or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SX-11 Lengths

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I recently purchased the Fischer RX-9 as an all-mountain ski and I've been very happy with it. Now, I am looking to upgrade my Atomic C11.16 to the Atomic SX-11 for a pure hard-pack and ice ski (the typical weather we have in New England).
I'm 5'8" and 165 pounds and ski the entire mountain. Speedwise, I would say that my friends and I typically ski fast and hard. I did consider the SX-9, but I have heard that it isn't as stable at high speeds so I am looking at the SX-11.
Unfortunately, in speaking with local ski shops, the opinions are pretty much divided as to whether I should ski a 160 or a 170. Those suggesting the 170, do so because of the longer turn radius and increased stability. Those suggesting the 160, claim that the ski should be skied short and suggest that the 170 would be too cumbersome. As for previous skis, I've had the Race 9.20, the R11.20, and the R9.22 all in 170 lengths and I was very happy with them. I have also demoed the SL-9 in a 160 which I believe was the correct length, but found that it was much too turny for my skiing patterns. So I've pretty much concluded that I should ski a GS style ski in a 170 and a slalom ski in a 160. This seems pretty straightforwrd. However, the shops are telling me that the SX-11 is a GS ski with a slalom sidecut(?). I agree that demoing would be the best choice, but there are no demo locations carrying wither length nearby, and supplies at the local shops are running low.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
post #2 of 13
it's not a slalom sidecut and you're correct about the 170cm length, personally i think is the magic size for that ski...plenty stable at speed, a better all-round size than the 160.
post #3 of 13
Me: 6' 180 lbs ; It: 170cm
It's a whole lotta ski - if I'm not on top of it, it throws me downs...

The SX:10 has just come out and has a different structure - I think it would be well worth taking for a test run.
Good luck!
post #4 of 13
quickk9, of course I'll throw a screw into the works... Have you tried an RX8? It skis a lot like the SX:11. See my ski review thread for that comparison and also my RX8 follow-up thread. I did love the SX:11 in a 170, though.

You may also want to consider some of the other carvers in that first review, including the Volkl 6*, Elan S12 Fusion, and Dynaster Skicross 10.
post #5 of 13
If you like to only make big fast turns then go with the 170 as you have skied that length on stiff skis already.

If you want a more versatile ski that is still stable go with the 160s.

I am 5'7" 170-180 and had the R11s in 170 and swapped them out for 160s.

I demoed the SX-11 in a 170 and it was fine but really wanted to make large turns shapes and would tire you out making short turns or bumping.

At your size I doubt you would feel the speed limit on the 160s versus the 170s.
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by ssh:
[QB]quickk9, of course I'll throw a screw into the works... Have you tried an RX8? It skis a lot like the SX:11. See my ski review thread for that comparison and also my RX8 follow-up thread. I did love the SX:11 in a 170, though.

Steve-
I've skied the RX-8 as an alternative to the RX-9. Although the side cut is different (109-69-96 w/a 17m radius for the RX-9 and 115-66-98 with a 14m radius for the RX-8), overall, they felt very similar (as they should with similar construction). I guess that I am looking for something a little different, and a little less versatile perhaps. Something that I could dedicate to the hardpack and maybe also play with in NASTAR. You do raise an interesting point as I did demo and like the WC RC. Thanks for making me reconsider my options.

Of course, Steve, if appearance was a consideration, I would just wait for next year's RX-8 to come out as I really like the new orange graphics and matching binding. (For those who haven't seen them, next season the RX-9 continues in Arctic Cat green, the RX-8 is orange, the RX-6 is blue, the RX-4 is red, and the RX-2 is silver and orange.)

Thanks for the input,
Joseph
post #7 of 13
Joseph, any RX8 you find now will likely be in the orange graphic. I haven't seen a red in the stores in quite a while. The orange was the Euro graphic this year, too.

For pure hardpack, try the Volkl 6* (if you can find one). The Elan was pretty sweet, as well. I'm really thinking about Elan for next year...
post #8 of 13
I ski the SX11 in a 180, I'm 5'10 and 185. Most people I know on it of similar size and ability ski the 180 as well. It turns short and has plenty of stability for speed no probs either way. I did get it mainly to ski fast mind you. At your size I think the 170 would work great and the 160 would be short for your described use. It is not quite a slalom sidecut but it is more sidecut than a GS. That's the beauty of it really. I was out on the new skis the other day but didn't get to try the new SX10 but it was picked as one of the consistent favourites by those who tried it.
post #9 of 13
I am exactly the same build as you, and I had some time on some 170 SX 11's this weekend, and they were absolutely fantastic. They do ski like a GS ski, with a tighter radius. They can be skied aggressively, and can be pushed hard without giving in, or you can just chill on them and cruise. 170 seemed like the right length for me, as an all mountain ski. 160 would be too short for a ski of that nature, given that it is really designed for bigger turns. So my answer would be 170, no question. You won't find it too long.
post #10 of 13
quick

Im 5' 11" 170lbs and am on 170 SX 11. I love it at that length and have used it for high speed cruising mostly. Recently due to completely blowing a call on how much snow there would be I used it in 10cms of powder and soft tight bumps and enjoyed the ski in those conditions too. Having said that I never tried it on 160s.
post #11 of 13
I am 6'1", 190 lbs. and ski the SX11 in a 170 length. I'm about a level 6-7, don't ski very aggressively and try to stay out of the bumps because of old knees/back. I bought these skis after demoing them vs. other skis on two separate occasions. Reading the reviews, I was concerned that they would be way too stiff and unforgiving, but I've also found that they can be as mellow as you want them to be. Even at higher speeds, I've found them to be fairly forgiving of my technical flaws. They don't care to be skidded, and super-short turns(read: Eastern cat-walks) require a bit of effort, but all in all they're a great choice for carving conditions (although they performed well in 6" of new powder at Steamboat). At the time I purchased them, the SX9s were not available. Has anyone skied the SX11 and SX9 back to back?
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by Swifft:
SX11 and SX9 back to back?
yes the 11 is vastly superior. The 9 just has a funny feel to it I didn't like at all. The 11 rips.
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Since it bothers me when people ask for advice and never follow up with what they have decided to do with the advice given...
Thank you to everyone who replied regarding the best size for the SX-11 for me. I visited the shop with whom I deal and dropped off my Atomic 11.16’s for them to sell for me on consignment. (This is the same shop that managed to get me next year’s RX-9.) I talked to the manager about the SX-11 and he agreed that the 170 length was best for my skiing habits and that it was a good alternative to the RX-9. Although he said that he could get me any size within a day, he only had one pair of 170’s in stock. Unfortunately, they did not have the SX 4-12 binding in stock, so one of their sales people picked it up at the Atomic headquarters yesterday and brought it to the shop this morning. So I will be trying them out at Cannon tomorrow and finding out how well they do on ice. I've had four pairs of Atomics and all have done well on ice so I'm not expecting any surprises.
BTW, my cost for the skis and bindings was $550 which seemed like a good deal. For anyone who is interested, there is another local retailer selling the same package for $599 and they had several pairs of 160, 170, and 180 lengths in stock and they do ship skis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion