• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
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.

With the caveat that I may have some confirmation bias because I bought a pair, I don't have the same experience with my X9 WBs. I'm on the 168, which I picked up as an all-around coaching ski for days when I don't want to commit to the effort necessary to ski full race ski properly or don't want to be as bothered by the gravel-production efforts of a grooming team. I've got about three or four days on mine so far, and they're exceeding my expectations so far. They won't make a slalom turn the way my retail S9s will, but they will make a bigger-than-SL, pseudo-GS turn with a good arc and good feedback if I put a little effort into them. I've also found them perfectly happy to run larger arcs (albeit in a lazier manner) and maintain stability at speed, even when attempting to chase down U16 boys who struggle with the concept of finishing their turns while freeskiing.

They're also versatile enough to be fun playing over snowmaking whales and in three-dimensional stuff (mini-bumps, etc) along trail edges, and I can ski them in a relatively low-effort manner (compared to a real race ski) while still feeling like I look like I know what I'm doing (which we all realize is important when there's a club logo on your jacket). It certainly wouldn't be my first choice for off-trail exploits, but when encountering fresh resurfacing courtesy of the snowmaking folks, it did feel a bit more floaty than a race ski. I do agree with the review that noted they respond well to significant energy and aren't a particularly good choice for lazy cruising.

The other caveat I should add is that the only truly modern on-piste ski I can compare them to is the retail S9. My other race skis are either old or ancient, and my all-mountain quiver skis tend towards a bit "optimistic" in width for eastern skiing.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
The other caveat I should add is that the only truly modern on-piste ski I can compare them to is the retail S9. My other race skis are either old or ancient, and my all-mountain quiver skis tend towards a bit "optimistic" in width for eastern skiing.

You should try the fis slalom S9. Much better ski. Or any fis slalom. I spent a few days on the S9 in 170. Was glad to get off it and ski slush with a 165 slalom ski. Much easier and more fun. I found the S9 to be heavy feeling.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
You should try the fis slalom S9. Much better ski. Or any fis slalom. I spent a few days on the S9 in 170. Was glad to get off it and ski slush with a 165 slalom ski. Much easier and more fun. I found the S9 to be heavy feeling.

So you think the FIS slalom is easier than a normal S9? Interesting; I haven't skied the FIS ski, but I can probably find a pair to borrow for a few runs at some point this winter. The FIS ski does show a shorter turn radius (12.55m) versus either the 165 S9 (12.7) or the 171 (13.3); I'm not sure I could tell 12.55m from 12.7 ceteris paribus, but 12.55 vs 13.3 sounds like a significant jump.

I came to the S9 from a pair of Fischer FIS slaloms, which are admittedly aged and well-used at this point (so no head-to-head comparison), but my overall feeling has been that the retail ski is a lot less demanding than the Fischers were (when new and newish)—the Fischers were great for making a variety of slalom and near-slalom-radius turns as long as I was fully committed to a lot of energy in each turn, whereas the S9s feel like they're about 85-90% as much ski when skied hard (still rewarding, but not quite in the same way), but it skis about three times as well when I want to put half as much energy in.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
The method for determining fis radius is rather bizarre. It’s possibly no difference other than the edges are ground more. Or not even.

Yeah I turned the 170 S9 in and rented an older double deck 165 Atomic slalom. Much happier. Yeah I missed the length a little, but felt like I gave up pounds. That was in Switzerland where you can rent slalom skis.

Fischer did make some overly stiff slalom skis. Some like that for free skiing. I don’t.
I currently have a pair of quite soft Fischer slaloms. Haven’t spent much time on them yet though. The slush does go right through the hole and hits your shins.
I’ve been very happy with the Blizzard fis slalom of a few years ago. (Orange one before the black. 2016?) It’s now nearly worn out.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,209
Location
NYC
The Atomic FIS SL are pretty nice for free skiing. Great in spring mush. Well mannered in the bumps. Mamie was rocking a pair on K2 west face last spring.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Ditto with both the woman's FIS Atomics (157) as well as the men's (165). As long as they have a correct base bevel, these are wonderful too, very versatile in turn shape and speed (fast or slow, athletic to sort of old guy turns). The same with the latest men's FIS Rossi 165s, accomodating old guys slower, and faster full on carves of various sizes, up to gs but not sg. And these are all a wonderful solution to relatively mild bumps or smooth on steep terrain also.

P.S. With that widebody, it could always have been the tune. (A few other testers that day also had a similar experience to mine on them, so maybe it was just that one tune job, don't know. And one of the reps I talked to didn't care for that ski either in the same general way - again, maybe that same ski.)
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
The Atomic FIS SL are pretty nice for free skiing. Great in spring mush. Well mannered in the bumps. Mamie was rocking a pair on K2 west face last spring.
I discussed the S9 with Grump jr. He thought the fis S9 was much better.
I honestly don’t get it. All they had to do was make the same fis sl ski but in more lengths. Make a 170. Put thicker, normal, edges on them. Done.

So you think the FIS slalom is easier than a normal S9? Interesting; I haven't skied the FIS ski, but I can probably find a pair to borrow for a few runs at some point this winter. The FIS ski does show a shorter turn radius (12.55m) versus either the 165 S9 (12.7) or the 171 (13.3); I'm not sure I could tell 12.55m from 12.7 ceteris paribus, but 12.55 vs 13.3 sounds like a significant jump.
The issue you might have is people often tune their fis sk skis to 0.5 base (or less) and 3-4 deg side edge. Take the same ski and put a little more base bevel on it and it’s less off/on.

Of course plenty of people like all their hard snow skis at low base bevels. So they’re used to it.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
I honestly don’t get it. All they had to do was make the same fis sl ski but in more lengths. Make a 170.

Is it really that simple? Maybe for a 170, I guess, but probably not longer than that. As someone (Phil?) pointed out recently, you can't scale up a slalom sidecut indefinitely, or you end up with a tip and tail that are unwieldy wide. Then there is the stiffness thing. My 155 SL is stiff. That's manageable because it's really short. Make it longer, you have to make it softer, or it becomes a bear. Make it softer, and now all of a sudden it's not really a slalom ski anymore, it's the thing you are saying you don't want.

Just thinking aloud, not pontificating. I really don't know. Not a ski designer.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Well it’s never really that easy, but I’m saying you could take the exact ski Fis, one of their softer versions, and just put a different top sheet on it.

Slalom skis are all over the place. You would not find my 165 Fischer stiff. You can order Augments very soft. I wonder what a super soft 10 in Augment is like.
There’s different ways to scale things up. You can keep the dimensions the same and let the radius change. So maybe the 170 becomes 14m. Flex characteristics are key obviously.

There is no sidecut radius spec for fis slalom skis. It’s min length and min width > 63mm. So, that makes even less reason for ski makers to grind away so much edge on fis slalom skis. I can see it at the top levels of the sport as it’s faster and the skis don’t need to last.

The amazing thing is they are measuring to .01mm in width and 1mm in length.
Pg 9,15:
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,209
Location
NYC
Then there is the stiffness thing. My 155 SL is stiff. That's manageable because it's really short.

I don't want to get into MA here. Often a ski is stiff is due to the technical component of the equation. You are a very strong skier. You ski with much more energy and physicality than I do. Maybe too much. I am old, lazy and weak, I just let the ski do what it does. I am just hanging on for the ride. Should try that sometimes. Not doing much. It's all about timing.

I think if you dial back your intensity while you are on your SL. I bet you you'll find them to be much smoother and less stiff. We are free skiing after all.

 

AlpedHuez

Chasing that Odermatt form
Skier
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Posts
432
Location
Oakland/Tahoe expat in London
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
The Redster X9i Special Caruba Woodcore was the first ski I sought out this season, after seeing the OnTheSnow review from Pila. I got one of the first pairs in the UK. Now I don’t have too many days on it this season, as I skied my M5s and Deacon 84s more, but I can report that it is lighter and snappier than the regular gray-green X9 WB. I got mine in a 168 and it is definitely more of slalom carver than a true cross of SL and GS. I do wonder if I would like the 176 better [I’m 5’7”, 175] as I was not quite getting the feel that I was looking for in ripping longer radius turns. Now I don’t exactly have “that slalom move” so perhaps someone with that more aggressive high edge angle / knees to the snow style would get the most out of the X9i. So all in all a solid ski at 75 underfoot, but I would probably reach more for my Rossi Hero Elite Plus (78) at that width, or certainly my 177 Redster G9s for ripping more longer turns.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Top