or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Metron X1 and Metron B5 Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron X1 and Metron B5 Comparison - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Thread Starter 
That's what I thought and to do over again I would probably get the 172 cm. More edge on the snow= better grip. Unfortunately my weekend skiing at 7 Springs offers up more slick than fluff typically. The SL 11 has become a must have ski for skiing hard pack and ice. Its almost like cheating. I've never skied anything I can remember that holds an edge better than this ski. The Metron 11 is a really fun ski that skis great, in my opinion its forte is not ice however.
post #32 of 38
Roundturns: I suspect the B:5 in 162 would provide the performance you seek in ice conditions, without the need for a longer ski. The B:5 Beta lobes provide a measure of torsional strength that cannot be replicated by the the puls bars on the M:11's.

There's a reason why the B:5's cost more, and this is it. As a result, you'd likely find the B:5's much better on ice than the M:11's.

Still, even the B:5's won't match the ice-skate performance of the SL 11's.
post #33 of 38
Thread Starter 
You're right , the titanium puls bars are no where near the equivalent of the rods in the B5. I wanted the 5 but I get my ski equipment through a retail barter group and the ski shop didn't want to barter the 5's.

Boiler plate is the only shortcoming of the Metron 11 I have found. Unfortunately, my local hill is pretty slick most of the time. The SL 11 is the tool for the slick. Very confidence inspiring on ice.
post #34 of 38
I'm searching the forums for opinions of the B5/M11 vs. the MEX in powder/cut up pow. I just demoed the MEX at Tahoe yesterday and fell in love. Skiied just like my R11s, only more stable in the cut up powder/crud. I am wondering how an 11 meter radius ski will do in those conditions. I felt like the MEX were bordering on too turny. BTW - For those of you that weren't there, at Alpine Meadows at least, the term powder is being used a bit loosly. It was not very light.
post #35 of 38
Gehoff: If you found the M:EX's almost too turny, you may find the B:5's very turny. I own the M:EX's (175 cm) and am about to buy the B:5's.

I found the B:5's very good in 6 to 8 inches of powder. They danced nicely. However, they won't rip in the deep steep stuff like the M:EX's. I wouldn't trade the M:EX's for anything. For a wide ski, they're amazingly versatile. I can ski them anywhere.

But, the B:5's will put a bit more salsa in your tango on non-powder days. They can snap turns more quickly and are ultra-smooth. The B:5's are efforless to ski if you have solid technique. In cut-up crud the B:5's are also very good, but not quite in the class of the M:EX.

Personally, I've concluded I can't live without both. Atomic seems to be on a roll.
post #36 of 38
I just found a place with 2006 Metron B:5's. I ordered the 172's for $899. Even the price is decent.

If anyone else is interested, just PM me. He's only got a few pair in each size.
post #37 of 38
I have been skiing the B5 all season, a great all mountain ski. As I have mentioned before the 162 is more than enough for me. I like short to medium turns but can crank long radius turns with these. They are like a quick Sherman Tank. They respond best to more modern technique but can be skidded if necessary. I have just demoed the M 11 and liked them very much, they were lighter and a little quicker because of the weight. They weren't bad in the edge grip department but lacked the stability of the B5 so I would ski them in the 172
post #38 of 38
I just received my 2006 B:5's. They are definitely lighter than the '05's. Other's say they're 1 lb per binding lighter, and that feels about right.

Still beefy boys, but with a little more snap and crackle!
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 › Metron X1 and Metron B5 Comparison