New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SX11 vs. SL9

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Does anyone here have any direct comparisons about these skis? I currently ski the SX11 at 170cm and like it just fine, but it does kind of tire me out and ski me by the end of the day. As background, I'm about a level 7 at 6'1" and 185-190 lbs. and ski in the northeast, primarily on groomed blues and blacks. I like the great edgehold, stability, easy turn initiation and rebound of the SX11s, but I wonder if the SL9 might suit me a little better as I work on my conditioning. Are the SL9s similar in feel and edgehold, stiffer or softer for a given length? What length would be best in the SL9? From what I've read they should be skied short-160cm maybe?

I have a chance to get some SL9 leftovers for a good price in either a 160 or 170cm. The other option is to sell the SX11s at the end of the season and save up for some B5s. I demo'ed them in a 162cm at Steamboat and really, really liked them, although the "packed powder" there in no way resembled 'Pennsylvania packed powder'! Any help, advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
post #2 of 14
SL 9 has a smaller turning radius. I'd think you would get more tired because you're turning more than on the SX 11 which has about a 17m radius.

I skied the SL 11 and the SX 11 and preferred the SX. It was more versatile, the SL 11 I didn't like.
post #3 of 14
The SL9 is a great ski and I just love it. I ski the SL9 (170cm) and B5 (162cm). The SL9 in 170cm is a surprisingly versaltile ski.

BTW, The SL11 is a very different ski from the SL9.
post #4 of 14
I ski the SL 9 in a 170. Stats-5'10"@185#. Great all around ski,very turny and a little softer than the 11. I also ski the SX 9 in a 170 which is almost the same ski with a bigger turn radius.
post #5 of 14
Are either the SL9 or SL11 passable in moguls?
post #6 of 14
Originally Posted by chris719
Are either the SL9 or SL11 passable in moguls?
SL 11 is Slalom ski similar to Atomic race stok skis. IMO you can use them in moguls, as any other Slalom ski , but it will be a little funny to watch, and no fun to ride .
SL9 comparing with SL11 is a noodle, and it will be a little more fun in moguls, but again if you riding moguls often why don't you use skis with softer tip an bigger turn radius?
No offense to SL9 owners it is really fun versatile ski.
post #7 of 14
I think the SL9 skis bumps just fine.
post #8 of 14
I have had both the sx11's in 170 and the sl9's in 160. I liked the sx11 for hard pack carving, but found them limited. The sl9 is such a a versatile ski... I use them in powder, bumps, trees and hard pack, I'm on them most days. I sold the sx11's, I'm on my 3rd pair of sl9's. Hope this helps.
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. I really like the hardpack carving of the SX11s, but as my legs get tired, they want to do bigger turns as I want to shorter radius turns-that's why I'm wondering if the SL9's shorter turning radius might be easier, as I wouldn't have to "muscle" them around as much. I agree with the observations about the SL11. I demo'ed them and found them too demanding for my tastes and abilities.

tn358 - what are your stats? Since we both ski the SX11 in the same length, how would you compare the hardpack edgehold between them and the SL9s in the 160cm? From what I've read and heard, I'd probably go shorter, unless the edgegrip of a 170 would be signifiganly better. Thanks again to all who replied.
post #10 of 14

I just bought a pair of 03/04 160 SL:9's and had a chance to ski them over the weekend. I am 6' 175 level 8/9. I specifically got them to be my east coast ice skates and went with the 9's over the 11's because they are more versatile. Also, for comparison, my all around everday ski is the K2 Axis X and I use a Volant Chubb for deep days (both 180).

The Sl:9 is a fun ski. It will make any turn shape you desire but really prefers quick short radius turns. That said, the ski absolutely wore me out by lunch time. It likes to be turned and compared to the Axis X, it is no where near as damp and transmits all of those vibrations from the snow to your legs. The tails also have a lot of energy in them and can and will throw you out of one turn and into another. Fun!!!

Edge hold on ice and frozen granular is fantastic and it is what I was looking for in a ski. Unfortunately, the mountains in NC do not let the moguls grow so my bump testing consisted of riding the ridges and ruts along the sides of trails. The ski will skid a little but is more likely to hook up while making turns. I also found this to be the case while skiing steep and firm 33 to 38 degree groomers. The ski likes to cut across the fall line as opposed to riding straight down the fall line. Not bad, but something to be aware of as some may prefer more of a controled skid in these situations.

You won't have to "muscle" the ski to make short radius turns but by time the afternoon roles around you may not have any muscle left after making all of those turns. The 160 would be a good choice for you.
post #11 of 14
I'm 140 lbs, 5'9" live in ski in Summit County CO, work at Copper Mtn, usually ski 100+ days a year.
Before I went to the sl9's, I was on the sl11's/160's for a few years and used them as my daily ski. I enjoyed them, but for the variety of skiing I do I find the 9's are a better all round ski. They are forgiving enough, but if you want to push them...they do push back. They rock on hard pack, as we seem to have a lot more of that the last few years. They are a great eastern ski.
I skied thigh deep powder and chop for a few days last year at Snowbasin and Powder Mtn, the wide tip and tail make the ski float well. I heading out there this week and will take them with me.
I've seen and talked to people on them using different techniques and they all love the ski.
I ski with a lot bigger people on the sl9's in 160. I haven’t seen anyone on a longer length. Knowing how well it skies I would hesitate recommending them in a longer length.
Hope this helps,
post #12 of 14
JG, one other point the sx11 has marginally better edge hold, but the sl9 are certainly close enough. What you get in the sl9 is variety and turn radius more than offseting any difference in edge hold.
post #13 of 14
I love my SL9. It is very versatile, much more than my C9 puls. Heck I love it so much that my C9 has been sitting in the closet collecting dust. Great for NE ice. However, not so good on slushy bumps.
post #14 of 14
Originally Posted by tn358
I ski with a lot bigger people on the sl9's in 160. I haven’t seen anyone on a longer length. Knowing how well it skies I would hesitate recommending them in a longer length.
I skied yesterday on my 170 sl9's, traded with my friend who was on 160's, then went back to mine. When I was on the 160's I thought I preferred them. When I went back to mine I preferred the 170's. If you do a lot of powder and speed on them go long. For the East, I suspect the short would be better. Don't fret about it though, both are good skis. I second the opinion that they tire you out fast--lots of turns with lots of G's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion