or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic M:11 B5 vs. AMC 76 - very difficult!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic M:11 B5 vs. AMC 76 - very difficult!

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Hey.

I'm about 5'10'', 150p, 20 years, an advanced oldschool skier, but I'll learn to carve this winter.

There are two skis standing in front of me, the Atomic M:11 B5 170cm with Neox 412 and a Fischer AMC 76 in 164cm with FS11 Railflex. I got both very cheap and don't know which one to take. Because I'm a student, money also plays a role. I don't have the possibility to test them, and that makes the decision so difficult. I don't prefer a specific radius, I would say somewhere in the middle-length, but that varies sponaniously.

My personal Pros for the skis:

Fischer:
- lighter
- shorter --> more versatile
- easier to learn carving with

Atomic:
- better binding
- a "challenge"
- more sportive

What I care about: The Fischer FS11. It is completely out of plastics and looks very cheap. Doesn't make a really trustful impression. Would the Atomic maybe be a little too long for me? For the Fischer I wouldn't get a lot, but the Atomic brings even used a lot of more money than the Fischer...but I don't really want that to decide. It's worth to pay more for a better ski, but is the Atomic better?

So what to do? I really don't know.
post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirlo View Post
Hey.

I'm about 5'10'', 150p, 20 years, an advanced oldschool skier, but I'll learn to carve this winter... ... What I care about: The Fischer FS11. It is completely out of plastics and looks very cheap. Doesn't make a really trustful impression. Would the Atomic maybe be a little too long for me? For the Fischer I wouldn't get a lot, but the Atomic brings even used a lot of more money than the Fischer...but I don't really want that to decide. It's worth to pay more for a better ski, but is the Atomic better?

So what to do? I really don't know.
I would see if the seller of the Fischers would provide the ski only, you can get a better binding here: http://www.levelninesports.com/tyrol...red-p-905.html

I agree that the Atomic is too long, if it was shorter it would be the best choice.

Michael
post #3 of 22
You are 20 years old..how "old school" can you be? BTW, I have gear older than you! (I [heart] saying that)
post #4 of 22
I don't see how a 170 in that skis is too much ski for a guy weighs 150lbs.
post #5 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
I don't see how a 170 is too much ski for a guy weighs 150lbs.
The ski is as stiff as an I beam, it was meant to be skied short and was usually recommended in a 163cm for 180 lbs skiers .

Michael
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
@ Phil
I learned skiing with both knees and skis close together...
I've seen a lot your comments about the M:11 B5. Do you also think it is too long?

@ barrettscv
I've already asked the dealer for a change FS11 to FX12 for an extra charge, but that wasn't possible, too late...


Edit:
@ barett: Remember, I mean the M:11 B5, not the B5! You won't believe it, but the AMC is stiffer. (and a bit lighter, but not very much)
post #7 of 22
At only 20 years old, and your height and weight I would not worry about the atomic ski being too long.

Remember weight is relative, I am betting not much of your weight is useless (read fat!)

I am 28, 5'10", 155lbs, I would chose the 170.

I am not sure if you are talking about the 07 or 08 ski, but I think they are very similar with a bigger turning radius than the 06.

I ski a 177 head xp100, which is stiff, much more then the m11 b5 I bet.

Sometimes extra length makes stiffer skis more manageable. The extra length will also make it more versatile.

Go with the Atomic, forget about the length and rip it!!!!
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
The ski is as stiff as an I beam, it was meant to be skied short and was usually recommended in a 163cm for 180 lbs skiers .

Michael
I demoed the M11B5 its not that stiff. Its probably a medium flexing ski. When I demoed I found the 170 way to sort for me and the 176 too short as well (I am 200lbs). I would ski that in around a 180-185 if they made it that big. And the Fischer is probably the stiffer ski. My old BigStix 76 (predecessor to the AMC76) were much stiffer than the M11B5s.
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirlo View Post
@ Phil
I learned skiing with both knees and skis close together...
I've seen a lot your comments about the M:11 B5. Do you also think it is too long?


@ barrettscv
I've already asked the dealer for a change FS11 to FX12 for an extra charge, but that wasn't possible, too late...


Edit:
@ barett: Remember, I mean the M:11 B5, not the B5! You won't believe it, but the AMC is stiffer. (and a bit lighter, but not very much)
For 150 LB, I do think the M11:B5 is not the size for you, and IMHO question if it is the ski for you at all?
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
For 150 LB, I do think the M11:B5 is not the size for you, and IMHO question if it is the ski for you at all?
That could be true, to learn carving a softer ski might help, but I say go for it, the resale value on a lightly used m11 b5 will still be high, so give it a go.
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
For 150 LB, I do think the M11:B5 is not the size for you, and IMHO question if it is the ski for you at all?
I definitely want an All-Mountain-Ski to go off-piste sometimes. Both skis have won several tests.

And honestly, how long do you need to learn to carve? I've talked to distinguished instructors who all said half a day was enough...so I've booked just 2 hours (private lesson). It's not that I relearn skiing, I "just" modify it. That's only one of many aspects for me.
post #12 of 22
2 hours might be a push, but that will give you the basic feel and an idea of what to work on, you just have to embrace a new way of loading the ski and let the radius of the ski do the turning.

At this point you really have no idea of what skis you are going to like, so go with what you have, either will work but my choice would be the Atomic.

Then try to demo others once you have developed your technique and see what you like, my bet is you will stick with what you have.
post #13 of 22
I'd keep the Fischers, sell the FX11 and upgrade to the LD12. If you decide to sell the FX11 inexpensively let me know, my daugther needs a set.
post #14 of 22
I'm 160p 5'5", and with a very good level. I'm asking myself the same kind of question. I'm going to pick up my M11B next week (2007). I have choosed the 158 because the radius is shorter (13m). But they also have the lenth 164 availble. Do you think that 158 would be too short for me for theses particular skis?
post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powder Puppy View Post
...At this point you really have no idea of what skis you are going to like, so go with what you have...
Is it such a rebeginning? Never heard that so starkly, but sounds comprehensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slambson View Post
I'd keep the Fischers, sell the FX11 and upgrade to the LD12. If you decide to sell the FX11 inexpensively let me know, my daugther needs a set.
Not so easy from Europe to the States ;-). But there is a difference between the FS- (mine) and more expensive FX-Line.
post #16 of 22
Yup, you will find a turn radius, waist and stiffness you like, that being said many skis converge to very similar kinds of dimensions.
post #17 of 22
You ought to put the area of origin in your user settings.

The FS has the super light toe, LD, light toe, HD heavy toe. If the FS is the one I'm thinking of they use the diagonal heel, same as the LD and HD from Tyrolia.

http://www.tyrolia.com/index.php?id=light_bindings
http://www.tyrolia.com/index.php?id=railflex_bindings
post #18 of 22
Thread Starter 
Just from the features and the look:

FX12 ~ RFD 11 (the guidance of the FX12 is out of metal, the Tyrolia of pflastics)
FS11 ~ RF 10 (--> without diagonal heel)
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
I've contacted both german instructors again today.

Both told me to prefer the softer ski in my position (which is clearly the M:11 B5) and that the length is a personal taste so that I shouldn't care too much about it.

@ Powder Puppy
Both also verified your statement about carving ;-).

So at the moment the Atomic is clearly in front.
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
: Sorry guys, I did a terrible mistake!

My weight is 75kg, I duplicated it and didn't calculate it into lbs!

So I have 165lbs instead of 150lbs, quite a difference...
post #21 of 22
with the weight change..can you demo both, the 164 and 170? Could of either way. Short turn, the 164, long turn 170.
post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
Nope, just the 170.

But the radius-difference between both is just 1m. (170cm:15m, 164cm:14m) As you know the ski, won't it possible to flex it to shorter turns, because it's a softer ski?
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 M:11 B5 vs. AMC 76 - very difficult!