or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Atomic SX 11 - Supercross vs Volkl Supersport 6x (Motion - no pilot)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SX 11 - Supercross vs Volkl Supersport 6x (Motion - no pilot)

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Ski Make: 2003 Atomic SX 11 - Supercross vs 2004 Volkl Supersport 6x
Ski Model: See above
Ski Length: 170cm vs 175 cm
Snow Conditions Used In: Cruiser hardpack
Number of Days Used: 1
Your Ability: Lvl 9
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 10+
Avg. Days per Year Skiing: 35 +
Other Skis You Like: Saloman Pocket Rockets 185/ Atomic R:ex 177 (which my wife is pinching for tele skis)
Your Height/Weight: 5' 11"/ 165 lbs
Comments:

Tried these out in Sun Peaks in BC.

My wife was on her 177 Volkl G4s the first day. Then she tried the Supersports on demo the second day. Since her boots and my boots are the same shell size I swapped over for about 4 runs.

Skied on groomed corduroy with good edge hold; then some semi - hard pack runs.

Let me first state my biases. I LOVE my Atomic SX11 Supercrosses. I initially demo'ed a pair of 180s last season in Whistler on cut up snow and got my bu** kicked. They are one heck of a ski with a lot of stored up energy in the tail and tips. Stay centered or they will throw you around.

I felt the 170s were a better ski for my height and weight. After some 4 days on the Atomic I have the following comments which should be read in context with the comments on the Volkl

- Both have comparable edge hold. That is to say they are both confidence inspiring in those photo-shoot style wide turns where one leans way over into the turn showing off base graphics to the world. This is true for hard-pack as well as groomed

- Both skis like to be skied fast turning. I felt the Atomic had that oh-so-hard to quantify snap when skied aggresively into a turn and then compressing out of the turn and into the next turn; even without weighting and unweighting the skis feel very alive and snappy. I didn't get that same impression out of the Volkl. This is not to say that the Volkls feel dead. Its more to say that the Atomics felt more active out of the turn then the Volkls.

- The Volkl feels a lot more stable at speed tucking into flat run-outs then does the Atomic. The Atomic does the Elvis-leg thing going fast into run-outs.

I didn't get the chance to ski the Volkl in cut-up snow as my wife wouldn't let me back on them for any more than those 4 runs :<

I don't like her G4s at all. I'm not a big fan of her G3s either. That's for another review; they're fast skis but I just don't enjoy turning them. So I was surprised that I liked the Supersports that much.

To summarize; there's not much to choose between the Atomic SX11 Supercross and the Volkl Supersport 6x. Any comments I make are little nits more than glaring differences. After reading some other reviews on this board I wonder whether we should have demo'ed 168 Supersports? However, both of us felt that the 175s were a nice length.
post #2 of 13
Thread Starter 
Too funny - here's my wife's review posted at the same time as mine

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=7;t=000584
post #3 of 13
nice review, Lee!

sounds like the Atomics have a nice feel, much like I described for my new Fischers here.

I'll be trying out my new BigStix 8.6 tomorrow, will post a review tomorrow evening.

Happy Boxing Day etc to you & Sharon. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #4 of 13
I was on the 175 5 star last year, that was a nice length, it would go anywhere on the mountain, but on the hardpack it didn't have much pop out of the turns, it was more like a GS ski, super stable and smooth out of the turns. And the 6 star is supposed to be even more stable, I'm pretty sure the 168 with it's tigher turning radius would give you more pop out of the turn. Like Keelty said in his review, ski them short and ski them fast.
post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 
Westcat - my wife is going to be demo'ing Supersport 6 stars in the 168s so we'll both get a chance to try them out.

Gonz - so when are you going to visit? We've both been hearing a lot of good things about Big Sky and Whitefish and I'm itching for a roadtrip down there. We're going to be doing a Red - Fernie - Kicking Horse road trip in February and you're welcome to come along. Just to keep it review related we can trade off Fischer Big Stix's vs Saloman Pocket Rockets vs Volkl G4s!
post #6 of 13
hey Lee,

I'm busy in January with:

1) a ski buddies' "January Birthday weekend" at Ski Discovery and Pintlers backcountry... 5 of us have Jan birthdays

2) Epic Ski Academy 2 in late January

3) Epic Ski Gathering 4 at end January/start February

4) general tuneup skiing locally

...but February and March are wide open, as long as I put in some framebuilding time

[img]redface.gif[/img] --no, actually -->

I'm interested in the Kicking Horse/Sun Peaks/Tod Mountain area... and have yet to ski Whitewater or Red Mountain...

let's try to plan something!
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
gonzo - I'll get Sharon to get hold of you about the roadtrip - say 2nd week of February. I'm itching to get to Whitewater too but we'll follow the snow.

I got the chance to ski the 168 Supersport 6 star for a few runs. My wife demo'ed them for the whole day while we were doing the Dave Murray Camp but I managed to sneak them away for 3 runs during the day.

I had them on short slalom turns and long GS turns. I was skiing them about the same speed as the 175s; which is to say fairly fast but not confiscate-your-seasons-pass fast and I didn't feel any detraction in the speed. There was no new snow and I didn't get to venture into bumps to feel as if the skis were easier to handle in the 168s as opposed to the 175 length.

I'd have to conclude that, at my 72 kilos/165 pound weight I'd be better off on 168s then 175s Supersports.

[ January 01, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: LeeL ]
post #8 of 13
that would be my guess, too -- I'm only 5 lbs lighter, and I don't think I'd want to be bigger than 170cm on such an energetic "all-mountain" ski... maybe on a fatty, but not on the Volkl Superstars or the Fischer RX 8 (or 6) series skis either.

february sounds great, especially if we shoot for 3d or 4th week... if that's possible for you & Sharon.
post #9 of 13
At 175-180lbs, I'm on a 170 RX8, and I'd be tempted to go shorter. I liked the 6* in the 168, too.
post #10 of 13
At 165 lbs, I think 175 cm and even the 168 cm lengths might be a bit hefty for your wight. You might not weigh enough to bend the Volkl 6s well unless going balls on fire, hence your perception of lack of pop.

I am 190lbs and ski on 161cm V-6s. I ski 90% very hard pack, and I find I get plenty of liviness betwee turns and all the agility I want out of them. If I live in soft snow country (non-east), I probably go with the 168cm.
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by josseph:
At 165 lbs, I think 175 cm and even the 168 cm lengths might be a bit hefty for your wight. You might not weigh enough to bend the Volkl 6s well unless going balls on fire, hence your perception of lack of pop.

I am 190lbs and ski on 161cm V-6s. I ski 90% very hard pack, and I find I get plenty of liviness betwee turns and all the agility I want out of them. If I live in soft snow country (non-east), I probably go with the 168cm.
That's a very good point. I've been told by quite a few people that the Volkl is stiffer than my Atomics so I can believe that is true. I've also been told that the Atomic is extremely torsionally rigid, which accounts for the amazing edge-hold. I would imagine the Volkl is at least that rigid torsionally. It could be the case that I just didn't get enough time on the Volkls and that I'm not heavy enough to get action out of them.

Whistler-Blackcomb is the home mountain for me and skis in this class would be used in hardpack for the most part.
post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by gonzostrike:


february sounds great, especially if we shoot for 3d or 4th week... if that's possible for you & Sharon.
gonz, check your pm or email me - bader at alumni dot sfu dot ca
post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by LeeL:
Whistler-Blackcomb is the home mountain for me and skis in this class would be used in hardpack for the most part.
In my limited opinion, Volkl 6s are very much a hard pack ski. The icier the better. It doesn't begin to show its stuff until you can practically see your own reflection in the ... ahem .... hard .. snow.

If I call WB my home, heck... I am envious .... but I'd get something a lot softer flexing than the 6s's. I think the 6s's can still get the job done very nicely at WB's hard pack, but there are lots more softer skies that will give more pleasure in those conditions. I am heading out your way on my annual March pilgrimage. I am leaving my 6s's behind and opt for my 2 yr old Vertigo's.
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 SX 11 - Supercross vs Volkl Supersport 6x (Motion - no pilot)