EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help with Atomic Ski Choice!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help with Atomic Ski Choice!

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Just getting back into skiing after a couple of years away from the sport being busy with our kids.

Currently skiing on a 3-4 year old pair of Salomon 10 2V GS skis in 180cm length. Love these but would like a newer pair that's more versatile.

Solid level 7 skier (level 8 when younger) who grew up and lives in the East, but will also be heading for a first trip out West sometime soon. Friends moved out to Park City a couple of years ago and we need to visit (in winter of course). I'm 6' and 185 lbs.

Currently looking at newer Atomics and would like some help from all of you on which to choose. My head is spinning after reading a bunch of threads on here and I need help! May have a chance to demo, but may not and would like to pull the trigger soon since the prices right now are great.

Looking at the following:

Atomic Metron 10 puls Ti ($369 ski only, 164 or 171 length)

Atomic Metron 9 puls ($399 with 412 tix binding, 164 or 178 length)

Atomic Izor 9:7 ($399 with 412 tix binding, 168 or 177 length)

Atomic 920 (renumbered copy of the 918) ($299 with 310 tix binding, 162, 170, or 178 length).

I want a ski that can do more than the GS board I'm on now. I'd like to be able to hit the trees and bumps, and the little bit of powder we get out here from time to time. Spend 80% of my time on steep groomers and the other 20% in bumps and trees. Tend to ski fast and aggressively on the steep groomed stuff and a bit more tentatively in bumps and trees.

Would like recommendations as far as ski and length. Leaning toward something in the 170cm range with ~15m radius as I alredy have a longer ski with a 21m radius.
post #2 of 27
Mike why are you just asking about Atomic skis? One of the first skis That I thought of after reading your post was the Fischer RX8.
post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 
UT49:

Atomic mostly because of multiple positive reviews, great edge hold (it's icy out here), and availability at good prices.
post #4 of 27
FWIW, I just got some Metron 10s in a 164 (I'm 175 lbs).

I just spent the weekend with them at Jay. Lots and lots of fresh powder and almost nothing but tree and bump skiing all weekend. I had an absolute *blast* on them.
post #5 of 27
Hard to suggest a ski size without your height & weight. You give your ski ability level and "energy level" (sounds like a pretty hard charger), but height and weight are needed, also. All that said, a top level ski might be about lips to nose high for a skier of moderate proportions...neither thin nor heavy. I ski somewhat like you describe, I'm 6', 200#, and I'm on a top line 170 (Head Supershape). If you're lighter, a 165 is probably right.

In addition to Atomic, consider Fischer and Head. The Head XRC line is being discontinued and replaced by the Xenon line, and the XRC skis are excellent, so an "all mountain aggressive" XRC 1100 (last year), 1200, or 1400 might be very good for you at a good price, as will the Supershape. The Fischer RX8 is also a very good choice.

$20 is money very wisely spent for a subscription to Peter Keelty's techsupportforskiers.com subscription site. His reviews are the best I've seen, and Peter gives personal answers to subscribers' questions.


Ken
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
SSG:

It's in my original post, I'm 6' and 185#.
post #7 of 27
As others have stated, expand your search to other brands beside Atomic. Lot's of good ones out there and some good deals now. Everyone has there own style and preferences so really the best thing to do is try and demo a few that you may be considering.
post #8 of 27

a vote for izors

I suggest considering Izors 9.7 - I have been skiing them this winter on the hardpack conditions we have had most of this season in Central California- I am 6' and 190 lbs and chose a 168 cm- The skiis have been a lot of fun-Relatively light weight (certainly less weight than Metrons), very quick edge to edge-Good edge hold-Though promoted as an upper intermediate ski, all the reviews that I read tout this ski as suitable for experts as a Frontside Carver- I feel like I have just begin to tap the potential after 7 - 8 days on them-Probably would be okay in 6" to 12" of powder but I have a 90 mm waist ski for new snow days!
post #9 of 27

a vote for izors

I suggest considering Izors 9.7 - I have been skiing them this winter on the hardpack conditions we have had most of this season in Central California- I am 6' and 190 lbs and chose a 168 cm- The skiis have been a lot of fun-Relatively light weight (certainly less weight than Metrons), very quick edge to edge-Good edge hold-Though promoted as an upper intermediate ski, all the reviews that I read tout this ski as suitable for experts as a Frontside Carver- I feel like I have just begin to tap the potential after 7 - 8 days on them-Probably would be okay in 6" to 12" of powder but I have a 90 mm waist ski for new snow days!
post #10 of 27
Given your history, I'd strongly second the idea of a RX8 - you can get them at great prices right now, they're closer to your Salomon feel but far more capable and versatile, and they're an auto-teacher; you really learn how to do a carve right on them. A 170 would be your size. Lot of people ski them out west, too, so not just an east coast carver. Not a great high speed ski, and just OK in crud.

The Heads will also be a great ski, but very different feel - beefier and more secure at speed or in crud, not as light and easy in bumps or pow. The iM72 at 170 would be a nice versatile ski for both sides of the country. The XCR 800 at 170 would also work anywhere, but is more demanding, prefers higher speeds and bigger arcs; Heads are great if you like to blast. The Supershape is a superb ski, and surprisingly good in light pow/crud, but demands decent new school technique, at least advanced skills. A thrilling rather than relaxing ride if skied to its potential.

I've heard good things about the Atomic Metron 9 and 10, and it appears to be a good bicoastal ski, but again, probably a very different feel. If like other Metrons, stiff and light, carves if you exhale, prefers to be on edge all the time, though. 164 length, I'd bet.
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
Bump
post #12 of 27
You might want to check out the ST11 from last year in a 170cm. There are still some unused pairs around for cheap. Great ski with tons of shape (126-65-106), 12m radius in that size. They are a blast on groomers, great edge hold, and with wide tip and tail float well up to 12". They feel heavy to me, but that gives them some pretty good crud-busting ability. I believe this years ST12pb has less shape and longer radius by the way.
post #13 of 27
My girlfriend just got a set of Metron 10 in a 150cm.. she is 5'3", 120lb... She's an intermediate, and loves them... On her old skis, she'd go nowhere near ice.... now she doesn't give it a second thought...

If you want Metrons, find your Metron index # and see how it fits.... I've noticed that with the Metron index # you should decide on the ski characteristic, then use the index more for length selection and to make sure the ski 'fits'... If you want a 164cm M:10 and it's metron number is 1200 (just pulling numbers from thin air) and your Metron number is only 1000, you might want to reconsider..

When my girlfriend saw this post she said "Tell them that i LOVE my Metrons!"
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrogen_wv View Post
My girlfriend just got a set of Metron 10 in a 150cm.. she is 5'3", 120lb... She's an intermediate, and loves them... On her old skis, she'd go nowhere near ice.... now she doesn't give it a second thought...

If you want Metrons, find your Metron index # and see how it fits.... I've noticed that with the Metron index # you should decide on the ski characteristic, then use the index more for length selection and to make sure the ski 'fits'... If you want a 164cm M:10 and it's metron number is 1200 (just pulling numbers from thin air) and your Metron number is only 1000, you might want to reconsider..

When my girlfriend saw this post she said "Tell them that i LOVE my Metrons!"
I love mine too.

I'm 5'9, 175lbs. My Metron index came out around 1260, putting me halfway between the 164 and 171. I got the 164cm because I wanted something more maneuverable in trees.

I'd think he'd want the 171cm given his height and weight.

BTW, I've skied the Race 9:20 and C9:18 and both are beasts on trail but suck out when you get to bumps or trees. The M10s aren't ideal in either, but they rip on trail as well as do very well in trees and east coast "powder"
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnythan View Post
FWIW, I just got some Metron 10s in a 164 (I'm 175 lbs).

I just spent the weekend with them at Jay. Lots and lots of fresh powder and almost nothing but tree and bump skiing all weekend. I had an absolute *blast* on them.
I just bought M10 164 and I am having second thoughts. I love my old Bandits 172. Woudn't you reder have 171 M10? I am 170lb - 6'2"
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartb View Post
I just bought M10 164 and I am having second thoughts. I love my old Bandits 172. Woudn't you reder have 171 M10? I am 170lb - 6'2"
*I* wouldn't rather have the 171. I haven't found the speed limit on the 164s and their length makes them that much easier to push around as necessary when skiing steeper trees and bumps.

I'm a lot shorter than you, though. You have 4 inches on me - and 3-4" of that is probably in the legs. I have only a 30" inseam.
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm about 90% sold on the Fischer RX8 thanks to everything I've read here. Metrons also seem great but will be much heavier and less quick. I'd really like something that I can throw around on the steeps and in the bumps.

Do people have recommendations about length? I'm leaning towards 170 since I think they will be the most versatile. I'm 6' 185#. 165 would be lots of fun, but I think that I'd sacrifice speed and edge hold. 175 would be great at speed, but not as quick edge to edge.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mike
post #18 of 27
It might just be me, but you did mention trees and trees mean soft snow and powder.

A ski with a 66mm waist isn't going to do very well in that at all. It will really rip on the trails. It's an on-trail carver and should do fine in bumps. Powder and trees performance will probably suck though.

Right from a ski-review.com review:
"Beware you are buying a purely on piste ski with the Rx8 though."
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm mostly going to be on piste. Not too much in the way of trees here in the NE, once in a while but not regularly.

Many of the reviews also say that the RX8 does fine in up to about 12" of fresh stuff.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
175 would be great at speed, but not as quick edge to edge.
Mike, 175's are still very very quick edge to edge, truely. They are also, as you think, scarily quick (for me, level 7 ish 6'1, 180 lb) ! I cannot recommend this ski too highly, it's fantastic. Buy with confidence. You'll have a ball.
post #21 of 27
get twintips.....
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 
Twintips, ah no, don't think so!

Mike
post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 
Finally got to demo some skis yesterday and I think that it's verified my decision to go with the FX8. Here's what I got on and what I thought about them. Not much skier speak, just my impressions.

1st Ski: Atomic Izor 9:7 (168 cm)- Nice ski on groomed hard snow. Edge really held well, even on ice. Ski really suffered in crud though. Is very light and got knocked around a lot.

2nd Ski: Volkl Allstar (168 cm)- Very nice ski, but maybe a bit too much ski for me. Wanted to go fast all of the time and didn't do as well at slow speeds. Maybe in a couple of years after I get back into the sport a bit more!

3rd Ski: Fischer RX9 (170 cm)- Couldn't get on an RX8 so I settled for the RX9 which is the bigger turn version of the 8. Great ski overall, and pretty forgiving. I was tired by now and still had no problem controlling it. Ski could go both slow and fast and not complain at all. Definately liked bigger GS type turns better than smaller, but could do smaller with a bit of work.

So now I'm settled on the RX8. Which length, 165 or 170? Was thinking 170 before skiing the 170 RX9, now thinking 165 for more quickness in tight turns. Everyone who has skied the 165 says it is plenty of ski, even for someone my size (6' and 185#). Just having a hard time buying something so short after growing up skiing 205's.

Thoughts?
post #24 of 27
Thread Starter 
bump
post #25 of 27
170.
post #26 of 27
Metron 10, no shorter than 171. with your weight you could probably go up to 178 (I think is the next length). I am 6 feet and 160 and ski the 171's and love them. However this year I bought a pair of 179 BRO's and really like those.

The 10 is a great all around ski. I have use it on the SE ice and knee to waist deep CO powder and have no complaints at all, except for a little chatter.
post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 
stuckonice:

Was asking about length for the Fischer RX8, not the Metron. Thought you were supposed to ski the Metron series a bit short?
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 › Help with Atomic Ski Choice!