EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › what would u chose ? sl 11 m ; slx ; fischer rc4 wc sl
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what would u chose ? sl 11 m ; slx ; fischer rc4 wc sl

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
i'm 5.10 and 160 lbs i did performance skiing for several years and i wanna change my skis. i'm quite an agresive skier, i do not race anymore and i mostly stay on groomed slopes. pls have help me cos i dont know what to chose.
i have 3 options atomic sl 11m '05 - 480 $ (second - skied 3 races)
fischer rc4 wc sl '06 - 603 $ new
elan slx '06 - 670$ new

i wait 4 your opinions
thanks
post #2 of 17
Read reviews and demo, but ultimately I don't think you can go wrong with any of those. I have heard strong advocates of each one of those skis and it depends on you.
post #3 of 17
I would prefer either the Fischer or the Elan over the Atomic, mainly because they are race stock and the Atomic is not. I know that the Atomic lovers here will flame me and say that the Atomic's are still superior, but if you have ever skied them all back to back you will realize they are in fact not.

The Fischer is the most demanding by far; very stiff; very lively; lots of snap. It demands focus while skiing, and loves mostly hard snow.

The Elan is similar in performance, but the feel is much more damp with more of an explosive instead of a snappy rebound. They are fairly stiff but are not as demanding as the Fischer.

The Atomic is smooth. I have skied the current generation in a 160 and the previous generation in the 164. The current generation had less snap than the previous model, but seemed to have better edgehold. the ski was quick, but not something that I would consider a top of the line racer... but would make a great free ski type ski. The race stock Atomics however... are another story. The stock/race room skis are pretty sick, and ski more like the fischer with the rebound and smoothness of the elan.

Later

GREG
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
thanks
post #5 of 17
Haven't skied the elan slx nor its race stock version. did ski however Atomic WC SL 05/06 and Atomic SL11 04/05, and the Fischer Worldcup SL and SC 04/05. Hated the SL11, didn't really get a good feeling on the WC SL 11 because it is for me overdamped. Liked the SC and really liked the Fischer WC SL cause it was easy in the gates, stable but not overdamped and quite snappy. The SC wan't bad either but no good in the gates as the turn radius was not really adaptable. SC was stiffer than the SL. BTW: 480$ for a used Atomic SL11 would still be expensive if it were the race stock WC SL11. And why would one sell of a new Race-stock - probabely cause it is a bad batch or simply sucks. Only us here at the forum are buying race-stock without testing sometimes. Nearly noone else.
post #6 of 17
Do a search, I reviewed them all in the same day last year
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremecarver
...The SC wan't bad either but no good in the gates as the turn radius was not really adaptable. .....
What do you mean by this statement? Why wasnt the turn radius adaptable? Im curios because the SL11 has quite a large radius r=14m for being a slalom ski. Is the SC (Atomic SC11 I suppose!!??) radius larger or more narrow?
post #8 of 17
The SC refers to the Fischer WC SC (versus the race stock SL). The SC has a very tight radius so it locks into a very tight turn, and it is hard to make that turn bigger and still be fast. Most stock SL skis are going to a 13 to 14 meter radius because it is easier to flex the ski into a tighter turn and be fast than it is to under ski the sidecut on a ski and be fast.
Later
GREG

And I think you were referring to the Atomic ST:11? He really meant the Fischer SC I think.
post #9 of 17
Thanks Greg. It is indeed very interesting that FIS SL skis are not really that radical. As you mentioned, its easier to bend the ski into a tighter turn (scarving, maybe skidding) than it is to losen up a ski effortlessly running on an edge and on its natural radius. One of the biggest myths in skiing today is that every turn should be 100% carved.
post #10 of 17
Are you referring to the SX version of the SLX, or the race-stock, flat (no metal prong) version of the Elan? The SX is still a vertical sidewall, race construction ski, but with different flex than the SLX (SX is stiffer, and it has a dampening prong under the topsheet). The SLX is a superb ski, and I could do anything on it when I owned a pair. They were quite easy to ski, lots of rebound, stability in any size arc. I even ran GS on a pair of 155's! The SX was a little stiffer and more damp. A powerful ski, not as much rebound, and a wicked carving and stable ski at high speeds. The Fischer WC SL was much the same, although a little stiffer yet. I liked the Elan's a little better than the Fischers for myself, but I am not heavy (150lbs). I get the feeling that the Fischers are tailored to the heavier person, with the Elans being for the lighter skier. I doubt you could go wrong with either. I haven't skied the Atomic, so I can't comment there. If you are strictly freeskiing, you may also want to glance at the Elan RIPstick in 164 or 170. I have been freeskiing that the past few days, and, I really think it is the best racecarver I have yet been on (I have tried out about every ski in the category). It more or less combines the stability of a GS with the quickness and rebound of a slalom in one package. All of the other racecarvers seem to be either GS or slalom oriented, and don't do a good job of blending the best attributes of each-they are either GS or SL in feel. The RIPstick is really, really fun as a go-fast freeski for any type of frontside snow and turn radius.
post #11 of 17
tdk6,
You can still carve a tighter turn than the natural radius of the ski. Just because you are skiing less than the natural turn radius does not necessarily make it a scarved or skidded turn. The key is how much the ski flexes through the turn. In theory you could bend a ski enough to toucht he tip to the tail and carve a complete circle with a radius equal to the length of the ski divided by pi then divided by 2. This is the nature of most slalom turns.

More frequently (what you are referring to) is a turn, in slalom of giant slalom usually, in which the top of the turn is skidded to point the skis toward the gate/fall line and the bottom of the turn and transition are cleanly carved. While this is not a "technique" to be used in skiing or racing it is often the best way to get the tightest fastest line, as well as maintain speed while slightly checking up (theoretically you can't cleanly carve an entire course unless you are able to squat somewhere in the 600lb+ range).

Anyhow, I will stop hi-jacking and let the discussion continue.

Later

GREG
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
While this is not a "technique" to be used in skiing or racing it is often the best way to get the tightest fastest line, as well as maintain speed while slightly checking up
what do you mean it is not a "technique"?
post #13 of 17
Technically it is a technique, but the better choice is usually to try to carve it clean, so I guess you could consider it a technique - with applications only to skiing in a course really. I have never had it taught to me directly though. I did spend some considerable time with a guy from Canada a few seasons ago though (forgot his name now). He liked to describe the difference between your practice line and your race line, where the ideal path around the gates was clean carves but in actuality it was not. Where I was going with that comment was that it isn't something that is really taught outside of a course, even if you're being taught "race" turns (which I think applies to the topic since we are assuming the course is absent). But yeah, I definitely mis-spoke as to the use of that maneuver in actual ski racing and gates. I have only used it in gates, and with much less success than those like Bode have with it. I imagine that your boys are quite proficient with similar maneuvers.
Later
GREG
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremecarver
Haven't skied the elan slx nor its race stock version. did ski however Atomic WC SL 05/06 and Atomic SL11 04/05, and the Fischer Worldcup SL and SC 04/05. Hated the SL11, didn't really get a good feeling on the WC SL 11 because it is for me overdamped. Liked the SC and really liked the Fischer WC SL cause it was easy in the gates, stable but not overdamped and quite snappy. The SC wan't bad either but no good in the gates as the turn radius was not really adaptable. SC was stiffer than the SL. BTW: 480$ for a used Atomic SL11 would still be expensive if it were the race stock WC SL11. And why would one sell of a new Race-stock - probabely cause it is a bad batch or simply sucks. Only us here at the forum are buying race-stock without testing sometimes. Nearly noone else.
I found quite a difference between the 03-04 SL11 and the 04-05, the retail versions. The 03-04 is one of my favorite skis, and gave me my only win in SL. I tried my buddy's 04-05's, and I didn't like them after skiing mine. The tip on the 04-05's is only a mm smaller than the 03-04, but I found them far more difficult to initiate with. They did end up being faster in the course though, oddly enough.

What specifically didn't you like about those retail SL:11s?

Also, what differences did you notice in the race stocks, other than dampness? I have never skied a stock SL from Atomic, only GS.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6
What do you mean by this statement? Why wasnt the turn radius adaptable? Im curios because the SL11 has quite a large radius r=14m for being a slalom ski. Is the SC (Atomic SC11 I suppose!!??) radius larger or more narrow?
No I meant the Fischer Worldcup SC 04/05 - The nose is to stiff IMO. Therefore the ski did all or nothing. Very hard not to turn tight and very hard to turn very, very,very tight (but not to bad). It was just that I don't think it is good for gates. The Fischer Worldcup SL on the other hand was way easier in the gates as I was able to adapt the turn radius better.

I only skied the retail Sl:11 for one run. First it was damp and gave no rebound and the nose isn't made for tight turns. I felt like riding a too short race-carver. Not slalomlike at all. Edgehold wasn't what I expected from such a damp ski. I think the main problem is the plate. The plate just doesn't seem to be stiff enough and the tail was to soft.

The race-stock SL11 was quite good. Initiation was allright but I just prefer hard and lively skis. I want to get good feedback from the ski. They really locked me into the turn and edge-hold was great. Nearly no chatter. I first thought that my times should be great in the gates but they weren't. I am not that much of an active skier - I prefer a ski on which I only have to react in case there are depp ruts and that doesn't lock in that much. I as well prefer to ski more on the tails than on the tips and let the rebound catapult me into the new turn (while carving not racing). My technique is very snowboard-based (jump-turns, Pull-Push technique,)
post #16 of 17
Extremecarve,
So your saying the turn was more adaptable on the WC SL than on the WC SC? And here's me who bought an SC, thinking the SL would have been too narrowly focussed on the slalom race turn (like old RC4SLS). Or did you mean that the SC's turn was just hard to adjust within that SL range, but still ok making bigger turns.
post #17 of 17
extremcarver, thanks for the explanation. I just bought the new Head iSL RD and wonder if you have any opinions on it? I had the last years model and I felt very comfortable with (not skiing gates) it but now the plate is different.
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 › what would u chose ? sl 11 m ; slx ; fischer rc4 wc sl