New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron size?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I'm very interested in some Atomic Metrons M:11 s

I found a metron index size calculator (at tramdock.com)

It turns out I'm a 'tweener'

My metron index number puts me almost dead in the middle between a 162 and a 172 -- 1306

So if I go with the longer option, I assume that will give me a ski that's just a bit heavier than the shorter one, but with a bit more float. I expect the turn radius will be just a bit longer - but still a pretty quick-turning ski. Probably just a bit more stable at high speeds. Probably just a bit harder to rotate in tight spaces?

What are your thoughts on being a 'tweener?'
post #2 of 28
What's your weight?
post #3 of 28
Height /weight /skiing ablity will helps us out alittle more.

I am 165lb 5'9' and ski on 162cm B5s, super aggressive(and fairly skilled or so i have been told) higher speed skier on the east coast, that skis well anything, if that helps at all
post #4 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
Height /weight /skiing ablity will helps us out alittle more.

I am 165lb 5'9' and ski on 162cm B5s, super aggressive(and fairly skilled or so i have been told) higher speed skier on the east coast, that skis well anything, if that helps at all
I am 200 5'11", and am on the 172's. I tried the 162's and just too short.
post #5 of 28
172.....or look at something else.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
weight is 185
expert skier

I put 'medium' into the calculator because I enjoy all types of turns. I like quick fall-line stuff, high-speed GS arcs, and everything in between.
post #7 of 28
172
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
weight is 185
expert skier

I put 'medium' into the calculator because I enjoy all types of turns. I like quick fall-line stuff, high-speed GS arcs, and everything in between.
Buy something besides a 172 m:11, if you're looking for an all around ski.
post #9 of 28
For M11 i would go with the 172cm, at your size etc, i would of probably went with the 172cm if i got the M11.
post #10 of 28
OK, I ski the B5 and not the 11. Still, the entire design concept of the family is short. The ski is fat enough on average that even in short lengths it provides solid floatation for most people (as much as you could expect from a 1-ski quiver type ski). The 11 has exactly the same dimensions as the B5. I've been told the 11 has noticeably less torsional rigidity than the B5 - but it is still a very high end ski in that regard. Few people in the 185 pound range are likely to push either ski in that regard. Also, the best Atomic dealer shop guys I know out here all feel strongly that you should round down if you are a tweener. They reserve the 172 on both the 11 and B5 for people in the 200 pound range - and not for everyone even in that range. The 162 M11 should be more than adequate as an all-around ski for virtually anyone in your weight range.

I have a strong sense that the many discussions on this board about going "longer" on Metrons have more to do with other tools than they do with skis
post #11 of 28
Do your self a favor, and buy something that likes to make many different turn shapes!
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
I have a strong sense that the many discussions on this board about going "longer" on Metrons have more to do with other tools than they do with skis
I agree, but it ain't just Metrons, it is skis in general. :
post #13 of 28
I am 170# 6' and for awhile last season owned both the 162 and 172 M:11.

The most noticeable difference is the greater stability of the 172 in high speed medium to long radius turns in choppy conditions.

The 172 of course floats better. The 162 is much better at short radius fall line turns. The latter is why I kept the 162. The difference in float was not enough to be a deciding factor.

The tip and tails of the 172 are more likely to ride on top of each other for skiers using a very closed stance.

The friend who bought my 172's demoed both sizes and preferred the 172, but he is closer to 200# and prefers longer radius turns.
post #14 of 28
I can make a bunch of different shapped turns with my M11's
post #15 of 28
I personally can't understand why anybody would be discussing "float" and "long turns" with respect to a 172 cm, 12m radius, 76mm wide ski........it isn't going to float, and it isn't going to carve a long turn.

Period.
post #16 of 28
My understanding is that float is a combination of speed and surface area. The advantage of greater width is more float at a lower speed. You are only considering the waist measurement, but the tip and tail also contribute surface area to help with the float. I think my Metrons float surprisingly well given their 76mm waist.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I personally can't understand why anybody would be discussing "float" and "long turns" with respect to a 172 cm, 12m radius, 76mm wide ski........it isn't going to float, and it isn't going to carve a long turn.

Period.
Hmmmm... It is an all-around ski. Clearly not meant to be a 27M big mountain radius.

On the other hand, you are waayyy off base on the float thing. Look at the tip. Look at the tail. Despite the relatively narrow waist, the average width is pretty big. Even in a 162 you'll have about the same surface area as a 182 allstar. In fact, the effective surface area of a 172 M11 is just about that of a 185 PR. Also, the surface area distribution makes it better in soft/deep than you'd think for the length.

Again, it is not meant to go head to head with a full-on big mountain ski. But the overall surface area and huge shovel take it way further than you might think was possible for a 1-ski quiver style ski.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
Hmmmm... It is an all-around ski. Clearly not meant to be a 27M big mountain radius.

On the other hand, you are waayyy off base on the float thing. Look at the tip. Look at the tail. Despite the relatively narrow waist, the average width is pretty big. Even in a 162 you'll have about the same surface area as a 182 allstar. In fact, the effective surface area of a 172 M11 is just about that of a 185 PR. Also, the surface area distribution makes it better in soft/deep than you'd think for the length.

Again, it is not meant to go head to head with a full-on all mountain ski. But the overall surface area and huge shovel take it way further than you might think was possible for a 1-ski quiver style ski.
Absolutely. It is NOT a big mountain ski. It is NOT a radical hard snow carver. It is NOT big GS or short Slalom ski. It IS the best of all worlds if you are gonna have a ONE ski quiver though. IMHO, it is the best ONE ski for the EAST.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Absolutely. It is NOT a big mountain ski. It is NOT a radical hard snow carver. It is NOT big GS or short Slalom ski. It IS the best of all worlds if you are gonna have a ONE ski quiver though. IMHO, it is the best ONE ski for the EAST.
Wurd

I love my 162s.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
Hmmmm... It is an all-around ski. Clearly not meant to be a 27M big mountain radius.

On the other hand, you are waayyy off base on the float thing. Look at the tip. Look at the tail. Despite the relatively narrow waist, the average width is pretty big. Even in a 162 you'll have about the same surface area as a 182 allstar. In fact, the effective surface area of a 172 M11 is just about that of a 185 PR. Also, the surface area distribution makes it better in soft/deep than you'd think for the length.

Again, it is not meant to go head to head with a full-on big mountain ski. But the overall surface area and huge shovel take it way further than you might think was possible for a 1-ski quiver style ski.
The PR is not a floater. Heck, nothing under 100mm is a really a floater. Why did I just buy 115mm waist skis? Because I know what float is.

Again, on the long turns....12m radius means you are not going to be carving anything bigger than that, period.
post #21 of 28
I weigh 172 lbs. and have the 162 cm M11. I never skied the 172 cm for comparison purposes so I have no basis for comparison. I've been truly amazed how stable the 162 cm has been in higher speed turns longer than their 12 m radius. The only short coming I would associate with the M 11 is their edge hold on ice. Maybe a longer lengrh would perform better on ice , but if I could ski packed powder everyday the M 11 is a great ski even in the shorter length.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
The PR is not a floater. Heck, nothing under 100mm is a really a floater. Why did I just buy 115mm waist skis? Because I know what float is.

Again, on the long turns....12m radius means you are not going to be carving anything bigger than that, period.
Sounds to me like someone who hasn't skied them. Of course, if you think that you're saving EpicSki from itself (as your signature states), you probably think that those of us who enjoy and ski the Metron series in the wide variety of terrain, conditions, and turn shapes that we do are somehow "less" than you are riding a ski with a 115mm waist.

For mere mortals, however, the Metron series, especially the M:11 and the M:b5, is as close to a one-ski quiver as is currently available (at least in 04/05; we'll have to see with the new crop of Metron copycat skis). Anyone who thinks that they are one-trick ponies has either never skied them or uses technique that is incompatible with the broad capabilities of the ski.

Note: this is neither bad nor good, talented nor lacking. It just is what is.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I personally can't understand why anybody would be discussing "float" and "long turns" with respect to a 172 cm, 12m radius, 76mm wide ski........it isn't going to float, and it isn't going to carve a long turn.

Period.
Well, it floated more than my 165cm, 68mm wide, 13m ski.
post #24 of 28
I cant wait till i get my digital video camera this year, it will be the best way to say i told you so to High Way Star.

Josh who is buying longish fat skis this year with hopes of going out west and the odd huge Eastern Dump, but already has B5s to ski anything up to that and yes his 162cm do float him nicely.
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
I cant wait till i get my digital video camera this year, it will be the best way to say i told you so to High Way Star.
Why bother? It could waste the time!
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
I cant wait till i get my digital video camera this year, it will be the best way to say i told you so to High Way Star.
And what do you think you'll be telling me?
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
And what do you think you'll be telling me?
Probably that some of the folks that are using Metrons are floating.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Probably that some of the folks that are using Metrons are floating.
right on, and that a USTC can ski well past 30mph and still leave railroad tracks, that are larger than the supposely weenie 12m turn radius.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion