or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron XI

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
Well, yesterday I went to demo some skis and unfortunately I got there a little late; nothing on my short-list was available. I had first asked for Metron 9's, so the guy at the shop brought out some Metron 11's. I was a bit weary at first, because I am at best a mid intermediate. Also, the only length he had available were 172s, and even though I weigh 185 lbs, I was sure they would be hard to handle. Now prior to this, I had been skiing on rental gear all season (and I hadn't skiied for about 6 years until this season). I decided to give em a try anyway and I am glad I did.

The first thing I noticed was their weight, when I picked them up I was wondering if the titanium pulser wasn't actually made of lead. Thankfully, they did not feel heavy at all on the snow, they weren't even that bad skating in flat areas. They seemed very smooth and cut through irregularities in terrain very well. What surprised me the most though was their willingness to skid. From what I had read, I was thinking they would punish me for doing anything but being on edge, but didn't feel like the case at all. If I had no desire to improve I could probably live with these, skidding around forever .

Stability at speed seemed to be excellent to me although coming off 160-170cm beat up rentals, I am sure every decent new ski would. I couldn't make them feel shaky at all before I did. It took me a while to get used to their sheer size, but once I did, I was able to fairly easily carve some large radius turns at medium speeds. Conditions were wet during the day and a little icy at night, and the edge hold was excellent; I really felt like I could trust the edges on icy surfaces.

They felt about 1000x better than the rentals I had used and I would say probably instantly improved my skiing. The main problem I had was an inability to make short radius carved turns, I would end up skidding them (I think this is a problem with me, rather than the ski). I didn't get the impression they were really stiff, but maybe I wasn't going fast enough to get enough bend to carve a tighter arc.

Overall, I liked them a lot, but still want to try something a little better suited to my level. I didn't really feel like they were too much, but maybe that will change as I demo more. I do think I would have been a little happier with the 162 vs the 172 though.
post #2 of 7
If you think those are heavy pick up the B5.

They make very short turns if you use proper technique and can load the ski properly.

It's too bad you couldn't demo the 162s.
post #3 of 7

I can really relate to much of what you posted. I am also a mid intermediate, 6'0" and 195 lbs. At Park City, UT last week I demo'ed the M:9 in a 172 and then yesterday I was able to try first a M:11 in a 162 and then in the afternoon a M:9 in a 164.

The M:11 mainly felt stiffer and for my ability, a bit less forgiving I think. It skiied much the same as the M:9. I think the M:9 initiated turns a bit easier for me. It felt like just a bit more advanced than the M:9. I liked it, but felt I had to watch myself a bit more than the previous week on the M:9.

The M:9 in a 164 in the afternoon felt much better & more comfortable to me. I wanted to be able to tell a difference in the lengths between the 164 & the 172, but I'm not sure I could. The conditions were very similar, but I don't think I was having as good of a day.

Can anyone comment on what difference I should feel between the M:9 164 & 172? I think I liked the 172 better. In the M:9 does longer equate to easier or more difficult? I guess I may need to ski them on the same day back to back. I am not really a bumps skier so I don't think the additional length will hurt me much.

I totally agree with your read that they improved your skiing instantly. I felt the exact same way. It was like my ability instantly increased, I could be a bit more aggressive and it gave me confidence which resulted in it being much more fun! I am definitely buying the M:9 (not sure of the length) and I would recommend that you find a pair to try. I'm betting you'll like them.
post #4 of 7

M:11 -- Skidding???

Chris ... you said that the M:11 was fine for skidding for you? Really? : Jeez, I demoed a pair this past Saturday morning and those suckers stay into the turn like a demented hound dog. I am 175 and 5'11" and level 7-8. In fact they bothered me in their inability (or mine, I guess) to come off rail. After a couple of runs I switched to Salomon 10 SCs to get my head back on straight. And previously I have not had that feeling from the b5, either. Wicked fast suckers the M:11, though and IMHO not very tolerant of bad form.

Which makes me wonder ... how about some input from the local tuning gurus ... obviously the set up from the demo center matters more than a lot, but to the extent that a mid-intermediate skids with abandon and a higher level is disturbed by the railing and slowness, edge-to-edge?: A degree or two in the edge set-up? Position of binding (forward/center)? Making a more demanding ski "available" to intermediates -- and so selling a more expensive ski? Too cynical ... its just different strokes for different folks?
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
Yeah they seemed pretty easy for me to skid for me. Before starting to work on new technique though I should tell you I was / am a very strong tail steerer and it is my worst habit, if I'm not mindful I always wash out the tails on short turns. I was secretly hoping they would punish me badly for skidding.

It could have been the tune though, the base seemed very good and the edge didn't have any noticeable burrs or roughness when I ran my fingers down it, but it doesn't mean they werent sharp enough or didnt change the side bevel intentionally or by accident or something. The guy who brought them out to me called them "Metron 2" and seemed really dazed . Also the snow was mostly manmade and slightly wet so that may have helped.
post #6 of 7
Hmmm. Reading your first post again ... 185 on the 172. The sizing guides for Atomics would likely have put you on the 162. The 172 is a whole lotta ski in that line. I think that you'd be happier on the 162. Or much happier on the M:9 or M:10 at 164?

Just for giggles, try and see if you can try out the Salomon Equipe 10 SC in a 160 or 165. Or Streetracer 9. This is just a personal impression, but given how you describe how you enjoy skiing, you might just fall in love with the Salomons -- and you won't find much out about them on these boards.
post #7 of 7
Thread Starter 
I agree that 172 was a lot of ski, I would have much rather tried the 162 but that is all they had when I got there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion