EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Which and why? Atomic SL 12pb vs. Fischer RC4 WC SC. Urgent!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which and why? Atomic SL 12pb vs. Fischer RC4 WC SC. Urgent!

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I'm new around here so hello everyone! I hope you can help me guys

I'm about to buy new skis, at the moment I'm taking only Atomics Sl 12pb and Fischers RC4 WC SC into consideration (skills, weight, height are all suitable so it's only the problem of choice: A or B). As I don't have any opportunity to demo them I have searched virtually the whole of the net for info, tests, suggestions etc. Now I'd like to know as many of your opinions as possible, preferably with some justification. Unfortunately I'm pressed for time so every suggestion counts. I wouldn't like to toss a coin, at last

Rgds
post #2 of 25
I've tried both side-by-side on Stubai glacier ( reasonably hard snow, but not ice) and liked Atomic more. They are both very good skis, but Atomic feels more versatile, capable of curving all turns, were Fisher has a strong tendency to do short turns. I was just free skiing, so can not comment on their racing qualities.
post #3 of 25
I haven't skied that model of Atomic, but own a pair of 165 SCs.

They both will be stable at speed. Going by store flexing and stats and skiing other Atomics and Fishers, it really boils down to what feeling you like from the skis. The atomics will feel more solid and the Fishers will feel more light and lively. My Fishers will arc any turn up to it's turn radius, just like any other good SL ski. It will also make larger turns at super g speeds without drama.
post #4 of 25
I liked the fischers over the atomics when I tested them last season in Verbier.. Thought the atomic was a bit boring when comparing to the fischer
post #5 of 25
Thread Starter 
alex_sauvage, Ghost, GrooK, thanks a lot for your opinions.

There seems to be a problem of length as well.. I'm about 6'4"/180lbs (with weight I'd rather like to go a bit up but in my case not much is possible).

Atomics are max 165 and have a nice r=12m
Fischers can be either 165 with r=13m (ok!) or 170 with r=14, which as for a slalom ski seems to be a mite too much (although I think, that 170 would be more suitable for my height).. What do you suggest?

C'mon guys, I'm sure there are more people who can share their experience and opinions, I'm counting on you
post #6 of 25
You're quite a bit taller than I am (about 4"/10cm) but weigh a tad less
If anything I'd go more by weight than heigth to determine ski length.
I love my 165 Atomic SL12 so I don't think you really need to go longer than 165.

As far as the choice at hand is concerned, I tend to agree with alex_sauvage.
Th Fischer turns really easy and loves them really short radius turns but I feel the Atomic has more to offer in versatility and speed. At times it takes some muscling around but the feedback of teh ski is great!
post #7 of 25
Don't go longer than 165 for a slalom ski!
post #8 of 25
There have been a couple of recent threads on the SL12pb.
post #9 of 25
I believe I skied both of them in 165. I'm about the same weight, but shorter.
I still would go with 165. Atomics felt very solid at 165, I don't think you'll need 170.
post #10 of 25
I skied the SL12pb last year, and found it to be a great all-round ski. It liked to ski from the tail a bit more than I wanted in race courses, so I had to play with binding placement a bit to work that out. I'm told this year's model has changed a bit, so this might not be the case anymore.

I also demo'd the Fischer RC4 WC SL, free-skiing & in gates. It was a really nice ski, and I thought seriously about getting a pair.

I ended up sticking with Atomic, going to the SL12 FIS ski. Absolutely no regrets -- this is a really great ski.
post #11 of 25
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't both of these designed with a nod to RS FIS limits, thus a 165 is made to handle weights that you're discussing? If it's an issue, why not go for a Nascar cheater that you can get in a mid high 170's, such as a Progressor or a SLX?
post #12 of 25
I weigh 165 lbs and got the 165 cm Fischer WC SC in a 13-m turn radius. I am very happy with that length. The ski seems to have enough "head room" that I think it could easily handle another 20 lbs. If you are looking for a slalom ski, then the 165 won't let you down. I wouldn't go any shorter though.

If you want to free ski and it's your only ski, then 170 might be a little bit better, but not enough. I don't think you would gain enough with that extra meter. you would still be looking for a longer radius in an all-around ski (WC RC or Head SS Speed or it's newest replacement gs-based ski).
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thank you all for your interest and hints.

mogulmuncher, although race stock skis can differ a bit from these mentioned, there are for sure some similarities, what convinced you eventually to go for Atomic, not Fischer?

It will be my only ski (at least for the time being) but I'm aware of what I choose, don't get me wrong but I don't want a ski, which in fact is neither SL nor GS. And therefore I'd rather opt for 165, although some people suggested that I take 170 due to my height (of course when Fischer, with Atomic there's no head-scratching).

Next thing: how do you find the flowflex system, does it really work AND is better than others (e.g. Atomic's powerbridge) or is it yet another sales gimmick? Or the bindings, I feel that Z 13 in Fischers are a bit better/safer (diagonal heel)..?

On the other hand I heard that Atomic's curve grip is unsurpassed, what is confirmed, among others, in this test - Ausgabe 4/06 and 4/07 (take a look at graphs as well): http://www.skimagazin.de/Skitests.html
(interestingly, 06/07 results differ quite much from 07/08, I can hardly believe so much has changed in the construction of these skis..). Does Fischer really fall behind when it comes to the grip in curves?

Last but not least, I found opinions, that Fischers are a bit more reliable and long-lasting, especially when it comes to the edges. Indeed, when I compared them in a shop Fischer's egdes looked a little thicker. Does anyone have experience with servicing both of them?

The purchase day is drawing close but I still don't feel convinced which one I want to take:/
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I don't think you would gain enough with that extra meter.
I'm pretty sure he would notice if he added another meter to his ski
post #15 of 25
Thread Starter 
Well, I was wondering.. On my 'domestic' forum the majority advise me 170 when Fischer due to better stability etc. But there are people bigger than me, who choose Atomic which is 165! And this is something I quite don't understand, is Atomic 165 some sort of equivalent for Fischer 170? I think that Atomic wouldn't leave a gap in the market not producing a 170 slalom ski for bigger people. Maybe this is the point, when speaking of its versatility, that 165 is capable of doing as well as Fischer's 170?
I have no idea whether this thinking is correct, I thought that it could be so because of some differences in the sidecut: Fischer 165/13(118-66-99) vs. Atomic 165/12(120-65-104).

What do you think?
post #16 of 25
Believe me, you don't need a 170.
If you prefer the Atomic (which I do) you'd be a fool to go for the Fischer just cause of the extra 5cm, especially in an SL ski.
A buddy of mine is 6'2" and weighs in at around 200. HE skis the Heads in 165.
post #17 of 25
I though the sidecut of the SL12 in 165 was 119-65-101?
post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by narc View Post
I though the sidecut of the SL12 in 165 was 119-65-101?
Nope, it's 120-65-104, I've checked it in a shop, you can check it here: http://www.freeride.eu/review/view.php?id=4218
The sidecut of the WC SC is the same for all lengths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schussboelie View Post
If you prefer the Atomic (which I do) you'd be a fool to go for the Fischer just cause of the extra 5cm, especially in an SL ski.
I didn't mention it earlier but it will be my only ski. Nonetheless I wouldn't ditch Atomic just for the extra 5 cm, actually the Fischer's 170 is the least appealing option for me. I just say what others suggest to me..
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastair View Post
I didn't mention it earlier but it will be my only ski. Nonetheless I wouldn't ditch Atomic just for the extra 5 cm, actually the Fischer's 170 is the least appealing option for me. I just say what others suggest to me..
Never mind the others :°
I've been on Atomic SL ski's as my only ski ever since the 9.16...
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastair View Post
mogulmuncher, although race stock skis can differ a bit from these mentioned, there are for sure some similarities, what convinced you eventually to go for Atomic, not Fischer?
/
Both skis carved really well in the race course. The Atomics were a bit faster in a wax race comparison, and I found them to be more stable in high-speed free skiing, which suits my preference for a good race ski with versatility for free-skiing as well.
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
Both skis carved really well in the race course. The Atomics were a bit faster in a wax race comparison, and I found them to be more stable in high-speed free skiing, which suits my preference for a good race ski with versatility for free-skiing as well.
I thought that Fischers SL wax was better than Atomics :
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrooK View Post
I thought that Fischers SL wax was better than Atomics :
Maybe I lucked into a fast pair of Atomics among a slower batch of Fischers. The faster gliding of the Atomics was not major, but it was noticeable & consistent in the group of skis I was looking at, and it did add to my favourable impression. However, I honestly don't know how this trend would hold up across the board, since I didn't sample that many pairs of skis. The Fischers were still nice skis, which I much preferred over a couple of other brands tested.

Interestingly, my wife's SL-9's (Atomic's recreational racer from a few years back) consistently outglide my SL-12's.
post #23 of 25
Thread Starter 
A tough nut to crack, indeed.

So far, after bearing in mind everything I've heard and read, I lean towards Fischer (165).. However I'm still not sure and can't rule Atomic out.

I think that my problem with the choice is that from the beginning (which was quite long time ago) I'm slightly biased towards Atomic (at first Fischer wasn't even on my shortlist and I didn't know much about it). Right now more speaks for Fischer but even though I'm not convinced that it will be better. It seems to be not worse, but it's too little

The coming weekend is the deadline, I will certainly inform you all of my ultimate choice
post #24 of 25
They are both fine choices, and you will easily adapt to either. Don't torment yourself with the decision; you'll be fine either way.
post #25 of 25
the fishers definitely felt more lively.
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 › Which and why? Atomic SL 12pb vs. Fischer RC4 WC SC. Urgent!