or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic SL:9 in 160 or 170?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SL:9 in 160 or 170?

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
I was wondering what size I should get these skis in. I'm 6' 150 and ski at wildcat all the time. I will also be doing some racing at Bradford in Haverhill, MA. Bradford is basically a pimple on the earth with a vertical of about 170'. I don't know if the 160's would last me another three years since I'm still growing. Will these skis still be good for me when I'm about 6'4 180 in three years?:
post #2 of 8
I ski a 170cm SL9. Stats-5'10"@180. It's just the right size for me. Quick and stable. Go 170.
post #3 of 8
How old are you? That will make a big difference in which length you choose. If you are young you should go with a 170. If you are going to weigh 150lbs or so for the next 3 years, then go with the 160. I know a lot of guys bigger than you that ski on 160's to 165's every day of their lives, so I wouldnt consider the 160 too short at all, especially given your weight and the smallerish hills you are skiing on.
post #4 of 8
Im 6 foot 2 and I ski on 161cm long Head iSL RD skis and its been a lot of fun. I used to have a pair of Atomic SL 11 in the length of about 155cm, under 160cm in any case, and they were also a blast. I would under no circumstances buy 170 or longer if you are not planning to use them for cruising.

Dont worrie about whats happening in 3years.
post #5 of 8
I have the SL9's in a 160. I'm 6' 180 lbs. and a level 8/9. I love them in this length for very quick short to long radius turns at medium speeds. They are my ice skates. If you are looking for a little more speed and stability and a slightly longer turning radius, go with the 170. On the hills you are using them on, big or small, I'd say you will be very happy with the 160's.
post #6 of 8
IMHO that ski is optimal at 160.

If you think you will overpower them, get the SL11 in 160 or 165.
post #7 of 8
I have the SL9 in 170, as well as various other skis.

I tend to think you might prefer it in 160. Going up to 170 doesn't really make it a cruising ski: it's got way too much sidecut. The sidecut radius only declines slightly in going from 160 to 170, as the tip (and tail) both get wider. At 126 mm, there's a pretty huge tip on the 170.

Also, the 170 is probably not going to be the best slalom racing ski.

As you get bigger, you're more likely to want to move to an SL11, rather than a longer SL9.

In my view, length is less an issue of the person's size, and more an issue of what he's going to do with the ski and the ski's characteristics. A 170-cm SL ski might be "too long," even though 185-cm GS ski might not be.
post #8 of 8
I'm 6' 180 and have friend 5'9", 160, both ex racers. He has the 160, I have the 170. We swap them all the time. If you are using it only on groomed runs and don't ski real fast (slider is always going fast), go with the 160. If you use them as your one ski for everything, go 170. Both are good skis. I'd probably say get the 160 and add a GS ski or a Metron to the quiver when a good ebay deal comes along.
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 SL:9 in 160 or 170?