New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next Year's Metrons

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I know we have gone over this but people said the ski is the same with only a graphic change and lighter Neox bindings.

When I demoed a few Metrons yesterday they felt a little different in a good way.

When I asked the rep they said that they added some camber to the ski.

The new B:5 rocked on ice and hard conditions yesterday.

Too bad I crashed and burned ont he new Izor's flying down a run with flat light and bumps. But that's another story.

My wife demoed the new M:IX and the M:XI. She had never been on a Metron and she immediatly had no issues ripping on them.

I don't care what anyone says but I think they are a great ski line.

I am even debating picking up a pair of B:5s to go along with my M:XIs.
post #2 of 23
Do you know if there are any changes to the SX line for 06?
post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
The demo I was at only had Izors, all the Metrons, and one pair of STs.

They only had the skis they wanted to push.
post #4 of 23
I will be getting some for my son for next year. I would also like to get my wife on them to try.
post #5 of 23

Scalce

Tell me anything you can about the Izor, please. Appearance? Is it a good looking ski? What about weight? Somebody reviewed it and said it was heavy. Anything else you can add would be great. Did you take any pictures?
post #6 of 23
The basic concept of the Izor is the torsional flex. For racing, there can be no compromise in torsion.... The stiffer the better. When dealing with recreational skier, a little torsional forgiveness helps. The Izor skis are intended for the recreational market, and torsion has been adjusted for the different ability levels of this market.

The different models of Izor are;
9:7
7:5
5:3
3:1
Balanze 9:6 Diva
Balanze 7:4 Lady
Balanze 5:3 Girlie
Balanze 3:1

The leading number refers to the tip torsion, the trailing number refers to the tail torsion.

From the 2005-2006 catalog

"Aimed squarely at the heart of the huge intermediate all-mountain market, Nanoframe technology isn't built for professional athletes with amazing skills and world class fitness levels. It's built for skiers who have the most to gain from a product that's significantly lighter, and handles with greater ease."
post #7 of 23

Hey Beta,

Where did you find this?
post #8 of 23
My catalog.
post #9 of 23
Beta,

How are the Izor's in crud and bumps? Would you recommend them over the B5? Have you ridden or know anything about the Top Fuels?

Thanks!
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betaracer
My catalog.
You have the 2006 Atomic catalogue? Were'd you get that?
post #11 of 23
Um, Head Office. If I do tech work on the product, it is important I have the info.
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_918
Tell me anything you can about the Izor, please. Appearance? Is it a good looking ski? What about weight? Somebody reviewed it and said it was heavy. Anything else you can add would be great. Did you take any pictures?
Do a Google search online and you can find pics.

The 9:7s are red and they have ridiculous edge hold.

I think they are too stiff and advanced for the average upper intermediate but perfect for strong skiers who like to carve.

They are pretty heavy skis especially with the demo binding. Not as heavy as the B:5s but heavy enough. I was on the 159s so I am sure the longer lengths are even heavier.

I shocked out of the binding on a long, bumpy, icey run and was left with just my right ski. It was an extremely painful fall. I was tired, the light was flat, and I just couldn't find the center of the ski. Hopefully my season isn;t done.

The ski is excellent but not for everyone. Everyone I spoke to had a different opinion on them.

Personally I prefer the B:5 and M:XI which I think are easier at very short and quick turns then the Izor.

The other skis in the Izor line might be better for most people.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Do a Google search online and you can find pics.
The last time I searched there wasn't much there. I'll try again. Thanks.
post #14 of 23
Hopefully they will still be in business next year in the US so you can purchase them. Its not looking to good for Atomic.
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sars
Hopefully they will still be in business next year in the US so you can purchase them. Its not looking to good for Atomic.
Why on EARTH do you say that???
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sars
Hopefully they will still be in business next year in the US so you can purchase them. Its not looking to good for Atomic.
Have you lost all touch with reality?
post #17 of 23
sars, do you work for volkl?
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sars
Hopefully they will still be in business next year in the US so you can purchase them. Its not looking to good for Atomic.
Huh?

Could you disclose your source on that information, please?
Haven't heard about that one yet but have doubts.
post #19 of 23
SARS do you have SARS?
post #20 of 23
There are companies at risk for not being around either next year or in years to come...Atomic is NOT one of them.
post #21 of 23
Hasn't anyone heard? Atomic has depleted the world supply of titanium, and has gone over to wood until they get a new source.
post #22 of 23
Is someone confusing Line or Armada with Atomic? If those, or many of the other companies survive the next two years it will be a surprise. Atomic has some serious money behind them with AMER Sports Group, which also owns Wilson.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sars
Hopefully they will still be in business next year in the US so you can purchase them. Its not looking to good for Atomic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion