EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › First post = Metron XI review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First post = Metron XI review

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Since I discovered this great forum and benefitted greatly from the information, I thought I'd give a quick rundown on a day skiing with the M:11 in 162 & 172.

The message I want to give is try before you buy. *Everyone* said to go with the 162 including the rep. I'm 5'9" 165# aggressive, competent skier. I've been at it for about 40 years now & get at least 40 days/year. By all measures a 162 is the "correct" size with this ski.

Glad I didn't go out & buy it first.

When really pushed, this ski just couldn't hold the line that the 172 did. I found this true for any turn shape at any moderate to fast speed. I tried them on firm snow, and some crusty junk as well as the spring-like groomed conditions first thing in the morning (read small icy balls!). Bottom line - there was no shape, speed, or condition that the 162 ourperformed the 172 on this day last weekend. I kept "wanting" to like the 162 - giving it plenty of chances.

It should be noted that this is *exactly* how I felt about the sx-11's when I tried them last year (170 vs 180). I bought the 180.

I hope this provides some insight.
post #2 of 25
Thanks. This matches my experiences in my search for a new ski so far; the recomended ski just cannot deliver the same force as a longer ski when pushed hard at higher speeds.
post #3 of 25
If you thought the M11 was unstable at high speeds then why not go with the B5 in a 162? Although the B5 is heavier then the M11 and more expensive

I'm almost 5'8" 160-165# but do not have nearly as much experience as you and ski on the M11 in a 162 and enjoy it.

What mountain did you ski them on? Did you ski it in the trees or on bumps?

I think that is where the 162 has an advantage.

Also remember that some Metrons came out from the factory with horrendous base bevels in the tails causing them to wash easier at speeds and make you not trust them holding.

Obviously the 172 would have a longer running area to compensate.

I think the softer tip takes alot of getting used to especially after being on the R11 beta puls as an all around ski.
post #4 of 25
I wonder if this is also true of the B5 Metron also. I found the M11 to be too soft for my taste. the B5 is much beefier and maybe skis better in a shorter length..
post #5 of 25

Skitoolong

Hi SkiTooLong:

You review had me thinking I made a mistake in getting M11 in 162, Until the last paragrarph:

YIKES, you like a sx11 in 180 v 170. I thought the sx11 in 170 was too long, or just too nervous, grabby and twitchy...for me anyway..(6', 215lbs)

soo, hopefully one mans cieling is another man's floor. (8^0)

I tend to favor quick turning , agile skis over gs style bombers, did you demo the Volkl Superspeed??
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
Hi SkiTooLong:

You review had me thinking I made a mistake in getting M11 in 162, Until the last paragrarph:

YIKES, you like a sx11 in 180 v 170. I thought the sx11 in 170 was too long, or just too nervous, grabby and twitchy...for me anyway..(6', 215lbs)

soo, hopefully one mans cieling is another man's floor. (8^0)

I tend to favor quick turning , agile skis over gs style bombers, did you demo the Volkl Superspeed??
I am accused of skiing all skis like a slalom. I am on a 180cm SX11 and trust me I am no Super G or downhiller!
post #7 of 25
180s for the SX11 here too. 5'10" 185. I had a similar experience first time I skied them and it was the tune, fresh knee surgery and funny snow on flat slopes not allowing enough speed to get them working. Gave them another try and have loved them since.

I'm glad that shorter is always better trend is starting to loose steam that was getting tedious.
post #8 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
If you thought the M11 was unstable at high speeds then why not go with the B5 in a 162? Although the B5 is heavier then the M11 and more expensive

Did you ski it in the trees or on bumps?

I think that is where the 162 has an advantage.

Also remember that some Metrons came out from the factory with horrendous base bevels in the tails causing them to wash easier at speeds and make you not trust them holding.

Obviously the 172 would have a longer running area to compensate.

I think the softer tip takes alot of getting used to especially after being on the R11 beta puls as an all around ski.
The B5's aren't an option currently, and I'm not really looking for a ski that heavy or "beefy", but thanks for the suggestion.

There weren't that many bumps, but trees were not an issue. I'm pretty used to my 184 Bandit XX's, so the 172's were easy in trees and the 162's were just not enough ski.

I did check the tunes and they were similar. I really tried to like the 162's better - no kidding. So far the only skis that short that I like are the SL11's & the SL9's. Plenty of ski there...

As far as my 180 SX's go, well they are pretty doggone easy to turn. What I can't get over with those is once bent properly, there seems to be no limit to the amount of force you can feed them & they just won't budge.

I just giggle all the way down the hill some runs...
post #9 of 25
To each his own and no doubt having had the opportunity to test both the 162 and the 172 Metron X1 allowed you to validate which ski performed more to your liking. I got the 162 cm.

Skied them 2 days so far and felt they were very stable at higher speeds , but had no basis of comparison to the 172 cm model. My friend is getting the 162 Metron 5 and I hope to ski it for comparison purposes to the X1. It would appear with its construction and power rods it will have a good bit more "kick" coming out of the turn.

Don't know when we will start skiing here in Pa. its like London here , foggy and raining everyday with 50 plus degree temps!
post #10 of 25

Metron B5

I have the metron B5 in 162 cm length. I have 5 days of ski on them and I love them. 5'-7", 160 lbs. My last 2 pair of skis were Atomic racing skis, the 10-26 GS and the 9-16 slalom race.

I find them very stable at GS speed and with very good edge hold. Great for slalom type carving on groomed runs, powder, bumps, everything I could trow at them. They float very nicely but require you to move back on your skis somewaht. They turn so easily that even standing back they will carve nicely.

The new neox bindings also seem a vast improvement over the previous Atomic bindings which would release for no reason.

My only reservation is their weight.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guyf
The new neox bindings also seem a vast improvement over the previous Atomic bindings which would release for no reason.

My only reservation is their weight.
I actually think that the weight might be mostly bindings!
post #12 of 25
I have not used the M11. I did spend 3 days on 162 Metron B5's last week - the "official" size for me. I loved them. Played at the Canyons and DV. A broad range of conditions from shin deep powder to spring-style groomers, a mix of thigh deep "powder" and cascade style mush, some ice, etc. Spent my time on pretty vanilla blues and blacks. I'm 6'1" and probably about 220 these days. The skis were very versatile and had rather decent float due to the massive tips and tails (although I really would have liked my 185 PRs on Thursday morning). My bindings were in the center position and I found the tips to surface surprisingly well in deeper snow - without too much fooling around. Hooked up super well on hard crusted groomers. They did punish me when I was tired/sloppy.

I find it hard to imagine anyone under 190 or 200 pounds wanting or needing the 172's. If the M11's are in any way similar in character, I'd think the same would apply to them. I know I am not the world's best skier, and plenty of folks who are lighter can ski "stronger". That said, 50+ pounds on a 6'1" person translates to a bunch of ski flex (and sinkage). To each their own though...
post #13 of 25
I love long skis too. My 165's don't feel nearly as stable as my 181's (5'10" 165 lbs), and unlike my longer skis, they have a speed limit. Can't wait for my 188 bro's to get here.
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by glint
I love long skis too. My 165's don't feel nearly as stable as my 181's (5'10" 165 lbs), and unlike my longer skis, they have a speed limit. Can't wait for my 188 bro's to get here.
It's not just the length, it's also the ski. Keep that in mind...
post #15 of 25
not only that, but some men still have size inadequacy issues even for things that have NOTHING to do with procreation or its bastard child carnal pleasure.
post #16 of 25

Metron X1 Review

I was able to ski my Metron X1 for three days over the weekend and Monday at Vail, and am very pleased with all aspects of their performance. I'm skiing a 162 cm. and I'm 6 ft 182 lbs.

These skis are great frontside carving skis, are fun in the bumps, and can even be skied in sun baked powder the consistency of whipped marshmello. I am 100% pleased with the ski and their performance. I skied with my buddy who was on a 162 cm Metron 5 and he reports he has never skied such an awesome ski and his skiing improved markedly.

So, I'm bullish on the Metrons and the short sizes the shops are recommending work very well . I was skeptical such a short ski would deliver the performance promised but they do.
post #17 of 25
I skied both the M11 and B5 at 162 and 172 lengths. The B5 was great in the 162 length but it was tough to decide in the M11. At the longer length the M11 was absolutely rock solid at high speed, where the 162 was a little jumpy. But for everything else the 162 had the quickness edge over the 172 that I like in the trees and steeps. I'm 5'9", 165 lbs. with over 30+ yrs of skiing.
post #18 of 25
jake777, thanks for that. How do you compare the b5 and the M11? How was the b5 in the 172 compared to the 162?
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
It's not just the length, it's also the ski. Keep that in mind...
I'm not an idiot. I know its not just the length. To test my theories during the Rossi demo day here I rode the same ski in multiple lengths. My sweet spot is around 180 for size. If its burl, like my stiffy mod x pros, I push harder. If its softer, or more energetic, I ride it in a more playful manner. If it weren't for the trees I doubt I'd have any skis below 175 in length.
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by glint
I'm not an idiot. I know its not just the length. To test my theories during the Rossi demo day here I rode the same ski in multiple lengths. My sweet spot is around 180 for size. If its burl, like my stiffy mod x pros, I push harder. If its softer, or more energetic, I ride it in a more playful manner. If it weren't for the trees I doubt I'd have any skis below 175 in length.
Didn't mean to imply that I thought anything of the sort. I don't have any skis over 170cm, now. For an old guy that rode 205s and 210s for most of his "ski life", that's a pretty drastic change.

The only point I was trying to make is that some skis in a 162 (like the b5) are as stable and great to ski as others in a 180. That's all I was trying to communicate. I'm blown away by the solid performance of the RX8 and b5 in such short lengths.
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Didn't mean to imply that I thought anything of the sort. I don't have any skis over 170cm, now. For an old guy that rode 205s and 210s for most of his "ski life", that's a pretty drastic change.

The only point I was trying to make is that some skis in a 162 (like the b5) are as stable and great to ski as others in a 180. That's all I was trying to communicate. I'm blown away by the solid performance of the RX8 and b5 in such short lengths.
Old guys don't "Ride" their skis they ski 'em!
post #22 of 25
ssh,
According to an Atomic rep that I recently spoke to the M11 is suppose to replace or be closest to last year's R11. Of course the dimensions are wider up and down the ski but the sidecut ratio is similar according to him. Well I have the R11 and I don't think the M11 is all that similar. The R11 is a quicker ski and is very good on the front side while adequate on the back side. The M11 is adequate on the front side and good but not great on the backside. It's a pretty good all mountain ski but I actually like last year's R11 more. The B5 is a completely different ski although the dimensions and radius are virtually the same as the M11. It a heavy board that is really designed to be skied small. I think the so called new style of skiing (which I do not subscribe to) where you simply roll your ankles is suited to this ski. You don't want to be unweighting the inside ski by lifting it with this ski. It's too darn heavy. That said, the 162 length was better for me. Easier to turn and flex than the 172 for me. All in all however I'm not crazy about Atomic's new direction in skis. I really like my R11's and believe Atomic's innovation kept them near the top over the last few years. I would be surprised if they stay there with this new line of all mountain skis.
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Old guys don't "Ride" their skis they ski 'em!


I'm trying, AM, I'm trying! :
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake777
ssh,
According to an Atomic rep that I recently spoke to the M11 is suppose to replace or be closest to last year's R11. Of course the dimensions are wider up and down the ski but the sidecut ratio is similar according to him. Well I have the R11 and I don't think the M11 is all that similar. The R11 is a quicker ski and is very good on the front side while adequate on the back side. The M11 is adequate on the front side and good but not great on the backside. It's a pretty good all mountain ski but I actually like last year's R11 more. The B5 is a completely different ski although the dimensions and radius are virtually the same as the M11. It a heavy board that is really designed to be skied small. I think the so called new style of skiing (which I do not subscribe to) where you simply roll your ankles is suited to this ski. You don't want to be unweighting the inside ski by lifting it with this ski. It's too darn heavy. That said, the 162 length was better for me. Easier to turn and flex than the 172 for me. All in all however I'm not crazy about Atomic's new direction in skis. I really like my R11's and believe Atomic's innovation kept them near the top over the last few years. I would be surprised if they stay there with this new line of all mountain skis.
jake777, we agree. Except that I do subscribe to the "new style" and find it to be far more effective than the old "lift/lighten" approach. So, the real question will be whether or not the masses move towards modern skiing whether or not the top-end Atomic all-mountain skis continue to be among the most popular. I tend to think that they will be...

Thanks for the review; I really appreciate it.
post #25 of 25

M11

I just skied my first day on the M11, 172's. I'm 5' 11" and 200 lbs, so for me the recommnedded length was 172.

What struck me the most after several runs was how much the M11's did ski like the R11's. I skied the R11's for three years. The M11's are different in some ways also but what I liked about them was how you could make slalom turns or just ease off and make GS turns. And then go off into the powder and cut quick turns there.

For me, the feel, of the M11's was very similar to the R11's. Push off that down hill ski, slide your uphill ski slightly forward and you are just cranking out the turns. On the steeps with the shorter lenght than my R11's (180), you can just quickly initiate a slalom type turn.

I was really just blown away at how a ski could do it all. But then again I have been a big Atomic fan for many years.

I talked to many shops and reps before buying and it seemed that all of them agreed that for me, at 54 years old and an ex racer, that the M11's would be just my speed.


Thanks,
Steins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › First post = Metron XI review