or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic M10, the right size?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic M10, the right size?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Quickly, I'm an intermediate skiier, mostly blue and blacks, occasionally will try a double black and venture off trail about 20% of the day. I've read a lot on skiis for 2005, and a lot of messages in this forum. So thank you to all of you out there for your comments. I know very little about skiing and ski equipment, so its all been very helpful.

I've always rented, but this year I'm sick of renting. So, I've decided to buy a pair of Atomic M10's. I am 5'7" and around 170 (ya a little too much TV and not enought activity this winter!) I only get to ski a few times a year, and typically it's either the Tahoe area or Mammoth, CA.

Here's the tricky part. I've been skiing for about 6 years, and the first couple years I rented whatever the ski shop guys told me too. Then, just for fun, a couple years ago at Heavenly, I rented something (think it was a 2002 Atomic Beta Ride? It was orange with orange see through tips) in a size 162 or 164? It was great, I felt much more comfortable on that size, rather than the 170ish skis I had rented in the past. So, the next year I went even smaller, 160, then last year in Mammoth I rented I think it was an R-11 in a 158. I know, sounds crazy, but I loved it. Was able to ski just about anything I came across, even went into the trees and did a few drop-offs. I really didn't notice a big change in speed performance or edge hold with the smaller ski when on the groomed, it just felt easier?

Any ways, thats why I ski shorter skis. Now I am actually buying and the M10 comes in a 157, 164 and I think 171. The ski shop guy says, 171, but I know from experience, for whatever reason, I am just not comfortable on anything bigger than 164. However after my experience on really short skis (158) last year, I'm considering buying the 157's.

If you put aside the "macho" factor, what am I really losing by going with a super short ski? Anyone? Am I crazy?
post #2 of 10
The m10's are meant to be skied shorter than most skis due to their materials and geometry. Given your size and comfort level with shorter skis, I would not go above 164 and might even suggest you demo the 157 to be sure.
Perhaps your ski salesman is trying to move his 171's.
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the reassurance. I always feel a little uneasy when I tell the ski "tech" or salesperson how short of a ski I want. Since this is the first pair I am actually buying, I am a little more nervous about the whole thing. And you're right, I should demo them, but I can never seem to find the ski I want to demo in the size I want, so getting a little frustrated with the whole thing, so may just roll the dice and buy them. And you know, funny thing, they have like 10 pairs of 157s but only one pair of 171's? Think most people buy the 164s. Any ways, thanks again
post #4 of 10
I'm pretty much the same height/weight as you are and just bought the M:9 in 164. I wanted to demo but couldn't find any resort in Tahoe that have these Metron. I found a good deal on the M:9 and jumped on them (still waiting for them to arrive )

According to the Metron chart, you are in the 164 range, if you like short skis, you may even try the 157.
post #5 of 10
I ski at at pretty much the same level as you but as an Eastern skier I don't have as much opportunity to ski off piste. I'm 53 Years old 5'7" 150 lbs - I recently purchased 157 cm M10. I had the opportunity to takeout the 157 and 164 the same day - found the 164 as expected somewhat more stable, particularly in cut up snow, and a little more forgiving if I fell into the back seat a bit -but the 157 is livelier, quicker, requires a lot less effort - it still a lot of ski - I haven't come near its limit and probably never will - My skiing has improved substantially on the M10's -great ski whichever size you go with.
BY the way - my shop tells me that for each step down in size on the metrons stiffness drops about 5%
post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks, to you both. I feel better about the purchase now. I'm no ski expert, just know what I feel confident on, but when you tell a Ski "expert" you want a 160 or 157, they give you that look. So I was uncertain, but feel better about it now that I see that I'm not the only one. So thanks again, i really do appreciate it. Just an FYI I was going to purchase them on line, but printed some of the website quotes and took them to my local ski shop, and to my amazement, they are willing to match it. So I'm buying mine with the Neox bindings, plus tax (fricken Los Angeles @ 8.25%) for $550, then they want $20 to put it all together, but all in all seems like a reasonable price.
post #7 of 10
Great price - a lot less then they cost me - but local shop is real good to me - never charges for a demo - gett rippin' and let us know how it goes.
post #8 of 10
$570 mounted and all--Great deal for M10's plus you,ve got dealer backup.
Now just get on the mountain as soon as possible and go go go. Congrats!, you're now one of the growing Metron hordes.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks to everyone for their input, really appreciate it. Going to Mammoth on Thurs, and its been raining here in LA like crazy, so the snow should be epic. Can't wait to try out my new M10's. I'll definitely report back next week.
post #10 of 10
Thread Starter 
Ok, heres the update. Got home from Mammoth yesterday, the weather was incredible, not a cloud in the ski and the snow was great, a little icey at the bottom and at the end of each day, but plenty of snow and some powder up top and in between the groomed runs. Remember I'm an occassional skier, so nothing serious, I stayed mostly on the groomed runs, but did hit a little (a foot or two) powder, here and there.

The M10s were great, and the 157 was not too short for me. They were quick and had plenty of power. I will say this, at high speed they were a little squirley, but at only 157, I was expecting that. Also in the bumps or cut up stuff they were not as stable as I had hoped, but that could also be due to my complete lack of fitness at the moment, however they are a little heavier than most skis so that helped, but think the 164s would have done a better job in those areas. On the other hand, I don't believe at my level of skiing I would have been able to manuever the 164's as quickly and effortlessly as I did the 157s. They carve effortlessly, just a slight roll of the ankles and your carving back and forth, very easy. Bottom line, great ski, as far as the size goes, I'm not sure, think the jury is still out on that. The 157s were great for the most part, but I would be curious to try the 164s. Think they might perform a little better at larger arc turns at speed. The 157s worked, but I felt them slipping at high speeds/big turns. For quick or short turns (which is how I ski most of the time) I don't know that I've used a better ski.
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 › Atomic M10, the right size?