or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron M9

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Got a chance to ski the Atomic Metron M9 (164 cm) again Tuesday night. Conditions were excellent with light snowfall all evening. However, I was coming down with the flu, so my energy level was being zapped.

What a blast. Blows through anything. Excellent edge grip. I think I skied one run the fastest I've ever skied before. I had to stop and catch my breath.

I still think I'd do better on the 171. At 5'11" and 220+ I think I could use the extra edge.
post #2 of 17
Thanks for the review. I'll have a chance to try them out tomorrow. Can't wait.
post #3 of 17
The IX's are a fun ski! A 171 was a blast.
post #4 of 17
Skied these today. Just like everyone said, the edge grip is awesome and very quick edge to edge. Very stable and they don't feel heavy at all. They do want to turn but I find them easy to run straight.

Unfortunately after the second run, while bombing down a blue groomer, my bindings pre-released and sent me tumbling down pretty hard landing on my neck and right leg and I ended up sitting in the bar for about 3 hrs to calm down.
Later it was snowing lightly and I tried them again in chopped up and softer snow and they did really nice. They are very stable in these condition compare to my Mod 7/8.

I probably didn't ski them as hard after the fall because the right knee didn't feel too good. It was such a bummer because I was about to have a blast on them. Plus the condition is perfect too.

I will contact Marker to see if they are still doing replacement for the Speedpoint. :
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 

Skied the M9 again

Got to ski the 164 M9 again last night. Perfect conditions. 6-8" of new snow. Trails were pretty cut up. Lots of fresh snow in spots. Awesome ski! Great edge. Excellent float. If it doesn't go over it, it pushes it aside. I had a blast.

Can't wait until Thursday night!
post #6 of 17
Atomic918,

How does the M9 compare to the M10 in bumps?
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ777
Atomic918,

How does the M9 compare to the M10 in bumps?
I skied the M9 Sunday, will ski the M10 tomorrow. I found the M9 a bit irritating in that it has its own turn in mind and resists deviating from that programmed arc. That usually is called "solid", but they weren't particularly solid at speed.

I think they take a few more runs than I gave them to get used to. I'll drone on longer after tomorrow's ski.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ777
Atomic918,

How does the M9 compare to the M10 in bumps?
I've only had access to the M9. Would love to try the M10. And the M11 for that matter.

Tried the B5 (162). Great ski but too much for me.
post #9 of 17
Which would make a better one-ski quiver for the east -- M9 or RX8? I've demoed both and loved them both. I'm a terminal level seven, and I want some confidence-building help in crud and loose snow, but I don't want to give up edge hold. I've found a pair of 150 M9's on the web for a great price. I'm 5'5", 140 lb. 150 cm is just under my nose, and shorter than the Atomic chart prescribes. Too short? Thanks.
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by evansilver
Which would make a better one-ski quiver for the east -- M9 or RX8? I've demoed both and loved them both. I'm a terminal level seven, and I want some confidence-building help in crud and loose snow, but I don't want to give up edge hold. I've found a pair of 150 M9's on the web for a great price. I'm 5'5", 140 lb. 150 cm is just under my nose, and shorter than the Atomic chart prescribes. Too short? Thanks.
As an east/west "one ski quiver"? If so, I would say the Atomic. If you are just skiing the Poconos, the Fischer might be a bit better. You know what I would suggest as a final judgement.
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by evansilver
Which would make a better one-ski quiver for the east -- M9 or RX8? I've demoed both and loved them both. I'm a terminal level seven, and I want some confidence-building help in crud and loose snow, but I don't want to give up edge hold. I've found a pair of 150 M9's on the web for a great price. I'm 5'5", 140 lb. 150 cm is just under my nose, and shorter than the Atomic chart prescribes. Too short? Thanks.
That's a tough question since I've never skied the RX8. But I've heard only good things about it. Talk to SSH (Steve). In fact, I was talking to a guy who's skiing the RX8 now and he said he might buy new ones next year. I told him to keep me in mind if he wants to sell his old ones.

I skied the M9 (164) again last night. There was just a light covering of new snow over hardpack (typical WNY conditions).

This ski rocks! Great edge hold. I was setting them on edge and riding the arc. The forward acceleration on edge is amazing! I'm skiing faster and more aggressively now than ever before (I'm 48).

My only advice to you would be to go long. I really, REALLY would like to try the 171s. If I was going to buy, that's what I would get for me. 5'11", 220.
post #12 of 17
Zack and I are trying the M9's at Sunapee on Sunday. We'll let you know what we think. I've cleared my mastercard balance because I have this feeling we're both going to want them afterwards.
post #13 of 17
I just picked up a pair of M9's at Backcountry.com for $227! Limited sizes.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by evansilver
I just picked up a pair of M9's at Backcountry.com for $227! Limited sizes.
You got em!!!! Awesome, we will get them mounted up as soon as you get them.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by evansilver
I've found a pair of 150 M9's on the web for a great price. I'm 5'5", 140 lb. 150 cm is just under my nose, and shorter than the Atomic chart prescribes. Too short? Thanks.
I think you'd want 157 at a minimum based on the metron chart. The store we went to thought my son who is somewhat lighter than you needed 157 or even the 164. I'll let you know how he does.

Ebay is full of new m9's for $330-ish + bindings. Backcountry did have a pair of 150's but adding bindings its only about $100 less than the stores that need to get rid of them now.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by evansilver
Which would make a better one-ski quiver for the east -- M9 or RX8? I've demoed both and loved them both. I'm a terminal level seven, and I want some confidence-building help in crud and loose snow, but I don't want to give up edge hold. I've found a pair of 150 M9's on the web for a great price. I'm 5'5", 140 lb. 150 cm is just under my nose, and shorter than the Atomic chart prescribes. Too short? Thanks.
You wouldn't have gone wrong with either, but now that you've got the M:9, enjoy them! Make sure that you let us know what you think once you've been on them.
post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
I skied the M9 Sunday, will ski the M10 tomorrow. I found the M9 a bit irritating in that it has its own turn in mind and resists deviating from that programmed arc. That usually is called "solid", but they weren't particularly solid at speed.

I think they take a few more runs than I gave them to get used to. I'll drone on longer after tomorrow's ski.
Well, I found the M10 better than the M9 in every way. More stable, easier to turn, more versatile, better grip. I skied them along with my SL9's and found they are the ski I was looking for when I bought the SL9 in a 170. The SL9 has more grip and rebound but they are a bit spooky for an all mountain ski...a friend of mine suffered a nasty groin pull skiing powder on SL's when one ski hooked up beneath the powder and split him in half.

The M10 turns like a SL ski but it doesn't hook and doesn't wheelie if you get in the back seat. It leveled the spring mashed potatoes like the heaps of junk weren't even there. They have that a bit of that nasty feeling all wide skis have on ice due to the leverage against your boot but the grip is there and I found no speed limit. These things were the best all round ski I ever used by a huge margin. I'd look at the stiffer skis if I wasn't here in Oregon but I'd have to be exiled to New Hampshire to give up these.

Oh yes- bumps. I hate bumps but the M10 did a good job of being turny enough to snake through them but not jetting out if you sat back.

I don't know what was wrong with the M9 but the friend I swapped with didn't like them much either and much preferred the R8's I was on that day. They may have had way too much heel concavity because the tails were always lagging and trying to fight the turn. I don't push my heels around and these felt like the turn wouldn't finish without a bit of it.

She also tried a dynastar intuitive 74 and felt they skied like a beginner ski compared to either of them.

Stats: Both skis 171, me 6' 180 ex racer. Friend who demoed the M9 female 5' 9" 140lb ski patrol.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews