or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SX:10 vs. 5 Star

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Need some input and sage advice. I have narrowed my selection to the Atomic sx:10 puls ti & the Volkl 5 star. I am early forties, 6' 1" 175 lbs, good shape, advanced to expert skier, like all terrain, powder when we have it (rarely), and bumps. Have gradually given into shorter skis (i.e., gave up my Rossi 4s 203's for Rossi Bandit X 193's a few years ago, ready for a change as the Rossi's are losing life & feeling floppy, also difficult to swing around in moduls). Considering the sx:10 in 170's and the 5 star in 175's. If anyone has skied both, I would appreciate some input. I have not yet seen a head to head comparision. Have not been able to demo yet, might be able to this weekend. Thanks!
post #2 of 17

Go the SX's!

Dude, at your age, you probably can't handle the 5 Stars in the moguls. The SX's will give you most of what you like out of the moguls rips, and let you do your thing in the moguls.
post #3 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowdog
Dude, at your age, you probably can't handle the 5 Stars in the moguls.
?????This is a joke, right??? The guy is in his early 40s, good shape and advanced to expert skier. The 5 Star probably isn't the best mogul ski, but based on my experience with them (and moving into my late 30s), he shouldn't have any problem handling them in the moguls.

I have never skied the Atomics, though, so cannot compare.

Demo, demo, demo. Try the Dynastar Legend 8000 if you get a chance. Very different, but would give you a nice perspective of what's out there.

Just curious yellowdog, how old are you?
post #4 of 17
Go back to your JONG forum, dog. And wipe your nose before you drip on mommy's keyboard.
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks

Thanks for the support. Back to topic, has anyone compared to these two head to head?
post #6 of 17
oldcrasher,

Here's half your answer. I ski the 5*s, but never been on the atomics. 168 is the length for the 5*s IMO, particularly if you are a bumper. I have the older T50 5*s in 168. Since you rarely have pow it won't matter much with the extra length. I find this ski to be very nice in the bumps. It is on the stiff side, but its very manageable and quite fun actually. Its a great on piste do it all type ski.

Of course demo for yourself.
post #7 of 17
I am the same weight as you (much shorter though) and I own the '02/03 5 Stars (before the double grip was added and the sidecut tweaked a bit) and I just did a demo on the SX:10 a few weeks ago (search for my review here). My summary take is that the Volkls are a stiffer more precise ski with much better edge hold, but you need to have strong skills to really take advantage of them. The SX:10 was softer, fun in the moguls, but just didn't handle the groomers like my Volkls. I ski the Volkls in 175cm and skied the Atomics in 170cm. Hope this may help.

P.S. - I forgot to mention that the Atomics I skied had a ridiculous amount of lift on them (had to be approaching 60mm from the base of the ski). That combined with the relatively narrow waist (65mm) made the ski very quick edge-to-edge. It's just too bad that those edges didn't hold real well (and I don't think it was the tuning).
post #8 of 17
I'll throw down on yellowdog too...pretty bad form for your first post "dude".

On to the more important issue of the skis, I ski the 5-stars in 182, and wish I'd gotten the 175's. I'm 6'2", 195 lbs. level 8. They are very versatile, hold an edge in almost anything, and fun overall. Haven't skied the Atomic, so sorry i can't offer anything in comparison. Curuious - did you look at the Fischer RX-8?
post #9 of 17
I demoed the Atomic SX-9's and 11's along with the 5-Stars and I thought that the 5-Stars were a better all around ski. They are definitely somewhat stiffer than the Atomics, but they do have the ability to make turns of all shapes, will float in the pow and are skiable in the moguls, although there are certainly better softer mogul skis available. I was not greatly impressed with the Atomic SX-9/11's (I don't know how they compare to the 10's), because I thought that they did a little bit of everything, but did not exemplify in any one particular area. I am 55, 5''9 180lb and ski the 5-stars in a 168.

I would choose the 5-Stars, of if you really want another thought (hate to muddy the waters) why don't you wait until next year and purchase a new Rossi B-2 or B-3. The 2005-06 Rossi B's are greatly improved and I may add one to my quiver.

Good Luck.
post #10 of 17
The 5 stars are stiffer than the SX:11? I haven't skiied either but most posts indicate that the SX11 is pretty stiff. How bad did you think the SX11s were in moguls and how did you find the edge grip?
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris719
The 5 stars are stiffer than the SX:11? I haven't skiied either but most posts indicate that the SX11 is pretty stiff. How bad did you think the SX11s were in moguls and how did you find the edge grip?
Sorry, I was referring more to the SX9's as I only took two runs on the 11's. Yes, the SX11s have a better edge hold than the 9's and are probably stiffer than the 5-Stars. This demo took place at the end of the 2002-03 ski season.
post #12 of 17
You and I are about the same size oldcrasher (I'm 6'3" and 170). The 5* is one of my usual rides (I have too many skis...), but I'd suggest thinking shorter -- i.e., the 168 length. I'd think the 175 would feel like a freight train. The 5* in a 168 is plenty stiff to plow through cut-up crud, holds on darn near anything, easily makes all size turns... It's a great all-mountain ride (at least here in New England).
post #13 of 17
Since you don't get much powder, I can assume you are in the east? I skied the SX:11's in hard bumps and didn't like them at all. Neither of these skis are great bump skis, you might want to expand your search to something in the 70MM +/- wasted range, you might find a bit more versatility.
post #14 of 17
I'll agree with Phil here. Niether one of those is going to be great in the bumps. Your old Bandit X's would be better than either one of those for bumps, except for the length. If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with the Atomics. Better yet, you might want to check out the Fischer RX line or something in the Head XRC's. Much more versatile, in my opinion.
post #15 of 17
I am quite a bit older than oldcrasher and I love the 5*. With goood technique and reasonable fitness it is a dream to ski. It is a great carving ski which is also the best bump ski I have used. While I am sure there are better bump skis out there I doubt if any is as good a carver of turns of all sizes. It is also very good in powder - better than my old Xscreams - (although I have never used it in anything more than knee deep). The combination of performance and versatility is unmatched in my experience. Ski it short.

I have skied the SX9 which I found to be easy and fun but without the 5* grip and zip. By all accounts the SX11 is stiffer, possibly with even better grip, but less good in bumps and powder.

Ultimately the best ski is the one which is best for you. Phil loves the B5, I could not wait to hand it back. Any recommendations are based on personal levels of skill style and fitness and can only be relevant to you if yours are similar to the person making the recommendation. There is absolutely no substitute for personal testing.
post #16 of 17
I got to demo these two back to back yesterday, March 4th, at Holimount in NY state. I'm 6', 200 lbs and 55 years old. In January I spent some time at Vail on the Volkls and was mildly impressed, but when I tried them back to back with the Atomics there was no comparison. I love the Atomics. They felt much more responsive. I spent last evening explaining to my wife why my having a new pair of SX10s is necessary for the continued existance of the universe. I found this thread while searching the web for a hot deal to buy a pair.
No moguls or small animals were harmed in these experiments. (no real moguls at Holimount)
post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Since you don't get much powder, I can assume you are in the east? I skied the SX:11's in hard bumps and didn't like them at all. Neither of these skis are great bump skis, you might want to expand your search to something in the 70MM +/- wasted range, you might find a bit more versatility.
I also skied the SX 11's (170cm) in bumps and loved them. They were easy to turn and had nice rebound and carved well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews