EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for "as good as" the Atomic Metron B5!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for "as good as" the Atomic Metron B5!

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

Help...I've fallen in love with a tall, dark and shapely!

I demo'd a pair of 162cm, Metron B5's last (Aussie) season, for the first time and was hooked!

I could do nothing wrong...they trickled me through bumps and pulled me out of the soft 'n' heavy (Aussie powder:) The force was with me on the corduroy, then cranked my legs from side to side as quick as that!

I NEED a pair. But The rental depo' wouldn't part with theirs and my searches on the net have come up short :(

If there are no more on the market then can any-one help me with a replacement?

I am a strong, go anywhere skier with a preference to short radius turns (hence the B5's).

I'm 5.6" (170cm) in height and weigh 65kg (143 lb) 

I may have a chance to buy a second hand pair for $800 but would like some advice that might save me money or what I spend it on!

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #2 of 28

write down the demensions of your ski, like 120-80-110, that set. you know the length you like. try to flex the ski, go back where they have it, and be familiar with the stiffness, tail tip mid. weigh the ski in your arm, get a feel for it. Then go buy a ski with similar qualities, any brand will have something in the B5 category. maybe someone who knows the ski will make it easier for you than this, but this would work to get you something similar (qualities sound like: light, lively, turny).

 

and, please, don't pay $800 (what dollars?) for any used ski. the market price in US dollars for an average ski that is used and was a rental is around $300 with bindings.

post #3 of 28

Head Titan

Nordica Fire Arrow 80

 

 

Most manufacturers have backed off on the super deep sidecuts on skis 75-85mm underfoot.

post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrooGrace View Post

Help...I've fallen in love with a tall, dark and shapely!

I demo'd a pair of 162cm, Metron B5's last (Aussie) season, for the first time and was hooked!

I could do nothing wrong...they trickled me through bumps and pulled me out of the soft 'n' heavy (Aussie powder:) The force was with me on the corduroy, then cranked my legs from side to side as quick as that!

I NEED a pair. But The rental depo' wouldn't part with theirs and my searches on the net have come up short :(

If there are no more on the market then can any-one help me with a replacement?

I am a strong, go anywhere skier with a preference to short radius turns (hence the B5's).

I'm 5.6" (170cm) in height and weigh 65kg (143 lb) 

I may have a chance to buy a second hand pair for $800 but would like some advice that might save me money or what I spend it on!

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

write down the demensions of your ski, like 120-80-110, that set. you know the length you like. try to flex the ski, go back where they have it, and be familiar with the stiffness, tail tip mid. weigh the ski in your arm, get a feel for it. Then go buy a ski with similar qualities, any brand will have something in the B5 category. maybe someone who knows the ski will make it easier for you than this, but this would work to get you something similar (qualities sound like: light, lively, turny).

 

and, please, don't pay $800 (what dollars?) for any used ski. the market price in US dollars for an average ski that is used and was a rental is around $300 with bindings.


Hmmm, only considered paying $800 (USD) because it suited my skiing style so well...hard, fast, quick turning, go anywhere!

I'll ask about the dimensions (it's summer here now) but not sure if they have set up shop yet. Thanx.

Being an Aussie skier I only get a small window of opportunity to try before I buy, so browsing on the net and asking questions between season is the next best thing! 

Appreciate the reply.

post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Head Titan

Nordica Fire Arrow 80

 

 

Most manufacturers have backed off on the super deep sidecuts on skis 75-85mm underfoot.


I think it's the "deep side cuts" that at first had me wary but once on, appreciating them.

Had a look at the Fire Arrow (a bit fancy looking for my taste :\ ) and they sport the deep cuts but I really like an 11m radius turn or there bouts! Perhaps a 160cm will do this?

I'm all about the experience, the technical and equipment blurb gets a little lost on me.

post #6 of 28

so you're linking the cost with the quality and performance. that could be true, but you might not have to spend a lot on some models.

Dynastar made quite a few women's models that seem to have ended up on internet sales. some could work for you. check the dimensions for something fairly turny. Rossignol is worth a look. Volkl Aura may be the most popular women's ski yet, but not real turny, (aside from the Luv series perhaps, which is probably not as snappy as you want) Again, every brand makes something similar to the B5.

post #7 of 28

^^^^^^^ Not sure what you're looking at, but I've searched far and wide and no one is making anything like the Metron B5 in the past few years.  The Metron B5 had a ridiculously deep sidecut (deeper than Head Supershapes).  The B5 was also a truck on the snow - it could plow through anything.  It was one of the heaviest skis I've ever clicked into (and I own a fleet of Volants).

post #8 of 28

1111111111111111111111111111


Edited by slider - 1/30/11 at 4:00pm
post #9 of 28

Please don't pay $800 for these skis.  I bought the M11s (one model down - a bit softer so arguably better in powder - yes, powder) brand new but one model year old in 2005 (or 6?) for $400.  Search Ebay.  A lot of both models were sold.  People used to rave about them on this forum.  That huge shovel tip gives excellent floatation in powder for a waist width that would now be considered narrow and short (at 150 lbs I have the 162s which was a fairly common size).  As long as you enjoy "turny" skis, these things can handle just about anything.  The embodiment of the "tip and rip" era.

post #10 of 28

That's just a silly price. And having skied B-5's, trust me, there are now better alternatives out there. Yep, even for hypercarvers. I'd take a close look at Head Titans or Nordica Firearrow 80's if you want something with a deep sidecut that's beefy but a lot less truck-like/one trick pony. 

post #11 of 28

Might want to look at the Supershape Magnum, even though the Titan is closer to the dimensions of the B5.

post #12 of 28
Thread Starter 

I'm going to ignore the graphics (might paint them over with some deep snow;)...and go the Arrow!

It'll be a nice contrast to my Fischer RC4's. Super fun but did a little sulking when taken off piste.

Hoping to make it to Tahoe end of Feb' and meet up with a friend. So I'll do my research, find a place that have them and demo' a pair up there.

May bring them back to play on our hills with :}

 

Thanx all, for your insight...I'll be watching this space if you have any more. And let you know what I finally chose to ride on.

 

yahoo.gif

post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrooGrace View Post

I'm going to ignore the graphics (might paint them over with some deep snow;)...and go the Arrow!

It'll be a nice contrast to my Fischer RC4's. Super fun but did a little sulking when taken off piste.

Hoping to make it to Tahoe end of Feb' and meet up with a friend. So I'll do my research, find a place that have them and demo' a pair up there.

May bring them back to play on our hills with :}

 

Thanx all, for your insight...I'll be watching this space if you have any more. And let you know what I finally chose to ride on.

 

yahoo.gif



The world famous StartHaus in Truckee (N. Lake Tahoe area) has the FA 80 in 172 to demo.

 

SJ

post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

^^^^^^^ Not sure what you're looking at, but I've searched far and wide and no one is making anything like the Metron B5 in the past few years.  The Metron B5 had a ridiculously deep sidecut (deeper than Head Supershapes).  The B5 was also a truck on the snow - it could plow through anything.  It was one of the heaviest skis I've ever clicked into (and I own a fleet of Volants).


I reread the post you're referring to and see nothing inaccurateduck.gif. Now a ski with somewhat less sidecut and less truck-like could yield a similar experience, and that is likely what the OP is thinking about. I rode the R-Ex and after a couple seasons, and after skiing other skis, concluded that it truly sucked, but I guess when it first came out is was a step in a new trend. So, in sum, the OP need not seek the same ski, just a turny fun ski, and there are many nowicon14.gifski.gif.

 

just a question: doesn't the B in B-5 indicate that the ski has the Beta core construction? The Beta core was quite light in the skis I rode at the time. so, I don't get the truck concept. th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #15 of 28


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

^^^^^^^ Not sure what you're looking at, but I've searched far and wide and no one is making anything like the Metron B5 in the past few years.  The Metron B5 had a ridiculously deep sidecut (deeper than Head Supershapes).  The B5 was also a truck on the snow - it could plow through anything.  It was one of the heaviest skis I've ever clicked into (and I own a fleet of Volants).


I reread the post you're referring to and see nothing inaccurateduck.gif. Now a ski with somewhat less sidecut and less truck-like could yield a similar experience, and that is likely what the OP is thinking about. I rode the R-Ex and after a couple seasons, and after skiing other skis, concluded that it truly sucked, but I guess when it first came out is was a step in a new trend. So, in sum, the OP need not seek the same ski, just a turny fun ski, and there are many nowicon14.gifski.gif.

 

just a question: doesn't the B in B-5 indicate that the ski has the Beta core construction? The Beta core was quite light in the skis I rode at the time. so, I don't get the truck concept. th_dunno-1[1].gif


 

Dav, It was a beta but it had metal out the wazzoo, noodlers description is quite accurate. And I agree that the metron line has no real direct descendants in today's market place.

 

What about a contact 4x4. If you got a short lencht it would have a 14m-ish radius no?

post #16 of 28

Loved my metron B5c's.  A great ski with loads of go in anything.  But last night mine were destroyed when the lodge I ski at burned to the ground. I don't know what I'm going to do, sure I still have my SX-11's but I already ache for my lost skis. If anybody out there can help...

post #17 of 28

I think this needs to be cross-posted on TGR......

post #18 of 28


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

^^^^^^^ Not sure what you're looking at, but I've searched far and wide and no one is making anything like the Metron B5 in the past few years.  The Metron B5 had a ridiculously deep sidecut (deeper than Head Supershapes).  The B5 was also a truck on the snow - it could plow through anything.  It was one of the heaviest skis I've ever clicked into (and I own a fleet of Volants).


I reread the post you're referring to and see nothing inaccurateduck.gif. Now a ski with somewhat less sidecut and less truck-like could yield a similar experience, and that is likely what the OP is thinking about. I rode the R-Ex and after a couple seasons, and after skiing other skis, concluded that it truly sucked, but I guess when it first came out is was a step in a new trend. So, in sum, the OP need not seek the same ski, just a turny fun ski, and there are many nowicon14.gifski.gif.

 

just a question: doesn't the B in B-5 indicate that the ski has the Beta core construction? The Beta core was quite light in the skis I rode at the time. so, I don't get the truck concept. th_dunno-1[1].gif


 

Dav, It was a beta but it had metal out the wazzoo, noodlers description is quite accurate. And I agree that the metron line has no real direct descendants in today's market place.

 

What about a contact 4x4. If you got a short lencht it would have a 14m-ish radius no?


OK, enlighten me, how could a beta construction ski have metal? where would it be laid up? in the bottom? seems unlikely. And since it can't have metal in the top of the beta tortion box (I guess that's what it was), how much metal can it have, certainly compared to skis that do have heavy power.  I've seen beta cores cut through. not much there. but really, I don't know that there could be no metal, or lotsa' metal, for a fact so I'll defer to more informed minds.

 

as to no Metron descendants exist, that is a very GOOD thing.

post #19 of 28

The new Salomon BBR (?) looks very Metron-ish...

post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

The new Salomon BBR (?) looks very Metron-ish...


Only in the tip cut.  The BBR has a huge amount of taper - a ton more than any other ski that has ever hit the market.  That's not what the Metron B5 was.

 

Metron B5: 131-76-115 with a taper of about 10 (on the 162cm)

Salomon BBR 8.9: 147-88-102 with a taper of about 25 (on the 176cm)

Salomon BBR 7.9: 140-79-102 with a taper of about 22 (on the 169cm)

 

I think there are some guys here who have now ridden the BBR and had some time on the Metron B5 back in the day.  Maybe they can chime in.

post #21 of 28

taper??? Definition for the uninformed?  Thanks

post #22 of 28

Well there were two metal bars that enxtended form the binding interface down into the beta core. I seem to remember there being a sheet under the core as well, but its sort of hazy.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

^^^^^^^ Not sure what you're looking at, but I've searched far and wide and no one is making anything like the Metron B5 in the past few years.  The Metron B5 had a ridiculously deep sidecut (deeper than Head Supershapes).  The B5 was also a truck on the snow - it could plow through anything.  It was one of the heaviest skis I've ever clicked into (and I own a fleet of Volants).


I reread the post you're referring to and see nothing inaccurateduck.gif. Now a ski with somewhat less sidecut and less truck-like could yield a similar experience, and that is likely what the OP is thinking about. I rode the R-Ex and after a couple seasons, and after skiing other skis, concluded that it truly sucked, but I guess when it first came out is was a step in a new trend. So, in sum, the OP need not seek the same ski, just a turny fun ski, and there are many nowicon14.gifski.gif.

 

just a question: doesn't the B in B-5 indicate that the ski has the Beta core construction? The Beta core was quite light in the skis I rode at the time. so, I don't get the truck concept. th_dunno-1[1].gif


 

Dav, It was a beta but it had metal out the wazzoo, noodlers description is quite accurate. And I agree that the metron line has no real direct descendants in today's market place.

 

What about a contact 4x4. If you got a short lencht it would have a 14m-ish radius no?


OK, enlighten me, how could a beta construction ski have metal? where would it be laid up? in the bottom? seems unlikely. And since it can't have metal in the top of the beta tortion box (I guess that's what it was), how much metal can it have, certainly compared to skis that do have heavy power.  I've seen beta cores cut through. not much there. but really, I don't know that there could be no metal, or lotsa' metal, for a fact so I'll defer to more informed minds.

 

as to no Metron descendants exist, that is a very GOOD thing.


 

post #23 of 28

yeah, I remember now some narrow tapered aluminum sheets laying on the top of the beta core from the binding to the forebody on some models. in any case, there are far better ways to make a ski and the OP should benefit by developments of turny skis that are smooth and easy.

post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

taper??? Definition for the uninformed?  Thanks


Taper is the ratio of tip cut to tail cut over the length of the ski.  Tip cut is the difference in width between the tip and the waist (you can figure out tail cut wink.gif).

 

A high taper value indicates a ski that we generally refer to as more of a pintail design.  A high amount of sidecut in the tip versus very little in the tail.  Some skiers like pintail designs because they release the turn very easily and make it easier to vary turn shape and size.  Others prefer more "tail" to really hammer home high edge angles in the finish of a turn.

post #25 of 28

atomic.jpg

post #26 of 28

absolutely correct and a very important design factor of a ski, contributing a ton to the feel and 'personality' of the ski. Dynastar stuck to a 10mm "taper" for many years in the Legend model series. Powder skis have taken taper to a new level, sometimes a factor of about 30mm or more, to be able to push the tail around more easily in 3D snow I imagine, see Fischer Watea 114. Personally, I prefer some taper on my big mountain ski, like 10mm, for terrain that demands a lot of release for controlling speed and line.

 

slider, that image shows metal incorporated into the Beta core. man, that's a complicated lay up. is that a cap ski or a tortion box ski, technically speaking?

post #27 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrooGrace View Post

I'm going to ignore the graphics (might paint them over with some deep snow;)...and go the Arrow!

It'll be a nice contrast to my Fischer RC4's. Super fun but did a little sulking when taken off piste.

Hoping to make it to Tahoe end of Feb' and meet up with a friend. So I'll do my research, find a place that have them and demo' a pair up there.

May bring them back to play on our hills with :}

 

Thanx all, for your insight...I'll be watching this space if you have any more. And let you know what I finally chose to ride on.

 

yahoo.gif



The world famous StartHaus in Truckee (N. Lake Tahoe area) has the FA 80 in 172 to demo.

 

SJ


I'm 170 cm myself, so think the 172s may be too long?

Thought the 164s would suit...and perhaps be more "turny"!?

Still wanting an 11 m radius turn, or am I being too particular? Do the radius stipulated in the spec's of a ski, as in below:

Features:

  • Camber: Traditional
  • Design: Frontside
  • Ski Dimensions (164cm): 130/80/113
  • Turn Radius: 13.5m

These are the spec's of the FireArrow.

 

 

Are they approximates (depending to ones ski style) or accurate and I will need to work on initiating the turn that much sooner?

 

Davluri- What is OP?

your quote-" So, in sum, the OP need not seek the same ski, just a turny fun ski, and there are many nowicon14.gifski.gif."

post #28 of 28

OP = Original Poster.  That would be you in this case ThrooGrace. wink.gif

 

What you list as "turn radius" is actually the sidecut radius which is not what size turn the ski will make.  Search on the forum or the web and I trust you'll figure out the rest.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for "as good as" the Atomic Metron B5!