EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Metron M:9 - right for me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron M:9 - right for me?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone, maybe you can help me with some advice? I've skied maybe 12 weeks in France & Italy during the past 9 years, taking some lessons every other yr, since I started seeing a Canadian girl who's now my wife here in England . I've always rented but now want to buy and need a sanity check before I commit. Yes I should demo but I won't get deals like these in season (there's always ebay if things don't work out).

I'm 5'10", quite stocky, 175 pounds and keep fit by running. I spend most of the time on red runs, would say I'm fairly aggressive, am moving to blacks/moguls sometimes for enjoyment now, not just because I have to . I can only justify one pair of skis that must be able to go everywhere, since we want to try going off piste next time. Last time I rented the Dynastar Skicross 7 in 167cm (I think it was) and for 3 years before that rented the Salomon X-Scream 10 Pilot in 170cm. I enjoyed both but found the Salomon's easier to control in some situations, like on narrow tracks in crud, really in crud generally.

I can get a new pair of Metron M:9s for less than half price and having combed the reviews (Skiing mag, ski mag, canadian ski mag etc.) they sound like a good option. Has anyone used them? Will I like them, will they keep me smiling for a few years and help me improve, what length should I get (164 is what Atomic's "M2 Scale" is coming up with but should I go for the 171)? Others in my price range are the Scrambler 8 Pilot & Volkl 724 EXS.

Looking forward to hearing your comments, thanks in advance!
post #2 of 24
Welcome to Epic Chorltonian. I think the Metron ski would be ideal for you. It's a great ski for all conditions. I am about the same body size as you and prefer a 170cm ski. However I've never considered myself quite stocky.;-) Enjoy the off-piste.
post #3 of 24
I would say err to the 171's.
post #4 of 24
Might want to run a search for threads discussing the M:9's here on epicski to get some perspectives in addition to the ski mags. These got a fair amount of attention here - I was in a minority that did not like them but that was most likely a bad tune on demo skis. FWIW I'm your size (a half inch shorter actually) and was on the 171's.
post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks all of you for the feedback so far. The only thing is, on a "normal" mid fat ski (skicross 7, x-scream 10) I seem to feel most comfortable at about 170, but Atomic say you should ski metrons shorter than a mid fat. The metron scale is telling me 164 and the advice is to go shorter if you're inbetween.

I've committed to buying these now but it's not too late to choose a 164 (I ordered the 171). Something's telling me 164 even though the shop recommended 171 too. Maybe the common sense of wanting a longer ski for stability is not so applicable to the metron? Being so fat, they've got a big surface area for floating on powder too, even in the shorter length?

I had a look at older posts (some call it the "IX" - roman 9). After filtering out the 90% of posts about the b5, my overall impression on what I did find (the similar m:10 too) is suggesting 164 to my mind. Has anyone here perhaps tried both sizes?
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorltonian
Has anyone here perhaps tried both sizes?
I tried the 11's in both the 162 and 171 (vs. the 164/172 of the 9's) and the 162's were just too short. The 171's were juuust right and I measured just in between the two sizes on the Metron chart.
post #7 of 24
Greetings,

I actually bought a pair of the Metron M-9's online in late March of this year. I too read all the reviews...(don't believe everything you read..as my mother always told me...the MAG'S CAN NOT EVEN GET DIMENSIONS RIGHT AT TIMES...LET ALONE GIVE AN "OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW" with anymore detail than "ski's like a porche.." )

I am 6' 200lbs and an expert skier..30 years worth and utlized Atomic's new meaursing system to purchase the right size in the m-9. I also had extensive conversations with Atomic...(one of the best company's around...) I look at every aspect of the ski and have learned from the best what to look for. I still make mistakes and this M-9 purchase..though I was able to get some help from Atomic...(a great company bythe way)...my M-9 purchase was a mistake. In short and though I got them on sale, I actually, after skiing on them for two days was able to work with Atomic and return them.

In short, I hated them and even tried to sell them first on this site for about a week or so..not one bite.

Characaterics: I skied them in 4-6" of fresh Mammoth powder..late season on the first of two days..then the second day in hard pack. There is the one place they shine only, again, only..that is the groomed. Though the M-9 is the lightest of the series, it still carry's way too much "DEAD WEIGHT" to be called an all mountain ski. Extremely fast and stable on groomers (almost to a fault) this ski does not like trees or super tight places...which is ironic, as if you check the radius...(14mm) at 178, it really should. (shorter radius enjoying shorter turns)

I went and demo'd a pair of 2006 Salomon scrambler hot skis from salomon..pricey!!! at $1000.00...as they appeared to be similar to the popular scream 10 pilot from 05' (which I also skied...) but with more sidecut....well I was right to do so....YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR AT TIMES... I got them on line for $750.00 with bindings...more than what i wanted to spend...but have had them for 5 ski days now...and they rock...

Message: The M-9 is not the ski for anyone looking for all mountain fun...it is a great ski for your grandfather..in his 80's who wishes to have a smooth stable ride on groomers only...

TIP OF THE DAY: If you like Atomic and don't have much $....one of their most underated skis...(I have two pairs) is the 2003/04 "R-8"....made for a few years after 2000...YOU CAN STILL FIND THESE ONLINE...FOR PENNIES. Their dimensions are 112, 72,101...great 17m radius at 180 and legendary Atomic grip, but not all the stiffness you would suffer from in the dropout of a ski...the Atomic R-11...(R-11..race car at speed..no bumps...no off piste with any kind of ease anyway.....)

The R-8 was designed for upper intermediate to expert levels...but I have to tell you...Atomic has a hard time making a ski that "won't hold"...so you don't need the stiffness of the 11 series...unless your on the world cup circuit...ski it for the couple races per day...and that's it...(YET AGAIN..ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SKI AND SKIING MAGAZINE...LYING...BY STATING THE R-11 AND THE M-11 WERE "OUTSTANDING ALL MTN. SKIS..." WHAT A JOKE...THEY ARE ONLY IF YOU STAY ON GROOMED)

Unlike all the horrible, poor excuse for reviews in Ski and Skiing magazine..take this information as fact, but perhaps based on a bit more "western U.S." terrain bias...not east coast U.S..where ice is more dominant....as well as it being based on years of experience in and out of ski shops, etc. Hope the message finds you well and asssits you in your endeavor.

Dano'
post #8 of 24
Bresnahan,

I red through your post (and previous reviews of your M:9's), I all can say is a respectfully disagree. First, with 30+ years on the snow and being an Expert skier, you should have been on more ski than the 9, more like the 11 or B5. The 9 was the first Metron ski I skied, it was on harpack and in the bumps and I was very impressed to the point I said "I got to get me some of these". Unlike you, I wasn;t the biggest Atomic fan, I had some in the past and was not impressed at all. Being about your size, I found the 171/172 to be optimum.
You mention the weight being an issue and that the ski way "heavy", I found the opposite, I thought the ski to be almost too light, especially mounted with Salomon 912's.
Such as I am not a Rossi (example) fan, thats why there is vanilla and chocolate. Whatever floats your boat, good luck with theSollies.
post #9 of 24
Everyone has their opinion. Just because someone has been assembling Ikea furniture for 30 years doesn't mean they can build a house. Remember when 'all mountain' skis were 205-210cm long with 62mm waists? Any modern ski is better for all mountain use. There are no bad skis, just bad skiers who think they're experts.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betaracer
Everyone has their opinion. Just because someone has been assembling Ikea furniture for 30 years doesn't mean they can build a house. Remember when 'all mountain' skis were 205-210cm long with 62mm waists? Any modern ski is better for all mountain use. There are no bad skis, just bad skiers who think they're experts.
It's Indian not the Arrow.
post #11 of 24
Good for you...I am indeed you liked them.....I still think they stink...and the M-11's do as well...again..both of em' are'nt all mountain ski's...The industry really should make a "groomer category"...that these forms of ski's may reside in...there both overly stiff for what you need if your an all mtn expert level....

Your Atomic comment: Actually I have a long history with em' and still have two pair...but the last two years...they have not made much...however Ihave not skied their latest twin tips..(disclaimer here) therefore to be fair..cannot speak to them.

Your size comment:...(I would tend to agree, before talking to Atomic and triple checking their sizing chart over the ph with them...) as I believe Atomic do have an outstanding history of edge grip and hold in their past models, therefore ski em' short...but Atomic confirmed my math with the sizing chart...even Ski Magazine, stated "ski these long as they fade quickly under speed"...(I don't believe mag's...just re-quoting"

The atomic sizing scale put me in 178's...so I did listen to its' logic, further, I did demo the M-11 and two years ago, the R-11...both way too stiff for true all mtn...off piste fun...(compared to what is out there now)

These days...for all mtn. western skiing..with 50% off groomed and 50 on....you just don't need super stiff ski's to excell...not with the materials, waists/widths and technology offered today. Don't want the rubber band models...but ya don't need two by fours..either...(M-11's)

i.e.:
One of my many pairs in my quiver is the famous pocket rocket...not meant to be an all mtn. ski at its' core...but I gotta throw in my two cents...they blow away both the 9 and 11 in every related all mtn. category..even though there soft!! Again..western skier here...so I hit everything...tree's, deep, chutes, moguls and yes, even groomers...

All mountain to me is "All Mountain" What ski's the best all over, is the definition...at least to me...

Totally respect your opinon...however...both there are a multitude of better choices than Atomics newest "All Mountain Ski's"..for 04-06.
post #12 of 24
Yeah, that logic works!!~! just like there are no bad cars these days...!!! Wrong.... Just because all cars today are better than the model T, does'nt mean there all "good"...I speak in reference to what is offered today...not technology and design that is 20 years old..in your example...

Your argument is fruitless....

The gentlemen I was responding to was looking for help with the M-9...not your example...of old straight..ski's...
post #13 of 24
Simple question so many ways to argue it. As to the first question I'm sure you would love the 9 but I'd tend to suggest the 164 given your experience. I think you're a bit in between and the 171 would also be fine but the 164 would offer more versatility to you for the bumps and off piste. Flip side is the 171 might provide a tad more ski to grow into. By the way I'm 5'10" and 185, given your comment of 'quite stocky' I must be closer to obese than I realized. At any rate I ski the M10 (beefier version of the 9) in a 171 and love it as my truly all mountain ski. Bumps, powder, steeps, off piste or zoomin' the groomin' they do it all. I skied the 178 in that ski for about a week knowing it would be too much but just to see. It skied me as much as I skied it and I never considered taking it off piste (early season).

As for bresnahan it's too bad you didn't ski it in a 171. I would never have suggested you take the ski out in that length. I would think the Atomic chart would only recommend that length if you said you did mostly big turns. That right there would limit the versatility. I ran the demos here and consistently had to argue about the right length for guys to ski them in, the short ones almost always won out with the biggest of sceptics. I'm sure betaracer found the same thing. I didn't think the 9 came in a 178 but just the 10 did. Could be that length just doesn't come to Canada. The length repeatedly made all the difference between loving them and hating them. As long as you found a ski you like, giddy up.
post #14 of 24
Hey There L-7,

Thanks for your input ....Rest assured...I marked "short to medium" turns..within the Atomic system...triple checked it as welland had it confirmed by Atomic over the phone....really...with my experience with Atomic...as I said....I would also ski them shorter...they really don't make a ski I hav skied on that "won't hold"...however at 6' 200lbs...adv/expert level...I am a 178....the retailed I bought them from even had the 171's too!! ..When I called Atomic and they returned them for me...I even said..I think the 178's are too long, but they insisted at 6' 200lbs...expert...short/med. turns...I was a 178...

Side Note: One thing I noticed...about the M-9...what a huge tip!!!!! 2 mm bigger than my pocket rockets if you can believe that!!!

There are still a bunch of M-9's on line for nickles really....and have skied the M-11's...(did not like...for true all mtn. fun)

What do you think of the M-10's? : What is the radius on your pair at 171?...as I enjoy shorter to med. turns...(chutes, trees...probably stay 70% off trail, when the snow is good of course)

Any M-10 traits you can share?:

Dan
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betaracer
Everyone has their opinion. Just because someone has been assembling Ikea furniture for 30 years doesn't mean they can build a house. Remember when 'all mountain' skis were 205-210cm long with 62mm waists? Any modern ski is better for all mountain use. There are no bad skis, just bad skiers who think they're experts.
Yeah, that logic works!!~! just like there are no bad cars these days...!!! Wrong.... Just because all cars today are better than the model T, does'nt mean there all "good"...I speak in reference to what is offered today...not technology and design that is 20 years old..in your example...

Your argument is fruitless....

The gentlemen I was responding to was looking for help with the M-9...not your example...of old straight..ski's...
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
Might want to run a search for threads discussing the M:9's here on epicski to get some perspectives in addition to the ski mags. These got a fair amount of attention here - I was in a minority that did not like them but that was most likely a bad tune on demo skis. FWIW I'm your size (a half inch shorter actually) and was on the 171's.
I am with the "minority as well"..hated them.
post #17 of 24
The M9 was made as a 178, but I never had one in my fleet. If someone needed an M9 longer than 171, I suggested a M10 in 171. The Metron series have never been marketed by Atomic as 'all mountain' skis. Magazines and retailers have given them that moniker. Atomic has placed them in the 'all condition' category. The difference is that any ski (even a XC ski) can be skied all over the mountain. All conditions refers to a ski which can handle changing and varying conditions. I spent many a day on the M-B5 last season in everything from bullet proof ice (skied the World Cup DH track at Lake Louise in November) to knee deep powder to spring slush without hardly an issue. The key to using a Metron is finding the right ski in the right size and adapting one's technique to the challenges as they come up. Sure there better skis for every specific condition, but not everyone can have as many skis as I do (10 at last count plus a fleet of 30ish demos) nor is it practical to change at every condition as they arise. I'm sorry if I came off elitist and snobby, but my winter job is promoting Atomic skis. When someone flat-out says one of our product suck, but personal experience with feedback from many demoers says otherwise, I need to state otherwise. I respet that the M9 didn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a ski for someone else. I never liked the Pocket Rocket for my type of skiing, I prefer something more substantial in the 90mm+ category. I don't think that ski sucks because it has sold quite well.
post #18 of 24
RE: MB5

How would you describe this ski? I have never been on a pair...and yet hear a ton about them...are they stiffer than the 11's or more for varied?

Dan
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresnahan
RE: MB5

How would you describe this ski? I have never been on a pair...and yet hear a ton about them...are they stiffer than the 11's or more for varied?

Dan
If you do a "search" on Metron or B5 you will find a wealth of info on the B5.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresnahan


Any M-10 traits you can share?:

Dan
I love the M10s and they are my favourites out of the whole metron line. Same dimensions as the M9 in whatever length but it escapes me exactly what they are in a 171 right now. The 06 is a tad softer tip and tail by virtue of shortening the puls rods which makes them more versatile and manageable in bumps or on steeps. Still lots of beef under foot and quite a bit beefier than the m9. Like betaracer says they are the better bet for a guy your size but I'd still suggest you ski it in the 171.

I tried to look for my Atomic sizing wheel since one was kicking around my car still but my car is a mess so it may still be there but may not surface for a bit. I really haven't looked at the sizing much in terms of the 9 so now I'm curious to see variations.
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
I'd tend to suggest the 164 given your experience. I think you're a bit in between and the 171 would also be fine but the 164 would offer more versatility to you for the bumps and off piste. Flip side is the 171 might provide a tad more ski to grow into.
Thanks L7, I'm feeling a bit more confident now about the 171 given your comments and others who know & like this ski. If I plug "intermediate", 175 pounds, medium turns into the m2 scale, I get 1237. If I plug in "advanced" (I suppose I may be but what's the definition?), I get 1267. Short turns bring it down to 1207. M9 points for the 164 are 1230 and for the 171, 1295. The scale seems to be suggesting 164 to me but I hear what you are saying about having some growing room as my technique continues to improve. I do want something aimed above my current level for that reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
By the way I'm 5'10" and 185, given your comment of 'quite stocky' I must be closer to obese than I realized.
In England, stocky means more like "big boned" than "fat". From the two comments here I guess it has a different connotation in the USA & Canada. I'm sure you've just got "bigger bones" than me

Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
As for bresnahan it's too bad you didn't ski it in a 171. I would never have suggested you take the ski out in that length. I would think the Atomic chart would only recommend that length if you said you did mostly big turns.
Just for info, I plugged expert, 200 pounds, short turns into the scale and got 1282. Medium turns, 1342. Long turns, 1412. The 178 m:9 rates at 1360, versus the 171 at 1295. The ratings for the m:10 are identical.

Cheers everyone for your comments. After years of skiing beaten up rental gear I can't wait to have pristine m:9s on my feet, whatever length they are! ;-)
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorltonian
I'm sure you've just got "bigger bones" than me
Door ..... wide....... open.....

Must..... resist..... non.... Epic ......one..... liner........ arrrggggghhhh!


BTW over here Big boned means fat as well especially as a self description in a personal ad.
post #23 of 24
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorltonian
Thanks L7, I'm feeling a bit more confident now about the 171 given your comments and others who know & like this ski. If I plug "intermediate", 175 pounds, medium turns into the m2 scale, I get 1237. If I plug in "advanced" (I suppose I may be but what's the definition?), I get 1267. Short turns bring it down to 1207. M9 points for the 164 are 1230 and for the 171, 1295. The scale seems to be suggesting 164 to me but I hear what you are saying about having some growing room as my technique continues to improve. I do want something aimed above my current level for that reason.



In England, stocky means more like "big boned" than "fat". From the two comments here I guess it has a different connotation in the USA & Canada. I'm sure you've just got "bigger bones" than me



Just for info, I plugged expert, 200 pounds, short turns into the scale and got 1282. Medium turns, 1342. Long turns, 1412. The 178 m:9 rates at 1360, versus the 171 at 1295. The ratings for the m:10 are identical.

Cheers everyone for your comments. After years of skiing beaten up rental gear I can't wait to have pristine m:9s on my feet, whatever length they are! ;-)

Greeetings Snow Dogs,

When I just did the equations again, I am the same...20 points below a 178 and 40 above a 171, therefore, as I stated..and as Atomic advised me on the phone, I went .20 up to the 178 and not the 40 down to the 71's...

Having said that...all this chatting makes me want to ski,,so I am not going to respond anymore as it will drive me to drink (or buy a ticket to the southern Hemi and miss my wife and child for a week or two) since my home mtn. Mammoth closes this coming weekend..

May try the B5's or the 10's next year..as I do recall...that the 9's also, (having such a huge tip...2 mm bigger than my tip on my pocket rockets) tips.....they did flop around a bit at speed...sounds like the B5 or the 10 might not be too stiff...maybe 15% would do the trick and try a 171...again, against the sizing info. and Atomic advice....

One positive thing about the 9's...tons of float!! with that width!!!

Looking forward to fall and hating summer already.... Me and my five pairs of freshly waxed skis...(waxed heavy for storage) will just have to wait!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Metron M:9 - right for me?