2023 Atomic Redster Q7 - SkiEssentials.com Ski Test

www.skiessentials.com/2023-sk...

[@georgecarrick4636]

Best reviews out there - use of plain English and comparison against other similar skis is huge. Thanks very much Jeff (and Bob).

[@SkiEssentials]

Thanks for the compliments!

[@andybaker2395]

Excellent review and aligns totally with my experience. Fast direct responsive control but less tiring than my heavier Volkl rtm84

[@SkiEssentials]

Good to hear! We're big fans of the new Q's as well.

[@dorohmc]

Hi, excellent video with a lot of comparisons to other skis. This is my second season skiing at age 37, able to do blues and most reds. I’ve learned on an older set of Rossignols with 65mm waist with turn radius of 18m. I find them difficult to turn sometimes on steeps and not that stable at speed. I will be mostly skiing on groomers but often afternoon conditions can be worse. What’s your take on the Redster X series (5 or 7) vs these Q7’s?

[@SkiEssentials]

I would strongly recommend the Q7. You get better soft snow performance and more versatility out of the Q models. They still are excellent on firm snow too, but the added width underfoot will really help you as you continue to progress. Hope that helps!

[@christianloh946]

Hello, First I have to say that u make a great Job! Ty I'm 1.90 m tall and weigh 140 kg. I didn't start skiing until I was 40. Already driving parallel. I ski safely on blue slopes, I'm still a bit afraid of steep red slopes and ski them slowly. I avoid black slopes. Which skis from the Q series would you recommend? Thought of the Q6 or Q7?? Think an atomic redster Q5 would flutter at my weight. Or can you recommend me another ski? Greetings Christian

[@SkiEssentials]

I think the Q7 is the way to go for sure. www.skiessentials.com/2023-atomic-redster-q7-rvsk-skis-w-m-12-gw-bindings.html

[@Fibre22]

How do the Q7s compare to the deacon 80s (or even 84s)? I like the sound of both as they seem to fit the kind of skiing we have in Australia.

[@SkiEssentials]

I find the Q7 feels a touch softer in the tips and tails. Not so much that you lose out on significant stability, more that it makes the ski a little more compliant and easier to manipulate.

[@wayneyancey9169]

What is the weight with bindings for q7 and q9.8 at 173 cm length? I have a pair of Redster S9 FIS and they are definitely heavy. The walk from the parking lot to the lodge is tiring with the mass digging into my shoulder. I should note I am 75 recovering from acute meyloid lukemia. I have lost the ability to ski at the same level as pre cancer. I purchased the S9s in 2020, pre-cancer but did not get to ski on them till Jan 2022. Keep up the good reviews. You two I trust. Thanks.

[@SkiEssentials]

I've got the Q7 in 173 at 3800 g per pair and 2000 for the pair of bindings. I don't have a 9.8 to measure, but I bet it's about the same. Definitely a lighter setup vs FIS models. We have loved the short-turning nature of the new Atomics for sure.

[@wayneyancey6422]

@@SkiEssentials My current Redster S9s at 165 cm, weigh 7712 grams with bindings (17 pounds for the pair). My Atomic Vantage 90s at 175 cm tip the scale at 6396 grams (14.1 pounds) per pair. 5800 grams per pair is enticing. I am also considering the Blizzard R15 WB at 174 cm length. Are you able to compare this ski to the Redster Q7? Your descriptions of both skis being more forgiving than their full race brothers is compelling. These skis will hopefully flex better to allow me to access all the edge as you have described. Less fatiguing is a bonus. I'm 75. Thanks. I appreciate your opinion. Please let me know if you require additional background of my skiing history. I first hit the slopes in 1965. Literally and figuratively. Regards.

[@jonathancaramin]

Hi, thanks for the review! I'm very interested in the Atomic Q7, but not sure if they are worth the extra cash over the Q6. As far as I can work out the main differences are the narrower waist and lack of Revoshock on the Q6, but I can't find any reviews that directly compare the two or the effect those differences have on the skiing experience. Which one would you recommend? I'm an intermediate skier who is quickly advancing, 1m78 and 85kg. I mainly stick to groomed runs but I want something that can handle variable snow conditions. Any insights?

[@SkiEssentials]

The Q7 is a more sophisticated ski for sure with more stability at speed and a grippier overall performance. If you're mainly skiing groomers, the Q7 is awesome, and then it's also got the wider bodied shape for variable snow. I'd lean that way, even with the extra money.

[@balsheme2613]

Excellent review; thanks for sharing - How would they compare to either Kendo 88 or Volkl Deacon V Wercks? Are they close in term of performances or more at ease on groomers or trafole snow?

[@SkiEssentials]

The Q7 has more in common with the V.Werks in terms of shape and purpose, although the Q7 is easier to ski and friendlier to carve. Neither Q7 nor V.Werks are as versatile or all-mountain oriented as the Kendo, so if you're sticking to mainly groomers and are in pursuit of nice, clean, and round carved turns, the Q7 is a fantastic ski. V.Werks takes the performance to the next level while the Kendo has a different application for the most part.

[@balsheme2613]

@@SkiEssentials thank you for the feedback, much appreciated and helpful. Final question, would the Q9.8 compares more to the VWERKS? If looking for a groomers oriented ski that can handle most type of snow during the full season; would Q9.8 remains the best option?

[@nerijusb9779]

Brilliant review. I'm planning to replace my first skis (ROSSIGNOL EXPERIENCE 77 BASALT) to new ones. We just back from Livigno Alps ski holidays with family and friends and I would like go to the next level of skiing. I been for 15 days of skiing in total (usually going for a week a year) and I can ski easily on blue, red, black (no moguls) runs, so I would say I'm on the edge from intermediate to advance skier. Mostly we skiing later on the day, so some moguls getting built and not really enjoyable to ski with my existing skis. At the moment I'm looking at: 1. ATOMIC REDSTER Q7 or Q9 2. SALOMON S/FORCE BOLD Please advise which skis would you recommend so I can learn more advanced skiing. I 180cm tall, 83kg of weight, 49 years. Thank you in advance.

[@SkiEssentials]

The Q7 likely offers the best path to improvement and success. They are sharp turners but not overly demanding. This allows the skier to really dictate the shape and duration of the turn. The Q9 and the Bold are on the stiffer and more rugged side of the spectrum, I'd think that the Q7 allows for more progression and still has a very high performance ceiling.

[@MultiFkUtube]

@@SkiEssentials Thank you. I am in the similar situation and was considering Q9 or Q7. I restarted skiing last year (went a few times as kid). Since I restarted, I went 15 days total and consider myself intermediate. The guy at my local shop warned me that Q9 could be too stiff for my level and suggested Q7 or X something. I want to improve and build a strong technical foundation but want to get to that advanced/expert level asap. My only concern was that if I work hard and somehow manage to improve quickly, Q7 might become too boring too quickly (I'd like to be able to rip steep slopes, go deep powder (we get JAPOW where Im located - don't want to miss out on that), BC and all that before I get too old (Im 32)). Is this ski still good for advanced/expert skiiers? Would appreciate if there are other alternatives! Thank you and I love all your videos. btw just bought my first boot today at a professional boot fitter. I never knew the shape of my feet are on the weird side compared to most people 😂

[@aleks-gv8nk]

Would you recommend these or the Q 9.8 for someone who likes to ski fast and somehow aggressive, but without risk of back seat?

[@SkiEssentials]

I'd go with the Q7.

[@dinarevicm]

Hi, great video. Can you tell me, is there a big difference between q7 and q9? Is it much harder to ski on q9 for a non-expert skier?

[@SkiEssentials]

It's not that it's harder to ski, rather expert skiers will be able to access a higher-performance ceiling than non-experts. There's more dampness at speed, and stronger edge grip throughout than the Q7, which is lighter and easier to carve.

[@codfather6583]

Can you make a review or tell a bit abou the q6 model? - cant seem to find any info on them

[@SkiEssentials]

Quite similar to this Q7, actually. The 6 just loses the Revoshock, so won't have quite as good vibration damping, and it's a bit wider at closer to 80 underfoot. Not as wide as Q9.8 or 7.8, so kind of splitting the difference between Redster Q7 and Redster Q7.8, but without Revoshock. Good ski, lots of value, still frontside oriented, but with a bit of versatility.

[@codfather6583]

@@SkiEssentials Thx!

[@gregy1194]

Hello, 55yr 173cm 82kg. Currently on 167cm Nomad blackeye ti. Slowing down and cruising on the groomers only.. Looking to go lighter, less fatigue and looking at Maverick 86c or q7, maybe even q5. Your thoughts ?

[@SkiEssentials]

Q7 is such a great groomer cruiser. Good radius, easy turning, and very stable and smooth. I don't think the Maverick would make you as happy from a carving perspective and the Q5 is selling yourself short.

[@gregy1194]

@SkiEssentials that is awesome info. Thanks for replying. it is very much appreciated. Cheers

[@martingreen5271]

Hi Team, I have the Q7 and my comment would be if you are heavy - go the Q9. I am circa 240lbs /110kgs and I find the Q7 181’s a bit soft and struggles with edge grip but a great ski.

[@johnjohnson5483]

What's the difference between these skis and my Atomic Maveric 86c's?

[@SkiEssentials]

The narrower Q7, at 84 mm underfoot, has way more of a front side shape and build to it. It's got a shorter turn radius, and wider tips and tails, so it carves very clean and round turns. With more of a race-like build with carbon revoshock absorption system, the Q7 stays firmly planted to the snow in a carved turn. It does, however, lack the all-mountain versatility of the Maverick.

[@grogers9869]

Can you recommend size for someone 188cm tall?

[@SkiEssentials]

I'd think the 181 is a good choice unless you want the 173 with the shorter turn radius.

[@steveliberman3000]

Is there a Redster with a 70mm waist?

[@SkiEssentials]

Redster S9 and G9 are 68 mm underfoot--that's as close to 70 as you'll get in Redster.

[@carlosromeros]

I’m a begginer I found the Q4’s on sale at my local ski shop do you recommend these for my first set?

[@SkiEssentials]

Yup! Great choice! When you master those, move right on up to the 7!