Comparison Review A Layman's Look at 2020 Skis

[Augment Skis]

Hi, thanks for contributing to the discussion. @Drahtguy Kevin and I were the gapers that stumbled into your tent during the On Snow at Copper, it has been a pleasure to experience your product since then, and read about the race skis you sent to @ScotsSkier elsewhere on the forum. A few weeks ago, I had a day on the 77 Carbon Ti, 175cm '4' flex. It's an impressive all mountain ski, with an enthusiastic/precise shape and bottomless grip, all the while feeling planted to the refreeze, yet still capable off piste. The '4' flex puts it into the 'serious zone'; a superb weapon for the skilled, a bit of a handful for those in the middle of the learning curve. It's a credit to Augment's design philosophy that you can take that supremely capable ski and merely dial it down for an advancing intermediate to learn on.

Will the 88 you mention be a product we can sample or test early in the '19-'20 season? Also, (and I realize it would expand your logistical tail, but it would make a big impact), would it be possible down the road to demo the same model/length in two flex numbers, back to back? The same ski, but 2 or 3 flex numbers apart, would be massive for helping buyers purchase confidently, plunking down the cash with the knowledge that they are getting what's best for them.

@FairToMiddlin that's a good review on the AM77. It's impressive sitting down at the factory and seeing their dedication towards making a superb ski and what's more the ability to dial it down as you said.

Yes, the revised AM88 will be available to both demo and buy this Fall. We know of at least one retailer who is buying the new AM88 to sell sight unseen and we're confident that they will have no trouble selling once word gets out. The AM88s are already in production. We do plan to run either an AM77 or AM88 in a grouping of flexes so that people can test exactly that. Something along a 3/6/9 so that hopefully people can feel the difference. It requires a lot of experience and sensitivity to feel any difference in just one or two numbers apart so having a larger spread will help skiers feel the change in flex. Those three flexes would allow us to cover a Soft/Medium/Stiff offering.

 

[Cheizz]

I have a question about the 2020 Atomic Redster series...
I wasn't aware of any big updates in that line-up (other than the introduction of the X9 WB). Atomic call all of their Redster models 'NEW' on their updated website. They say: "The thicker, stronger Ultra Titanium Powered laminate – previously only available for FIS skis – runs from sidewall to sidewall for more stability, torsional rigidity, and edge grip." This new lamiate is what makes them 'new' (and improved, I think they want to suggest). Has anyone noticed?
Has anyone skied the old (up to and including 2019 versions) and the 2020 version of these skis? Can someone compare the two? Can you feel any difference? This goes for any of their consumer race skis (G9, G7, X9, X7, S9, S7).

 

[Tricia]

I don't recall the Atomic Redster making a change for this coming season, but I could be wrong. I have a lot of information rattling around in my head. I could have let something slip.

 

[SkiMore]

Wondering if anyone has an insight about a red X9i Wide Body vs. the gray-green X9 Widebody? I saw this picture of the red X9i on the Skiessentials 2020 review (but I think the reviews may have been done for the narrower X9S, not the Wide Body - I sent them a message to check).

Here are the two skis side by side. A quick search looks the red X9i is available in Japan.


.

 

[James]

Wasn’t the grey one put out last season? Don’t know how available it was though.

Gotta love the binding colors and the control rod highlight matching.

 

[markojp]

Wondering if anyone has an insight about a red X9i Wide Body vs. the gray-green X9 Widebody? I saw this picture of the red X9i on the Skiessentials 2020 review (but I think the reviews may have been done for the narrower X9S, not the Wide Body - I sent them a message to check).

Here are the two skis side by side. A quick search looks the red X9i is available in Japan.


. View attachment 78800 View attachment 78801

I'll be back next week. Stop by. We might be getting some X9's. Text me... lost my phone digits.

 

[FairToMiddlin]

I have a question about the 2020 Atomic Redster series...
I wasn't aware of any big updates in that line-up (other than the introduction of the X9 WB). Atomic call all of their Redster models 'NEW' on their updated website. They say: "The thicker, stronger Ultra Titanium Powered laminate – previously only available for FIS skis – runs from sidewall to sidewall for more stability, torsional rigidity, and edge grip." This new lamiate is what makes them 'new' (and improved, I think they want to suggest). Has anyone noticed?
Has anyone skied the old (up to and including 2019 versions) and the 2020 version of these skis? Can someone compare the two? Can you feel any difference? This goes for any of their consumer race skis (G9, G7, X9, X7, S9, S7).

@Cheizz this post keeps getting under my skin. Before this February, I tested the S9 and X7. Both came across as strong, even-flexing, but not beast-mode strong. FYI, I now own ‘18-19 S9s (Mmmm, good).

Then I tested neat year’s X9, and X9 WB. They were very, very strong, more so than the S9 and X7 from the year before. So, no, I cannot A/B exact models from ‘19 and ‘20, but purely from the manufacturer copy you have uncovered, I will be on the ‘20 (or ‘21) S9 ASAP to see what the story is.

 

[ski otter 2]

For what it's worth, I demoed the '20 X9 75 WB, in I think 176 (as well as the '20 S9 and G9, as well as G9 FIS 188/30). I'm an Atomic fan. All I can do is comment on the feel of these, how they did and how I liked them: great except for the WB. Unless the tune was badly off, which is always possible, what the heck is it for, anyway? was the question I ended up with. I've liked regular X9s from the past year. And I'd probably like the current version of that ski too. But the WB does one confining thing: oddly carve one very tight turn that's a bit wider than a slalom ski would, without the flexibility of an FIS slalom ski to do various radius turns, speeds, or the similar flexibility of the various G9s, all of which I'd love to own, all 5 stars. Not the WB. It felt like a trap, locked in: to what? Nothing I'd want to do, actually. Can't open it up, can't ski it faster or tighter either. Just that one thing it does, mid-speeds or slightly higher unless you are very gymnastic (not just used to skiing various race types of ski relatively well).
Also, not sure if this is a ski for off piste: it's turn was so rigid, to me, that I'd only want to ski it on piste, if that.
I strongly recommend demoing these before you get a pair.

 

[Philpug]

For what it's worth, I demoed the '20 X9 75 WB, in I think 176 (as well as the '20 S9 and G9, as well as G9 FIS 188/30). I'm an Atomic fan. All I can do is comment on the feel of these, how they did and how I liked them: great except for the WB. Unless the tune was badly off, which is always possible, what the heck is it for, anyway? was the question I ended up with. I've liked regular X9s from the past year. And I'd probably like the current version of that ski too. But the WB does one confining thing: oddly carve one very tight turn that's a bit wider than a slalom ski would, without the flexibility of an FIS slalom ski to do various radius turns, speeds, or the similar flexibility of the various G9s, all of which I'd love to own, all 5 stars. Not the WB. It felt like a trap, locked in: to what? Nothing I'd want to do, actually. Can't open it up, can't ski it faster or tighter either. Just that one thing it does, mid-speeds or slightly higher unless you are very gymnastic (not just used to skiing various race types of ski relatively well).
Also, not sure if this is a ski for off piste: it's turn was so rigid, to me, that I'd only want to ski it on piste, if that.
I strongly recommend demoing these before you get a pair.

I am not sure you demo'ed the 176...IIRC, the early production rn was only 167cm. I am pretty sure that is all they had at Copper and Snowbasin.This is why might not have melded with the ski. FWIW, the ones i skied at Snowbasin skied exactly how I felt they should,a bit short but solid...like a wider carver.

 

[Cheizz]

@Cheizz this post keeps getting under my skin. Before this February, I tested the S9 and X7. Both came across as strong, even-flexing, but not beast-mode strong. FYI, I now own ‘18-19 S9s (Mmmm, good).

Then I tested neat year’s X9, and X9 WB. They were very, very strong, more so than the S9 and X7 from the year before. So, no, I cannot A/B exact models from ‘19 and ‘20, but purely from the manufacturer copy you have uncovered, I will be on the ‘20 (or ‘21) S9 ASAP to see what the story is.

Thanks. The X9 has always been a bit more beefy than the G9 and S9. I've skied all three of those in 2018-2019 versions.

 

[James]

Weird, I have little love for the S9, (non fis with control rod ), and I’ve probably spent 3-4 days on it. 172 and maybe a 165. I was very glad to swap to a 165 slalom. I’d love to try the fis S9 though, very different animal. So sick of these names that are all the same. Like Hero with Rossi.?

 

[SkiMore]

I'll be back next week. Stop by. We might be getting some X9's. Text me... lost my phone digits.

Sounds good Mark, I've got your number. I'll stop by next week. Also want to talk to you about skis for my son.

 

[ski otter 2]

Weird, I have little love for the S9, (non fis with control rod ), and I’ve probably spent 3-4 days on it. 172 and maybe a 165. I was very glad to swap to a 165 slalom. I’d love to try the fis S9 though, very different animal. So sick of these names that are all the same. Like Hero with Rossi.?

I agree. Though occasionally I've liked random non-FIS SL versions, it's both the women's FIS 157 or so, and the men's FIS 165 that rock, for me too (as long as the base bevel is properly set) - the 165 best, for me, by at least a ski tip. I really like the Atomic SL version (so far 2nd), and the Head version (so far 3rd), but the FIS Rossi 165 has been my fav. Thanks, @ScotsSkier: credit where credit is due.

 

[Tony S]

Listening to the recording I made after handing these back to Kästle, I used words like "amazing" and "best in test." I’ll stand by those spontaneous utterances.

I was very surprised, or maybe not, to read today that Real Skier absolutely panned this model. I tend to trust you, Kevin, and Phil on this. Doubt is not my point. I just think it's weird that they were so negative. I have to assume that they had some kind of very specific Great Kästle Expectations that weren't met, and it made them too grumpy to see the ski's virtues.

 

[DocGKR]

Ski Otter 2: Fully concur--my acquiring165cm Rossi FIS SL's last season was completely due to ScotsSkier's advice. While I did not get a chance to run them in gates yet, they were fantastic for free skiing--handling virtually all speeds safe on typical resort slopes, easily offering a variety of turn shapes on groomers, as well as doing nicely in moguls. Obviously the Rossi FIS SL's had tenacious grip on hard snow, ice, and morning spring crust. A couple of caveats--they do not like to run flat, preferring to be on edge at all times, and clearly are not ideal for powder and off-piste use.

I am looking forward to trying the Augment 165cm FIS SL's this coming year.

 

[FairToMiddlin]

I was very surprised, or maybe not, to read today that Real Skier absolutely panned this model. I tend to trust you, Kevin, and Phil on this. Doubt is not my point. I just think it's weird that they were so negative. I have to assume that they had some kind of very specific Great Kästle Expectations that weren't met, and it made them too grumpy to see the ski's virtues.

I can't comment on Real Skier's method of testing (and shouldn't comment on how genuine I think they are). I can say that I have a negative predisposition toward light skis in general, so when a Head Kore impresses me, and then the Ripstick Black Edition, and Kastle FX96 really (especially considering I was underwhelmed by Gen 2&3 of the FX), really impresses me, it is earned. The composure, communication, and speed of response of the 96 was fantastic, regardless of construction bias.

The hardest part of all this loveliness is trying to figure out how to own the the FX96, Rustler 10, Mantra 102 and Ripstick Black 106 at the same time. I am counting on my innate shamelessness, and moral flexibility to make it happen.

 

[FairToMiddlin]

Ski Otter 2: Fully concur--my acquiring165cm Rossi FIS SL's last season was completely due to ScotsSkier's advice. While I did not get a chance to run them in gates yet, they were fantastic for free skiing--handling virtually all speeds safe on typical resort slopes, easily offering a variety of turn shapes on groomers, as well as doing nicely in moguls. Obviously the Rossi FIS SL's had tenacious grip on hard snow, ice, and morning spring crust. A couple of caveats--they do not like to run flat, preferring to be on edge at all times, and clearly are not ideal for powder and off-piste use.

I am looking forward to trying the Augment 165cm FIS SL's this coming year.

I have also benefitted from ScotSkier's knowledge, although I have worn out the Blizz FIS 165s I got from him, and need to get on his list for new hand-me-downs. I am always on the hunt for FIS 165s that have touch of versatility. I am not looking for bases-flat running or pow ability, but maybe a bit of forgiveness in bumps and crud. Fischer FIS SLs have a reputation for that, how would you rate your Rossis?

 

[DocGKR]

I wrote about a couple of the other "racer-ish" skis I used last season here: https://www.pugski.com/threads/a-tale-of-two-racer-ish-skis.15691

For me, in non-gate use, the 165cm Rossi FIS SL (67mm / 165cm / 13m) was more versatile and fun, as well as easier to ski than the 180cm Head Rebel iRace (69mm / 180cm / 16.3m). Compared to the 181cm Rossi Hero Elite Plus Ti (78mm / 181cm / 15m), the Rossi 165cm FIS SL was quicker, had a higher speed limit on-piste, better edge hold on hard, icy surfaces, but as would be expected, was not as forgiving or capable in softer or fresh snow, nor was the FIS SL as adaptable to as wide a variety of terrain as the Elite Plus Ti. Keep in mind both of the these Rossi's were a blast to ski!

Surprisingly, the 165cm Rossi FIS SL felt nearly as solid free skiing on-piste at speed as my 180cm Rebel iRace or my 185cm Nordica Dobermann GSR RB FDT (69mm / 185cm / 20.5m); I did not feel at too much of a disadvantage on Rossi FIS SL's when ripping resort runs with folks on cheater GS skis nor was I was getting left behind. Obviously running GS gates would be a different story...

I did pick-up a new pair of 188cm Head Worldcup Rebels FIS GS womens (65mm / 188cm / 30m) at the end of last season which I have not had a chance to wring out; I am quite curious how these are going to compare against my cheater Nordica's GS skis. I also am planning on getting Augment FIS skis in both a 165cm SL and a 188cm GS for the forthcoming season.

 

[Jim McDonald]

I am counting on my innate shamelessness, and moral flexibility to make it happen.

 

[ski otter 2]

I have also benefitted from ScotSkier's knowledge, although I have worn out the Blizz FIS 165s I got from him, and need to get on his list for new hand-me-downs. I am always on the hunt for FIS 165s that have touch of versatility. I am not looking for bases-flat running or pow ability, but maybe a bit of forgiveness in bumps and crud. Fischer FIS SLs have a reputation for that, how would you rate your Rossis?

The 165 FIS spec SL ski, probably in general, to me, is great for recreational skiing. (And so is the women's spec 157 or 158 FIS SL.) Mine are Rossi and Atomic respectively. Both wonderful at a variety of turn shapes on groomers, mild bumps (haven't taken them on big bump fields) and steeps. To me, it is an ideal ski for steeps that aren't too bumped up. (In my case, e.g. the two groomers on the new Beavers runs at A Basin in CO, both the day groomed and the day after; or Spaulding Bowl steeps at Copper Mtn - never groomed). Both skis also turned out to be ideal for spring slush, starting with the early re-freeze and extending through afternoon surf slush. Just incredible. Not one hook up/mess up. My Mantra M5s were left in the dust. Of all my skis, these FIS SLs were among the tops at the slush, as good as much fatter crud/slush chargers. This included uneven, build up, skied off, transitions from ice patches to slush and back, some bump and pile build up slightly refrozen, and other stuff requiring dampness, forgiveness, stability and dependability at speed.

The one problem with them is, as mentioned, one has to work a bit to keep up with friends on more GS type skis, though this is not so on steeps. There, those guys have to work to keep up with the SL.

P.S. I don't notice a problem with modestly flat-running these - AS LONG AS THE BASE BEVEL IS CONSISTENT, NOT A SHALLOWER BEVEL TIPS AND TAILS THAN UNDERFOOT (the reverse of what would perhaps be optimal for these SL skis: say, 0 to .5 base bevel underfoot, gradually progressing to, say, .75 to 1 by the tip and tail contact points; or at the very least, the same, consistent base bevel the length of the ski). At this point, I am convinced that a careful, consistent base bevel is key for these SL skis to be as versatile and bombproof as possible, whatever the brand.

(Unfortunately, it's common for skis to come fresh from the Wintersteiger or factory with a reverse or inconsistent base bevel shaping. I'm told the top Montana machine is better in this regard, especially at the tip and tail.)

My Atomic 157s especially were off in this way when I first got them, and were thus a bit twitchy/hooky, needing to be kept engaged on edge, and within a narrower range of turn shapes closer to the ski's turn radius - and thus slower and less dependable or versatile overall. No longer.

The Rossi 165s, on the other hand (from @ScotsSkier ), were spot on - better than new - from the start.