or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RX6/RX8 vs. Atomic M9/M10 vs. K2 Crossfire
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RX6/RX8 vs. Atomic M9/M10 vs. K2 Crossfire

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Looking for advice for my first shaped ski. I am 39 yrs old, 6’0”, 165 lbs., and in excellent condition. I have skied for 34 years, but not much over the past twelve years (usual story – marriage and kids) until recently. I am now getting back into skiing with my kids. My most recent skis are 190cm K2 Extreme 8.3 from early ‘90s (anybody remember these?) – it’s been awhile!

Based on research (reviewing this forum, speaking with friends, reading reviews, a few ski shops, etc.), I am considering the following models (with some comments/rationale):

1. Atomic Metron M:9 (164 or 171)-- Versatility, ease of use, value.
2. Atomic Metron M:10 (164 or 171) – Slightly better ski than above?
3. Fischer RX6 (170) – Great intermediate to advanced carving, moderate side cut, value.
4. Fischer RX8 (165) – Top-notch carver, all right at other things, room to grow (more ski than I need, too radical sidecut?).
5. K2 Crossfire (167) – Liked my other K2, versatility, forgiveness.

I do not have access to these skis for demo. I have reviewed this forum extensively, but have not seen these direct ski comparisons.

I am looking for a good cruising/carving/all-mountain ski to capitalize on the new easy-to-use skis (new-style carving). I ski a variety of situations, but most like steep single-black runs. I live in Midwest, so need ability to ski slick hardpack.
Also head west for a week per year. Want the best value for my situation. I will not be skiing every week, so forgiveness is a consideration. I do not want a ski that will be too difficult to handle (or unruly while taking it easy), but that will also enable me to “get on it” when I am skiing alone. I need a ski that will also be stable at speed. Does such a ski exist? I know that I should just buy multiple sets, but do not ski enough to justify such expense.

The usual gear-related questions:
  • What are the trade-offs between these models?
  • Should I be considering others?
  • Do the lengths look appropriate?
FWIW, my boots are Nordica Beast 10.

I have already learned a lot from all of you.

Thanks.
post #2 of 18
RX-8 is an exceptional hardpack carver, will easily grip on ice, and is very fun/rewarding to ski for athletic styles. They are OK in powder, but I found them to be cumbersome in crud. Some people will tell you they are OK in crud, but my experience is that other skis (I also have Elan M666 mid-fats) are a *lot* easier to ski in crud. Speaking of which, you might want to consider a mid-fat ski like the M666. It is now my go-to ski for all-mountain all-conditions skiing. I only break out the RX-8 when I know the snow is hard and the trails are groomed (and thus, carving will be the main source of excitement/fun) or I am going to be skiing a lot of short turns.

Good luck!
post #3 of 18
RX8 or Völkl Allstars, maybe Atomic Metron B5s if you see a lot of deeper snow.
post #4 of 18
It sounds like you want something that is a bit easier to ski but has lots of performance.
From your list the RX6 and K2 Crossfire would both fit the bill as would the K2 Apache X, which would likely cost you less that the Crossfire.
RX8 is a terrrific ski but is a bit more work than the RX6 and the 6 still has plenty of performance and can be had a lot cheaper.
The Atomic Metron 10 would be an intriguing possibility but would be the most radical change for you and I'd advise you definitely demo that one before buying it. It also has the Atomic stiffness inthe tail that some skiiers don't care for.
post #5 of 18
I've skied the M9 and M10 and I think I've found that I prefer the M9. The Metron will give you better float in powder and crud.

I've never skied the RX8, but I'd like to.

You might also want to consider the Atomic Izors.
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Much to ponder. The M666, Apache X, and Izor 9:7 were each on my longer list. I have been told that the M666 is a bit slow/cumbersome on short turns on steeps (slower edge to edge); the Apache X is likely too soft for me; and the Izor too intermediate. I suspect the Metron b5 is a bit too advanced/stiff/radical for me. Coming from a "straight" (8.3mm sidecut) ski, I worry about tip sizes above 120 (the Izors and Metrons).

I can get new RX6, M9, M10 and like-new RX8 for essentially same price, so price is not a differentiator at this point. The M666 is ~$100 more.

Coming from a "straight" (8.3mm sidecut) ski, I worry about tip sizes above 120 (the Izors and Metrons), but maybe this is not a big deal. And the M666 with waist of 76 will be slower edge to edge. This may leave with with RX6 vs. RX8. At virtually the same price, should I just go with RX8? My only concerns are being forced to turn more than I want and it being too difficult to ski relaxed.
post #7 of 18
Get the rx8 in a 170.
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Not 165? I am only 163 lbs. dressed. The various threads I've read indicated 165 for my size.
post #9 of 18
The RX6 doesn't sound like enough ski for you given how long you have skied. Apache X is way too soft for you.

I have a pair of Crossfires and love them...I also have an RX 9 (which for the most part is the GS version of the 8's) and like them both. The RX9's simply cling to Ice.

I can't imagine you not liking either.
post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 
How do your Crossfired hold up at speed? This is the one (and only) issue I have sniffed with these skis. Again, I am limited to one pair (at least for now) and ski pretty fast.
post #11 of 18
I'm 5-8 and 173 lbs or so and a strong skier. I'm on a 167cm. (Crossfire)

Fine if you are right on them. They are really forgiving and comfortable under 45mph, above that you need to be paying attention. It isn't that they can't perform, they just don't handle high speed mistakes really well.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherOne
And the M666 with waist of 76 will be slower edge to edge. This may leave with with RX6 vs. RX8. At virtually the same price, should I just go with RX8? My only concerns are being forced to turn more than I want and it being too difficult to ski relaxed.

The M666 is definitely slower edge to edge than the RX-8, and a lot less turny. You have to initiate turns in the M666, while the RX-8 just needs the slightest edge before it starts to turn on its own. The RX-8 will pinch off short turns very well, but I have no problems doing large relaxed turns with it on edge (the kind of turns appropriate for wide groomers). Keep in mind I am on the 180cm RX-8 which has a larger turn radius than the shorter lengths, so it's a bit more versatile. Regardless, if the snow is hard, the RX-8 is a great fun ski that does everything well. Beware though, it deserves attention when being skied on its flats, like on a traverse or catwalk. I always maintain slight edge pressure at all times to keep it stable, otherwise it is liable to react to surface irregularities/tracks and turn on you. Any ski with similar dimensions will behave this way.

I think the RX-8 is a good choice for you. My only reservation is that it's not strong in crud. If that's not so important to you, then don't worry about it.
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherOne
Not 165? I am only 163 lbs. dressed. The various threads I've read indicated 165 for my size.
I'm about 165 lbs, skied the RX8 in 170 cm, and found them great. 170 cm has a slightly longer turn radius than 165cm.

As for crud, I have 165 WC SCs which are better in icy crud, but the price for that is that they aren't as good going at slower speeds; the SCs a little too beefy for my weight at slow speeds, while the RX8 in 170 will handle pretty much any speed you care to reach for.
post #14 of 18
I demoed RX8s in 170 cm (I am 5'9"; 185 lbs); the feeling is that I am a pilot of a 747 on autopilot: great carvers; stable in anything; very fast; nothing for me to do: as Herminator said on a different subject, "I could have read a newspaper" while riding them.
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 

RX8 it is!

Thanks for all the replies from skier219, Ghost, Robscapes, Atomic_918, Uncle Louie, and AlexG.

I am going with RX8 in 165.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherOne
Thanks for all the replies from skier219, Ghost, Robscapes, Atomic_918, Uncle Louie, and AlexG.

I am going with RX8 in 165.
Sounds like you made a very good decision in going with the RX-8 @165cm.
I really like Fischer skis. However, by virtually all accounts Fischer hit home runs with the RX-8 as well as the RX-9 and RX-6.
Have fun with your new skis.
post #17 of 18
I've skied the Crossfire. It is a great ski on hard surfaces. It handles and rides like a dream. Like you said with your past K2, very forgiving. Although, I am not familiar with the other skiis. However, I compared the Crossfire to the Nordica Speedmachine 12, and the Rossi Z5. I felt most comfortable in the K2. I am a 27 year old advanced skier.
post #18 of 18
I ski M9's and agree with this assessment. They do require getting used to and if you try and ski them like non-metrons you'll be eating fair bit of snow. I really pushed them in beaver creek and got the opportunity to really see what they can do. I'm very glad I bought them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
I've skied the M9 and M10 and I think I've found that I prefer the M9. The Metron will give you better float in powder and crud.

I've never skied the RX8, but I'd like to.

You might also want to consider the Atomic Izors.
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 › Fischer RX6/RX8 vs. Atomic M9/M10 vs. K2 Crossfire