or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Metron M:9

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
If anyone could help me out, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've been reading reviews and whatnot on this forum for the past couple of weeks and have been impressed by the vast resevoir of knowledge I'm about to tap into. My issue is this:

I'm a midwesterner considering making the move out West next year...to reside permanantly. I'm 26, 5'11, 195 lbs and am a level 7/8 skiier. I've only been at the sport for approx. 5 years, but have always been athletic and have picked it up rather quickly. I currently ski Atomic C:9 (pre-pulsers) at 180 cm, but find that lenght to be slightly too long for me. I'm ready to venture into powder skiing and would like to add a ski to my quiver for this purpose. However, I'd like a ski that can perform in varied conditions, from occasional powder, to bumps and crud. I've been eyeing the Metron line and have been doing my research on this forum and others. I think I've decided on the M:9, but am having a hard time deciding on a length. I'm leaning towards the 164, but am afraid that my abilities will outgrow a ski that length. Unfortunately, skiing in Indiana isn't one of our more popular pasttimes, so demo shops are few and far between. In fact, of the two ski hills in the state, not a one carries Atomic products. Thus, I'll likely have to buy 'em first before I get a chance to try 'em. I'd also like to be able to take advantage of the off-season prices! Again, I appreciate any help you guys can offer.

Forrester
post #2 of 23
For your size, I would say the 171.
post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
Thanks for your response, Phil. I'm hoping to get out to Heavenly for one more long weekend this season. Perhaps I'll have the opportunity to demo these bad boys in the different lengths before I make the commitment.
post #4 of 23
the m 9 is way to soft for your weight, go for m 10 even better m 11 in 164/162.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudcrusher
the m 9 is way to soft for your weight, go for m 10 even better m 11 in 164/162.
I don't agree with the softness remark, but go with the 171. I'm 5'11", 220 and the 164 skis great but I would buy the 171 for sure.
post #6 of 23
Agree with crudcrusher. I demoed M:9 at Squaw two weeks ago - in 171 cm length. I'm 5'9" / 175 lbs - probably level 7/8 skier. Disliked the ski. Maybe this was too long for someone my size on a Metron. But it wasn't so much that it was too long or hard to maneuever; it was just a "blah" feeling, floppy and unresponsive, hard to build up speed no matter how I pushed it. Was fine for an afternoon - better than your average rental - but no way would I commit to it. Definitely try before you buy - and also see what else is out there. Many deals to be had these days.
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
Agree with crudcrusher. I demoed M:9 at Squaw two weeks ago - in 171 cm length. I'm 5'9" / 175 lbs - probably level 7/8 skier. Disliked the ski. Maybe this was too long for someone my size on a Metron. But it wasn't so much that it was too long or hard to maneuever; it was just a "blah" feeling, floppy and unresponsive, hard to build up speed no matter how I pushed it. Was fine for an afternoon - better than your average rental - but no way would I commit to it. Definitely try before you buy - and also see what else is out there. Many deals to be had these days.
Could it be that you set out NOT to like it? I haven't a clue what you mean about not building up speed. These skis FLY. Or, maybe you were already doing 50.

Your comment about it being better than the average rental is unwarranted.
post #8 of 23

Uncle!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
Could it be that you set out NOT to like it? I haven't a clue what you mean about not building up speed. These skis FLY. Or, maybe you were already doing 50.

Your comment about it being better than the average rental is unwarranted.

That's it. I give up! If you like them, good. If not, to each his own.

Rental ski my butt!
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
Could it be that you set out NOT to like it? I haven't a clue what you mean about not building up speed. These skis FLY. Or, maybe you were already doing 50.

Your comment about it being better than the average rental is unwarranted.
Actually I was happy to have a chance to try these, having read so much about Metrons this year. Granted I psyched myself out a bit when the only choice was 171 - everything I read said ski these short, and I would've picked a shorter length given my height and weight - but that's all they had at the time.

About not building up speed - they did go fast - fast enough to lose the friend I was skiing with on each run - but I honestly didn't feel a sense of acceleration. Could be a number of factors at work. First, the terrain / conditions. Much bigger, more open terrain than I'm used to back east. Driving 70 feels different on the freeway, than it does on a narrow winding gravel driveway, right? Plus, the runs took longer than 20 seconds. Second, maybe related issue - it was much softer, slower-feeling snow than I'm used to. Third, I spent the next few hours skiing what felt to me like a much "snappier" ski - Salomon Equipe 10SC - on harder and shorter slopes (night skiing at Boreal). Maybe the Sallie was tuned better, I dunno, but it had more of a "turbo kicking in" feel than the M:9. Finally, maybe I just had the wrong size.

"Better than the average rental" was not meant to knock the Metron. I see how it could be read that way - but all I meant was I was happy to have skied the Metron, considering my alternatives.

Did not mean to sully the honor of the Metron or its loyal fans, OK?
post #10 of 23
Beware the tune...!

The M:9 is a great all-around ski, and high-level skiers (like Flexon Phil) really enjoyed it in the longer length. However, if you really push skis, you may find the M:10, 11, or b5 more to your liking. I know that I liked them more the farther "up" the line I went...
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
That's it. I give up!
Um, now you're arguing with yourself. I'm feeling left out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
If you like them, good. If not, to each his own.
I agree. My only point in posting in this thread is the o.p. ought to try before he buys. I thought I'd love them, but I didn't. Some people do - good for them. They ought to check out REI, by the way, which has a pretty good price (but limited size) on M:9 as we speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
Rental ski my butt!
Sounds like that could hurt!
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
But it wasn't so much that it was too long or hard to maneuever; it was just a "blah" feeling, floppy and unresponsive, hard to build up speed no matter how I pushed it.
How do you tend to cause skis to turn? This is a very curious response from my perspective... This is the last thing I would expect to be written about a Metron (hence my warning about the tune). I don't think that these were representative of how Metrons tend to ski...
post #13 of 23
ssh - I don't know how to describe how I "tend to cause skis to turn". I took up skiing 4 years ago after many years cycling and skating. Certainly I do not have the experience that many of the instructors and athletes posting on this board have.

That said, I think what I'm doing is carving. Instructors tend to suggest I narrow up my stance -- I'm more of a "two -footed" skier who never skied straight skis, just shaped.

For what it's worth my day to day ski now this season is a slalom ski (Rossi T-Power 9S, replacing a Volkl P50 SL). And it's not that I only like short skis. The slaloms are in 160 range; but I also have really enjoyed skiing Fischer Big Stix 7.6 in 175 cm length. (OK I know once those were considered short - but they're longer than the M:9's.)
post #14 of 23
I hope you don't mind the questions, ts01, I'm just trying to understand how your experience would differ so greatly from others here whose skiing I have seen. For what do you require that "strength" to cause the skis to turn?

I find that the Metrons respond very well to a "two-footed" skiing style of "tip and rip". They will do other things, too, but they really get up on edge and carve very well. Also, I have noticed that at least with my b5s, they prefer a more outside ski dominant technique than some other modern skis (like my RX8s).

All of that said, I'd be willing to wager that the M:9s you were on were not properly tuned. They may have either been worn or they were mis-tuned (Metrons are factory tuned to a 1/3 bevel, which is not common in rental/demo shops).
post #15 of 23
ssh - no I appreciate the feedback. I think I edited out the "more strength than skill" description -- maybe more enthusiasm than skill, I never had formal coaching or much instruction. The "strength" part of my turns would be in 2 areas I guess - outside dominance (applying force to downhill/outside ski); and to a lesser degree in core areas, pushing forward to keep upright and on top of things when it feels like I'm being pushed into back seat.

That said I am more than happy to accept the improper tune diagnosis - or wrong length - or operator error.

This is getting way off track and may not be helpful to the original poster. But I want to throw out two additional points.

First - feeling a little defensive so I just doublechecked the M:9 on www.ts2003.com and noticed two things. First, here's Peter Keelty's take on the M:9: "Odd "niche-less" placement; a ski that responds best to well-honed carving skills, but that does not deliver commensurate performance." He describes the M:10 as "the best buy for level 7 and 8 skiers".

Second, the ski I demoed had a different top sheet than pictured on www.ts2003.com. It was solid blue, without the big white part in the middle, and it had a Salomon demo binding. It had "Metron" and M:9 printed on the ski, but it could be I'm comparing apples to oranges - and badly tuned, wrong sized apples at that.
post #16 of 23
I'm re-posting one of mine from a previous thread. I really wanted to like the M9, and was thinking about them for my wife:

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.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
ssh -
First - feeling a little defensive so I just doublechecked the M:9 on www.ts2003.com and noticed two things. First, here's Peter Keelty's take on the M:9: "Odd "niche-less" placement; a ski that responds best to well-honed carving skills, but that does not deliver commensurate performance." He describes the M:10 as "the best buy for level 7 and 8 skiers".

.
That says it better than I could.

I
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
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.
All right, those of you that have purchased this ski. How many have been tempted to set the bindings on them as far forward as possible?
post #19 of 23
Thread Starter 
I think I may have a chance to get out to the Tahoe area in a week or two, so I may get the opportunity to demo the M9 and M10. I appreciate everyone's input on this subject.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrester
I think I may have a chance to get out to the Tahoe area in a week or two.
Get out here NOW ...Tahoe will have a few more feet after this weekend. It also looks like the storm may last at least until late next week.
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
Second, the ski I demoed had a different top sheet than pictured on www.ts2003.com. It was solid blue, without the big white part in the middle, and it had a Salomon demo binding. It had "Metron" and M:9 printed on the ski, but it could be I'm comparing apples to oranges - and badly tuned, wrong sized apples at that.
Ironically, given some of the sentiments on this thread, maybe it's the rental version (M:9+)?
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Ironically, given some of the sentiments on this thread, maybe it's the rental version (M:9+)?
Is there such a thing?
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
Is there such a thing?
Yep. It had a beefier topskin and no metal strips.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion