or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Atomic Supercross SX-11
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Supercross SX-11

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Ski Make: Atomic
Ski Model: Supercross SX-11
Ski Length: 170cm
Snow Conditions Used In: Combination of man-made/natural snow, hardpack, ice!
Number of Days Used: 7
Your Ability: 8+
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 12
Avg. Days per Year Skiing: 25
Other Skis You Like: First pair new shape ski
Your Height/Weight: 5'9"/180lbs.

I just converted from a straight ski 2 weeks ago and i've been on the SX's for 7 days.

One word, AWESOME. I'll never ski my old SuperForce 9's ever again! The old Salomon's will never ever, in a million years do what the SX can.

(I assume this is a common nOOb reaction after skiing a new style ski?)

The SX carves so awesome and the arc's are so silky smooth and stable. They haul a$$ and can crank out some awesome GS turns at just about any speed. Short turns take some work. Stick with the medium to long turns and they will carve through just about anything. Being an eastern skier, ice is quite common...I skied a couple runs on really firm, frozen man-made snow and the Atomic's just took the conditions with ease. Not enjoyable, but very skiable. Superb all-mountain ski.

I went with the SX 4-12 binding. My favorite binding position is 'allround' and 'speed' for the longer GS turns. I tried the 'extreme' setting, but the ski felt like it wanted to skid rather than carve. Each setting is very sensitive and very noticable.
post #2 of 15
I skied at Loon Mountain in New Hampshire with a buddy yesterday (a hard surface across the mountain). I skied my SX:11s - they are nothing if not iceskates. They are also rocket sticks - they like to go fast and faster, and they like the larger radius turns more than short radius turns. I've heard that they are tricky in the bumps, but given the lack of snow here, bumps have been hard to find (there were a few small easy ones yesterday which were no trouble). I bought them last season for the icy days but had little call to ski them (we had a great winter then - as compared with this season when I've been on my Volkl V-Pros just 3 days).

My buddy is just starting his demo process. Yesterday he tried the Atomic Supercross 9 (SX:9) in 170 cm (he is coming off of 5 or 6 year old Bandit Xs in 184cm). He *loved* these skis and wanted to buy them right away. He demoed the SX:11 last season and found it to be a tad more demanding than he cared to deal with. I convinced him not to shortcut the other skis on his demo list and so the process will continue. Other skis on his demo list include the Fischer RX8, the Head i.M75 Super Railflex, the Elan Mantis 662, the new Atomic M2Tron, and the new Atomic Supercross 10 (SX:10 - not sure if this fits between the SX:9 and SX:11 or if it is replacing one of these... It looks like it has titanium rather than carbon rods).
post #3 of 15
I own a pair. I demoed them for one run, determining that they weren't the all mountain ski I was looking for, but that I had not had that much fun on a groomer ever. Later that year, with my tax return I bought a pair as a supplement to my quiver for blue ice days.

When you put them on edge they take off like a rocket across the fall line. You really have to hold on. They scared me; not because they were unstable, but because they accelerated so quickly.

After skiing them for a few full days I've decided that maybe they weren't the best purchase. They aren't my only pair of skis, but still when I use them, it's for the whole day. They don't like being forced into something other than their natural turn shape. They don't like to skid at all either, like when you need to check your speed (a common occurence with these skis .

More and more I love my Dynastar Ski Cross 66's (aka Cross 10's). They have a very solid and smooth feel. Edge hold and stability is right up with the atomics. Rebound energy is pretty close to the atomics. They can turn any shape with ease (if you're a decent skier). The shorter you go, the harder it is to stretch out really long turns (not that hard though). Bumps are do-able.
post #4 of 15
If I had to get a narrow waisted ski for the NE to use instead of my R11s, I would get the SX:11.

I think all Atomics have ridiculous edgehold.

I demoed a pair up in Tremblant and they were dull.

Definately keep them sharp.
post #5 of 15
Interesting reviews... I demo'ed the SX:9's last week at Cannon and I had a terrible time on the things. Absolutely zero edge hold on the things unless they were waaayyyy up on edge. When the edges did hold, it was extremely grabby -- they'd just suddenly "lock in". I was actually scared on the things. I demo'ed some others (Volkl 5* and the K2 Axis XT) from the same place that same day and they were fine. Do Atomic's have sensitive tuning requirements? Nobody would ever make a ski that was that bad -- I gave them back and told the shop to "check the tune" but I pretty much just got a look that said "we know what we're doing".
post #6 of 15
They weren't tuned properly. The SX:9 is very, very similar to the 5* except that it has a bit more edge hold when in the belly of the turn and it doesn't like to skid at all.
post #7 of 15
I mistakenly tuned my R11s slightly off last Monday and it was very noticeable.

I sharpened my side edge alittle to far on the tails and they grabbed badly.

I actually fell in a liftline because they were so sharp at the tails.

They were skiable on a normal slope but on flat hard surfaces it was bad.

It sounds like the demos you had could have been too dull in the front but sharper towards the tails. Also the base bevel could have been more than one degree.

I have skied on only Volkl and Atomics and they both are comparable in edgehold.
post #8 of 15
KevinF, it was the tune, I have gotten badly tuned skis at some demo's. The SX11's are awesome skis, if you can keep up with them.
post #9 of 15
I once got a very bad tune on a pair of Atomic SL9 - they were practically unskiable - and scary.

Yet, to look at them, it appeared that they were freshly tuned and ready to go.....
post #10 of 15
I purchased the Atomuc SX-9 180cm this year and have skied it about 15 days this year. Ski at 7 Springs in western Pa.which never fails to deliver a wide variety of conditions from velvet- hero snow, to windowpane ice , and don't forget the frozen granular. I have read the comments on this ski and the so far the consensus seems to be its not much of a ski. I'm not quite sure yet what my lasting impressions of this ski will end up being.

I think this ski is more"stout" than what some others have commented so far. Keep in mind I'm skiing it on a small hill(450-750 vertial feet). The SX-9 is the same sidecut as the GS-9 and maybe the same ski , Beta Racer would know. Essentially the ski probably does what it was designed to do very well. I also ski an Atmoic 9'12 170cm from a few years ago , as well as a K2 Axis XP 174cm. I'm 49 years old, 6 ft 185 lb., Level 8-9 .

I think the Volkl 5& 6 Stars as well as the Fischer RX-8 and 6 represent a more favorable sidecut for the type of turn radius I enjoy more. Also I would choose these skis in a shorter length than the 180cm SX-9 I have.

I think the SX-9 is a very good ski that would distinguish itself better on a bigger hill and is "burly" enough to go pretty fast on. Per Phil's earlier comments concerning its performance in the bumps, I would have to agree. Its not too great. I would be curious to ski the SX-9 in a 170 cm length for comparison purposes. Anyway my 2 cents.
post #11 of 15

I agree with you that the SX:9 is an excellent ski - and, in fact, aside from one entry in this thread (which we all believe was due to a tuning problem), no one has criticized the ski. Often times I wish I had bought the SX:9 instead of the 11 - I think the 9 is a bit easier to ski and doesn't give up much at all in performance except at very high speed. The 9 is also more fun in the bumps. I also agree with your assessment of length.

In terms of dimensions:
SX:11 105-66-95 @ 170cm
SX: 9 106-65-97 @ 170cm
GS: 9 109-65-98 @ 180cm

All this may soon be outdated information. Atomic has some of its new models out (2005). The SX appears to be mostly white with a large 'SX' at tip and tail. There is also an SX:10 with graphics very similar to the current 9 - don't know if it is intended to replace the 9. The GS:11 also appears to be white with 'ATOMIC' writ large (in black) as on the current models. Folks returning from the ski show in Vegas should have some news for us this week.
post #12 of 15
I tried the atomic sx-11 @ 170, and did not like it.

I tried the Head iXRC @172 and loved it. It had better acceleration, tracking and was not deflected easily by cut-up piles of snow. It was faster for me.

Me: 6'2" 235 -- just like in high school.
post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by BigE:
I tried the atomic sx-11 @ 170, and did not like it.

I tried the Head iXRC @172 and loved it. It had better acceleration, tracking and was not deflected easily by cut-up piles of snow. It was faster for me.

Me: 6'2" 235 -- just like in high school.
I'm surprised you didn't like the SX-11, it truly is a speed-demon. Thats if you can keep up, hehe...

[ January 27, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: stiperformance ]
post #14 of 15
At 235 lbs you might have needed the 180 SX11. I'm 160 and on the 170 SX 11.
post #15 of 15
Originally posted by stiperformance:
I'm surprised you didn't like the SX-11, it truly is a speed-demon. Thats if you can keep up, hehe...
The Atomic was much slower at 170. It was probably too short. OTOH the Head @172 was really quite fast.

I understand that Head recomends a shorter ski than you'd normally use in other brands. I'll try a longer SX-11 next time it's available at my home hill. Could be real interesting.

FYI:I ski Dynastar Speed Carve 63 @ 186.
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 Supercross SX-11