2020 Atomic Redster X9 WB

SkiTalk Test Team

Testing skis so you don't have to.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Posts
446
Andy Mink: Do you need just a little more width from your carving ski? That’s what the “WB” stands for: X9 Wide Body. With a few more millimeters under foot and throughout the ski, you get more versatility but lose very little in the way of carving capability. I skied this one in a 168 and had an absolute blast making short radius turns. I would, however, chose the next length up if I were to use this as a daily driver. The 168 was a little nervous at speed with 225 lb on it. At 13.5 m, you can make a lot of turns in a short distance.

If you do like a shorter ski for running bumps, this one may be your ticket. It was an absolute blast in tighter, soft bumps. Light and quick, it inspires confidence that not a lot of skis can. With a little more length for my size it would also handle some shallow powder on groomers with ease.

Insider tip: This skis full length. Don’t cheat yourself on stability by going too short; it’ll still turn on a dime.​

FairToMiddlin: It’s possible that Atomic tried last year’s Nordica Spitfire RB and decided that a good old-fashioned arms race was in order for 2020. The WB (Wide Body) has the strength of the skinny X9 but a broader palate for going off the groomed path. Stronger than the Blossom White Out and Head iRally, it is not a poppy, accommodating carver. Atomic wants you to pay attention, from start to finish. Turn initiation is pretty automatic, but the usual flexing of a recreational carver on its way to the belly of the turn is not there. Instead, the WB is looking for you to precisely orient your weight over the outside ski, while driving hard with the rest of you. Success leads to a massive sensation of G; failure results in a bit of an Austrian frown, followed by however you say “That ain’t it” in German.

Drahtguy Kevin: The WB is the portly sibling to the X9 and provides many of the same attributes and sensations in a wider, more versatile platform. The extra 10 mm underfoot ups the stability of this ski. Riders beware: getting lazy has the same consequences on the WB as it does the other X9. I prefer the WB model for the increased versatility provided by the thicker waist.

Insider tip: Increased versatility ups the fun.​
 
Awards
Who is it for?
Those who want a ripping carver but also like to explore some mellower, off-piste snow. Fairly serious carvers who still want to dip into the off piste.
Who is it not for?
Casual carvers looking for a playful 70-something. Skiers accustomed to rocker and a slow tip engagement.
Skier ability
Advanced, Expert
Ski category
Race, Frontside
Ski attributes
Groomers, Moguls
Segment
Men, Women

Specifications

HighFives
Available sizes
152, 160, 168, 176
Dimensions
125.5-75-109.5
Rocker profile
Full camber
Construction design
All new
Binding options
System

right ad
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Conley

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Posts
1
Location
United States
Debating weather to get 160 or 168cm in the Atomic Redster X9 WB. I have been skiing the older Atomic metron b5 and M11's, both in 162, for the last 10-12years. Loved the b5's so much I have owned several pairs. Skied the M11's last year as they are physically lighter and easier to carry from car to lift. Arthritis is shoulders. Want the new ski to have the same tenacious grip on hard pack and ice, yet still okay in shallow powder and bumps. ME= 71 years young, in good shape. 5'6" 158lbs. Life long skier and level 11 psia instructor. (still improving my technique following level 3 guys). Love to free ski fast on fresh corduroy, making perfect RR tracks. Ski powder too when in comes to our wet ave. snow in the PNW. Have any of your lighter testers tried the X9 WB in 160 and/or 168?? Thoughts? If the 160 skied as quick and solid as my metron B5's in 162cm Id be happy.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
26,891
Location
Reno, eNVy
Debating weather to get 160 or 168cm in the Atomic Redster X9 WB. I have been skiing the older Atomic metron b5 and M11's, both in 162, for the last 10-12years. Loved the b5's so much I have owned several pairs. Skied the M11's last year as they are physically lighter and easier to carry from car to lift. Arthritis is shoulders. Want the new ski to have the same tenacious grip on hard pack and ice, yet still okay in shallow powder and bumps. ME= 71 years young, in good shape. 5'6" 158lbs. Life long skier and level 11 psia instructor. (still improving my technique following level 3 guys). Love to free ski fast on fresh corduroy, making perfect RR tracks. Ski powder too when in comes to our wet ave. snow in the PNW. Have any of your lighter testers tried the X9 WB in 160 and/or 168?? Thoughts? If the 160 skied as quick and solid as my metron B5's in 162cm Id be happy.
The X9 WB is a ski that you could ski in either size depending what you want to get out of the ski. If you want that quick turn that your B5 (and M11) offered, the 160, stability and long turn the 168. Having owned an M11 and skied the X9 WB in both 168 and 176, I think the 160 is what you are looking for.
 

Sponsor

Top