or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RX4 vs R:11?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
I'm looking at purchasing my first pair of skis very soon. I'm a 5'9" 145# level 6-7 skier. I haven't skied much at all in recent years, but I'm anxious to get back into it. I will do most of my skiing here in the Mid-Atlantic with hopefully an annual trip to the West. The wife and I went out to Breck in December for a week and had a blast. We had fun cruising the blues, blue-blacks and even some easier blacks. I am eager and willing to learn and grow in my skiing and I'm excited to ski all areas of the mountain with the exception of bumps.

I have been reading a lot of the old threads on here and have an idea of what may be a good ski for me at my budget. I have found a few great deals and would like to hear your opinions on which would be better. Is the '04 Fischer RX4 in a 170 a good choice? I've read that it may not be enough ski for a more advanced skier? How about the '04 Atomic R:11 in a 160? Both can be had at the same price NEW with bindings. It seems from my reading that the R:11 is much more ski than the RX4. Is it too much for me and my level of skiing? Would the lengths of the two skis be comparable(ie. Whichever I get should be 160 or 170?) Which would be better for me, 160 or 170? Thanks Bears!

post #2 of 7
madmike, I'd suggest the 160 in the R:11 for your weight. I'm not sure about the RX4, but that seems like a little bit on the low side of the skill level for you. An RX6 would be better if you could find one in your price range.

I have friends with the R:11. They really like them, but they found them to be not nearly as nice as the newer Metron series from Atomic. The R:11 was the top all-mountain ski from Atomic last year.
post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input ssh. Do you guys think the R:11 in a 160 is ok? I have read that it should be skied a little longer. Would a 170 fancy me better? I won't mind spending a lot more $$$ in a year or two once I refine and work on my skills. I'm looking for a bargain right now to get into the serious swing of things... Thanks!
post #4 of 7
madmike, here's what I wrote about the ski last year (keep in mind that I'm a 185lb level 8+ skier):

Ski Make: Atomic
Ski Model: R:11
Ski Length: 180
Snow Conditions Used In: Man-made with light fresh snow (Loveland, CO)
Number of Days Used: 1
Your Ability: Advanced
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 33
Avg. Days per Year Skiing: 10-20
Other Skis You Like: Fischer RX8 and Race SC, Atomic SX:11, Elan S12 Fusion
Your Height/Weight: 6'/180
Comments: I think this ski was too long for me. It held an edge in most carved turns very well, but I think it's possible that I didn't have enough weight on the extremes of the ski to hold the edges at speed. As a result, the ski felt both sluggish and less sable than I would like at speed. I suspect the 170 would be better for me (note: Atomic does 10cm increments in this ski!).

Given this, I'd think at your weight and skill level, you'd likely prefer them shorter (160).
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
Well, I just went ahead and pulled the trigger on a set of R:11s in 160 with Race 412 bindings. They were brand new and I got them for $330 shipped to my door. From looking around that seemed like a pretty good price, so I just went for it. Hopefully I'll test them out on some Eastern hardpack soon. Thanks Steve.

post #6 of 7
Hey Mike-Did the place you got yours from still have any 170s? If so, could you share the site?Thanks!
post #7 of 7
Thread Starter 
I couldn't find any 170s. I scored these from an ebay store called Pinnacle Ski Sports with the seller handle of david110549. I didn't email and ask him if he had 170s, but if he does I would suspect that you couldn't get them that cheap since they are more popular. Anyways, good luck finding some! Hopefully these will do good for me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion