or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Beta Racer 11.20 versus 9.20
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beta Racer 11.20 versus 9.20

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Beta Racer--hoping you're out there---you've given me good advice in the past. I want to compare the ride 9.20 v. 11.20.

My real question is how much do I give up in terms of stability, power through crud, float with the 9.20. Conversely, how much more ponderous do you think the 11.20 is in the bumps--which evey one passes through, even if occassionally.

Right now I am on the Race Carv 9.22's and the Axis x. I'd like an all mountain ski with a little more zip and power than the Axis x. I do like the Axis x, it is very comfortable, but maybe a little sluggish. I am a level 8. Ski every thing--I stay in the fall line most of the time.

The reason I ask is that there is a great deal on the 9.22 at the local shop; great price.

I know the 11.20 has metal and the 9.20 does not. I know the 9.20 will feel more lively.

Right now I think my 9.22 Race Carvs are great on groomed, like rails and I love the stability. I wouldn't want to give that up. But at the same time--I wouldn't want a ski that was any moe demanding in rough terrain or bumps.

Last question: I ski my race carvs in 180. I am 160lbs and 5'9'---I would ski the 11.20 in the same 180 length---yes--?? I don't see myself dropping to a 170----but given that this ski is so stable and I know that people are doing extaordinary things with lengths these days.

Thanks for your thoughts and of course I welcome any other opinions to this clearly world beating dilema.
post #2 of 9
There is no nor has there been a Race 9.22 and there has been no Ride 9.20 for a few seasons.

Are you asking to compare the Ride 9.22 against the Ride 11.20? Or the Race 9.20 against the Ride 11.20?

"I am a level 8. Ski every thing--I stay in the fall line most of the time." What do you mean by that? You basically straightline every run?

Once the ski models are clarified, we'll deal with with the length issue.
post #3 of 9
I am listening in on this thread with interest. I am curious to hear more about the 9.20 and this year's version, the G9.21. Any significant changes or just cosmetic? What skier would fit the 9.20/G9.21? Changes in height/weight vs. length preferences? Style? How does it compare with the competition in its area? (e.g. the Viper X, Dynastar Speed carve 63, and the Volkl P50 Platinum Energy)
Thanks for letting me glom on.
post #4 of 9
Let me ask another question while I'm at it: how would an Atomic 9.16 @ 170cm compare with the new Atomic G9.21 @ 180cm for recreational hardsnow skiing in the East? Thanks again.
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Beta racer : Thanks for the reply. Hope you've had a good summer. Apparently I haven't been to clear.

I do want to compare Ride 9.20 versus Ride 11.20.

I do own the Race Carv 9.20. (This is my second pair--maybe my first was the race carv 9.22)

No I definitely do not ski straight down--what I was trying to say was that I've gotten good enough over the past couple of years to really stay in the fall line-pretty much--and not bail out or make sweeping traverses across the slope on the steeper stuff.

I want to own an all mountain and a powder ski ski, two skis. Right now my interest is in the all mountain ski

Always liked (loved) Atomics. I bought the K2 Axis which is nice but somewhat sluggish--I think very much appropriatley labled a cruiser ski in the magazine reviews.

Finally my very trusted shop guy (in case he is reading) said he thought that the 170--with Xentric was good for me in the Ride 11.2. I am 160lbs. 5'9.' He said the 170 Ride 11.20 will be plenty stable, and give me a little more manageability in the occasional bumps.

Lastly, even though I live in the East--I'll be sking at Jackson Hole, Alta and the Canyons this year, with a little Killington thrown in.

Thanks for your help.
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 
Beta Racer-apparently I still did not get it right: I want to compare the Ride 9.22 versus the Ride 11.20. There I think I said it. Leaning toward the Ride 11.20 in 170. Seems like ideal solution--shorter lenght gives me manageability--my shop guy says they'll be as stable as I need with Xentric added height.

I ski the Race Carv 9.20 in 180 and love the stability. He says the extra hight on the Xentric will make the 170 Ride 11.20 feel just as stable. He says guys much bigger than me are great with the 180--so I should be good with the 170.

Agreed? Thanks again for the help.
post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 
Ok I know I am being obssessive here--just one more piece of info/question relating to the right lenght on the 11.20's:

I also skied on the Race carv 9.12's last year. I had thought I skied them in a 150--but turns out it was 160.

I thought they were great on icey/hard snow-- for fast fall line turns---but they were certainly not truly stable at high GS speeds--nor should they be--I grasp that.

My question relating back to the 170 length in the Ride 11.20's---is this: is the 10 cm differnce between the Race 9.12's (160) and the Ride 11.20's (170) enough to make the 11.20's far more stable at speeds.

I do now the 11.20's have metal. And they'll have the added height from the Xentric. The 9.12's had the race binding with less hieght--so I know those things will impact stability.

Just became concerned about the mere 10cm difference. Thanks Again.
post #8 of 9
I have to ad the reason the 9.12 beta race ski's felt unstable at GS speed is because there slalom ski's with radicle shape, made for real quick turns not a ton of speed. So there not unstable because there short but because of the radicle shape. Your jumping all around with GS then slalom and then all mountain type skies when they really are all made for differnt types of sking. You CANT compare the lengths of beta race 9.12's to beta ride ski lengths and draw any conclusion from that!
post #9 of 9
The 170 R11 is probably the right choice. I used a 180 a bit last year in all conditions, and it worked fine for even my (big) size. The R9 is quite a bit easier skiing, and easier to reach its performance limit.

As was written, the nervousness of the Race 9.12 has to do with the shape, more than the construction. I wouldn't suggest going longer than 170cm for the R11.

As to height... The Race binding on the Race Risers is the same height as a Xentrix binding on a B4 chassis riser... 55mm.

The only difference between the GS9 and the race 9.20 from last season is the use of a Racecharger plate instead of the Variocharger.

The Race9.16 is quite a bit turnier than the Race9.20. Also, it is stiffer, and will require a bit of adjustment of technique to ski as fast. I will leave it up to you to use one over the other. I prefer to use a GS ski for GS type of skiing, and save the SL for lots of small turns
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 › Beta Racer 11.20 versus 9.20