New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Izor 9:7

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Skier: Male, 43 yrs. old, 20 years skiing, level 8, 170 lbs.
Recent skis: Atomic M11, Atomic M10, Atomic R11, Salomon X-Scream.
Boots: Salomon X-Wave 10s

Yesterday, I went to Killington and spent my first ski day of the year out on my new 2006 Atomic Izor 9:7s (168 cm length). I have the 2006 Atomic Neox 412 bindings on them. The bindings are set at one notch forward, in between the setting you'd have at "Central" or "Forward." I think that equates to 1/2 cm forward from central.

The conditions were harder snow in the a.m. with soft stuff later in the day. Basically, hard, firm spots here and there in the shade and where coverage got thin, but no ice. A lot of bumps and nothing really groomed out. Here goes:


The ski seemed very light in weight. It seemed much lighter than the M11 I had. I'm sure it's a combo of the ski and the new lighter Neox binding. I especially noticed the lighter weight in the bumps.

The skis tracked well. They're light, but didn't seem to get deflected alot, even in the crud. I was on one trail with about 6-10 inches of soft choppy snow and the Izors really carved some nice medium radius turns through it. I never felt unstable at any time in that mix.

No chatter, but no real hardstuff to ski on either. The skis handled the hard stuff (as it was) just fine. My impression is that these seem like they will hold an edge as well as my M11s. The future (on ice) will tell.

I liked the skis in the bumps (I am not a great bump skier and tend to ski the lower level bumps). The lighter weight and apparently softer front to back flex vs. my M11s seemed to help me a lot there.

The skis were very quick from side to side, but were always stable. They seemed very tortionally stiff. They are not a short turn/slalom biased ski, but they did short turns fine for me. My M11s were a small amount better in the short turns, but the Izors were much better in medium and long turns. All in all, a fair tradeoff for me.


Overall: I really loved the Izor. It was stable, quick and seemed versatile. Time will tell on the really hard stuff, but so far I'm impressed.
post #2 of 29
Good review, Roadking! Thanks!
post #3 of 29
Nice review.

I think the 9:7 is better on ice then the M11. I skied it on two different demo days which were both pretty icey.

I am so used to the Metrons ability to make short and long turns I did not love the Izors which like you said wanted to make medium to long turns.

I think Atomic marketing it as a purely intermediate ski is wrong. I think it hangs as an advanced to upper advanced ski.

I wish I could have skied the Izors without the ridiculously heavy demo binding last year.
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
I think Atomic marketing it as a purely intermediate ski is wrong. I think it hangs as an advanced to upper advanced ski.
I agree wholeheartedly. I actually believe the 3.1 is the second best intermediate ski out there as well.
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback!

Some additional comments based on the posts.

First, the Izors with the 2006 Neox bindings seem pretty light in weight. I did pick up a pair with the demo bindings and as Scalce remarked they are heavier in weight with those. To appreciate the light weight of the Izor skis, you need to pick them up with the lighter 2006 Neox bindings. With the ski-3 guarantee from Atomic I figured I would just buy the skis and forego the demo process. I have demoed in the past but I have found that the demo bindings on most skis don't allow you to get a true impression of the skis performance. I also checked out as many reviews as I could, relying heavily on Peter Keelty's site, and went for the Izors.

Second, I agree with Scalce and Skiingman that the Izor 9:7 seems more like an advanced or higher level ski, versus an intermediate level ski. The folks in the ski shop where I bought mine definitely felt it was a more advanced level ski. I will be interested to see what others think once they try it out.

Third, the ski seems more biased to medium and larger turns than the M11, but will do shorter turns relatively easily. I found the Izor made shorter turns easier than the M11 made larger turns. For me, that tradeoff makes the Izor a better choice. Others may think differently.

Last, it will be interesting to see if Atomic takes the Izor's nano-tech construction (carbon fiber infused with crystals) and adapts it to the Metron line. I'd like to see the Metron skis get the Izor construction to get lighter. Or, maybe the Izors will get the Metron geometry, kind of a Metron-Izor hybrid? That may be where Atomic is headed given the marketing dollars it's putting into the Izors and the money spent on nano-tech R&D.
post #6 of 29
Nice review, I agree that the Izor 9.7 is one of a few really great "bang for the buck" skis out there. In fact, it's probably safe to say that the 9.7 is more ski than some of the top line skis from just a few years ago. (What was that yellow one again??)

SJ
post #7 of 29
Roadking,

I'm trying to tell if i have '06 neox 412 binfdings or last years version. Mine are grey and gold and part of the rea piece and the two hinges on the toe piec are a matte gray finish. They seem kind of light. I want to make sure they are the 2006 version What do yours look like?
post #8 of 29
I think the AFD plate on the 06 are made of a plastic slider versus the metal one on the 05 Neox.

I need to check my old ones to verify this.
post #9 of 29
Excuse my ignorance, but what is an afd plate??
post #10 of 29
I think it stands for "anti friction device" and it is the plate or slider that your toepiece sits on.

It is used to allow some play in the toe during skiing and before release.
post #11 of 29
I guess even last year's had the plastic afd.

I must have been thinking of my old Markers.
post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 
My 2006 Neox bindings (412s) are a gray color. However, there are a bunch of different colors available, so I don't think you can tell the difference by color alone. I know mine are the 2006 version because I saw the box.

Maybe you can pull a number off the bindings (do they have a serial #?) and ask Atomic what year they are.

For what it's worth, the weight difference between the 2005 Neox binding and the 2006 is significant. Otherwise, I can't see any difference between the two years.
post #13 of 29
we didn't pigeon hole the ski as an int. ski
that's the mag's doing...then again you have to take that stuff with a very small grain of salt.
post #14 of 29
the difference between the bindings is easy to spot. the weight reduction comes from the toe and heel tracks. the first version has a psuedo chrome looking finish (steel and not particularly smooth) the new, light weight version has a matte greyish finish and is machined and not cast giving them a very soft, smooth, satin like finish.
post #15 of 29
I thought the new bindings said "ALU" on them.
post #16 of 29
it does on the box.
post #17 of 29

Izors are better than C9 and R11 in the 7:5m and 9:7m

The Izor rip without a doubt. There are a few different molds in the line. The upper shelf models are some of the best skis on the wall. The have Mg power rods like the sx-10 sl-9, st11 etc.

Logruve I have seen you ski and you rip!
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by logruve
we didn't pigeon hole the ski as an int. ski
that's the mag's doing...then again you have to take that stuff with a very small grain of salt.
"Atomic's Nanoframe technology isn't built for professional athletes with amazing skills and world-class fitness levels. It's built for skiers like you. Skiers who have the most to gain from a product that's significantly lighter, and handles with greater ease."

I know it's all perception but with Atomic making statements like this it automatically turns off so called advanced and experts skiers.

Anything that is classified as making skiing easier is automatically put in the intermediate or advancing skier range.

Like you I don't agree with that assessment but we are not the norm.
post #19 of 29
Is the Izor 9.7 the progeny of the popular Beta carve 9.18 / c9 ski?
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobucks
Is the Izor 9.7 the progeny of the popular Beta carve 9.18 / c9 ski?
I was told by a rep that the 7.5 is.
post #21 of 29
I just got my skis and was wondering if it's better to have the bindings professionally assembled or can I do it myself? I don't know how easy it is to attach the bindings. Thanks for all the help.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tat99
I just got my skis and was wondering if it's better to have the bindings professionally assembled or can I do it myself? I don't know how easy it is to attach the bindings. Thanks for all the help.
D
Edited by Singel - 2/5/10 at 11:17am
post #23 of 29
Would Izor 9.7 made a good East Coast crud/slush ski to compliment my Atomic SX?
post #24 of 29
Bit too much overlap there, IMHO. Try Metron or MEX or Fischer AMC.
post #25 of 29
Roadking: Nice review. Your comments are detailed and insightful.

I have the Metron B:5's (175 cm) and love them. They're truly amazing skis and represent a breakthrough in design (IMO). But, they noodle my legs by about 1:00 pm.

I love the idea of a performance ski, with great edge-hold, that's light and more forgiving.

If I were younger, or skiing 50 days per year, the B:5's would be all I need in most conditions.

I'm neither. I'm therefore looking for an easier, yet versatile, hard-pack ski that performs well but doesn't demand as much muscle.

At this point, based upon your review, the IZOR 9.7 is at the top of the list.

At 200 lbs, 6'1", (level 8, or high 7), I'm considering the 177 cm. What do you think?
post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
I think that length would work for you. If you go with the Atomic Neox binding, you'll really notice a difference in how the skis perform by changing the binding settings and moving them front and back.

There is no doubt that the Atomics have a more "German" (i.e. race) feel to them, say like Volkls. If you like a more performance oriented and demanding ski, you'll enjoy them without the weight and cost of the B5s.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking View Post
I think that length would work for you. If you go with the Atomic Neox binding, you'll really notice a difference in how the skis perform by changing the binding settings and moving them front and back.

There is no doubt that the Atomics have a more "German" (i.e. race) feel to them, say like Volkls. If you like a more performance oriented and demanding ski, you'll enjoy them without the weight and cost of the B5s.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to experiment with the bindings, as you suggested.

I just bought a pair of 177 cm's on ebay for $389, with Neox 412 bindings.

They're last year's model, but I've been assured they're identical to this year's, except for the graphics.

At that price, even my wife didn't object (although she's convinced I'm "sick" for wanting another pair of skis).

Can't wait to give 'em a whirl.
post #28 of 29
Just recieved the IZOR 9:7's with Neox 412 bindings.

A purdy ski, but a bit stiffer than I was expecting.

There's no way this ski could be considered an intermediate. It's stiff and strong with snap.

I'm sure this model will lay trenches with the best of 'em.
post #29 of 29
 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews