or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic SX:9, What Length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SX:9, What Length?

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
I'm looking to get a new pair of skis... coming off the Salomon X-Scream Series in 170cm... I am 6'-2" and closing in on 200lbs, intermediate level... spending most my time on the groomers now with the kids and find the tips a bit soft on the x-screams... should I stay with the 170 length or bump it up to 180... I am looking at the '05 SX:9 model year.

Any other ski suggestions welcome, am looking for something that I can improve my skills with and won't get punished for mistakes - good stability and forgiveness... thanks in advance.
post #2 of 5
I ski a 170cm SX 9-stats are 180# @ 5'10" advanced skier. It's a great carve ski and will handle anything you throw at it. At your size I would go with a 180cm.
post #3 of 5
Thread Starter 
thanks for the feedback slider... I should have mentioned that most of my skiing is in Tahoe... anyone have info on how the SX:9 handles the heavy crud... is it stable slicing through this kind of stuff out west... about the only reservation I have is the 64cm waist... seems a bit narrow for stability when you hit the heavy crud in the Tahoe area (if you know what I mean).

But, like I said, most of my time now is on the groomed runs... but after a wet snowfall of 6+ inches down a well traveled run, can the SX:9 blast through the tracks without tossing me around.

Others have suggested maybe the Head iM70 or iM75 for this kind of stuff, but I want to be able to work on my carving on corduroy too...
post #4 of 5
I think you're much better off with the the 77 or 72 over the 9. I think it's a bit narrow overall, more GS oriented than all mtn. The Head is just an awesome ski and will give you a lot of versitility. If you are buying new 06', you should really demo and see what you like best.
post #5 of 5

I'd stick with the 170. I'm 6' 195, and ski the C:9 (which is nearly identical to the SX:9 in construction) in the 180 but would prefer the 170. I guess it depends on your desired applications. If you prefer fast, long arc turns, go with the 180. If you like both long and short turns, go with the 170. I just think the 170 would be more flexible.

As far as it skiing crud, I was in Tahoe last January during one of the big dumps and had wished for something a bit more burly, especially through the waist. They're great hardpack skis, but definitely get tossed around in crud. If it's Atomic you're interested in, look the M:9 or the M:10 in a 172. From what I understand, they're very solid on the groomers, but they've got the bulk to handle variable conditions.
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 SX:9, What Length?