or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic Beta Race Carve 9.12 - ski of the year?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Beta Race Carve 9.12 - ski of the year?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I see that the 9.12 was given the ski of the year in the gear info section. I have not seen anyone writing about it. Has anyone out there skied it? The 115/65/100 profile is quite different to the other skis in its class ie 103/65/93, what advantages/disadvantages does the 9.12 profile give? Your thoughts.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ March 16, 2002 11:46 AM: Message edited 1 time, by shane ]</font>
post #2 of 19
I haven't skiied it, but I would imagine that in the same length the ski with the greater sidecut(i.e. beta 9.12) would have a much smaller turning radius and therefore be more "carvy".

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ March 16, 2002 12:03 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Karsten Hain ]</font>
post #3 of 19
I own a pair of next years version of the 9.12 which is called the SL9. It is great.
post #4 of 19
Rusty - I didn't see a gear review for it from you in the gear section, so might I be able to coax a mini review out of you right now on this ski?

Could you be a bit more explicit about "great" - great for what? I suspect it would be great for slower instructor demo turns on groomers, but how is it at moguls, various types of crud & slop, ice, general free skiing, etc. Is that big tip overly susceptable to hooking up? What length is yours?

I am particularly curious how it differs from skis like the Viper X that are also meant to be skied short, but which have much narrower shovels. I presume that the swing weight of the latter would make them better for swiveling turns in moguls, but less carvy?

Speak ... speak ... we are listening. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Tom / PM
post #5 of 19
More sidecut gives more choices, choices you can also still ignore if you want. You get more options, you don't lose any (though the skill blends to utilize these options may change)

I have not tried these specific skis however, and can't give personal experience. But I've heard from other full time pros that they are fun and versatile skis.
post #6 of 19
Hey Rusty Guy i was just at the ski shop up in Canada as i live close to the boarder and they had next years Slalom from Atomic called the 11.12 it was green and had that golf ball pattern on it with plate, i was told thats the replacement for the 9.12 of this year, it wasnt called SL9 but i was assured this was the slalom ski replacing the 9.12 i dont recall the exact dimensions but it was slighty more than this years 9.16 at the tip and tail but as i said it said 11.12, i wonder what length they used to come up with the 12 part as that always in the past described the turn radius. Like this years 9.12 used the 170 length for 12 meter turn radius. Just wondering what ski i was looking at.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ March 16, 2002 08:24 PM: Message edited 1 time, by dc9mm ]</font>
post #7 of 19

The ski you saw has also been referred to by Atomic as the SL11 or SL11.12. Its the high end racing slalom from Atomic next season, taking over for the 9.16.

The SL9 is the more rec friendly slalom ski, similar to the 9.12 from this year.

Regarding the name on the SL11, I've heard it called with and without the .12 radius on it. It's like Atomic can't decide what name they want to use. Same with the ride R11 ski. It was called just R11 on the literature I saw, but on the ski it says R11.20. Go figure [img]smile.gif[/img]

Changing the names on all the ride skis is a stupid move. I'll never get used to the 10.EX being named the REX.
post #8 of 19
I own a pair of 9.16's and recently got a pair of the SL9's which I was told replaces the 9.12.

It is a 160cm ski and I'm 180 lbs and 5'10".

I found that the ski did very well in all conditions. Bob B posted a comment about our skiing together in some fresh snow. I've not used the ski in deep stuff but it did fine in six to ten inches of fresh snow and busted up snow.

In bumps it does great. It has a lot of metal in it so I was careful to not bang the shovels into the sides of any moguls. It is very light and turns/carves quickly.

Obviously it is on groomed or hard snow where it excels. Simply stated it carves and exceedingly tight arc and is rock steady on hard snow. It is like riding two rails. All that is required is to find the center of the ski and stay in the middle. The ski responds to very subtle tipping.

Hope this helps.

As an aside I might have gone as short as a 150 cm. That would really be a wild ride. I think the hidden beauty of these short skis is that they force the skier to be very well centered in terms of fore/aft balance. There isn't much tail behind the skier to ride on!
post #9 of 19
Rusty Guy - Thanks for filling in the details. They sound like fun. Like most long-time skiers, I'm in the process of coming down in length, so I am trying to find out which of the short sticks are the good ones to demo.

Tnx again.

Tom / PM
post #10 of 19
The SL9's I've seen have both SL-9 on the shovel and then SL-9.12 on the tail and they've been yellow like this years ski. also they have a narrower shovel; 109 I believe--than this years 9.12, but seem to retain the same radius (11m on the 160 in think).

The SL-11 seems to have the same shape, but with every bit of metal and Beta goodness Atomic can jam into it. I skied it in a 157 and it was surpriselingly heavy to carry but light on your feet. All the weight is centered at the binding/plate and the swing weight is very very low. I only skied the groomers but it was a BLAST! Easy to cruise, effortless to turn and able to lay trenches with BIG spring from turn to turn. Made me a better skier too, as I REALLY payed attention to staying forward.

I've already bought bindings for the SL9's (don't need all the metal in the 11) I plan to get next year. A must have Fun fun fun ski IMHO.
post #11 of 19
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd M.:
More sidecut gives more choices, choices you can also still ignore if you want. You get more options, you don't lose any (though the skill blends to utilize these options may change)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Todd - Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm not so sure I would make quite such a bold statement about sidecut. There is always a point of diminishing returns in everything, and in the case of an extreme forebody sidecut like this ski has, I'm trying to find out if the mfgrs have reached this point yet.

Some examples - For a given length, waist, tail width, and type of construction, an extremely wide tip:

1) Increases the amount of mass swinging far from the center of the ski (ie, the polar moment of inertia), thereby slowing down swiveling moves (ie, decreasing your options, especially in the bumps);

2) Likely makes the ski less suitable for crud and other irregular snow since the forebody is essentially trying to carve around each little terrain irregularity (ie, again, decreasing one's options);

3) Likely makes the ski less suitable for very high speeds because its too responsive (ie, another decrease of options).

These and similar effects may or may not be important with this particular ski, but that's exactly what I'm trying to learn since I haven't had a chance to ski them yet. I'm particularly interested in any on-the-snow comparisons to narrower, short, hard snow skis like the t-power Viper slaloms as well as the 9x pps and X pps GS skis by anyone who has skied both the 9.12 and one or more of these other skis.


Tom / PM
post #12 of 19
I've been skiing on the 9.12. Some times I like it--some times I don't. I really like GS turns-so I prefer my 9.22's overall--the 9.12 is what it is--a rapid turner fall line ski--and its wicked fast edge to edge--so some times that is fun. I think it has a speed limit--although you can go fast and make big turns on it--but it gets a little sketchy. Its a quiver ski--I think the point is that its amazing for what it is. But its not an all around amazing ski--like I think some of the 70mm waisted mid fats are. I don't know-if any one agrees.
post #13 of 19
This past year, I purchased the Atomic 9.16's and my son got the 9.12's. Both are 160 cm long.

Both skies are extremely quick and handle ice as if it didn't exist. The 9.12's are considerably more aggressive in their turning capabilities than the 9.16's and want to be constantly on edge. The 9.12's are a blast to ski on for an hour or two, after that, I'm glad to get back to my tamer (???) 9.16,s which are a better all mountain, all day ski.

Both skies are awesome and need to be demoed to be truly appreciated their performance.
post #14 of 19
To add to HarryO,
The 9.12 is much harder to stay balanced on than the 9.16. It is a constant battle to stay forward on the ski to utilize its turning capabilities. Its a great ski in a race coarse as well, but the 9.16 is a much smoother ski allowing you to stay forward in anticipation for the next gate.
post #15 of 19
Question for anyone who has tried the 916 as well as the 920 how do they compare?
ie: short turns med. large?
I love my 920's but sometimes would like a little tighter turn radius
post #16 of 19
Well i cant say for the 9.12 but i skied my new Fischer Race SC today in 160 length and they are awesome much better than my Atomic 9.20's in 180. I have the 2001 9.20 race which have the variocharger plate. The Fischers are 2002 this years model i got for an awesume deal. These have alot of shape like the 9.12 there 115-64-97 11 meter turn radius at 160 length. They were absolutey rock stable at speed which i thought they mite get twitchy but ran great at speed and talk about turns these can crank turns. I was going to buy the Atomic 9.12 in 160 but they were sold out and only had 150 and 170. Thought the 150 was just to short. If they had a 155 maybe but 150 to small. Anybody want to but some Atomic 9.20's?? Guess i will have to put them on ebay.
post #17 of 19
Atomic race skis I (weighing <150 lbs.) have owned in recent years:
9.28 193cm
10.26 188cm
10.22 183cm
9.16 170cm
9.12 150cm

The 9.12 is an amazingly fun ski. Obviously it excels at short radius turns, but it is surprisingly stable at lower gs speeds (assuming you have the skill to keep it on edge and properly pressured). It also performs well in moguls, although that is hardly my specialty. I don't have any problem staying balanced - if anything, I am more balanced on the 150cm 9.12 than I was years ago on a 203cm HV3SL. (Remember those?)

For crud/powder/off-piste/etc. I use one of my two randonee setups (Dynastar ATV 180cm and Fischer Freeride 68 173cm, w/ Fritschi Diamir Original & Diamir II, respectively), so I can't comment on that.

(Oh, and as for the Atomic gs skis, strictly for gs racing & training, unless you regularly ski at a very wide open area out West or something like that.)
post #18 of 19
I had a chance to ski the 9.12 a few months back. I really wanted to see what the behaviors of an ultra super slalom would be like. I agree with physicsman that sidecut can be limiting and not just provide options.

I also tried the ViperS the same day as this as a comparison.

Overall I didnt like the 9.12. It was great at carving tight arcs but wasnt versatile enough to open up the arcs as the ViperS was. It was fun for a few runs but became almost annoying after that - not a freeski for my type of skiing. You always had to be on edge & anything over 30mph and not on edge you'd wax all over the place.

It also sucked in bumps - way too much shape on this one which didnt like to slip and tips were too fat and got hung. Everyone ski's bumps differently though, I am more traditional doing the zipper - I find extreme shapes work poorly while more moderate better.

The viperS was much more versatile.

Overall if you want a specific superslalom for doing just that then the 9.12 is great. But if you want if for other things definetly the ViperS - Hands down.

9.12 does have FANTASTIC ice edge hold though, much better than ViperS on short SL turns.

post #19 of 19
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by artskee:
Question for anyone who has tried the 916 as well as the 920 how do they compare?
ie: short turns med. large?
I love my 920's but sometimes would like a little tighter turn radius

I had concurrently the 9.20 @190 and the 9.16 @170cm. I remember a trip up to Vermont where I couldn't decide so I took them both. The 9.20's never came off the car rack. And I loved my 9.20's when I got them vs. some of the older hardware I'd been on.

I absolutely love the 9.16. It holds ice better than the 9.20's, it does short, medium and even up to 35mph or so GS turns, and it works in and out of the gates very well. You mentioned you would like a tighter arc, and that's where the 9.16 shines over the 9.20. I'll probably do the newer Atomic SL skis next year, but I'll hang on to my 9.16's for everyday kicks. I'm 6' and 190lbs. for what it's worth.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ March 26, 2002 01:09 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Sudsysul ]</font>
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 Beta Race Carve 9.12 - ski of the year?