or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › dynastar skicross 9 vs salomon crossmax 9
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

dynastar skicross 9 vs salomon crossmax 9

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I'm a male 20 year old intermediate level skiier, 5'9" 155-160lbs. I've probably only skiied about a dozen days in my life (all east coast), but I'm very comfortable on just about every blue (except with harsh ice) and I've started exploring some of the wider groomed single blacks. This coming year I am transferring to a college in New Hampshire so I figure to be doing a lot more skiing this coming season. Up until now I've always rented, and I'm sick of doing so. Been looking on ebay and it seems I could get a very good deal (approx $215) on either

170cm or 178cm Dynastar Skicross 9
177cm Salomon Crossmax 9

Now, I've never demoed these skis, but for the prices available at this point in year, I guess I'm willing to go by reviews and word of mouth. I don't really have the money to demo a bunch of skis this coming season, and then pay full in season price. Also, I know both of these might be slightly above my level, but I'm young and feel like i've learned pretty quickly up until this point and I want something I'm not gonna outgrow too soon.

Over the next few years I will be skiing almost exclusively in the north east, and I want something that will help me improve my carving, with good hard snow grip, and good short turn ability to avoid the crowds. I expect to stay mostly on piste, although maybe in a while I'll venture into some glades. As far as speed, I'd say I prefer moderately fast...don't want to go slow, but don't want to fly down the hill either.

So given all this information, which of these 2 skis, and in what size, would you reccomend for me. Also with either of these skis, can I mount any binding, or do I need to buy a specific brand/type?

post #2 of 18
I'm 2"taller and 20 lbs. heavier than you. I prefer a ski in the 170-174 range. I've skied 180's and found them to be a bit much. I think you'd be OK on a 170 ski.

Of the 2 skis you mentioned, I'd definitely lean toward the Salomons. Especially if they're Pilots.

I'm on X-Scream 9's and they do it all, especially on the East Coast.

That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with the Dynastars either.

I've got a pair of Head Cyber's that I bought end of last season for a rock ski. They're 177cm, and they are a great East Coast groomer ski. They were like $250 with Tyrolia bindings.

Good luck.
post #3 of 18
I'm your size (5'9", 155), maybe just a little more advanced skier (spending lots of time on the blacks). I demoed the '04 Crossmax 9 in a size near 177 (maybe 180 for next year's model?). I felt it was too big. Felt very heavy and sluggish. Hated it. That's not to say its a bad ski, I think it was just the wrong size for me. FWIW, I demoed it on NH ice, too.

If you're only choice for the Crossmax 9 is in 177, I'd lean towards the Dynastar in the 170. I've never tried it, but the 177-180 range has felt too big for me. The Dynastar's have also gotten very good reviews.

post #4 of 18
I'd definitely go with the 170's. Especially if you're not going to demo, err on the side of shorter. I'm your height, @ 10 lbs heavier, and very happy skiing icy east coast hills on Dynastar 170's -- I got the Speed SX though, not the SkiCross. I understand the SkiCross to be a very similar ski in terms of sidecut and stiffness, just with a slightly wider waist. Same as you, I got these offseason on eBay, with a lot of research but no demo oppty. No regrets.

As to bindings, you're probably better off with a Look or Rossi binding on the Dynastar. I think on eBay there are some Dynastar/Look packages being sold now, including SkiCross 66 or something like that, prior year's version of SkiCross9.

EDIT: Yep: check: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3619314572&category=26 349

(BTW, seller is Cupolo Sports, EpicSki sponsor, very good to deal with.)

[ July 24, 2003, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: ts01 ]
post #5 of 18
I've had the opportunity to ski on both, the Crossmax 9 and the Ski Cross 9. Actually, I own both the Crossmax 10 and Skier Cross 66 (2002 Ski Cross 10). The pilot system on the Salomon is incredible, while the edge hold on the Dynastar is great. If you've only been on the hill a small number of times and you feel comfortable on blues, you should be able to figure out how you like to ski. This will be important because the Salomon and Dynastar, will great in their own right, ski incredibly different. If you are very athletic and like varied speeds and terrains (bumps, bc, ice, etc.) I think you'd be better of on the Dynastars. They hold on ice great, and have the versatility to do many things on the snow. You can feel the tail forcing you out of turns on groomers, and they hold up on steep descents. If you are more casual, like to go up the lift and come down looking as elegant as possible, I think you'd be better off on the Salomons (especially if they are pilots). The flex of the ski is incredible, carving down a slope with little effort, if any at all. Easily makes quick, slalomon turns while versatile enough to produce long arcing turns. Not much kick from the tail though, more of an easy release from a turn, rather than a propulsion.
Either ski you choose, I think a 170 cm ski will be the most versatile for someone your size. My Skicross' are 177cm, and while they like to fly down a hill, I feel more hesitant in tight situations. My Salomon's are 170 cm, and they can do anything.
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the advice so far. One other ski to throw into the mix is the atomic beta carv 9.18 170cm... How does this compare?

Also, is it a bad idea to buy boots off ebay? Cupolo sports has lange banshee 7 for around $120 shipped...these were very well reviewed, but I have no way of trying them on because they're and 01/02 model year. I emailed the guy there and he said i could exchange them if they did not fit properly. If I bought these boots and then took them into a local ski shop, would they be able to adjust them and add in any custom pads necessary?

p.s. the crossmax 9's are not the pilot version, if that makes a difference in anyone's reccomendations.

[ July 24, 2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: wpygmy ]
post #7 of 18
Hi, Wpygmy!

Buying boots without trying them beforehand is a recipe for disaster. There are so many areas on the foot that need to fit correctly, there's just no way. Go to a nearby shop and try on last year's boots that are the same as the ones you are considering, or at least the same line (one level difference in stiffness). If you do this, however, and do wind up buying the boots elsewhere, be sure to give that shop LOTS of future business!

If this isn't feasible, wait until next season and buy them then. They may cost a bit more, but if your feet hurt, you can't ski. You'll forget spending an extra hundred bucks real quick if your feet feel good. You'll never stop kicking yourself if you save a few bucks and your feet hurt! (Plus you may wind up spending hundreds extra to try to fix a problem fit!)

Good luck!
post #8 of 18
Do not buy boots online unless you know a great boot fitter. Definately try to find a boot to try on that is similar to that model, but expect problems. A good boot fitter should be able to make any boot work for any person through a lot of shaping, padding, grinding, etc. The least amount of shaping is the preferrable boot, but we realize this is not always the case. Lange is known for its unique shape- namely narrow in the heel and wide in the forefoot. If you have a very high instep, these might not be the best boots for you. Try on a comparable pair and then you can have a better assumption.
As for the Salomon Crossmax 9, The pilot system will definately flex more truly. This softens the release out of a turn, hence being more fluid and smooth. When the bindings are mounted traditionally, it shortens the distance of the flex in the ski (tail to rear binding point), which ultimately gives the ski more life. It proves to be a bit snappier out of turns. You are bound to see more acceleration out of the tails, but you lose the smooth carving capabilities to a certain degree.
Personally, I am a big Dynastar fan, have been for years. The Skicross 9 is a great ski, especially if it is the right size for the skier. I have found that 170cm is the most versatile size for someone with our height and weight.
To be completely honest, I told you that I own both, the Salomon Crossmax 10 and the Dynastar Skicross 10. I own the Dynastar because I skied it and immediately fell in love with it. On the other hand, when I first demoed the Salomon I absolutely hated it. Not enough ski under foot. Working in a ski shop I have a number of choices on a daily basis as for as skis go. I ultimately decided to get the Crossmax 10 only to try to prove to myself that I actually hated the ski, and it wasn't just the day or the conditions that I demoed. Weel, it turns out that I do like the ski after over 70 days on it last year, but I still had one major reservation. I found that there was not enough pop out of the tail, which is something that I have found on all Pilot models pre-2004. This years line has changed in almost every way- construction, dimentions, and the way the binding is now mounted onto a plate, hence stiffening the ski and offering more rebound and energy out of turns. I have demoed most skis for the 2004 season and I truly believe that this years Crossmax is the best ski out there.
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
Okay, so one more question. I think I'm gonna go with the dynastars in 170cm...but I'm not sure if I should go with the skicross 66 '01/'02 with the look 12 bindings mounted and shipped for approx. $300...or if I should go with the skicross 9's without any bindings for around $215 shipped. By the time I find bindings for these and get them mounted I estimate it will cost at least $350-$375. Is the slighty easier flex of the SC9's worth paying around $75 more for considering my level of expertise and size?
post #10 of 18
People I talked to last year that were probably around your ability level thought that the SkiCross 10 was a real handful. If I were you, i'd get the 9.
post #11 of 18
For the money, I'd go with a SC66. They are very similar skis, but the 66 has more life underneath it. If you are somewhat aggressive, and don't mind being taught a thing or two by your skis, then I think you will be able to control the 66's with no problem. The 170cm would be a great size, versatile and quick, but able to handle high speeds.
Think Snow
post #12 of 18
Skidoctor's right I think. You're 20 without a lot of skiing experience, and you're going to ski a lot more now in New Hampshire? I'd be thinking about your ability level down the line, not right now. And you're going to save a little bucks and a lot of hassle by getting the older ski/binding package.
post #13 of 18
The Dynastar SkiCross. No question. It has better grip, better stability, is just as easy to turn, etc... I was at a demo day last year (with the store I work for), demo'd pretty much every Atomic, Head, Salomon, Nordica, Rossignol, Dynastar - the Dynastar SkiCross series was without a doubt the most versatile line of all the skis (not necessarily my favourite - my fav is the 194 BIG). IMO, the Salomon line up was the worst I skied (by far). The Salomon skis were the least stable, had the worst edge grip (skiing on blue ice I thought I was going to die...the Dynastars carved pretty easily on it though). I thought the SkiCross 9 skied better than many of the 'higher-end' skis from other companys too...
post #14 of 18
snowblades all the time they rock and you'll definately be pimpin like tanner [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #15 of 18
Is the dynastar a wood core?
post #16 of 18
Originally posted by dreamworks:
Is the dynastar a wood core?
Not according to their website. They describe it as a "muticell" core for both the skicross 9 and 10. Some of their other skis do have a wood core, however.
post #17 of 18

If you haven't bought the new pair yet, I'd also recommend going with the SkiCross 66. Fun skis. I have a pair of 178s, but got a chance to try out the SC9s this past spring. The SC66s are more stable at higher speeds, hold a little better on hardpack and feel nearly as forgiving as the SC9s (except in bumps). And if you can still find a pair, the're really discounted. But if you spend a lot of time in the bumps, the 9s will be easier and feel a little quicker/lighter. The 66s are fine in the bumps unless you make a mistake, in which case they can toss you around a bit. I bought a pair of SkiCross 9s for my son from eBay just after the end of the season.
post #18 of 18
Go with the Dynastar, they're just better skis then Sollys. Also go with the longer length. If it seems to be too much at first stick to the blues for a few runs or days whatever it takes. When you rippen' blues head to blacks, you will love the extra length here, also you won't outgrow your skis as fast.
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 › dynastar skicross 9 vs salomon crossmax 9