or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Atomic BetaRide 9.22 Superlight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic BetaRide 9.22 Superlight

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Ski Make: Atomic
Ski Model: Beta Ride 9.22
Binding: Marker 1200 Titanium
Ski Length: 180
Snow Conditions Tested in: Kirkwood hardpack and crud, Heavenly sierra cement and packed powder, and Sierra at Tahoe crud and powder
Your Ability: advanced
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 16
Height/Weight:5'6" 140

One phrase...i didn't like them :| I took them because a guy in my shop said they were really fun...and because they were the only pair of midfats left during this time of year. The skis themselves felt really dead. They held an edge really well, had good float, etc...but they seemed dull for some reason or another...i can't quite put my finger on it. Usually with the Volkl P40's i've been on, i can sense when the ski begins to do what I don't want them to do. That way, i can make corrections before I fall. The 9.22's just did their own thing at times and by the time i realized they were doing something, it was too late and *poof* a cloud of snow goes up with the fall. : maybe I'm not that good of a skier...but it's the first ski i've had this problem with. Didn't happen with the K2 5500 back when they were popular, didn't happen with Salomon 1080's or X-scream 9, didn't happen with the volkl p40 or vertigo motion or G3.

Other than that, I got to enjoy some tree skiing and cruising with them. Out of the midfats I've tried, (G31, X-scream 9 and Series, G3, Vertigo Motion, Rossi Bandit X, etc) i would have to put these towards the bottom of the rank in terms of how much I liked them. In terms of performance quality (in all fairness) i would put them towards the top 25% or so...holds edge really well, floats well, good at higher speeds.

Hope this review helps anyone who's considering buying these skis [img]smile.gif[/img]

post #2 of 8
melloboy, your height and weight are very close to mine, and I wouldn't choose to ski these Atomics in a 180 cm length. Could it be that you would have enjoyed them more in a shorter length? I'm 5'8" and 10 to 145 pounds, depending.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 01, 2002 04:43 PM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
post #3 of 8
Id take them in a 180 for stability. I was on my xscreams today and i realized that they are very soft compared to race skis and felt myself longing for my edgehold that i have with my race boards. they still ski the fluff great and plow through crud, but shinny ice - give me a race ski. Most midfats that are not high end ski tend to be more damp than others. The 9.22 is not the top of the line, you might try to the 10.20 or 11.20 and find that you liek them much better as they have a construction that lends itself more to a race type ski, much like the volkl G3. Could have been that it is just becase it is a lower end ski, not designed for a very aggressive skier, i dont know how aggressive you are as far as your skiing style goes... but that could be it. Try a beefier ski.
post #4 of 8
I just tried this ski last week. I hadn't planned on buying them (190cm.) because I was afraid they might be too soft for my weight and ability (220 lbs/expert). But I got a great deal on them so I got them to add to my quiver this year along with a pair of Atomic Beta Race 9.16's (180cm.).

I had planned on buying either a Vertigo G3 or a Volant T3 Power in the 188-193cm. range after demoing last season, but went for the cheaper deal.

I only skied them for 1/2 day at Okemo on groomed pp-frgr, before switching to the 9.16's so my impressions are still preliminary. Here's what I thought:

Easiest ski to turn I've ever skied. Huge sweet spot and extremely forgiving. Very quick edge to edge. I'm used to a lively ski, and that's what I prefer as I've usually skied Volkl or other top race skis until this year. This ski was plenty lively enough without being too nervous.
At first I was not happy with the edgehold, but after a run or two I discovered that you have to really get them out from under you. Once you get them up on a high edge angle, they really lock into a nice solid carve with good edgehold.
They wouldn't be my first choice for skiing real hardpack, but for a relatively light, soft ski the edgehold was decent (and that's with a factory tune). I imagine that with some hand tuning (i.e. 2+ degree side edge bevel) they'd hold very well.

I wasn't able to get any big GS speed going because of too many people on limited terrain, but I get the feeling that I wouldn't want to go 40+ mph on them, but for normal conditions these were a very nice ride. I must note also that I have Marker Turbo Logic bindings on them, and whereas I usually keep the setting on #2, it did feel a little too soft on the 9.22's. When I switched to the #3 setting the performance improved noticably for these conditions.

If I had the bucks, I'd probably rather have the G3's or T3 powers for my mid-fat's but I'm not disappointed, and think they're going to be pretty nice when some real snow comes this way.

post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 
I don't think size was really the issue here. I was demoing the Vertigo Motion in a 177 and found that particular ski to be amazing. I wasn't aware that the 9.22 was considered to be a lower end midfat in the atomic line. Had alot of people coming in about the 9.22 last season and people mentioning that they liked it better than the 10.20 and such.

Unfortunately, i didn't have the selective control on this binding so I wasn't able to test that out. I have to agree with Heluvaskier in that if you're used to race boards, to stay away from the 9.22. It might have been the softness, but it just didn't feel like they belonged on my feet for how fast i was skiing and such. The 9.22 might be a pretty good intermediate/advanced ski for someone who's skiing something such as the K2 7/8 (Axis). But in comparing them to the highend midfats (K2 AxisX, Volkl G3, Salomon X-Scream series) they don't quite stand up.

Looking forward to demoing a few of the higher end atomics...maybe my bias against them'll disappear =)

post #6 of 8
I think the 9.22 is a totally different ski than the 10.20.
I have the 9.22 190cm. I bought it long because it is so soft. I would not like it in 180. Not enough oomph. It is my fairly specific crud/powder ski. Very easy to ski in all conditions, but prefer soft snow.
The 10.20 is more beefy. More expert level.
9.22 is not a middle of the road ski for Atomic, just different target group I think.
post #7 of 8
On shaped skis increased length does not equal stability! If you can't properly bend the ski, enage it under foot, it will not work and will not be stable. I ski the 9.22 in 170 cm length at 175#. The skiing public is still skiing shapes too long - look at what the racers are doing!!
post #8 of 8
Thread Starter 
I think what was meant to be said was that if you can properly bend the ski, at a 180, a 180cm ski is more stable than the 170cm ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Atomic BetaRide 9.22 Superlight