or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Another Metron B5 question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Metron B5 question.

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
I think I've decided on these as my all purpose ski for this season. My only reservation is the lack of a riser plate. I am coming off of an Atomic BR 9.20 with a pretty big riser plate. I absolutely love the added leverage the plate gives me. Does anyone know if it's possible/advisable to mount a rider plate on the Atomic Metron B5? If so, who makes a good one?

post #2 of 32
Have you demoed the B5 ? Does matter about a riser plate, this ski is a whole new ball game. The shovel is so wide that when you tilt it, it brings you into the next carve, effortlessly. This also puts you on edge, naturally, so a riser plate, in my opinion of the ski, is not necessary.
post #3 of 32
Thread Starter 
I haven't demoed it. While I'm usually the biggest proponent of "try before you buy," I have the opportunity to buy a pair VERY cheap.

My issue with riser plates it that I have pretty short bowed legs. I have the cuff angle adjusted on my boots to partially compensate for the bowed legs, but the riser plate makes such a HUGE difference in getting leverage on the ski edges, that I'm reluctant to go without (especially considering the extra width underfoot with the B5). It looks like they have a raised section where the binding attaches, but it's not as tall as the variocharger plate on my BetaRace 9.20's.

How much lift do the Atomic bindings have (the pair I'm considering has the NEOX 412 bindings on it)?

post #4 of 32
The Metrons do not have as much lift as the older Atomics but they are definately not mounted flat.

I thought the old R series and other ones with a riser plate were too high for off-piste and bumps so I like the new design.

I guess it depends on what conditions you like to ski and your style of skiing.
post #5 of 32
If you have a chance to get them cheap, get them. I found the bindings on these skis to be really responsive. you feel like you are in the ski instead of being on top of it.
The width underfoot doesn't really matter because of the width of the shovel and tail, you will get this ski on edge.
Not sure about the bow legs factor, I don't have that so I can't relate.
I think you could make more adjustments to the boots, instead of relying on a riser plate.
post #6 of 32
I'd go for a riser plate of some kind, if only to avoid boot out with extreme carving angles. Though most newer Atomic bindings have a good deal of lift, it's still worth a look - especially given that the Metron B5 is an adept carver, just screaming for some wicked angles.
post #7 of 32
Do you think most people would boot out on a 76 waist that has a small riser on it?

I would think that would be pretty difficult.
post #8 of 32
The chassis is a riser. Mounted with the NEOX binding, it has quite bit of stand height.
post #9 of 32
Hi Gill,
I have been skiing on the Atomic Metron B5 in a 172cm this season is Australia. We have had a pretty good season here with some powder days and the ski has perform fantastically. It also charged through the crud, slush, death cookies half frozen crust and ice without flinching an inch. They are OK in anything up to medium bumps. But when the bumps get big,cut up and irregular. These ski finds its limitations. Due to the 76mm waist they are not super quick edge to edge. However, once you have it on edge and engaged. they turn pretty quick.
Going back to your question about the riser on the B5. I am the opposite of you . i ahve a knockneed problem ie. 2.5deg right and 2deg left. The binding screws are long enough for you to place a shim under it. But I think 3 degs is about the limit. It might pay you to get an alignment done to know how much correction you need. If you are standing flatter on the ski, I believe you won't require that much leverage. Besised that, the B5 really is quite elevated.
post #10 of 32
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the great feedback. Sounds like the mounting area is fairly elevated, and with the extra height on the bindings and perhaps a shim, I should be OK.


tanman - thanks for the ride report. I ski in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US and our 3 week ski season pretty much only affords us ice, very hard snow, and spring like (slushy) conditions. Can you tell I'm bitter?!?

From what you say, it sounds like the B% will do fine in these conditions. The fact that it's not slalon ski quick edge to edge is OK for me. I prefer mixing my turns up between shortish/medium stuff and bigger GS style trenchers. How do the B5's handle speed? I imagine, like any ski with that amount of sidecut, they are happiest when on edge and don't do so well in straigh-run situations.

Again, thanks everyone for the valuable information!
post #11 of 32
I would also look at the M:11 as it is a similar ski without the newer beta 5 lobes.

It is softer and lighter so it would be more agreeable in bumps and trees and float alittle better with the softer tip.
post #12 of 32
Hi Gill,
Sounds like you get similar condition to us Down Under. We don't always get great seasons here and have to contend with mostly crap conditions. Mind you I bought the Atomic B5 specifically for my trip to Alberta/British Columbia in 2005. But I had to take for a ride for the heck of it and ended up skiing on it more than I thought ie on days when I wasn't skiing Bumps.
These skis do have their limitation of real hard ice as they are not exactly designed like a race ski ie. I have a pair of 163cm Elan HCX Hyperflex ski, which is about 3 years old. They are built in the traditional laminate sort of fashion with lots of metal in them and thet are great on ice. But its 63mm waist doesn't lend itself to being an all mountain ski , athough some days I am lazy to change them over and ski them everywhere. They sink in slush, crud and therefore require heaps more effort. Be that as it may you still need sharp edges from any ski when it get icy.
Sorry to carry on about equipment, you can tell I am an equipment junkie.
The Atomic B5 in answering you question were very stable at speed, I think the initial feeling you get from them is that they ski quite damped, but once you camber the ski mid turn they really have alot of power. Scalce was right in saying you should try the M:11 too less powerful , softer and more forgiving if you are a lighter weight skier and like bumps tree etc.. I use a Elan M555 when skiing in tighter spots.
post #13 of 32
Thread Starter 
Scalce and tanman - Thanks for the recommendation of the M11, but I'm 6' and 195 pounds (level 8), so I think they would be too soft. I prefer a stiffer ski especially when pulling GS turns at speed down the groomers. I don't really ski bumps that much anymore and I don't need to worry about float (I wish I did!). I need a ski that's stiff enough to plow through the late afternoon cut up, slushy, crap that is typical of Mid-Atlantic skiing. The B5 sounds like the ticket.

tanman - I know what you mean about being a gear junkie!
post #14 of 32
I don't know if you guys checked out the other threads.. but I mentioned the Phantom ski with a simialr side cut at about half the price of the new metron. rumour has it that the metron is a knock off of the original Phantom ski - might be worth checkin out

post #15 of 32
Thread Starter 
Sorry, how exactly is a ski with the following measurements like the B5?!?"
Length: 160cm
Tip: 180mm
Waist: 100mm
Tail: 165mm

Perhaps you are confusing the B5 with the M:EX? Very different skis.

I certainly don't need 100mm underfoot when skiing in the Mid-Atlantic. That'd be like using the Queen Elizabeth II as a bass boat.
post #16 of 32
you may be right gill.. i'm referring to the atomic metron. super sidecut w/ 84 mm under the foot? perhaps i read the thread to quickly
post #17 of 32
Hi Gill,
I was wondering that if you were mainly skiing Mid atlantic conditions, why not go for a ski with a slimmer waist ie 70-67mm waist. maybe a Head im70 monster or a stockli Spirit Pro II. They are pretty powerful skis too. Why I ask is becauase you mentioned that you were Bowed legged. A slimmer waist would mmake it easier to tip the ski on edge. Ideally you should look for skis around the 63-64mm waist with raiser platers , but these skis are not versatile and a 70mm or > ski.
post #18 of 32
Gill, at your size I would recommend you get the Metron B5 in 162cm. My friend who sells Atomics got his pair last January. He is 5'9" 225lbs. He has been teaching skiing for years also. He took his B5 everywhere he skiied all season and loves them. I'm 5'11" 195 and have demoed both lenghts I found the 162cm to be a much more responsive ski the the 172cm.
post #19 of 32


Hi Max:
I still don't have a clue re B-5 v M11.
I have M:11 in 162 that I got at the end of last season...havent skied 'em yet..If they are too soft I'll use the Atomic Guarantee and trade 'em for the B5 metron.
I got them to be my soft snow ski as I ahve 6Stars and sx 10 for the hard snow which is prevelent here in the east.

I think as a eastern fat ski the M;11 sounded just right. Float, compliant and agile.
We shall see.

Any thoughts???
post #20 of 32
There is no point in getting the B5s since you already have other solid skis for hardpack and ice.

The M11s are definately a good ski to have for soft conditions. They are progressively stiff so the tips and tails are softer for better float but the middle is still decently stiff. They also rip for such a wide waist.

I think you will be happy with them.

I used to ski on the R11s which were stiffer but I think the M11 is a much more versatile ski.

Be careful of the factory tune as mine had a base bevel of 4-5 in the tails so they didn't hold perfectly out of the wrapper.
post #21 of 32
If you do miss the riser, you could always lift your boots.
post #22 of 32
Max Capacity. I am about the same height as you and weight too. I didn't get to demo the 162cm ski, but I went for the longer one as I thought I'd use it more for powder , trees and backcountry. I have you tried them both in those conditions. ie how does the floatation compare?
post #23 of 32
The B5 doesn't need a riser , it's going to give most skiers a hell of a ride the way it is . I had these things last year at Fernie and we played in deep stuff , bumps (big ones)and ripped groomers. In the powder they were a blast , they felt like a highend slalom ski that was made for the fluff . On everything else these things are going to make you look good but listen to the reps , because at a svelt 225lbs (ok maybe 230) the 172 is alot of ski.
post #24 of 32
Originally Posted by Gotama
If they are too soft I'll use the Atomic Guarantee and trade 'em for the B5 metron.
What is this Atomic Guarantee?
post #25 of 32
geez Leeroy , I love my B5 in 172cm but you got me thinking twice now as to whether I bought the ski too long. I found them quite diffuclt in big bumps and maybe that's why. But they go find in bowls and glades
post #26 of 32
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the great advice. I just can't see going with a 162. That's the same length as my FIRST pair of skis back in the day. Granted the sidecut on the B5 is a whole new ballgame, but 162?!?

The thing I like about the B5 is that it'll ski the East coast stuff very well (i.e. good hard snow characteristics), and would be a great ski to take out West. My BR 9.20's are awesome for where I spend a majority of my ski days in VA, but are less than ideal for out West.

tanman - I agree with you about the slim waist thing. My BR 9.20s are 62mm under foot. They are great for local skiing, but last time I went out West (Tahoe), I felt like I was skiing with a boat anchor strapped to each foot. They certainly do their best to find the bottom in bottomless conditions.
post #27 of 32

Another Metron B5

Can anybody explain to me the difference between the Metron M1O and Metron M11.What I have read so far regarding the M10 , has positioned the ski to be biased towards longer turns and not too nimble. Is the M11 , an easier turner by comparison with a shorther turning radius?

I'm 6 ft. 180 lb. love to ski groomers 70% , bumps 30%. I wouldn't say I ski fast, more inclined to carve than anything else. I skied the SX -9 last year in a 180 (16m radius) and I think I'd like to ski a ski with more shape and a tighter turning radius. I believe the M11 has a 12 meter turning radius.

My thinking is if I get the M5 I'd probably be inclined to get the 162 cm.
If I go with the M11 probably go longer at 172 cm. The ski shop I deal with doesn't have the M10. I mentioned it above because the only reviews I've read on the Metrons have been the M10.

I'm worried at 180 lbs maybe the M11 162 wouldn't work as well. I talked to the guy at the shop yesterday who was expalining how the M5 magnesium power channels and the elastmoer in the ski , provide super rebound , allowing him at 160 lbs . to really get a lot of performance and snap out of the ski. The M10 and 11 by contrast have the top stabilizer type rods. Is that kind like the old Salomon Prolink for reducing vibration? Does the performance of the M5 justify its higher price point?

Appreciate comments from those of you in the know.
post #28 of 32
I was close to 180 last season when I skied on the M11s in a 162 and they were fine.

The pulsers are to stiffen up the ski and keep the tip and tail on the snow.

I have even heard from ex racers and techs that they think the B5 is fun but uneccessary for most people and not as good as an all around.

I like the bumps too which is why I went with the M11 even though I bought other skis for all bump days.
post #29 of 32

Metron Guarantee

The Metron Guarantee is Atomic's marketing schtick. The Metron fold out ads in the Current SKi, Sking, Etc. states that if you buy a Metron, ski it and if you don't like it they will swap you over to any other Atomic of equal value.
post #30 of 32
Gill, That why UI went for the B5 in 172cm initially becauase a want to use it for the west ie.deep try POW. I might just carry a second pair if pwoder coniditions don't prevail. We just had I big Ski test done on Thredbo and most of the skiers were very wrapped with the new atomics. Most a them said the B5 was a hanful in the bunmos especially when them were on the firm side. I don't know should I try in shorter lenght??
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 › Another Metron B5 question.