Atomic Redster s9 165cm or 171 cm, help needed

[TirexSnake]

Hi all, I am looking for a slalom ski and can't figure out if I should look for 170 or 165cm in size. I would like to get some suggestions from you.

I am 185cm, 75 kg. I usually ski in Romania/Slovakia/Ukraine and Austria around 10 days a year.
I own at the moment a Stockli SX 177cm year 2018. I like them much as they are very versatile. I owned in the past Head Magnum 178cm (OK-ish), Atomic XTi 170cm (loved them), Head I.sl (165 or 170 don't remember. It was 6 years ago and at that moment I found them difficult for 6 consecutive days of skiing).

I usually look for second hand skis that are 2 years old.

Although I like my Stockli SX, I want something more stiff, more responsive. The Stockli SX does not push back in the turns.
I was looking for Atomic S9 or Volkl SL but here is my dilemma, I can not tell if I should search for 170 or 165 in length. The best advice, go and try them is not available as I usually need to travel in Austria so that I can get to locations where I can try new skies.

I think the 170cm would take me in both short and medium turns, while I am afraid that the 165 might be to short for me, or would stay just in short turns as it has a lower radius.
At the moment I found an Atomic S9 165cm at the price of 450 USD that was used just for 10 days of skiing
Should I go for them?

 

[Nobody]

Hello and welcome. Feel free to tell us all more about yourself in the welcome threads...very curious about skiing in those countries you listed (well, of course except Austria...) those aren't really a selected destination, where I live, what with the whole of the Alps at hand.
This said...
Are you planning to completely retire the Stöckli SX and use the SL ski as a one quiver skis?
Or will you keep both in the quiver and alternate the use of both?
You are about my weight class, but quite a bit taller, thus longer levers; 10 days a season might seems a lot, but , not to diss you, are the absolute minimum to keep some level and consistence in an acquired level (unless one is really "gifted" and really athletic, forget about making futher progresses)
Anyway, if I were in your shoes, I would keep em both, thus acquiring the SL skis in their shorter but more traditional - for a men's SL ski - length (165 cm). IMHO, it makes no sense using a 177cm skis and a 170cm skis , better to spread out a bit the intended "envelope" of use of those two skis...
This way you would be challenged to adapt the way you ski, to better exploit the different ski in use on any given day.

 

[bbbradley]

I am 1.8m and 85kg and I ski on older Atomic Redster SL racers at 158cm for our beer league, they are a touch shorter than I'd like if I make sloppy turns and get thrown in the backseat, but given your size I can't see the 165cm skis being too short. Men's FIS SL skis are 165, they seem to be ok with that length.

The 165cm skis seem to be a better complement with the 177cm you already own. Buying a ski to do both short and long turns can make for a ski that is mediocre at both. I want blue, you want red...let's get purple and neither one of us is happy.

 

[KingGrump]

I am 1.8m and 85kg and I ski on older Atomic Redster SL racers at 158cm for our beer league, they are a touch shorter than I'd like if I make sloppy turns and get thrown in the backseat, but given your size I can't see the 165cm skis being too short. Men's FIS SL skis are 165, they seem to be ok with that length.

Are you on the FIS or the consumer version?

 

[bbbradley]

Are you on the FIS or the consumer version?

FIS version.

 

[TirexSnake]

Thank you all for your replies. I will keep the current Stockli as they are in good shape and I enjoy them.
I like your argument of having the 165cm and having a larger size interval. Nice put in words.

Your examples: (heigh, weight) x Slalom ski size is what I am looking for. You give me confidence that 165 is right for me.

@Nobody, I am located in Romania where are the Carpathian Mountains and we have only small ski resorts (~5-15km of slopes). That is why I travel to other countries for skiing. Note Carpathians are very beautiful in the summer for hiking.

In 2018 and 2019 I was in Ukraine, resort Bukovel. They have ~60km of slopes and the prices are low compared to Austria. The resort is quite new and looks good. These are the advantages. However, there are a few disadvantages like bad roads, difficulty in talking english, skipping the lane at ski lifts.
In 2020 I went to Slovakia in the Tatra Mountain, resort Jasna. There are 30km of slopes. The nice thing is that there is a descent of 1000m. Cost effective Slovakia is in between Romania/Ukraine and Austria.

From 2013 to 2020 I had a 6-day week of skiing in Austria: Skiwelt, Kitsbuhel, SkiCircus, Zillertal.

 

[Tony S]

Although I like my Stöckli SX, I want something more stiff, more responsive. The Stöckli SX does not push back in the turns.

Really? That surprises me ... a lot. How old are they?

 

[TirexSnake]

Really? That surprises me ... a lot. How old are they?

My Stoickli SX are 2018 version. They are easy to drive both at slow speed and up to 80 km/h.
I have tried once a Rossignol Hero ST and I experienced a new filling. When I ended the turn and begin to release the presure, I was pushed by the skis like from a spring. I thing I got this also on Atomic XTi year 2016.

For the Stoickli SX the reaction is more liniar. Also I think that at high speed the edge grip can be improved. Here are they :

 

[anim]

Hi all, I am looking for a slalom ski and can't figure out if I should look for 170 or 165cm in size. I would like to get some suggestions from you.

I was recently wondering the exact same question re length and model (Atomic S9 vs. Völkl SL). Having tried the S9 at 165 and SL at 170 I have to say they are rather similar and it is hard to go wrong with either length or brand.

I’m 196 cm / 85 kg and use Atomic FIS SL (2012) as masters race ski. I feel that Völkl SL at 170 provided me exactly what I was looking from a recreational slalom carver. It was different enough from my race ski: a bit larger radius to calm the ski down and the slight tip rocker that seems to deal well also with softer surfaces without fear of the ski digging unexpectedly.

 

[TirexSnake]

@anim thanks a lot. Very usefull input.

 

[TirexSnake]

@anim, how different are the FIS vs the recreational version?

 

[anim]

@anim, how different are the FIS vs the recreational version?

The only FIS SLs I have skied are my 2012 Atomics but I guess others are somewhat similar. They are great fun for about 2 hours at a time on rather smooth icy surfaces (like race courses) due to the exceptional edge hold, but I would never imagine, for example, taking them as my only ski for a weekend trip.

In bumpy or soft conditions I avoid skiing them aggressively (or at all if I can choose) as they tend to offer nasty surprises where you can twist your knees. I feel like the ski tip might dig into the slope any second and throw me off-balance. Varying turn radius by letting the tails slip is naturally a bit more work since the tails just want to carve. The weight is also significantly higher compared to non-FIS SLs which might matter in some cases.

 

[James]

I would get the 165 FIS SL ski. Whatever brand. But, if going used you really need to see how much edge is left.
I was in a store looking at this years Volkl, Dynatar, and Atomic. I was pleasantly surprised at how wide the edges were. Many new FIS skis were coming with thin edges for speed. Not good.

I’ve spent days on the S9 in 170. I found my FIS SL (Blizzard) to be more versatile, snappy, “Light”, and fun. I actually switched the rental S9 to the 165 Atomic SL they had. Better.

The S9 FIS SL is different, does not have the rod on top. If you want Atomic, get that.

 

[François Pugh]

I cast my vote for 165 cm for a SL ski at 165 lbs. It's tempting to try and alter a ski's purpose by choosing a longer than ideal length, or maybe choosing a softer GS to do double duty as a SL or some other trick. These tricks never work as well as picking the right ski in the right length for the job.

 

[KingGrump]

The only FIS SLs I have skied are my 2012 Atomics but I guess others are somewhat similar.

The 2012 Atomic FIS SL were the older D2 design. Lots of edge grip and very stiff. The new gen from 2013 onward are lot more fun and much more versatile outside the gates.

The S9 FIS SL is different, does not have the rod on top. If you want Atomic, get that.

What he said.

The S9 FIS SL is a much more predictable ski. unflappable. You can go with either 158 or 165. Depends on intended usage. My son skis several pairs of 158 as his all mountain ski. Groomed, bumps, steeps, tree and up to 8" of powder. He also uses his 165 for trenching groomers. He is #200+. Serious skier.

 

[TirexSnake]

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Atomic S9. I have just received the skies. They look like new. Price 420 USD. Looking forward to give them a try, once I pass the Covid . One more week of sickness.

 

[Nobody]

Congratulations for the choice. One final word, possibly un-necessary and not-required by you...Keep in mind that SL skis (both "shop" or "FIS" graded) are very peculiar skis, very reactive, compared to other skis, and keen to shoot the rider in the air , either forward or backward, if incorrectly loaded during the turns, much like untamed horses when saddled for the first time(s). A very "nasty" habit...
I keep reminding this when watching an SL race. But out of my own experience too. One of my worst crash occured while skiing an old pair of SL skis (the only SL ski pair I own even now) , on an icy groomed (and on a flat section nevertheless!) at a tad too much high speed.
So, keep in mind that, when skiing 'em, during the first rides

 

[TirexSnake]

@Nobody, what speed do you regulary go on SL? What maximum speed would you go?

 

[Nobody]

Can't quantify speed in absolute terms on SL skis when freeskiing. Assumed that one can anyway reach good speeds if desired, you'll find that those things do turn a lot, and can keep up good speed throughout the whole arc(s), straightlining isn't their main job. It's the return in terms of stored energy that is being given during a turn that is rewarding to the skier, IMHO.

 

[bbbradley]

Congratulations for the choice. One final word, possibly un-necessary and not-required by you...Keep in mind that SL skis (both "shop" or "FIS" graded) are very peculiar skis, very reactive, compared to other skis, and keen to shoot the rider in the air , either forward or backward, if incorrectly loaded during the turns, much like untamed horses when saddled for the first time(s). A very "nasty" habit...
I keep reminding this when watching an SL race. But out of my own experience too. One of my worst crash occured while skiing an old pair of SL skis (the only SL ski pair I own even now) , on an icy groomed (and on a flat section nevertheless!) at a tad too much high speed.
So, keep in mind that, when skiing 'em, during the first rides

100% concur, I even have a video of a pair of Atomic Redster SL skis throwing me on my butt if you need proof. But when you are on top of them as they snap a turn, daaammmmmnnn it is fun! As long as I am strong and fit enough to own FIS SL skis, there will always be a pair in my basement.