This reminds me of the old, old Rossi Experience line that was almost all cambered. Where I ski in Ontario, we get lots of firm icy type conditions and most skiers use some form of carving ski - and you still see many of the old timers use that Experience 88 - pre the rockered version - because it just works.
How quickly we forget, Paul! Camber in skis is a beautiful thing indeed. Kastle MX83 and Blizzard Thunderbird R15 WB did that for me this past year in terms of revitalizing my affection for fully cambered skis.
@@SkiEssentials That Blizzard Thunderbird R15 WB is an absolute winner of a ski. I tried it and loved it. Ran into a young lady on the lift with the women's/pink version of the ski - she was an ex-Ontario level racer. This was after I saw your glowing review of this ski that I thought of asking her opinion about it - she absolutely loved it. She skied in race boots&skis her entire life but move to this ski and the Tecnica Mach1 LV Pro women's 120-flex boot and said it was a pure joy having warmer equipment that still ripped - I watched her ski - she was incredible.
Skied the 176cm X9 WB (75mm under foot) last year and absolutely loved them! How would the Q9.8 compare to the regular Q9? Which one did you prefer? I’m 6‘3 / 6‘4 tall and around 198 pounds and definitely an advanced skier. Do you think I’m missing out on something if I go for the Q9 instead of the Q9.8? Thanks in advance!
If you liked the 75 mm waist, I think the Q9 makes the most sense. With the 9.8, it's a pretty wide-bodied ski to produce such a short turn radius. As a result, there's just a lot of ski in the 9.8 while the Q9 feels like it has more of an appropriate width to radius ratio. Are you missing out on versatility with the narrower overall footprint? I guess so, but I think you should be cognizant of how much in reality you need or want a wider-bodied carver.
Another question.... I'm 46 y.o., been skiing about 8-10 years in a row from mid-90'ies and forward. And have resumed skiing in 2020 and also this year - and would like to continue skiing as an yearly event. I'd say I'm a well-experienced skiier (trying to improve as well). I go mostly on the piste, and occasionally off. I'm 200 cm tall, and mid 90 kgs. I have a pair of Salomon Equipe 10 RC 184 cm from 2000'ish, and are looking for a replacement. I tried the Q5 for one day this year, and it felt a bit "noodlish" :-/. So would a Q9.8 at 181 cm be a fair candidate?
Yes, that'd be an awesome choice! Very clean, crisp, and round turns with a ton of power behind it. Would be surprised if you found the 9.8 to be noodly.
I am 173 cm tall and have previously ridden the Redster G with a length of 172 cm. That was too strenuous for me and I want to ride shorter radii. That's why I tested the Q9wb with a length of 168cm last season. I was very pleased. Now the question arises whether the Q9.8 would be even better suited. However, I find 166cm a bit short and the 173cm has a larger radius (14.4 instead of 13.5). What could be the right choice for me?
Probably the 9.8 in the 166 would be a good choice. I don't think skis like this are designed to be ridden in the same length as your height--they just seem to work better when shorter.
You can ski those Q9.8's shorter if you want to get more shapely turns. I don't think the 173 will be too long for you, but the next size down would likely be more appropriate for that ski. have fun! SE
It's a shorter arc and a bit more of a frontside specialist than the AR. Also the system binding puts you up a bit higher, but also takes away some versatility. If you're looking for more of a slalom feel, I'd lean to the Atomic.
Hi David! The Atomic has the shorter turn radius and feels a bit damper than the K2, which has a straighter cut. The K2 is stiffer and slightly heavier, so operates very well at higher speeds while the Q9.8 is a fantastic carver at mid-range speeds.
This is more like the X9WB: www.skiessentials.com/2023-ski-test/skis/2023-atomic-redster-q9/ The Q9.8 is even wider at 84 mm underfoot, but still with a short radius. Have fun! SE
I love your ski reviews and detailed analysis better than any reviewer out there
Thanks so much! We'll keep doing it!
SE
This reminds me of the old, old Rossi Experience line that was almost all cambered. Where I ski in Ontario, we get lots of firm icy type conditions and most skiers use some form of carving ski - and you still see many of the old timers use that Experience 88 - pre the rockered version - because it just works.
How quickly we forget, Paul! Camber in skis is a beautiful thing indeed. Kastle MX83 and Blizzard Thunderbird R15 WB did that for me this past year in terms of revitalizing my affection for fully cambered skis.
@@SkiEssentials That Blizzard Thunderbird R15 WB is an absolute winner of a ski. I tried it and loved it. Ran into a young lady on the lift with the women's/pink version of the ski - she was an ex-Ontario level racer. This was after I saw your glowing review of this ski that I thought of asking her opinion about it - she absolutely loved it. She skied in race boots&skis her entire life but move to this ski and the Tecnica Mach1 LV Pro women's 120-flex boot and said it was a pure joy having warmer equipment that still ripped - I watched her ski - she was incredible.
Skied the 176cm X9 WB (75mm under foot) last year and absolutely loved them! How would the Q9.8 compare to the regular Q9? Which one did you prefer? I’m 6‘3 / 6‘4 tall and around 198 pounds and definitely an advanced skier. Do you think I’m missing out on something if I go for the Q9 instead of the Q9.8? Thanks in advance!
If you liked the 75 mm waist, I think the Q9 makes the most sense. With the 9.8, it's a pretty wide-bodied ski to produce such a short turn radius. As a result, there's just a lot of ski in the 9.8 while the Q9 feels like it has more of an appropriate width to radius ratio. Are you missing out on versatility with the narrower overall footprint? I guess so, but I think you should be cognizant of how much in reality you need or want a wider-bodied carver.
@@SkiEssentials thanks a lot!
Another question.... I'm 46 y.o., been skiing about 8-10 years in a row from mid-90'ies and forward. And have resumed skiing in 2020 and also this year - and would like to continue skiing as an yearly event. I'd say I'm a well-experienced skiier (trying to improve as well). I go mostly on the piste, and occasionally off. I'm 200 cm tall, and mid 90 kgs. I have a pair of Salomon Equipe 10 RC 184 cm from 2000'ish, and are looking for a replacement. I tried the Q5 for one day this year, and it felt a bit "noodlish" :-/. So would a Q9.8 at 181 cm be a fair candidate?
Yes, that'd be an awesome choice! Very clean, crisp, and round turns with a ton of power behind it. Would be surprised if you found the 9.8 to be noodly.
I am 173 cm tall and have previously ridden the Redster G with a length of 172 cm. That was too strenuous for me and I want to ride shorter radii. That's why I tested the Q9wb with a length of 168cm last season. I was very pleased. Now the question arises whether the Q9.8 would be even better suited. However, I find 166cm a bit short and the 173cm has a larger radius (14.4 instead of 13.5). What could be the right choice for me?
Probably the 9.8 in the 166 would be a good choice. I don't think skis like this are designed to be ridden in the same length as your height--they just seem to work better when shorter.
Hey, nice review! I am 185cm. What size would you recommend? Thanks
I think I'd go with the 181. The shorter radius and the fact that the next size down is a 173 makes the 181 seem like the right answer. Have fun!
SE
I am 176 cm and I recently tried a Stormrider 88 at 175cm and absolutely loved the length. Would the 173 cm q9.8 be too long for me ?
You can ski those Q9.8's shorter if you want to get more shapely turns. I don't think the 173 will be too long for you, but the next size down would likely be more appropriate for that ski. have fun!
SE
Are they comparable to the new Stockli Montereo ARs?
It's a shorter arc and a bit more of a frontside specialist than the AR. Also the system binding puts you up a bit higher, but also takes away some versatility. If you're looking for more of a slalom feel, I'd lean to the Atomic.
How would these compare to a K2 disruption 82ti?
Hi David!
The Atomic has the shorter turn radius and feels a bit damper than the K2, which has a straighter cut. The K2 is stiffer and slightly heavier, so operates very well at higher speeds while the Q9.8 is a fantastic carver at mid-range speeds.
Is this a sucessor to the, now discontinued, atomic redser x9 wb ?
This is more like the X9WB: www.skiessentials.com/2023-ski-test/skis/2023-atomic-redster-q9/
The Q9.8 is even wider at 84 mm underfoot, but still with a short radius. Have fun!
SE