or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic SX:9

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Has anyone ever skied these skis? If so, what level are you and in what conditions?
Thanks,
Jeff
post #2 of 21
i had a pair of 180 cm Sx 9 two seasons ago. I'm 6 ft 175 lbs. Level 8 skier. I thought the ski skied medium radiusturns well. OK in bumps but its really much better as a groomed snow carver. Never skied the SX 11 for comparison purposes but would assume this ski would have a bit more zing to it than the 9.

The 9 is not a wimpy ski by any stretch. You could haul on it and it was very solid. All in all a very good ski. I probably would have liked it more maybe even shorter. I sold it to get a pair of Metron 11's the next season.

I think you can get this ski steeply discounted and its a very good value. A little too narrow to be real good in crud and powder however. Its really a front side ski.
post #3 of 21
I demoed them a few years ago and just picked up a pair at a swap this fall. Mine are a couple years old but hadn't seen much use.

I typically ski fat skis (90+) all year, but figured I could use a ski for our few icy days when conditions are miserable off-piste. (Which worked out well for the first few lift served days this season when we had nothing but rocks off the man-made groomers).

They're a really fun groomer ski. They weigh a ton (they're a skinny and short little 160, but with the plates and atomic bindings they weigh the same as my husbands 189 seth pistols with P14s - which are probably well over twice the surface area), but they're very stable and easy to ski and turn. I've skied them on typical groomer conditions at Snowbird and Brighton - starting on courduroy, changing to scraped off ice and bumps and they were excellent all day. I doubt I'll be taking them off the groomed, as I have 6 other pairs of skis which are all way more appropriate for that.
post #4 of 21
While I haven't tried them (heard very good things as a high intermediate to advanced carver though), I thought I should point out that starting last year, the SX line underwent a small shift.

What was the SX:9 in 03/04 and earlier was changed to the SX:10 in 04/05 (few minor changes, but essentially the same ski) and is the same in 05/06. The new SX:9 is nowhere close to the ski that the old SX:9 was.

So when you're looking at opinions, keep the date in mind. If you look at last year or this year, you should look at the SX:10. If you're looking at 03/04 or earlier, look at the SX:9.
post #5 of 21
Good point. The 03/04 model is the one that I was talking about:

http://www.snowrental.net/skiing/ski...omic-sx-9.html
post #6 of 21
If Canuck instructor is on target i can tell you that myself and 4 of my buddies all bought the SX-10 and they are great , we are all in the 6'0-6'2'' range and except for one guy a light weightr @ 155-lbs the rest of usare all between 195-205lbs , ski 25-30 days /yr. We ski in the East and eastern Canada so these skis are great on hard pack , crud, ice and even that rare eastern pow when it found altho they are better on the other conditions . All of us are level 7-8 skiers
post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Great advice. Thanks all for that. Probably go with the K2 Hellfires for my lady friend. Same price, better ski.
And for me, maybe the Volkl Unlimited AC3. Seems that going up to 74cm won't be a huge deal in the bumps.
post #8 of 21
I hated the K2 Hellfire when I demoed them, and I liked both the 03-04 SX9 and the 04-05 SX10 better. Problem could have been tune related but wow they had abysmal edge grip. Extremely damp and pretty stiff ski, but very quick edge to edge.
post #9 of 21
I'm 5'7 185 Lbs, ski the 03/04 SX-9 in a 170 and really like it.

Although the tips may seem a little soft, as someone said before, this is not a wimpy ski (I'm a level 8 skier). Great edge hold, works OK in the bumps, and while it's surprising good in powder, ideally you'd want something a little wider underfoot. At this length, it's like a slalom ski, but it has no problems at all with speed and makes any kind of turn I want it to.

It's a pretty good choice if, like me, your skiing is confined to the East.

One caveat to the above: If you skid your turns, you'll either learn to carve or won't like this ski. It does not like to skid.
post #10 of 21
r the Sx 10, 11, and the SX B5 noticably better and or different
post #11 of 21
I may be mistaken, as I've never been on the SX-9, but I have a suspicion that it's essentially the same ski as the older C:9, which I do own in the 180 ('03, pre Puls version). Great hardpack ski. 17m Radius is great for medium to long turns. Good edge grip, nice stiff tail with plenty of rebound. Not great in the bumps, miserable in pow and crud, but eats the groomers alive. If you're looking for a forgiving, fast groomer ski, you won't be disappointed. If you want to bang out shorter turns, look for the 170. I'm 6' 205lbs, by the way.
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
r the Sx 10, 11, and the SX B5 noticably better and or different
Yes and no. The SX10 is slightly softer and more forgiving than the 11, thus is doesn't have quite the same performance capabilities. I can't say with any authority, but I would imagine there isn't much of a performance gap between the SX11 and the SXB5. The 11 will be lighter in weight, as it doesn't have the Beta5 construction. The B5 may be more smooth and damp than the 11, due to the Beta5, and it may have more energy rebound than the 11 as well. Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm by no means an expert on any of these skis. I'm basing this one reviews and comments I've ready on these 3 skis and others with similar (Beta 4 vs. Beta 5, etc.) construction from Atomic.
post #13 of 21
thats about what i figured....most ski series in the business seem to work that way
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
thats about what i figured....most ski series in the business seem to work that way
That being said, I don't think you'd be dissatisfied with any of these skis were you looking for a hard snow/Groomer ski. It also depends on what you're looking for. If it's something you plan on skiing all day long, the SX10 will probably be your best bet. I'd imagine the SX11 and B5 will be a lot like the Volkl Allstar...a very stable, high performance consumer ski, but one that will kick your butt and tire you out in a hurry. The SX10 would probably be a ski that you can push, but won't punish you as badly if you get tired and sloppy with your technique towards the end of the day.
post #15 of 21
ya u got it ...i would definitly agree with u
post #16 of 21
Forrester --Your analysis of SX 10 as "all day " push em hard and they wont kick your butt " ski vs the Sx11 and 5* is RIGHT ON TARGET with both demo trials and actual experience with the SX10 i ended up buying
post #17 of 21
I really loved the SX11; the SX10...not so much. The 10 had a similar feel to the 11, but I could get the 11s to give me more force accelerating around turns, and the 11s had a higher speed limit. They both require that you know how to adjust your turn shape with edge angle.
post #18 of 21
I have the 03/04 SX 9's and absolutely love the ski. I'm 5'11 185 and a solid level 9 and take this ski everywhere on the mountain. They haul ass on the groomed, good cutting through crud, lively through the bumps, hold well on ice and despite being narrow in the mid (165) are great in powder....at least for me. I loved the SX 11's also but only on the groomed where they were slightly better at severe speed but a lot of work for all mountain skiing with a decidely more difficult turn initiation. The SX 9 was a far better all day all mountain ski. If ALL you ski is groomed then SX 11 may be better.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treewell
I have the 03/04 SX 9's and absolutely love the ski. I'm 5'11 185 and a solid level 9 and take this ski everywhere on the mountain. They haul ass on the groomed, good cutting through crud, lively through the bumps, hold well on ice and despite being narrow in the mid (165) are great in powder....at least for me. I loved the SX 11's also but only on the groomed where they were slightly better at severe speed but a lot of work for all mountain skiing with a decidely more difficult turn initiation. The SX 9 was a far better all day all mountain ski. If ALL you ski is groomed then SX 11 may be better.
Very true. SX11 and SX10 are not meant for soft snow.
post #20 of 21

I bought my SX:9 in 2005. After renting a couple of softer Atomic I decided to try the SX:9 with Atomic bindings. Things really came alive! I decided to buy them after that demo. They are quite frisky and will drain your legs fast when skied agile. I'm a pretty strong and heavy skier, but after a couple of hours on these puppies it felt like I had been in the gym doing heavy leg training. Quite exhausting. Groomed slopes only in my mind, I tried them a bit outside but with bad response. It's a fun carver and they run fast on typical GS turns. I've been skiing them every seasons since, so it's a ski you wanna return to each time you have those groomed sharps conditions.

post #21 of 21

Welcome to the forum.

 

I will admit I was never a fan of the SX9.     I still have a pair of 2008 SX12s but I will admit that the current generation of skis can do everything those skis can do and more.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion