or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Should I trade in my Atomic C:9-19's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should I trade in my Atomic C:9-19's?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Hello all! I am hoping to tap into your collective knowledge! Thank you for your time!

I am thinking of swapping out my C:9's. I like them but they are a little too long. They were my first shaped skis and I was used to very long straight skis. When I saw these 2003/4 blue C:9's at Don Thomas in Michigan, I wanted them. They are 181 cm. They are the version w/o an integrated binding system.

Some stats on me: Male, 38, 5'10, 220 lbs. I ski 2-3 times per year at an advanced intermediate level. I live in the midwest and most of my skiing has been in Michigan, Wisconsin, NY, Vermont and West Virginia. I do go out to Utah and Colorado once a year. I typically stay on the groomed slopes. My friends and I tend to ski pretty fast (we pass most people on the hill) with a mix of longer and shorter carved turns. I typically ski harder blues and lighter diamonds with no moguls (I just don't like them).

I like the Atomics but they seem heavy and I feel like I have to pull them around when turning sometimes. So I am thinking I would be better off with something that has a little wider waist and a shorter length.

I saw a few skis at a local shop that caught my interest and I was wondering if I would be better off with one of these:

Rossignol Actys 300 XPI 170 cm
K2 Apache XTR 167 or 174 cm
Solomon X-Wing 6 165 cm or 175 cm

All three sets are on sale for $349-369

What do you think?

Thanks again for your help!
post #2 of 27
Thread Starter 
Well, maybe none of these skis are good options. I just don't know enough about them because I don't keep up with the current products.

I guess the main question I need help with is; are 181's on a C9 Atomic too long for me?

They seem to be very stable at speed and wide turns are fine. Where I struggle is on steeper slopes where I need to make shorter, faster turns. I find myself pulling the skis through the turn if that makes sense. I feel like I am doing a lot of work turning them on short, quick turns were they do a great job turning themselves if I can lenghten the turn some.

Any advice?

post #3 of 27
What is the turn radius of you C9s?
What happens when you just tip the twice as far over instead of trying to drag them around?
It sounds like you might benefit from a shorter turn radius ski, but none of the above mentioned skis sound all that appealing to me.
post #4 of 27
Thread Starter 
I guess I'm not sure what the turn radius is of my C9's. I just looked at them again and they are the blue 9-18 model at an even 180 length. I also saw a pair of X Wing 8's in a 165 length which is just above the bottom of my nose. They were $359.If I tip them up too much I lose my balance and the skis seem to get too much edge or something and the shoot out from under me. I'm not sure if that makes sense.
post #5 of 27
The shape is about 104-64-96. I am not sure what the tirn radius would be.
post #6 of 27
You would probably enjoy making shorter turns on a something with a shorter radius like an RX8, or Equipe SC, but I think your money would be better spent on a 90 minute private lesson, with the aim being learning how to arc pure carved turns.

Take your skis to an easy blue. Aim them down the hill, and tip them onto their edges without trying to turn. Just tip them and let them go where they want while trying to balance and not fall off. Experiment with gradually tipping them more and more. The greater tipping should lead to tighter turns.

Oh, and sharpen your edges tip to tail (at a 3 degree side bevel).
post #7 of 27
Thread Starter 
I think the lesson is good advice. Actually, I did just that 2 seasons ago after I bought the Atomics. I was at Granite Peak in WI and took a 1 hour from the head of the school. I can't remember his name but he as a nice guy.

He slowed me down and had me working on pole plants and staying forward in the skis. He had me holding the poles parallel to the ground in front of me and carving shorter and shorter turns.

I can arc a curve fairly well (but could always use some practice). I'm not a great skier and I don't ski enough to get a lot better.

I know very little about equipment and I guess I don't know whether the skis I'm on are causing me problems and if it is worth it to try something else. If I try something else I'm not sure what I would try.

I am thinking the fact that I have trouble making quick, short turns on diamonds is (outside of some lack of skill of course) partially caused by skis that are too long for me. I just don't know if it is worth switching them and what to switch them to without spending a bunch of money. It's just not worth too much since I ski about 5-8 days a year.
post #8 of 27
It's not that the skis are too long for you; it's that the turn radius of the skis is too long for the turn you want to make. 181 cm is not too long for 220 lbs. It could be that the C9 just doesn't have enough meat in it to turn you hard at your weight; A C11 might be a better bet (or maybe a more modern SX12) , though most say it also requires more skill. Perhaps you have outgrown the C9 skill-wise and in what you demand from your ski.

Try any top of the line carving ski (one step below racing ski, eg Fischer WC SC, Salomon Equipe SC, Atomic SL12, etc.) that has a turn radius of 13 m or less, or any racing slalom ski. It should work a whole lot better at short turns if you know what your doing, or even if you don't. The fun you will have is worth the price of a high-end rental. However if you usually speed along carving pure arcs at 45+ mph, you probably don't want one of these as your everyday one-ski quiver.
post #9 of 27

Atomic C 9

I have 180cm C9s (Blue and Silver)and find them to be really forgiving skis. I also have Volkl 177s and Nordica 178s all three of which have similar side cuts. I prefer the Volkls or Nordicas simply because the Marker bindings on those are far better than the Atomic 614 on the C9. Skiing as little as you do, I think you might want to go down to the 167-174 cm range and stay with skis with about 18m turn radius. I am taller. heavier, and older than you and wouldn't want a shorter ski than I have.
The OLDUtahskibum
post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 
Wow, thanks for the great advice.

Actually, at this point I think I need to demo some skis. I really don't know whether these skis are working for me or not since I have skied on 3 pairs over the past 20 years. A 1988 pair of 205 Kneisels, a pair of 2001 Nordica rentals (horrible noodles but easier than my old skis) and these Atomics.

I will be in the Salt Lake area in the middle of March. Where is a good place to demo (using my boots of course - getting those right took forever and was priority one)?

Where should I demo? What should I demo?

Thanks again!
post #11 of 27

Free Demo SLC area

Up at Deer Valley near Empire Canyon Lodge, Rossignol has a yurt where you can demo any current model of their skis for FREE. Of course you gotta buy a $74 lift ticket to get out there. Jans Sports in Snow Park lodge has many current hi-end demos, and if you buy, they knock off the demo price. Right now our local ski sellers have drastically reduced prices (up to 85% off retail). IE: Wife just bought a pair of Volkls '07 models==MSRP $945 for $179.97 + tax
so if you buy, do it in town and not up at the ski areas.
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 
So should I get demos in town too or should I get the demos at the slope and then buy something in-town?

Which are the best local shops?

What should I demo?

post #13 of 27
Thread Starter 

I just got back from Alta. Two days and two different weather conditions. I skied Wednesday and Saturday of last week. Overnight Tuesday they received about 3 inches of snow. It was about 35 deg. and partly cloudy.

Saturday it was 55 deg and sunny all day. The snow was soft but not to slushy.

On Wed. I tried the K2 Outlaws in a 170. They are not for me. I just wasn't skiing fast enough to get them up on edge consistently. I felt like the skis were too flat on the snow and I was not carving.

On Sunday I tried K2 Recons and Nordica Afterburners - both in about 170. I really like both better than the Outlaws. Both were much easier to turn and felt pretty stable at speed. I skied the best on the Recons. I spent a little time on the blues but then moved to the easier diamonds and really had a blast. I was not seriously challenged in the soft snow and they were a great ride.

I tried the Nordica's first and I really liked the feel of them. My only issue was that they kept moving around under my feet when I was skiing straight ahead or in a slight turn. I thought that it might be a boot issue so I demo'ed some Nordica Beast 10 boots and that helped a lot.

I currently wear Technica Rival RX9's in a size 27. I have had significant issues finding a boot that will fit since I have narrow heels and a wide ball of my foot. Surefoot at Cooper Mountain spent some time on them and I have a foot bed, heel/calf pads and they ground out the shell some.

Still either my feet were moving around in them or they were so tight my feet went numb.

The Beasts were a size 26 and felt a little small. It felt like someone was squeezing the ball of my foot. Still they were more comfortable and much easier to ski on than the Technica's. I noticed that the front to back flex was much easier on the Beasts.

So now I am thinking that Don Thomas in Michigan put me in skis that are too long and boots that are too big. It is unlikely that I will be back on a hill this year so maybe I should wait till next year to work on this issue. I don't know.
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
After some research on the board here and elsewhere I think I have come down to two skis based on price and fit.

1. Atomic Izor 9.7 in a 168
2. Atomic Metron 9 in a 171

It seems like both are carvers but the Metron is more all mountain than the Izor. Is that right?

As I said in an earlier post, on most blues I ski pretty fast and make longer turns but as the terrain gets steeper, I turn a lot more. I am more likely to hold the turn longer instead of making more turns to control speed.

Would one of these work well for me? Any other suggestions?

Thanks all!
post #15 of 27
I think Ghost nailed it:

It's not that the skis are too long for you; it's that the turn radius of the skis is too long for the turn you want to make. 181 cm is not too long for 220 lbs.
At your weight, I would look at the Metron 10, but I wouldn't spend a dime on skis until the boot situation was sorted out.

If you have a good fitter nearby, start working with him or her now so you can get the most time on snow next season. Otherwise, take a week vacation early next season and sort it out then.
post #16 of 27
BTW, the reason you don't like moguls is because you're no good at them.

Trust me

BTW, I ski the Metron 10 in a 164. I'm 5'9, 175 lbs. I would look at the 10 before the 9, either in a 164 or 171.
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 

You are correct. I am not good a moguls. I can't keep turning quickly enough, and I am too focused on the mogul right in front of me and not the next two after it. I end up going right over the top of one and then I am doomed. I think I started on moguls that were too steep for me (a buddy pushed me to it) and now I hate them. I tried them again on a blue last year and while I was better, I still stunk and I gave up.


Thanks for the advice. I am working on the boot issue. I demoed and liked a Nordica Beast 10 a size smaller than my Technica Rival RX's. I ordered a pair and I am going to work on their fit first thing next season or as soon as I can.

So you think 9 is too soft for me? I want to have fun and comments about some of the real advanced skis being a lot of work scare me. I know the Metron 10 is not really an advanced ski like the B5 is but is it significantly more work than the 9? What would the difference be?

Is the common wisdom that the Metron 9 or 10 would be a better ski for an advanced intermediate than the Izor 9.7?

Thanks again for all of your help.
post #18 of 27
I can only give you my perspective on the Metron 10.

I used to ski a 180cm C9. I then went to a Volant Machete Soul for a short while, and now I'm on a 164cm Metron 10.

Like I said, I'm 175 pounds. It's a *hell* of a lot of fun. It's shorter and easier to toss around than the C9, it carves a much sharper turn, floats better in powder, and has all the edge grip and liveliness of the C9. I find it *infinitely* easier to manage in trees and bumps than I ever did the C9.

The M10 is enough ski for the mega-steep ridge at Jay, cruising at 50mph, and moguls. I'm not an expert skier and I have no problems handling it and I haven't found its limits at all.

Like I said, I can't compare it to other skis that may be more suitable for you, but I would *not* want a softer ski than this one (ie, the M9). You're quite a bit bigger than I am, too.

FWIW, you can find them online for not a whole lot of money. Someone is selling the M10 164cm with bindings for $400 shipped on the forum. http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=54667
post #19 of 27
I think of the difference between the M9 and M10 as essentially a speed difference: in any given length I can go faster on an M10 and rely on one edge set to carry me through the turn instead of having to feather the flex and smear the edge engagement. A longer M9 would make working for the turn more reliable, but I would be using the old straight ski skills, so better to go to the stiffer M10.

I don't really know how fast you ski, but for me (at about your height and 190lbs) the longest M9 is barely skiable without frustration, the M10 is fun in 171 but I can overpower it without large effort.

More work? Not really, not at all actually unless one is fighting for front-to-back balance. Which brings us back to boots.

I don't mean to carp. There might be other deals for you out there, Head iXRC(800?), Fischer RX, Dynastar Contact, any number of Nordicas come to mind.
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 
Comprex, you are not carping.

I demo'ed a couple of K2's and the Nordica Afterburners and mostly liked them. I have also liked my Atomics and after reading such good things about the Metron's in particular, they seem like a good step up for me. The Izor 9.7 seems to get good reviews too but less of an all mountain ski I think.

I have read about the RX8's but not much about the Head's or Dynastars.

I guess since I only ski about 6-8 days per year I don't have time to demo all of them (especially since half of those days are in the same place with the same limited demos).

My other option is to do demos/performance rentals everywhere. But that does get a little old and I never know what I will be able to get.
post #21 of 27
If you ski in the midwest, I would highly recommend considering the RX8 in 170. On our shorter hills, they work well.
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 
I do ski the midwest some but I also ski the west. Why the RX8? I have seen that some people really like them but generally I have heard more about the Metrons.

Are the Izors out of the question? I did like the Nordica Afterburner.
post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 
Well, I'm still looking. Thank you all for your advice so far.

I may just wait and keep doing the performance rental thing but I prefer to have my own ski's as you never know what the rental shop will have and it takes a little time to get the skis.

I'm looking at some web deals from eBay, Sierrasnowboard.com, Ski-depot.com etc. One I like the look of is the Nordica Eliminator in 170. I have seen some good reviews and with a radius of about 16 it is faster turning than my 9-18's but not as radical as the metrons. I can get a new set for about $350 but my only concern is that the turn radius is a little long. Part of the reason I want to ditch the 9-18's is they don't do short turns well for me.

I have also looked at Fisher AMC 73's as a possibility. They have the shorter turn radius and they are a little wider. These are more like $400.

Finally, I saw a great deal at Sierrasnowboard for Nordica SUV 12.1's in the clearance section.

Finnaly, I have been looking at a pair of X-wing 10 demo's in 170.

I want something that turns quicker and shorter than the 9-18's and that will not sink in 2 inches of snow. I like the idea of the Metrons but I haven't skied any and I don't know if the turn radius will be too short for me. I do spend most of my time skiing fairly quickly with medium radius turns.

What other advice do you have for me? Thanks again.
post #24 of 27
I agree with the comments about turn radius. I find that the shorter the radius, the more control I have over the ski. I've also found that the snow conditions out West are so different than the East (similar to mid-West) that I really need different skis for both areas to get the most out of the mountain, at least at my skill level.

In the East, except on powder days, I like to ski on a shorter, higher end Volkl. I prefer a shorter turning radius (13m -- I am just under 5'7", 143 lbs., intermediate to advanced skier depending on the day and conditions, have skiied for 3 seasons so far) and a stiffer ski like my Volkl Attiva AC3s to rip down the mountain. Volkls make great groomer skis and there are a lot of choices among the unisex line of Volkls. For me, however, I found that my AC3s did not perform for me as well out West (lousy bump skis for example), so I decided to buy a softer Volkl (Attiva AC2) and some powder skis (Solomon Scarlets) to bring out West with me (yes, I'm going to try to travel with 2 pair of skis -- gear addict here). Picked both pair up in April at good prices and will try them out in Feb. '08 when I return to Big Sky.

Good luck and happy shopping!
post #25 of 27
Originally Posted by robertpetry View Post
After some research on the board here and elsewhere I think I have come down to two skis based on price and fit.

1. Atomic Izor 9.7 in a 168
2. Atomic Metron 9 in a 171

It seems like both are carvers but the Metron is more all mountain than the Izor. Is that right?

As I said in an earlier post, on most blues I ski pretty fast and make longer turns but as the terrain gets steeper, I turn a lot more. I am more likely to hold the turn longer instead of making more turns to control speed.

Would one of these work well for me? Any other suggestions?

Thanks all!
If you only ski 2-3 times a year, you might want to consider renting high/higher performance skis rather than buying.

That said, I have been skiing on my 180 cm 918s for many years. And I still enjoy them.

Iwould skip the Izor 9.7s. I like my 918s much better. Try the M9 or M11 B5. The M9 is a much shorter radius ski than you're used to but I think its a blast. Pretty light, too. The M11 B5 is a longer radius ski. I found it to be very forgiving in terms of changing edges.

Good luck,

post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 
Well looking at a few deals on line it appears that I am deciding between:

171 Metron 9's for $300
170 Metron M11 B5's for about $300
170 Nordica Eliminators for $300
170 Fisher AMC 73's for $350
170 Nordica SUV 12 for $300

Based on that list how would you rank them? If you were me which would you buy first? Second? why?

Thanks !!
post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 
Well, just to close out this thread - until review time next winter - I finally bought some skis.

I nearly bought a set of 171 Metron 9's from last year for about $400 but in the end I bought a set of Nordica Eliminator's in 170 for $298 on eBay. Both were new in the shrink wrap.

Why? Although I like my 918's and I have read great things and reviews of the Metron's, I haven't skied them. They sound great. I wish I could have demo'ed them. But I have skied and really liked the Nordicas. Short turns are important to me occasionally on the blacks (really important when I need them) but still 80% of my turns are medium to long and at speed.

I hope I made the right choice and thank you all for your fantastic help - specially Atomic_918.

See you next winter. I can hardly wait.
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 › Should I trade in my Atomic C:9-19's?