or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic M:EX - 175 cm vs. 185 cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic M:EX - 175 cm vs. 185 cm

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Ok folks...I'm thinking about snagging a pair of M:ex off of backcounty.com while they're cheap. I have a pair of atomic 614 race to put on them. I skied the 185 M:ex in the spring of '04 and liked them alot. I currently ski 185 salomon xtra hots with s916+lifters, properly tuned...I use these as my all around east coast resort ski, about 70% high angle 40+ mph GS carving on-piste in mixed snow (ice to crud), 10% pow/trees, 10% bumps, 10% jumping in the park. Compared the xtra hot, I thought the M:EX was more lively feeling when carving, but also held a more solid edge in a deep carve...they railed like atomics are known to. The xtra hots are certainly beefy, and have a good feel while being damp (I wouldn't call them dead), but don't have a much energy or rebound unless you bend them deeeep...then they snap back hard. I'm about 180 lb, 6'1, charge hard, like long, damp skis, and have an extensive quiver. I've never owned any atomics, but I have liked them when demoed, the feel in particular - the R11 in 180, the S:9 in 160, etc.

So, I would most likely get the 185 since it's size I ski currently in this type of ski, however, I am open to considering the 175 verision. I typically ski very fast though, and I doubt the 175 would have the stablity at speed that I like to have. But, the 175 may be nice in shorter carves an be more versitile all around....I already have tons of skis for fast GS carving...lol. Can anybody convince me to go shorter?


post #2 of 11
Thread Starter 
Bump....what, nobody wants to tell me to buy shorter skis?

post #3 of 11
I ski that ski in a 175, I'm 5'10 180-5 and ski fast a lot. It's lots of ski. Skiing the 185 would likely be fine but really start to limit the versatility whereas the 175 really won't give up much for the high speed.
post #4 of 11
I'm w/ L7 on this one. I demoed the 175 at Heavenly last January and was impressed with how powerful this ski is. It's a very solid ski and it is reccomended to be skiied a little bit shorter, much like the Metron series. I'm 6' 195 and I felt that I could even have went down to the 165 and been fine.
post #5 of 11
I'm 6'1", 200 lbs and I ski the M:EX in 175. It's got plenty of beef. I wouldn't consider the 185, unless I was an NFL linebacker.

The 175 will bring all the gusto needed for level 8 skier or better in size large to x-large. You won't lack for stability or confidence at mach-schnell speeds.

At 185 you'll gain massive power and speed, but lose versatility.
post #6 of 11
I am a fan of the 185. I am 6' 185lbs. I skied both. I liked the 185s much more than the 175s. If you like skiing steeps and enjoy more stability at decent speed, go with the 185s. If you want the skis for quicker turns, go with the 175s. Also, IMO, the softer and deeper the snow, the longer the stick.
post #7 of 11
I'm onboard with the 175 after having a religious experience on it a couple of seasons ago at Bachelor. I'm 6'1" and 240...and love to ski fast. This ski is perfect for me.

Metrons need to be skied shorter, and like the other guys said...it's a heavyweight ... and very powerful. You don't need the x-tra 10cm...and you'll get a quicker turning board. This ski has retired my Bandits...now what will I do with this brand new Rossignol race team jacket?
post #8 of 11
you need to play in the trees more

schuss from TGR
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by glint
you need to play in the trees more

schuss from TGR
Hah...I like trees. But I'm an exracer and like to carve too.
post #10 of 11
I am the same size as L7 and ski on a 170 SL9 & SX9 in all conditions. I like how quick they turn but most of all, incredible edge hold. Since you have other GS skis why not go alittle shorter.;-)
post #11 of 11
I'm 5lbs lighter than Highway Star and while not an ex-racer, I like to ski hard (and in the trees and deep stuff whenever possible). I have a pair of 178 cm Volkl G4 (set up for AT) and 170 cm Fischer RX8 for carving. I was thinking of going as short as 165 for the M:EX. However now that I read this (and now that backcountry.com are sold out of the 165), I'm wondering if 175 would be the correct size, or a mistake. The Metron index would puts me at 1293 if I say medium radius, and 1367 if I say long radius. The M:EX suggestion is 1320 for 165 and 1430 for 175. And I just hate it when my Metron index wants to make long radius turns and I'm in a short radius glade.

I'm old-school enough to believe in my heart that there's no way a 175cm ski is too long for me, but the the times they are a changin'. So should I cry over spilt milk now that the 165 cm aren't available at the dirt cheap price, or buy the 175 cm safe in the knowledge that they were the right ski for me all along?
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 › Atomic M:EX - 175 cm vs. 185 cm