or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron Sizing Question

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Based on the reviews I've been reading I've decided to purchase a set of Atomic M10's. Using the Metron calculator, I'm one of those who falls right in between sizes-- 6' 170lb, intermediate-advanced.

Does anyone know if the weight you're supposed to enter in the calculator is your out of the shower weight or skiing weight (i.e. boots, clothes, waterpack)? Factoring that weight would put me squarly on a 171 vs. 164.

I know, I know... I should demo the two sizes, but unfortunately I can't find a single shop in the greater Sacramento area that has them. Nor have I found a resort that can demo them in Tahoe.

Any advice is mucho appreciated!
post #2 of 13
If you are east, go 162, west 171.
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks but why?
post #4 of 13
Originally Posted by twopumpchump
Thanks but why?
The 162 will be a quicker short turn ski, better for the east. The 171 will be a better long turn ski, better for cruising and will give you better floatation in the powder. I would sooner err to the longer ski in the east than the shorter one for the west.
post #5 of 13
I'm guessing he's saying that because tendancy is to ski longer in the west, wide open cruising and busting through crud and float in soft snow. In the east often a little shorter reflecting more time in big bumps and tighter turns on more crowded slopes. Total generalization but not really much else to go on.

I ski that ski in 171 and I'm 185 5'10" and more advanced skier than you. It is a pretty beefy ski and you would probably find more versatility on a 164. The 171 wouldn't be the end of the world either but a little shorter would trade off very little and be more agile for you I'd guess.

Well Phil didn't answer for a bit and then answered it while I was typing. So there you go 2 opposing views to clear it up for you.
post #6 of 13
Always go for the shorter ski. Don't believe anyone who says you need to go longer. You will have more fun and performance from a shorter carving geometery ski than trying to muscle a longer ski all day. I'm a 5'11'' 185lb expert and I use 165 M:EX. If any one says they need longer they aren't bending them, they will be skidding down the hill not carving! As for float (the reason they say they need longer) I skied bottomless powder in the Jackson Hole backcountry and had pleanty of float. The shorter length will give you much more manouverabilty in the tighter shutes or between trees and those tight bumps. As for stability ( the other reason they say go long) I can rail those 165s in GS turns down the groomed or the crud at really high speeds without any stability problems. In short GO SHORT.
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 

How about the B5?

Thanks for the feedback.

Hoards of skiers on this forum seem to think the M:B5 is the best ski on the planet right now. Would it be foolish for me to buy a ski that's made for people 10 times better than myself?

Here's my thinking: I'm planning on skiing a ton more in the next few years and getting instruction to take it to the next level. It's been said that the B5's are unforgiving to bad technique. Wouldn't having that instant feedback from the ski be helpful in improving my form? Also looking for a ski that will be able to accommodate me 5 years from now. Thoughts?

Such a privilege to have this forum.
post #8 of 13
I concider myself a pretty good skier and I got the the XI's. I take a look at value along with performance. The way skis are progressing, I wouldn't expect 3 years from a ski. Get the X's, you will be very happy with them, enjoy.
post #9 of 13
I tend to think the B5 would be more forgiving then the M10 at least in this year's (04-05) version. The greater dampening and tighter radius of the B5 should make the 162 the easy choice on that one. Either ski would give you lots of room to grow into.

But hey our expert from the noted alpine nation of britain should be weighing in soon with the definitive final answer to trump all lesser opinions. Afterall I quite enjoy my 'who knew I skidded my' turns on the M:ex in my choice of a 175.
post #10 of 13
When figuring the weight, I would go with "on the slopes" weight because that is the weight that is going to affect the ski.

If you are willing to spend $$$ right now for B5's, then I don't think that these are going to be the only ski you buy in the next few years. The M:X's will be great for you now and as your advance. Your tastes may change as you advance as a skier. Technology will get better, Metron-like skis will improve. Most everyone on here has multiple skis they'll pull out depending on conditions and how they feel that day. Get the X's, figure your weight fully dressed, unless you're 10 points off the next size up(ie. real real close to it), then size down.
post #11 of 13

Metron X

Get the M10 in the 171.
post #12 of 13
Originally Posted by twopumpchump
Hoards of skiers on this forum seem to think the M:B5 is the best ski on the planet right now. Would it be foolish for me to buy a ski that's made for people 10 times better than myself?
twopumpchump, welcome to EpicSki!

I can tell you that, during the demo days this year, a skier in our group at your level tried the M:11 and the M:10. The M:11 was too much ski for him, and the M:b5 is more ski than the M:11. He very much enjoyed the M:10.

As a result, I think that the M:10 would be a great ski for you, and would take you a long way towards your goals. You'll know as you get to the point that you want more ski, but you will likely keep the M:10 for other conditions even then. It is a very nice ski.

I'll second Phil's recommendations on length: it depends on conditions, terrain, and turn shape preference.
post #13 of 13
Twopump: So any more info on turn shapes/terrain?
with you at 180lbs (i added a few for equipement)
Intermediate and Medium Turns=1246
The Same but Long Turns=1316
For the M:X

Medium is real close to 164. Unless you are dedicated to and only making long turns then don't bother with the metron or get the 171.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews