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.