or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New stuff

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I will be on Salomon's new Pilot 10 (wood core) and the Cross Max this weekend. Reviews to follow.
post #2 of 13
I skied the new Pilot 10 in a couple of sizes as well as the Crossmax 9 & 10 last week. The new Pilot 10 is different, beefier, and seemed to me more sensitive to correct skier weight than before. I skied it in 192 and 186 and wished that I could have tried the 180 but it wasn't available when I was.

I was demoing with two work buddies. We all have 313mm soles and the same DIN so we can do a lot of switching on the hill for comparisons. Our weights are 160, 180 and 200 pounds. The difference in how skis carried our weights seemed much more obvious in all Pilot models than any other skis that we tried. I know that last year there was some debate on whether the Pilots actually flexed underfoot or not and if they did how much it differed from conventional models. My opinion is that flex underfoot in these skis is critical to their performance and too long or stiff a Pilot doesn’t have the sweet balanced feel that Salomon designed for.

In both sizes of Pilot 10’s our 200 pound tester felt comfortable and it was reflected in his skiing. He remarked on how smoothly the ski initiated. At 160 and 180 pounds, we didn’t like the way that 192 cm skied at all. It didn’t engage full length at any speed and the extremities were very grabby. I could detect none of the characteristic “Pilot” feel. In 186 cm things improved for me a bit but my 160 pound buddy still didn’t like it. It still felt like too much ski for me.

On the 180 Crossmax 9, 200 pounds was too much but my 180 pounds felt good as did 160 pounds. “Pilot” effect was very evident. Smooth, full edge engagement on short or long radius turns. Silky smooth ride. One of my favorite skis.

Crossmax 10 in 180 is a beefier ski, likes a little “rougher” treatment. Our 200 pounder remarked on the additional flex underfoot while it was less obvious to me at 180 or to DB at 160.

I’ve mentioned this before. Some folks will not like the feel of the Pilots while others will love it. I love it when I can feel it and I believe that they engage like nothing else. If I am too light on the ski to make it work or too heavy to make it work right there is no point. It seems to me that with other skis, sizing is not as critical.

post #3 of 13
So, JD,

Do the CrossMax look as funky in person as they do on paper? I am referring to the graphics.
post #4 of 13
Cross Max graphics are pretty wicked. Got this metal flake weave top sheet, they actually have a name for this technology "MetalTex" (only on the 10). SO actually they look cooler in person than in the pics. But they are pretty "loud" at least the 10 is. The 9 is a more subdued silver/black combo and the 8 is blue/black.

Anywho, have yet to ski them but hopefully in the next couple weeks I'll be able to try out the 10.
post #5 of 13
They are every bit as funky looking in real life. The Pocket Rocket has that MetalTex stuff too. Not an altogether handsome ski, IMO.

Argus, I missed you in the Valley.

jd<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by jd (edited February 14, 2001).]</FONT>
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
jd, What were the differences between the Crossmax 10 and 9? I was only able to ski on the 10 (190) and I want that ski for groomers and hardpack.
post #7 of 13
What is the 'Crossmax'? What kind of skiing is it intended for?
post #8 of 13
There is this feel that I love so much about the Pilots and it is really hard for me to describe. You have suffered through some of my poor attempts in the past. As much as many other ski manufacturers hate to admit it they are now comparing their systems to the “Pilot”. This wasn’t true last year at this time. Many were poo-pooing the idea, but after spending a week on 35 different 2001-2002 skis I have to say that from my perspective the Pilot system is providing a very different experience for skiers. I like it, some don’t. That’s cool.

When I said that the XM10 liked a little rougher treatment I meant that it skied more conventionally (by today’s standards) than the XM9. It required more direct input, more oomph, if you will, to get response while the XM9 was very fluid, sensitive and linear. I know that that sounds wussy but I like linear response.

I’m thinking that you and the XM10 are a good match. The XM10 would be more comfortable tucking Green Valley. I think that you push harder than I do. I’ll bet that if we skied together you would be waiting for me. I think that you are technically more adept than I am and probably push hard on the right part of a ski when it needs to be pushed hard (though Pilots don’t need much of that).
PS…The tail on the XM9 might be better in the Back but I’m sure that you will cover yourself there. You did say that you wanted this for groomers and hardpack. Sweet!


<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by jd (edited February 20, 2001).]</FONT>
post #9 of 13
I' have a pair of 192 Pilot 10s with the edge width problem that I will be returning. I'm thinking of going shorter if Solly will let me. You said you thought the 186 woody Pilot 10 was to much ski for you at 180lbs?. My problem is I cannot demo where I live. I'm not a high speed freak but I do enjoy some fast groomer carving . Mostly I like fast quick fall line turns, bumps and of course powder and crud. Not much icy conditions where I ski. I figure I can go shorter and have a little more fun throwing these things around but still have enough stability. I'm actually thinking about 183's. Never thought I'd be saying that after skiing 203's forever. Any thoughts? Anyone else? I know some of you are skiing 179 Xscreams. Is 183 to short? How about float in powder and crud at the shorter length?

40 yrs young
180 geared up
fairly agressive adv/expert

Anyone else been able to ski 186 or shorter Pilot woodys?

post #10 of 13

At 180 pounds I did not like the new 192 Pilot 10’s. Like that other post mentioned they felt way too long and stiff to work properly. At 186 I felt closer to what I wanted out of a Pilot but it still wasn’t quite what I had in mind. I didn’t have the opportunity to try the 180 but I feel that I need to get on them to fully understand the ski. I think that the technology here is great but needs enough weight on it to work. Once the technology is working it may or may not be the right ski for a person.

Ask yourself what it is that you really like about your 192’s. Does it have anything to do with the Pilot system or is it just sidecut, flex, etc.? If it’s the latter then all skis have that and it isn’t unique. If you truly feel something exciting and different from your skis and you want that in next years model then I would suggest that you either request 186’s or 180’s for replacements and demo a couple of sizes before you ski the new ones. If after demoing you feel that your new ones are the wrong size than I’m sure that your local shop will swap with you.

There is something that these things can do that is really nice. I see it as more of a finesse thing than a power thing. Is that you?

post #11 of 13
Thanks for your reply. My buddy has some 186's that I haven't tried yet but I will. He and I both found after a few days that it is a finnesse thing like you mention. No need to really crank em. Just ride em. But if you do need to step on em hard they still respond great. Like skiing steep bumps and really pressuring the tips.

I felt that once I got the hang of it they are really quick edge to edge. Even quicker than my old straight Rossi 4S Slalom skis and I though they were pretty quick. My .02

post #12 of 13
The Crossmax 10 Pilot dimensions are 107/69/102. Same as the Scream 8 Pilot. The 180cm has a turn radius of 17m. The binding is based on the S914 or 912 Ti.

please help with this.
As I recall the the Crossmax 10 has spacers (fillers) under the ends of the Pilot platforms. I don't remember those on the XM 9.
Does that sound right to you?

post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
I haven't seen the XMax 9s yet, so I don't know. My friend in Canada (Snowcovers) says those pieces under the front an rear of the bindings are mostly decorative.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews