or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic 9.?? Race or Carv
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic 9.?? Race or Carv

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

Currently using Atomic Beta Carv/X 9.18s 180cms that are coming to the end of their useful life after 3 seasons and around 9 weeks of skiing. (at least that is what I'm telling the wife). Love the ski, and was thinking about buying the same ski again, but this year's model with the Carbon Power
Channel. In other words, I've not outgrown the 9.18 in ability and doubt that I will with my current average of 3 weeks a year skiing.

As an alternative (and because the colour matches my new XWave 9.0 boots better - just
kidding , I've been considering the Atomic Beta Race 9.20 in a 180cm - Any thoughts or opinions on this ski? Are they much stiffer? I've seen a variety of figures quoted for the turn radius that seem to deviate from the Atomic norm of the .20 being the natural turn radius in metres. ie, figures I've seen quoted are 18m at 190cm and 16.5m at 180cm NTR for the 9.29.
The 9.18s have an 18m NTR so I doubt there'll be much difference in NTR between them and the 9.20 Race.

I'm a European Red run skier, of good intermediate level looking to break
out of the rut. Like the challenge of a good black run, but enjoy motorway cruisers and groomed steeps at high speed the most. However, can get down pretty much anything with minimal to acceptable style, finesse and

Enjoy GS type carving turns the most (and best at them), but also looking to
improve short swings and tighter Special Slalom turns. Not especially
interested in the Bumps (not a sadist, and my knees love me for it). Occasionally venture Off-Piste when its soft and fluffy for a laugh, but you'll normally find me on the groomed. So I'm looking for some versatility, but am not going to cry if the ski isn't brilliant in the powder.

Consequently the 9.18s have been and are pretty much my ideal ski, but if I'm buying a new pair, I'd like to consider something else.

Any comments on the 2001 Beta Carv 9.18 welcomed as well. Fortunately, because I live in Europe the Atomics are about half the cost that they are in the States, so they represent much better value than K2's etc. Betaracer, you may be able to help me with the specifics here - I have this feeling the 2001 9.18 wouldn't be that different a ski than my 3 season old model, and my gut feeling is that the 9.20 race is the one for me. I'm of heavyish build at 190 pounds and 178cm tall. (5'10.5" in old money).


A bad day on the piste is better than a good day in the office!...
post #2 of 9
Obviously, I can't tell you what to get. But from what you said, you just HAVE to demo the Beta Race 9.20 in a 180! It's a wonderfully fun and versatile GS-flavored ski!
post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

I think you are right. I've been doing a lot of reading on this forum tonight - what an excellent board! Everything I've read about the 9.20 Race makes me want it more, my only concern being if it were a touch too stiff, and maybe lacking in versatility as compared with the 9.18. However, although I love the rush of speed and I like to carve GS type turns, I am experimenting more with fall line short swings these days to try and improve my technique. Will I be handicapping myself in that area with this ski over the 9.18 in your opinion, or is it as versatile?



A bad day on the piste is better than a good day in the office!...
post #4 of 9
Simon -

Here's my reply from last night on Divot's post a few items down the list:

"Well, I have no perspective since I HAVE a pair of Beta Race 9.20s (last years, but with vario-charger) and I've never tried any of the other Atomic models. But all I can say is, I'm a 50-ish ex-expert who skis mostly steep hardpack in an agressive tight GS sort of style, and I just can't imagine a better ski!"

I chose these skis after extensive off-snow research based on my knowledge of how I like a ski to perform. I consider them to be a very versatile, lively, quick and playful GS-style ski. I ski almost exclusively on smooth steep hardpack in the North Eastern U.S. I haven't demoed other skis recently, and I rarely do bumps or powder. But I think these skis are a lot of fun - softer than a full-blown GS race ski, but still very solid in high-speed GS carves. They're particularly great at linked tight GS turns on firm snow. I think they're an excellent Eastern US all-mountain ski. Hey - that's all I know! Try 'em! Heck - try everything you can!

By the way, I'm 5' 8" and weigh 165 pounds, and I got the 180's. I was concerned that they would be too short, but they're just right.

- Tom<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Tominator (edited February 04, 2001).]</FONT>
post #5 of 9
Thanks for the reply, Tominator.
I am anxious to try both the 9.20 and 9.16. Although two different skis in their respective specialties, I would love to see how much versatility if much at all they each have. For the conditions that we see around here, I would think that powder and crud performance are secondary attributes, but a little help would certainly not hurt. Thanks again for the reply.
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 
Divot / Tominator

I think the key question being asked by us is how versatile are these skis. Certainly from my perspective, I have found my 9.18s to be great on the groomed and slopeside powder/slush for all that I have tried them with. In the powder they aren't great (nor am I for that matter), but they are usable for the occasional foray. If the 9.20s are as versatile and excelled in some areas then that would be great. I have read some reports that they are squirrelly when running flat, but I haven't found that to be a particular problem with the 9.18 and I suspect this is a relative thing.
Thanks for your responses...

A bad day on the piste is better than a good day in the office!...
post #7 of 9
Having tried the BetaRace 9.20 and now owning the Betarace 9.16SL in 180 (am 5-11, 200), I think the 9.16 is a great choice. Very versatile, lively, eats ice, can do GS and SL turns equally well, can turn slow, can handle 40mph-plus...everything but deep powder. I love it for both NASTAR as well as tooling around with my kids. The 9.20 seemed wanted to lock me in the carve and simply felt like too much work, compared to the 9.16.
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 
How do you find the stability of the 9.16 compared with the 9.20? What about stiffness and ability to plough through crud?

Some of the alternatives I was also considering were the Beta Carv Hyper Carbon 9.14 or the Race 9.14 but thought they might be a bit too turny. Not sure if they are this years models either (not that that matters particularly).

Thanks for the input - not sure it has helped me focus in on a model but certainly given me something to ponder.



A bad day on the piste is better than a good day in the office!...
post #9 of 9
TJazz, after reading your post it's inspiring to know that such a high performance ski (9.16) also maintains the ability for slower carved turns and is "easier" handling than the 9.20? The more I research this shorty slalom idea I become more interested. Thanks again for the opinion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic 9.?? Race or Carv