EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › overpower Atomic's 9.12?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

overpower Atomic's 9.12?

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
I'm 6'1", 210lbs high intermediate skier. Longest length of the 9.12 is 170. Is that long enough or should I look for another ski?
Also, if anyone has any experience with it, would you recommend it for skiing in the East mostly on groomed, hardpack (sometimes chopped up) snow? I've surfed the web, but it can be confusing. Any other ski recommendations? :
post #2 of 9
There are plenty of world class skiers on 160 cm slalom skis. Many of these guys are built like linebackers in the NFL. The answer to your question is a resounding no you are not "too big" Buy the 160 cm ski.

You might want to wait for the SL9. It is out in limited quantities at present. In essence it is an amalgam of the 9.12 sidecut with the flex of the 9.16

That is a fairly simplistic description of the ski. The guy I know who got a pair is 6'4" weighs 210 and is on a 160 cm pair.
post #3 of 9
Here is what I have been able to uncover so far regarding Atomic's new slalom skis (in New Hampshire):
"I skied both of next years slaloms yesterday and I liked the world cup ski much better than the replacement for the 9.12 which is called the SL 9 (111-65-96). The world cup ski is called the sl 11 (107-63 95). The skis are available for purchase now but we have to order them which takes a day or so. They look great and I'm not sure about length at this point. They are kind of greenish.
Prices are:

SL 11 list $895 Our price $649 comes in 150-157-164-171;

SL 9 list $695 Our price $529"

This was sent to me from: Jeff Proctor

I prefered the 9.16 to the 9.12 for all mountain skiing. Definitely try before you buy. Good luck!
post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 
The main reason why I would rather get this year's model 9.12 is because I can get it at 50% off retail price (ski sale in my area).
I discounted the 9.16 because I thought it was too much ski for me(I can get it at 50% off also). If the 9.16 is a better all mountain ski and is good for intermediates and up, I would reconsider. Can anyone compare the two (advantages and disadvantages of each)?
Also, I've been told that the Beta Carve 9.18 would be a good choice. Any comments on this?
post #5 of 9
The 9.12 requires being on edge almost all of the time. If you're an intermediate but learning quickly then one of the race skis might be ok. If not go with the 9.18. The slalom skis don't really like the choppy snow either.
post #6 of 9
I cannot imagine why an intermediate skier would consider a race ski. It is like getting a race car to drive to work.

My suggestion is to look at the 9.18 Device, which is an excellent advanced ski. But if you insist on a race ski, you should try to demo to make sure that the skis meet your expectations.

Good luck.
post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 
The reason why I first considered the 9.12 was because the one of the ski rating sites rated it "the ski of the year" and also described it as a recreational race slalom ski good for itermediates and up. Another site described it as being "As much fun as Atomic makes! Some skiers, especially those who rely on steering, may find the ski “squirrelly”, but it is certainly the most versatile member of Atomic’s race group. Elite skiers probably prefer 9.16, although 9.12 is surprisingly stable at speed, even in 150cm and performs credibly in bumps".
From the responses here, the above descriptions may not be correct. If they are not suitable as an "everyday" ski for a higher intermediate, I should consider another ski.
Maybe its important, maybe not, but I now ski on 188 K2 Threes which I like -- I like the speed but would like an easier turning ski that would be less fatiguing. Would that describe the 9.18? How would the Dynastar Speed SX compare? the Head World Cup or Cyber XP-70 ti? A Volant ski (the store where I'm buying seems to be pushing Volants)? Is there another ski that would be better?
post #8 of 9

I have the 9.18 in a 170 but prefered the 9.12 in a 160. The 9.12 didn't feel like an all out race ski (e.g. 9.16), but it handled the higher speeds better than the 9.18. A lot is down to individual taste. Demo if you can.

post #9 of 9
In response to Werekong's PM prompting, I realize I owe everyone a 9.12 assessment, following up on my prior 9.16 review this fall.

I (weighing a mere 145lbs.) skied a 170cm 9.16 (the first-generation 9.16, although it's pretty similar to the current 9.16) for the past two years. I remember how shocked I was that a ski so short could not only be so quick in the race course (which is of course what I expected) but also so versatile all over the mountain. Now I obviously continued to use my 10.22 for gs, and my randonee setup for backcountry and out West, but for typical New England conditions, the 9.16 was my first choice, and even for atypical New England conditions (i.e., much of last season), the 9.16 was also quite good.

This season, the 9.12 in a mere 150cm is more of the same. The first day out every chairlift ride was a novelty, swinging my skis and staring down at their length, or rather lack of length. (Looking down while skiing proved to be too terrifying!) I was amazed out how I could make arc-to-arc sl turns on steep trails, turns that on prior skis required lots of pivoting. Yet higher-speed larger-radius were still stable. And moguls are lots of fun (both the springtime bumps I had one day at Bromley, and the powdery soft bumps I somehow got lucky enough to ski at Killington and Wildcat).

My big caveat would be skill level. The better you ski, the more fun these skis are. At the same time, they also make better skiing easier. So if you're already at the stage where you're acquiring real carving skills (be honest now), these might make a great advancement tool. Otherwise, well, who knows, maybe you'll still like them? I went up the lift with a guy on 167 Rossi sl race skis, who raved about their performance. I watched him ski off, making a mediocre version of the kind of turns I did 20 years ago on Rossi FP slalom skis. I was puzzled that he liked top-of-the-line new school sl skis for mediocre old-school turns, but whatever works for ya...

P.S. In another post, a review commented that seemed dead. That might be related to the rather uninspired lifter on the standard ski. (The race stock 9.12 comes w/ the 10.22/9.16-style plate.) But I'm not really sure that liveliness matters anymore for sl skis, since the whole point of "new school" sl is to keep the skis on the snow and go arc-to-arc. Yet then again I haven't skied on the race stock 9.12, or the SL 9 and 11, so maybe I would change my mind if I tried those.
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 › overpower Atomic's 9.12?