thank you.
it was the "S" that stopped me looking at it properly....as I thought it meant an outright slalom ski. D'Oh!
The 169 (Green) r= 14.6
The 176 (X7) r=14.2
The longer length in the softer ski might work for the OP, as it would be more stable at speed (wants to be more aggressive)/give a longer radius - and he should have the weight to drive it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, even if the x7 is more slalom one, would you say that 168 x7 would be best for me?
Sorry to ask again, I find it very hard to make my own decisions re skis
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I read some further reviews, x7 looks really cool, somewhere between 5-8 in therms of skillset ou normally rate for skis. I think I iwll get those instead (God bless this forum Smile)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| bober02 wrote: |
So, even if the x7 is more slalom one, would you say that 168 x7 would be best for me?
Sorry to ask again, I find it very hard to make my own decisions re skis |
It's hard to chose a ski/ski length for somebody else - but IMO. You would be OK with either.
Go with the the shorter length if you want a slightly more turny/nimble ski.
Go for the longer length if you want slightly more stability and a greater turn radius.
It's about personal preference.
Here is a decent ski length calculator: https://www.skis.com/size-chart/skis,default,pg.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Like fartbag says, I would also say that’s it’s easier to increase the arc on a shorter ski that decrease the arc on a longer ski......etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
