Buying a totally different pair of skis? Help needed

I've been skiing a pair of Atomic Metron M11 in 162 (I'm 5'10" and 140lbs.) for the past 3 seasons and really love these skis.  After losing my pair of rock skis, I was thinking about replacing my Metron with a similar ski but have decided to purchase a totally different ski instead.

As I find the Metron sluggish in moguls and a lot of work in trees. I'd like to find a second pair of skis that is not a dedicated powder ski but has a strong bias towards skiing trees and bumps as opposed to the bias that the Metron has towards carving.

While at Jay Peak this week, I tried a pair of Line Prophet 90 and a pair of Rossignol SC 80. The Rossignol were very mediocre and skied more like the Metron just not as well. The Line Prophet 90 were much more in line with what I'm looking for. They were very responsive in the trees and held a pretty good edge as well on groomers. Definitely fun skis and quite different from the Metron.

What else should I be trying in that vein?  Thanks.

the P90 is a great choice go with the 179 for comparison I skied the metron B5 in a 162 as well and ski the K2 PE in a 179. I would go 186 in the P90 myself you should go 179(which will have the same amount of edge as the metron B5).

also look at these skis

K2 Nancy/Seth great deal to be had

http://www.sierraskis.com/2007-K2-Nancy-45489.asp

K2 Pe/missdemor

Atomic Snoop(the newer wood core ones)

Amarda ARV

Scott Punisher (really sick tree/crud ski and there are deals to be had)

Fisher Watea 94

there are deal to be had on almost of these 300 buck max is what I would pay for a new ski. The P90 is a great ski though and if you like it just dont get the 172. The 179 is equal to the 162 metron.

Thanks for the great recommendation list. I will try and demo as many as possible...

I actually demoed the P90 in 165 at Jay upon the salesman's recommendation.  Considering my lighter weight (140lbs) do you really advise I try 179's?  Wouldn't 14 extra centimeters become more cumbersome in the trees in my situation?

your a girl(i think) people will always dumb down stuff unless they can see you ski

here are some facts

1483 is the running lenght of the P90 ie the part that actually hits the snow.

Metron B5 is 1473

so the P90 being 14cm longer is actually only putting 1cm more edge on the ground. Actually due to the sidecut of the ski the metron most likely has more edge on the snow.

also consider this.

A longer/fatter ski is more nimble all the time when ever you have 3D snow, noone believe me on this on here, but simply more float = more nimlbe.

its really up to you, I would try the 172 and 179 and see what you think, and realize the 179 wont feel normal right away but you will have to get use to them. If you truly like the 165 chances are the metron B5 in a 162 was not the right ski for you.

I do ski sizes by weight and height and past skis running lenghts. The biggest issue is is that most people will put your on a short ski due to being you being female, without really knowing how you ski.

 I was in a similar boat--having been skiing on carvers for a while and wanting more--and recently went with the watea 94.  I am falling in love with this ski.  A lot of places demo them too so they should be easy to try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA

your a girl(i think) people will always dumb down stuff unless they can see you ski

 

here are some facts

 

1483 is the running lenght of the P90 ie the part that actually hits the snow.

 

Metron B5 is 1473

 

so the P90 being 14cm longer is actually only putting 1cm more edge on the ground. Actually due to the sidecut of the ski the metron most likely has more edge on the snow.

 

also consider this.

 

A longer/fatter ski is more nimble all the time when ever you have 3D snow, noone believe me on this on here, but simply more float = more nimlbe.

 

its really up to you, I would try the 172 and 179 and see what you think, and realize the 179 wont feel normal right away but you will have to get use to them. If you truly like the 165 chances are the metron B5 in a 162 was not the right ski for you.

 

I do ski sizes by weight and height and past skis running lenghts. The biggest issue is is that most people will put your on a short ski due to being you being female, without really knowing how you ski.

 

 

The first name that's more confusing than a bisexual teenager's emotions.  

Yeah, I'm a male not a female.

I don't need a super wide floater either since in New England we rarely get gigantic dumps.  I think a mid-fat will do me justice in the trees and scarce powder days we get around here. 

At the time, I tried a 172 Metron and I had to muscle it too much to enjoy it.  I'll try and rent a 172 P90 though and see how that handles.  Thanks again.

ok sorry...for that.

are you getting whaT I mean by 'running surface' though/

162cm Metron B5 = 1473mm running lenght

179cm Line P90 = 1483mm Runng lenght

meaning the line only has 1cm more running lenght. despite being 14cm longer. IE 13cm of that ski are not touching the snow unless its powder.

your also wrong on there is no snow ever in new england, you just dont where to look trust me I can go to nearly any resort and find soft snow most of the tiem of the year.

Thanks,  point taken about the running length.  I'll demo different lengths to see how things feel.

NE does get some sizable storms at times but I seldom get to the mountains in time (yeah being a father puts a damper on things.)  When I ski glades it's often tracked out and messy, I need a ski for those conditions.  I can't justify a fat powder ski when the last true powder day I had was in March 2008 at Waterville Valley and it wasn't even that much powder.  Some mid-fat seems more appropriate. 

Is the P90 still too stiff of a ski for the conditions I'm describing?