EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Which Metron for a FRONTside expert? :)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which Metron for a FRONTside expert? :)

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Hey everyone,

Great topics for reading up. However, I have another question for all of you. I love my skis and was brought up as a racing/GS skier (K2 Merlin-VI, 203cm) but they are not what i want anymore... The past few years, I am jumping off to lots of bumps and trees/bowls, but still need speed on the groomers, and then hit the back country. So, I really do ski everything on the mountain (love cruising with the fiance on blues, love fast blues w friends, love steep and deep black and above). But, probably 3/4 of the time, I'm on the frontside and on-piste or just messing in the trees near the runs. But, I want to go short and very ALL-TERRAIN if I want it. Which metron would you recommend -- B5, M:Ex, or M:11???

Yes, I know YMMV but I'd just love to hear some more opinions about someone primarily ON-piste!

We usually head to summit county CO (Keystone, Breck, A-basin Pali and East Wall rock!!!) over Xmas and again late March... I'm 6'1" and 185.

Last problem -- since I'm in Missouri (misery?) there is no chance for me to demo before I go out there.

Thanks a million!!! Reading these forums is driving me nuts to get out there!!!

Regards,
Jason
jlf6c8@mizzou.edu
post #2 of 25
Broken record here: go with the b5 in a 162. Even though it's fat, it carves up a storm on the front side. The new beta 5 seems to keep the entire edge engaged, and allow for a lot of control. The one challenge is that you'll need to use modern technique with them. If you ski by lifting your skis, I think that you'll find yourself tiring faster. Instead, keep them on the snow and use the edge angle to adjust the turn shape.
post #3 of 25

B5

I agree, I ski the B5 here in the east on groomers and ice and it is fantastic. As stable and as much (more?) edge hold than my 9-16 race skis.

Yesterday one run was open for the first time of the year, 2 foot of light, dry powder, excellent in those conditions as well. It's a much better all around ski than the X-Scream I had a few years ago.

Guy
post #4 of 25
After spending my first week on my new B5's, I have to agree with the other two, I have never skied a ski that is as versatile as the B5. Floats well in soft snow, handles wind blown and crud well, loves to carve it up on groomers, holds well on hard snow. there is nothing that this ski can't do. I'm totaly impressed. Atomic broke the mold with this one.

Steve's right though, you do need to know how to work the edges of both skis effectively to get the most out of them. At the same time, they also pivot well on the steeps. Thew hardest thing to do with them is ride a flattish skidding ski at speed, but then why would you want to?

I love the feeling of ripping tight arcs on the groom and being able to ride them into the crud or windblown at the side and not skip a beat, just a simple pressure adjustment. They are a precise ski though, not friendly to sloppy technique. Later, RicB.
post #5 of 25
Your 6'1" and 185 lbs, try the 172 cm before you buy a 162.
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks!!!

You guys rock. Thanks for the excellent info!!
I can't wait to get to the hills

--Jas
post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeroy
Your 6'1" and 185 lbs, try the 172 cm before you buy a 162.
I'm 6' and 180 and love the 162. Try 'em both...
post #8 of 25
I'm really liking the metron 10 in a 171. It's a beefy ski and perfect from groomers. I don't think the metron ex would be the ticket if groomers will be your focus. I skied the meton B5 in 162 and 172 and preferred the 172. I'm 5'10"180 and sometimes I can even keep up to Leeroy.
post #9 of 25
The only point to be made here is that it is no longer true that "length=stability" (or any other function, for that matter). Hence, now, more than ever before, demoing is very important. My personal rule is that I ski every ski as short as I can without giving up what I care about getting from that ski. As with most things in life, you may have different preferences or biases than I do, so may make different choices.

Why not demo on your first trip? It should be easy to find all of these skis in Summit.
post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
I'm really liking the metron 10 in a 171. It's a beefy ski and perfect from groomers. I don't think the metron ex would be the ticket if groomers will be your focus. I skied the meton B5 in 162 and 172 and preferred the 172. I'm 5'10"180 and sometimes I can even keep up to Leeroy.
Not on a stool!..............and I'm 5'9" and a bit over 200lbs. and also like the 172 cm b5.
post #11 of 25
jfurrer: I wouldn't recommend the Metron EX. I own this ski and love it. It's a fabulous crud buster and powder board. Also amazing at speed and on steeps. But, it's less versatile than the B:5 or M:11. For all-round applications, with 75% front-side use, you'd be better off with either of the latter boards, as indicated by members above.

I'm amazed by the volume of solid, sound advice and feedback I've seen on this site. EpicSki seems to attract surprising number of experienced, polite and level-headed skiers. Even the writing is decent.
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
I'm amazed by the volume of solid, sound advice and feedback I've seen on this site. EpicSki seems to attract surprising number of experienced, polite and level-headed skiers. Even the writing is decent.
The secret? Like attracts like.
post #13 of 25
If you're willing to try something other than Atomic then allow me to make one addition to your list.
I've been skiing the SX:11 for the past 2 years which is a phenomenol front side ski and I recently moved from VT to CO. The SX:11 still rocks, but conditions out here demand a more foregiving & wider ski. I now find myself skiing 75% of the time in the back.
Although I've been an Atomic die-hard for several years, I recently tried the K2 Apache Recon on the advice of a friend and couldn't be happier. This ski was tailor-made for Colorado skiing. Excellent in powder, crud & bumps while still very stable on hard snow & at speed. Overall it's a much easier ski to ski (and yes, I am adept at modern ski technique) than the SX:11 and I'm far less fatigued at the end of the day. The only time I long for my Atomic is on the hardest & steepest runs where they can start to chatter a bit at speed, but I've learned to compensate by coming out of my turn a bit earlier.
After demoing for 2 days I bought a pair at 174cm and I'm 160#, 5'10". My SX:11 is 170. Both of those Atomics were recommended to me as well and I'm sure they're awesome skis and I planned to demo them, but after trying the Recons I didn't feel the need to open Pandora's box & look any further.
post #14 of 25
B5 metron would be my choice. Much beefier than the M11 which I found to soft. I liked it better in the crud and Pow too.
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Broken record here: go with the b5 in a 162. Even though it's fat, it carves up a storm on the front side. The new beta 5 seems to keep the entire edge engaged, and allow for a lot of control. The one challenge is that you'll need to use modern technique with them. If you ski by lifting your skis, I think that you'll find yourself tiring faster. Instead, keep them on the snow and use the edge angle to adjust the turn shape.
Yup. Exactly what he said. The Metron B5 rips up a storm on the groomers, hardpack and boilerplate (western style) and is even good in gates. Good as in "excellent, period," not as in "pretty good for an all mountain ski" I'm on a 162 at 5'9", high 150's during ski season. (FWIW, that's the length the Metron "formula" specifies for me) That might also work for you, but you might also want to try a 172. Keep in mind that the "formula," in addition to skill level and body size also takes into account preferred turn shape. Ideally, try the different lengths yourself. If you can't, the "formula" seems to work pretty well.

KLF
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLF
Yup. Exactly what he said. The Metron B5 rips up a storm on the groomers, hardpack and boilerplate (western style) and is even good in gates. Good as in "excellent, period," not as in "pretty good for an all mountain ski" I'm on a 162 at 5'9", high 150's during ski season. (FWIW, that's the length the Metron "formula" specifies for me) That might also work for you, but you might also want to try a 172. Keep in mind that the "formula," in addition to skill level and body size also takes into account preferred turn shape. Ideally, try the different lengths yourself. If you can't, the "formula" seems to work pretty well.

KLF
What is the "formula" and how do you find it.
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keen
What is the "formula" and how do you find it.
I couldn't find it on the Atomic website, but it is in the 2004/2005 atomic brochures which you could pick up at a local atomic dealer.

To determine your size ski under the formula, you look at charts which give you a number for your weight, a number for your level of expertise and a number for your turning radius, and viola, you have number that you then compare to a chart for the metron of your choice and it tells you which size you need. If the number you come up with is in between sizes, you are supposed to pick the shorter length ski.

Sorry I couldn't find a link for the forumla for you. Maybe someone else knows where it can be found online and provide a link here.
post #18 of 25
Try http://www.backcountry.com/store/siz...?sizing_id=149

FWIW - I suspect many people are skiing the B5s on the long side. I'm not going to criticize anyone's choice in ski as it is a very personal choice, In my opinion though, it is worth taking the Metron sizing chart pretty seriously. Especially with the B5, I'd err on the short side. Some folks might feel funny walking around with a 152 cm ski, but that would be a mighty appropriate size in the B5 for many, many people.
post #19 of 25
As has been said here already the M-11 is softer than the B5 and has a slightly different construction. If you "rip" and really load up your turns then I would say go with the B5. If you like to cruise and are an average skier who enjoys groomed blacks and steep blues but nothing to extreme, then go with the M-11. I am a bigger guy (5'9" - 220) but I don't really ski that hard so I went with the M-11. I have 5 full days on mine so far this year and I love them. Get the ski that fits your style before you get the ski that everyone says rips for them.

TY
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty Webb
I am a bigger guy (5'9" - 220) but I don't really ski that hard so I went with the M-11. TY
Ty: Just curious, at your size, what length did you choose in the M:11? There seems to be a lot of debate regarding sizing for these skis.
post #21 of 25
I got the 162. I like the shorter length. I have one day at Copper, Winter Park, Keystone, and Beaver Creek on my M-11's. I also skied one day at a tiny local place here in the midwest. It is a really good all-around ski. I hit some powder, some green, some blue, and some groomed black stuff. I also skied some bumps and really liked the shorter length. It is pretty quick edge to edge. I am happy with mine.

When we added up the numbers on the Atomic size chart, I was in between 162 and 172 so I followed the advice of my shop and went shorter. They were correct. I am pretty solid top to bottom in my frame. I am pretty athletic and have a linebacker body shape (wide shoulders, thin waist (BUT IT IS GROWING OUT) and big thighs) but I still ski pretty soft and that is why I chose the M-11.

Ty
post #22 of 25
I also went with the M11 over th B5 for the same reasons. The B5 was a great hi speed cruiser, but the M11 was more versatile being a bit softer. At 140 lbs, the M11 handled better for me, more variety of turn shapes and easier to handle in the bumps.

For off piste performance, I prefer a ski with a little less side cut. The metrons (b5,m11,m10) all work well but just a little too hooky for my liking in the rough stuff. They are probably the best 1 quiver ski out there, but if you want the best performance, then don't compromise and get 2 skis (1 for the hardpack, 1 for the pow).
post #23 of 25
I've got about 8 days on my M:11 172's now and I just checked off the last question I had two days ago, that being performance in powder. With several new feet in the sierra's I had the opportunity to let 'em hunt in everything from untracked to cut-up soft bumps.

This is the best compomise ski I've ever been on, and I'm having a hard time using the word "compromise".

My skiing buddies are calling me a cheater because the bar got raised some.

170#
5'10"
30+ years on the hill, part time instructor/coach

Good luck!
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong
I've got about 8 days on my M:11 172's
170#
5'10"
30+ years on the hill, part time instructor/coach!
Nice input - thanks! Aren't 172's a bit long for 170 lbs on the M:11's?
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Nice input - thanks! Aren't 172's a bit long for 170 lbs on the M:11's?
Not for the ski I"m looking for. I tried the 162, and found it to be too small for my taste & use. We've got a few guys on the hill skiing the M:11's & B5's and it really comes down to personal preference. I can tell you that more have gone with the recommended sizing than have gone up a notch.
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 › Which Metron for a FRONTside expert? :)