EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Have you skied Metron B:5's, 172 cm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have you skied Metron B:5's, 172 cm?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I demo'd the Atomic Metron B:5 in 172 cm and loved them (162 cm is unavailable to demo anywhere near my location). I therefore ordered the 172's.

However, many well-intentioned Bears have cautioned me to go with the 162's, saying 172's are only for skiing NFL line-backers.

I'm 200 lbs, 6'1'', level 9 and ski medium arcs.

Has anyone skied the 172's? If so, what are your conclusions?

And, how big are you? Thanks for your input!
post #2 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
I demo'd the Atomic Metron B:5 in 172 cm and loved them (162 cm is unavailable to demo anywhere near my location). I therefore ordered the 172's.

However, many well-intentioned Bears have cautioned me to go with the 162's, saying 172's are only for skiing NFL line-backers.

I'm 200 lbs, 6'1'', level 9 and ski medium arcs.

Has anyone skied the 172's? If so, what are your conclusions?

And, how big are you? Thanks for your input!
After skiing the 162 XI's, no question the 172 is a better choice for my size and you have 2" more leverage on me. I think you will be fine.
post #3 of 26
Hasn´t there been another similar thread? I´m sure I answered such a question not long ago.
(My impresions were positive, though I only had one ride on hardpack. I would not demonize the 172 cm.)
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
Checkracer and Phil: Thanks for feedback. I don't know if this question is on another thread.

Just one question: how big are you boys?

Now that I've plunked down the $ 1K, I find myself more concerned about the "sizing" issue than I was prior to handing over the plastic.
post #5 of 26
For comparison I'm an aggressive 5'11'' 165lb skier. Level 8/9ish. I ski the 162 and really like the tight turn radius of the ski. I don't have any problem bending the ski. I think the metron index causes confusion. In theory I should have dropped down to the 152 based on that chart because I was between the two sizes, but I went for the 162 because I demoed it and it skied perfectly.
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Checkracer and Phil: Thanks for feedback. I don't know if this question is on another thread.

Just one question: how big are you boys?
5'11" 200 lbs.
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Checkracer and Phil: Thanks for feedback. I don't know if this question is on another thread.
Just one question: how big are you boys?
I´ll give it to you in centimeters and kilograms and you tell me precisely in inches/pounds, okay? I need it anyway for future discussions.

185 cm (like the GS ski) and 85 kg = 190 lbs, an older ex-racer with still some ridiculous FIS points
post #8 of 26
Doesn't Atomic advertise a guarantee that you will love them or you can exchange them? You might ask the shop you are buying them from if they will do that deal.

Greg
post #9 of 26
6.0 and 200 lbs here, and I would buy the 172 cm. I tried both sizes and liked the longer one better. I am also an ex-racer and I used to teach full time at Sugarloaf ME.
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
Hi Greg: You're right about the guarantee. However, no shops seem to have the B:5's in stock (I've tried every store in WA and on the internet).

Amazingly, I found a dealer in Canada with the 2006's in stock. I bought from this guy last year and he's trustworthy, so I pulled the trigger. However, I'm not sure the Atomic guarantee extends accross borders, or to the 2006 models (they obviously had no trouble selling the '05's).

The $899 price he charged me, with the '06 Neox bindings, is roughly the same as '05' B:5's sell for on ebay, when they're available, which isn't often.

The icing is that the Canada dealer has offered to exchange the 172's for 162's if I desire, obviously before I mount them (very cool).

However, based upon the feedback you folks have provided, I'm wondering if I should just hang onto the 172's, which I demo'd with delight.
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by gehoff
Doesn't Atomic advertise a guarantee that you will love them or you can exchange them? You might ask the shop you are buying them from if they will do that deal.

Greg
That expires 2/28 and you have to ski it 3 days.
post #12 of 26
I own the X1 162 have skied my freind's B5 162 several times. To do over again I would get the 172 in the X1. These skis turn so easily I would believe the 172 B5 won't be a problem Your physical stats contribute to being able to ski the bigger of the two sizes. I was thinking the other day, I had a pair of the Elan SCX with the plate years ago and they were 183 cm and they looked really short at the time. They were extremely manuverable . Their tip and tail dimensions were very similar to teh Metron but much narrower in the waist.

You're skiing on big mountains and can cut bigger arcs. I'm skiing here in Pa. on runs that are less than 30 seconds. That probably was the basis for going short at 162 cm.

I don't think you'll have any issues with the 172 cm. I also believe ski length is really affected by what you become conditioned to. Its harder going up in size after skiing on short skis. I took out my 174 cm XP's earlier this year and hadn't skied on them and the first time down the hill the ski that always seemed short was suddenly long.
post #13 of 26

Metron B5

Say Capitan!! I won't spend a lot of time as there is so much on another thread about Metron B5 by SSH. I also was on this thread a month ago asking the same question and I did purchase the 172 against the consensus that at 6"1 and 210 plus pounds in gear that the 162 would be a better fit.

I am sure I would have had great fun with a 162, but I bought this ski for out West which I go every month. I just got back from Colorado last Friday and I can tell you I am glad I have the 172!!! I had a fantastic week of conditions, the first day about 9 inch of high moisture content snow, not cement. This Ski really shined in not getting pushed around, I think the 162 would have sacrificed some speed. I had a day of 11inchs of pure fluff and again this ski had great float and extremely easy to turn. Note the other thread there were many reports of the front getting squirrelly and as I suspected those people don't keep pressure on the front of the ski. This SKI will not tolerate you in the back seat!! I think this may be some of the concerns for people wanting to ski it shorter because it does require forward pressure all the time.

I found this ski quite comfortable in bumps, great float in powder an a great ripper on dust on crust.
post #14 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all for your feedback! I appreciate it immensely!

Based on the input of this distinguished audience, I'm feeling to keep the 172's.

Qualified feedback like this is an outstanding benefit of belonging to this forum. Where else can one receive this variety and quality of input within a few hours? Invaluable!

You're all good compadres! You've put my mind to ease!
post #15 of 26

162cm vs 172cm

I own a pair of 162 B5's and for fun, last Sunday, demoed a pair of 172's. For reference, I am 6'0", 170 lbs, level 9. The 172's felt very similar to the 162's but as expected, it took more effort (not a lot) to crank out similar slalom like turns. At higher speeds and through broken crud the 172's felt slightly more stable due more to the slight extra length than to the construction. At the end of the day and for my weight I felt that the 162's were a little more versatile at the expense of some slight stability. Both lengths worked well. There isn't that much difference between them. If I didn't have a choice I would be happy with either.

If I were your weight, I expect that the quicker turning shorter ski would seem slightly less stable than it does for me and become a bit more tiring by the end of the day. This would tip my preference to the 172's.
post #16 of 26
172cm for me. 6'3" (189cm) and 240lbs (110kg).
post #17 of 26
I demoed the 162 first, and it was fun on soft pack. I was impressed with how agile and easy it was to turn. Then I changed to the 172 and they kicked the fun up a notch. They felt much more stable and wanted to go faster, so, what the heck, so did I. I think I would sacrifice some agility and pick the 172s.
5'9", 175 lb.
post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 
Whoa! Now I'm really feeling confident I made the right choice!

The little darlings arrived today. The 2006's look way cool! Now, all we need is a bit of snow in the PNW (looks like it'll be in November).
post #19 of 26
I own the 172 B5's. I'm 5'10"; 190#


The skiis are fabulous! They continue to amaze me with what they can do.` I also can't believe how much my skiing level has improved with them.

I skied them on Sunday at Stratton. Not only were there no crowds, there basically were no people. With nobody on the trails,I skied the wide, straight fall line trails. I did huge, high speed GGGGS turns all day. What an incredible feeling on those skii"s. I just rolled my ankles, got high up on the edges, and the skiis just locked me into the most stable, controlled, and confident turns I have ever experienced. I tried these same turns previously on the 162's: they chattered, bounced, and vibrated the heck out of me.
post #20 of 26
How does the B5 compare to the Rossi B2? I normally ski Volkl G3's at 184, but wanted to try an all mountain for the first time (light dusting at The Canyons yesterday). The B2 at 176 was great and now I want to try the Atomics. They're a little wider at the tip and tail than the B2. Are they stiffer or comparable?

Thanks
post #21 of 26
Thread Starter 
Lowphat: The B:5, as you correctly stated, has more shape. As a result, it intiates turns more easily.

The B:5 is also more beefy. The Rossi B2 is a lighter, softer, foam core ski (my wife has them). They're fabulous skis, especially if you're not too heavy.

But, due to the lightness, the B2 tips get knocked around more in crud than the B:5's, and the B:5's will hold better on ice and boilerplate.

Atomic's legendary edge-hold pertains to the B:5, in spite of its width, due to the beta-lobes which run the length of the ski and ensure torsional stability. They have remarkable grip.

Overall, the B:5 is a more radical, innovative design, while the Rossi is simply a great ski. You'd likely love both.

I bought the B:5. IMHO, it's by far the best and most thrilling ski I've ever been on.
post #22 of 26
Captain: Thanks for the comparison. My minds racing now.

The B2's were a great ride, especially since I didn't know what to expect from a mid fat, but they don't seem as sturdy as the Volkl or Salomons I've had. At the end of the day I had a gash and a blown edge on the B2's and I can't really remember even getting close to anything that would have torn them up that bad and not have thrown me. My buddy also mentioned ripping an edge on a pair of B2's he owned 3 years ago. I've had the G3's through worse stuff and they take a beating.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
You're right, Lowphat, the B2's have to be handled with TLC. They're rated extremely high for ease of use and comfort. A wonderful design. The trade-off is that they're not built for heavy use.

I can't verify this, but I've been told that Rossi-sponsered freeskiers receive 5 or 6 pairs of B3's per year (full-fat, but same construction as B2) because their hard-driving style causes rapid break-down of the skis.

I doubt you'll have such issues with the B:5's. They're solid, beefy and powerful.
post #24 of 26
Captain, I'm glad it's just not me that thought the B2 needed a little beef. So many people have them I guess they have money to burn or they haven't found this forum. 8-)

Now to find the B5 and Volkl Pro to demo.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
I demo'd the Atomic Metron B:5 in 172 cm and loved them (162 cm is unavailable to demo anywhere near my location). I therefore ordered the 172's.

However, many well-intentioned Bears have cautioned me to go with the 162's, saying 172's are only for skiing NFL line-backers.

I'm 200 lbs, 6'1'', level 9 and ski medium arcs.

Has anyone skied the 172's? If so, what are your conclusions?

And, how big are you? Thanks for your input!
6'1",193. Skied both the 172s and 162s and while the longer length was OK I liked the 162s better. Agree with others that you should be an NFL linebacker or tight end to ski the 172s.
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
bsimeral: Thanks for the feedback. I didn't try the 162's (no demo's available), so perhaps I made a premature choice.

However, I loved the 172's, and I received enough "go for it" feedback from others coming to the same conclusion, that I made the leap.

Now, all we need is a bit of snow. Looks like I'll have to head for Tahoe to get that. Only a fool would take a maiden run on new skis anywhere in the PNW this year. Rock city!
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 › Have you skied Metron B:5's, 172 cm?