or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron B5 help

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Greetings all -
Looking for some advice re the metron B5 dimensions.
last years 162 model had a 127mm tip, with the 76mm waist.
I skied the B5s much of last year, beg borrow and stealing mostly, as i didn't own them but preferred them to my old 184 Bandit XXs.

so I've ordered my own pair of '06s in 162 length. Now I've just noticed that Atomic changed the dimension of the ski, to a 131 mm tip, same waist, as far as I can tell. I'm in a slight panic about this because I haven't skied that ski, and I thought the 05s were just right.

does anyone have any experience skiing the new 06s, and especially any comparison with the 05s? any idea how I can get a pair of 05s (new?) if that's what I really wanted? thanks..
post #2 of 25
The '06 is actually the same ski (as measured here last year and posted by a Bear--should seach, but can't take the time right now). The dimensions in the graphics on the ski and in the catalog were changed for marketing-only-knows what reason.

Another example of the impact of an utter lack of standards for such things in the ski industry...
post #3 of 25
My Metron advice is to buy Explosivs.
post #4 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossus178
My Metron advice is to buy Explosivs.
Don't even consider this. NOT FUNNY!
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvagolden
Greetings all -
Looking for some advice re the metron B5 dimensions.
last years 162 model had a 127mm tip, with the 76mm waist.
I skied the B5s much of last year, beg borrow and stealing mostly, as i didn't own them but preferred them to my old 184 Bandit XXs.

so I've ordered my own pair of '06s in 162 length. Now I've just noticed that Atomic changed the dimension of the ski, to a 131 mm tip, same waist, as far as I can tell. I'm in a slight panic about this because I haven't skied that ski, and I thought the 05s were just right.

does anyone have any experience skiing the new 06s, and especially any comparison with the 05s? any idea how I can get a pair of 05s (new?) if that's what I really wanted? thanks..
Yes I have a pair. Have skiied them extensively. Same dimensions as last year!
post #6 of 25
Same ski, same dimensions, different graphics/ Make sure you get the 06 bindings.
post #7 of 25
I just picked up a pair of 172cm M11s, and was looking at my binding options. I had an extra pair of old Race 614 bindings laying around, but decided to go with the new Neox 614 bindings while I was spending money I didn't have. Holding the '05 and '06 versions in my hand, it was a no-brainer. The '06 is MUCH lighter, and since this is already a fairly hefty combo I decided to drop a little weight where I could since it didn't mean that much more expense.
post #8 of 25
Thread Starter 
thanks for the replies
no worries, no chance of me buying Explosivs, for now..

anyone hold an '05 up next to an '06 to see for sure??

I would love to find that the '06 ski is exactly the same as the '05 in dimension. However, I am looking at an '05 brouchure, which clearly lists the tip for 162 length as 127mm, and the Atomic website which clearly lists the 162 length at 131mm tip. What gives??

My concern is that if the sidecut is deepened even a little then the ski could start to get squirrelly at speed, which I didn't find unmanageable at 127mm, but who knows what a measly 4mm might do at 40mph.

The graphics aren't better, but the bindings are (lighter), so if the tips are really the same, then it should be an improvement on a great ski.
post #9 of 25
velvagolden, yes, they have been measured by folks here on the site and are exactly the same ski. Rest assured.

Note, too, that the lighter bindings may not be all positive. The review on RealSkiers indicates that some testers preferred moving back to the longer size (172 instead of 162) with the new bindings. Something to consider...

Yes, they may be a bit heavy to carry around. I noticed it when I picked them up to carry them from the locker room to the base, but that was about it. They don't ski heavy, though. They just ski well...!
post #10 of 25
Measured them myself. The Same!
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thanks Atomicman and SSH
much appreciated
I'm getting my skis and bindings tomorrow

interesting about the move to longer length. Is this because the heavier bindings added solidity? I probably was a little off base when I suggested that the lighter bindings would = better ski. Lighter bindings might make the skis feel a little quicker, and certainly easier to carry around, but heavier bindings might be more solid and stable feeling. It will be very interesting to compare the feel.

My guess is that since the 05 setup was so heavy, that making it lighter will be a slight net gain. thoughts?
post #12 of 25
My judgement will wait to try 'em on-snow. I will say that the comments on RealSkiers has me having second thoughts about selling the '05s.
post #13 of 25
I demo'd the 05's and bought the '06's. The '06 is lighter (esp. with new binding) and I liked it slightly better. I'm sure the dimensions are exactly the same, but I preferred the feel of the new one. It could also just be psychosamatic - the new graphics float my boat.

Regarding RealSkiers, Peter Keelty still considers the MB:5 one of his "Skis of the Year" - see current posting.

Either the 05 or 06 is great. You won't regret the purchase!
post #14 of 25
Back to the whole slightly more camber thing on the 06 Metrons.

Has anyone verified that this is 100% true?
post #15 of 25
Thread Starter 
Scalce,
I wasn't able to decipher what the issue is in the thread you reference

can you enlighten me?
post #16 of 25

Dimension change.

Atomic Metron #'s changed on paper only. They are now measuring the widest part of the tip and tip instead of the contact point.
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by skifreeordie
Atomic Metron #'s changed on paper only. They are now measuring the widest part of the tip and tip instead of the contact point.
Wouldn't the widest part be the end of the contact point?:
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Wouldn't the widest part be the end of the contact point?:
Not if the ski is wider beyond the end of the contact. This is one of the fundamental issues that ticks me off: can we please agree to some standards?!
post #19 of 25
Has anyone actually skied the two back to back? My understanding is that the weight reduction is in the bindings. As these are more or less centrally spaced, the polar moment of the skiis should be relatively unchanged, hence they should feel should be pretty similar...
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Wouldn't the widest part be the end of the contact point?:
this is exactly correct!

also only the Neox 3.10 & 4.12 are lighter. i confirmed this yesterday with an Atomic rep. the 6.14 is the same and I believe the ski is identical in everyway except graphics.
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Don't even consider this. NOT FUNNY!
Gee I thought it was funny too. Must be a Volkl thing. LOL
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Wouldn't the widest part be the end of the contact point?
this is exactly correct!
Nope. Think about it... If the ski gets wider as it curves up towards the tip, then one could claim the widest point as the shovel width, even if it's seldom in contact with the snow (especially on hard snow). Since there are no standards for what the tip/waist/tail widths actually are, the marketing departments can claim whatever they want. This isn't good, IMNSHO, and, actually, I'm trying to do something about it. We'll see...
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Nope. Think about it... If the ski gets wider as it curves up towards the tip, then one could claim the widest point as the shovel width, even if it's seldom in contact with the snow (especially on hard snow). Since there are no standards for what the tip/waist/tail widths actually are, the marketing departments can claim whatever they want. This isn't good, IMNSHO, and, actually, I'm trying to do something about it. We'll see...
Sorry, I meant that where they measured the ski is different. I meant to respond to the post above Phil's from skifreeordie! ssh you are right. My mistake!
An interesting side note: Remember Volkl's "3-D sidecut"? They supposedly moved the contact points farther up the tail and tip and designed the sidecut when the ski was up on edge and flexed. the P30 RCR and P40 F1 both had this. As i remember so did the P30 SL & p40 Platinum and P40 SL.
post #24 of 25
I've also been considering that you could actually have a ski that performed differently on different snow based on which parts of the ski are actually contacting the snow. For example, in deep snow, the entire ski does (tip through tail), while on hard snow on-edge, it's only from the widest point in the cambered sidecut through the waist to the tail. Of course, if you can't decamber the ski, it might be only the widest points at tip and tail!

Interesting design possibilities with this...
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Wouldn't the widest part be the end of the contact point?:
Out of curiosity, I just measured a pair of skis. The widest point was 6.2 cm forward of the base-to-base contact point. When put on edge to about 50 degrees, the contact point with the floor moved forward to the widest point. This is without loading the ski, of course. Interestingly, when the camber is flattened out of them the contact point moves back about 8 cm. So, being on edge would effectively increase the length of the skis, and noticeably contribute to stability, though not as much as the body mechanics contribute, as compared to flat running.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews