or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I give up - Page 2

post #31 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I think I've made much better arguements than you. You still haven't proven why a short, deep sidecut ski makes any sense for all around unless you are skiing at relatively slow speeds all the time....you just keep running from it.
What I (and others) have said is that we have skied them. You haven't, and yet are convinced that you understand ski design parameters well enough that you can judge a ski simply by its dimensions. I have provided some introductory engineering commentary on the science behind how it is possible to design a ski that will do what it is claimed that the Metron:b5 can (and in my opinion does) do.

You have provided no credentials that would give me a reason to give your opinion any credence at all. You have not asked for my credentials, so I have not bothered to give them, but a brief perusal of the site would indicate that I have some reasonable credentials in both skiing and engineering.

You can give no reason why your opinion should hold any water at all other than that you think it should. Based on my knowledge, experience, and personal review of the ski in question, I have drawn an opposing conclusion. Given that your opinions are based on a single fact out of many that apply they are therefore without sufficient basis as a support for your hypothesis. It is on this basis that I (and others) have dismissed your statements as effectively unsupported.
post #32 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
you just keep running from it.
BTW, I never run from a well-positioned discussion of skiing. So far, you have chosen to ignore any of the statements folks have made about these skis having skied on them. Your ignorance seems to be your primary basis for judgement, and that makes a difficult opponent for debate.
post #33 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I think I've made much better arguements than you. You still haven't proven why a short, deep sidecut ski makes any sense for all around unless you are skiing at relatively slow speeds all the time....you just keep running from it.
I will type slowly so you can read it...W e h a v e s k i e d t h e m... Y o u h a v e n' t... U n t i l y o u d o... Y o u h a v e n o a r g u e m e n t.
post #34 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
You still haven't proven why a short, deep sidecut ski makes any sense for all around unless you are skiing at relatively slow speeds all the time
I agree with that. (not necessarily everthing that HS says, but I do agree with that statement) Metron owners seem to want to convince everyone that it is a one ski quiver, but I definitely do not agree. In fact, I don't think there is any such thing. Everyone has a different skiing style. The Metron is perfect for some.
Not me. (and evidently not HS)
post #35 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I think I've made much better arguements than you. You still haven't proven why a short, deep sidecut ski makes any sense for all around unless you are skiing at relatively slow speeds all the time....you just keep running from it.

I'll try. At high speed long turns are nice, but for a real thrill, throw in some carved short radius turns at high speeds. It is obvious from your posts that your legs just aren't stong enough to do this, so you don't appreciate what we're talking about.
post #36 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer
I agree with that. (not necessarily everthing that HS says, but I do agree with that statement) Metron owners seem to want to convince everyone that it is a one ski quiver, but I definitely do not agree. In fact, I don't think there is any such thing. Everyone has a different skiing style. The Metron is perfect for some.
Not me. (and evidently not HS)
U.P., I don't know if you've read his other commentary, but he wouldn't know if it's perfect for him...he's never skied them.

In addition, he claims that no one can ski them above low-speed, ultra-tight arcs. He further claims that sidecut is the only real variable that matters in the conversation, and manages to ignore a parameterized discussion I attempted to start that discussed the other characteristics involved in engineering a ski.

I know you didn't like them. I am sure that they are not the best ski for everyone. However, for some of us, they do make a reasonable one-ski quiver. Of course, I don't spend time in gates anymore, ski exclusively in the west, and so on. For me, they are great skis in all the conditions I experience.

Of course, HS would tell you that such a statement is evidence that I can't ski. I don't make statements about my ability, so others will need to judge that. But, I will say that the statement is inappropriate and just plain wrong about a number of people I know that ski the Metrons everywhere and truly enjoy them. Including some others who posted in the thread in question...
post #37 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
U.P., I don't know if you've read his other commentary, but he wouldn't know if it's perfect for him...he's never skied them.

In addition, he claims that no one can ski them above low-speed, ultra-tight arcs. He further claims that sidecut is the only real variable that matters in the conversation, and manages to ignore a parameterized discussion I attempted to start that discussed the other characteristics involved in engineering a ski.

I know you didn't like them. I am sure that they are not the best ski for everyone. However, for some of us, they do make a reasonable one-ski quiver. Of course, I don't spend time in gates anymore, ski exclusively in the west, and so on. For me, they are great skis in all the conditions I experience.

Of course, HS would tell you that such a statement is evidence that I can't ski. I don't make statements about my ability, so others will need to judge that. But, I will say that the statement is inappropriate and just plain wrong about a number of people I know that ski the Metrons everywhere and truly enjoy them. Including some others who posted in the thread in question...
I wouldnt' say I didn't like them.... they just don't have a place in my quiver... I'd use 'em for a few runs a year.

I haven't read the "thread in question", but I will after lunch.
post #38 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
What I (and others) have said is that we have skied them. You haven't, and yet are convinced that you understand ski design parameters well enough that you can judge a ski simply by its dimensions. I have provided some introductory engineering commentary on the science behind how it is possible to design a ski that will do what it is claimed that the Metron:b5 can (and in my opinion does) do.

You have provided no credentials that would give me a reason to give your opinion any credence at all. You have not asked for my credentials, so I have not bothered to give them, but a brief perusal of the site would indicate that I have some reasonable credentials in both skiing and engineering.

You can give no reason why your opinion should hold any water at all other than that you think it should. Based on my knowledge, experience, and personal review of the ski in question, I have drawn an opposing conclusion. Given that your opinions are based on a single fact out of many that apply they are therefore without sufficient basis as a support for your hypothesis. It is on this basis that I (and others) have dismissed your statements as effectively unsupported.
I don't go waving my credentials around, but I assure you, overall they certainly match (or exceed) yours in engineering experience, variety of skis skied on, and skiing ablity level.

Though I have not skied the metron B5, my experience with other atomics and other short sidecut skis leaves me with the conclusion that the short radius metrons are most likely far more limiting than you are describing, and that the major reason you find them a good choice, is that you don't ski particularly fast and agressively. If you don't spend much time above 25 mph, and like short turns, I'm sure they are fantastic.
post #39 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I don't go waving my credentials around, but I assure you, overall they certainly match (or exceed) yours in engineering experience, variety of skis skied on, and skiing ablity level.
Well, you've said that you're in the top 1% of skiers on the mountain at any time. But, you didn't engage with me in an engineering discussion, and I seem to remember that you mentioned that you were in undergrad at this point. Therefore, this statement is completely, utterly rediculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Though I have not skied the metron B5, my experience with other atomics and other short sidecut skis leaves me with the conclusion that the short radius metrons are most likely far more limiting than you are describing, and that the major reason you find them a good choice, is that you don't ski particularly fast and agressively. If you don't spend much time above 25 mph, and like short turns, I'm sure they are fantastic.
So, you see no issue with extrapolating even in the face of extensive disagreement from those who have experience in the face of your ignorance? Such insistence is hardly likely to lead to any learning at all, and simply provides evidence of a prejudicial approach to debate that has made this conversation so fruitless.

I assure you that it is rare, indeed, that I ski under 25mph.
post #40 of 113
I don't think Roadkill HaS given up.
And while he has not been swinging around "credentials"
he certainly has been swinging around something else.
post #41 of 113

everyone lighten up.

guys. seriously.

some people like metrons, some people like dynastar, some people like look, some people like raichle, etc etc etc to infinitum.

who of you really cares what the other person likes to ski? it's their problem (or not)!

let's stop the metron hate and all help eachother out with making sure one another (especially our newer members) get accurate, great advice on what to buy!

look, i'm not fond of the metron, but you don't see me throwing it out there. i just give people advice and contribute on product i know. i look forward to skiing the merton to experience it for myself and build my own opinion about it. i don't even have the time or the desire to read some 7 page post about a ski.

everyone toast a beer to eachother and go ski.
post #42 of 113
unionbowler, I'm with you. Especially the accurate part. Metrons aren't for everyone. But, they are for some. And some of those are true experts.

BTW, here's what HS really thinks about us:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
You should also check out www.tetongravity.com/forums. There are alot more serious agressive skiers over there. This forum tend to have an older crowd that does not ski as fast and agressive as most people I would consider experts.
post #43 of 113
Here is my thought, I know SSH, not personly of course but he has gone out of his way to help me with skiing issues. He always speaks kindly and gives up his time to help people out. So SSH is a good guy, gives well reasoned comments, knows his stuff.

The attacks by HIGHWAY STAR that i'm seeeing are more in line with a five year old throwing a temper tantrum!

I could see your point (sort of) untill you started your i'll treatment of SSH and others.

The thing we all need to rember is this; What is a crappy to you may be a great Ski to others. What kind moron would tell someone who ski the whole mountain on any day in any condition on a pair of Metron's that the ski sucks?

Eithier you have no clue or the guy on the Metrons is just a better skier then you "cause he's rippin the mountain on a crappy pair of skies.

Wake up, i'm done with you HIGHWAY STAR
post #44 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I don't go waving my credentials around, but I assure you, overall they certainly match (or exceed) yours in engineering experience, variety of skis skied on, and skiing ablity level.
You seem to assume a lot on little knowledge which I guess is why you are so confused about a ski you've never been on as well. Please let me know what you plan to contribute to as an engineer and where I may find it so I can avoid it at all costs. Anyone who assumes first he is right and then casts about for a semblance of logic to prove it is a danger to many especially if those assumptions are used in critical decisions.

I have always maintained a quiver of 4 or 5 skis, a GS race, a Slalom race, an eveyday ski (detuned GS or slalom) and a fat set and some rock boards.
Last year I skied everything on the metron 10, groomed, off piste, bumps, crud, powder, steeps, lower end teaching whatever it was. Ok I had fat boards on for a couple of deep days but mostly because of rock concerns.

As I've mentioned before I find short turns to be the toughest thing to do on the 10s. Skidded isn't an issue but carved can be tough to stay in the right spot. For me they seem best at mid radius, reasonable speeds (50 60 kph) and are quite functional at bigger turns and higher speeds. The only problem at real high speeds is depending on light and terrain it can be easy to catch a rise that loads them up suddenly and the feet by ears alarm can go off. In good light it is no problem but the moves have to be subtle and controlled since loading that ski and sidecut up at big speed just isn't that adviseable.

Do they have limitations, sure. Are they far more adept at far more types of skiing than any other ski I've been on, absolutely.

I mentioned this in the tai chi thread. Long ago I noticed an inverse relationship between how much a person talks about how much better and more knowlegeable they are and how much knowledge and ability they actually have. HS certainly seems to be supporting that belief.
post #45 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I don't go waving my credentials around, but I assure you, overall they certainly match (or exceed) yours in engineering experience, variety of skis skied on, and skiing ablity level.
This is going to be entertaining... :
post #46 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
.
Last year I skied everything on the metron 10, groomed, off piste, bumps, crud, powder, steeps, lower end teaching whatever it was. As I've mentioned before I find short turns to be the toughest thing to do on the 10s. Skidded isn't an issue but carved can be tough to stay in the right spot. For me they seem best at mid radius, reasonable speeds (50 60 kph) and are quite functional at bigger turns and higher speeds. .

Hey, come'on, you're forming opinions based upon actually skiing the things. That's not fair!
post #47 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer
I wouldnt' say I didn't like them.... they just don't have a place in my quiver... I'd use 'em for a few runs a year.

I haven't read the "thread in question", but I will after lunch.

Ok, I'm back, but I don't have time to read that...... I discovered this which will take up quite a bit of time, and is far more interesting than this annoying thread.....
post #48 of 113
I just gotta say, the sentence clause "conclusion that the short radius metrons are most likely" made me laugh out loud.

You *conclude*that there is *some degree of likelihood, undefined by any metric*?

Some conclusion. I'll get on board with that!
post #49 of 113
I rented a pair of Metron B5s last year in Whistler. I went for the 162s. Personally, I didn't like them. My skis are 01 Atomic Beta Race Carve 9 20 at 180cm which I love, but I found the B5s too squirly at speed, where as my 9 20s were beautiful for long, big GS carvs. That being said, I'm 6'2 and 200 lbs so I think that the 162 were too short.

For this year, I have decided to go with the Nordica Top Fuel as they seem to excel at what I want them to excel at.

Okay, now, here is the big thing...who cares. If you can ski well in all the terrain you want on a pair of skis that you love then they are perfect for you. If your skis limit you in a way that it takes away from your enjoyment of the sport then they are not perfect for you...but they may be perfect for someone else.
post #50 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck34
I rented a pair of Metron B5s last year in Whistler. I went for the 162s. Personally, I didn't like them. My skis are 01 Atomic Beta Race Carve 9 20 at 180cm which I love, but I found the B5s too squirly at speed, where as my 9 20s were beautiful for long, big GS carvs. That being said, I'm 6'2 and 200 lbs so I think that the 162 were too short.

For this year, I have decided to go with the Nordica Top Fuel as they seem to excel at what I want them to excel at.
I think you tried them too short.

I bet if you tried the Top Fuels in a 162, you would find the same thing. Past that, Metron talk is like talking about religion or politices here. I have no problem with Highway Star other than he is condemning something without trying it. I am sure if I ran into HS at a bar after a great day of skiing, we would talk and laugh about how much fun we just had. I am surprised with someone that has a skiing background like he says he has is so narrowminded about something. ANd not even curious enough to try them, Sam I am .

Infact, I will be glad to let him get on my M11's one day when we are both up at K-mart. Highway Star? Are you open to that?
post #51 of 113
A break is needed. Hell, those pecs gotta be hurting from all that chest beating. Goooo Tarzan!!!
post #52 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Well, you've said that you're in the top 1% of skiers on the mountain at any time. But, you didn't engage with me in an engineering discussion, and I seem to remember that you mentioned that you were in undergrad at this point. Therefore, this statement is completely, utterly rediculous.

So, you see no issue with extrapolating even in the face of extensive disagreement from those who have experience in the face of your ignorance? Such insistence is hardly likely to lead to any learning at all, and simply provides evidence of a prejudicial approach to debate that has made this conversation so fruitless.

I assure you that it is rare, indeed, that I ski under 25mph.
You do not know what my engineering qualifications are, but assure you I am not an undergrad. Re-read my previous post. I am quite certain my credentials in engineering expertise, skiing ability, and variety of skis skied/owned, *overall* or *in total* or *summed*, exceeds yours. You managed to incorrectly calculate the space required to perform linked turns in another thread, where I had no problem with it.... all that was required was basic high school trig, and some realistic assumptions.

You also seems to have forgotten about centripetal force. Please have a look at this calculator:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf

For a 200lb person to sustain a 10m arc at 35 mph, you need to deliver 500 lb of certipetal force by standing on the ski edge. If you weigh 200 lb, your center of mass needs to be at 68 degrees from vertical....a pretty high edge angle. While this is totally possible on a lifted, wide, 25m sidecut ski, it sure as hell isn't going to happen on a 12m ski - you will be totally overskiing the sidecut. If you try a 5m radius slalom turn at 35mph, you need 1000lb of centripetal force, and a 78 degree edge angle...while this may be physically possible, I doubt most skiers can perform something like it. What's more realistic? How about a 5m turn at 20 mph, where the edge angle required is only 58 degrees, or 10m turn at 20 mph where a 39 degree edge angle is all that's required. How about 30mph, 8m radius...nope, that's going to require a 68 degree angle. Granted, I don't know the exact arc shapes the metrons form when put on edge and bent, but it is obviously going to be much less than than their measured radius at high edge angles.....definitely not 8m at 68 degrees, etc. If you did have a table of arc shape vs. edge angle, you could back calculate and find the optimal speed any given turn shape. In a nutshell though, you will pretty much be oversking the sidecut at above 25mph.

If you do indeed ski at over 25mph regularly, I suggest buying a ski with around a 20m sidecut, so you aren't constantly skiddering down the hill.
post #53 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
You do not know what my engineering qualifications are, but assure you I am not an undergrad. Re-read my previous post. I am quite certain my credentials in engineering expertise, skiing ability, and variety of skis skied/owned, *overall* or *in total* or *summed*, exceeds yours. You managed to incorrectly calculate the space required to perform linked turns in another thread, where I had no problem with it.... all that was required was basic high school trig, and some realistic assumptions.
Didn't read my reply, did you? The two were apples and oranges, and you can't see that and clearly don't care about accuracy. Most engineers I know focus a lot on accuracy. You only seem to care about feeling as though you're "right".

I am also quite certain that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to my credentials.
post #54 of 113
OK Steve, I considered doing via PM, but instead of a pissing match, why don't you and HS compare you know what via PM's.
post #55 of 113
As a public service announcement, I would like to point out that Mount Baker has now passed 60" base with over 120" already fallen for the season. Over the next two days there should be another 36" to 48" of 25 to 28 degree snow. They will be opening 100% of their terrain on Tuesday, November 8.

We now return you to your pointless off-season arguing.
post #56 of 113
my dad has a bigger john deere lawn mower than yours.
post #57 of 113
Ignorance has a certain charm. Stupidity does not.

I'm sure that applies somewhere in here.
post #58 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan
As a public service announcement, I would like to point out that Mount Baker has now passed 60" base with over 120" already fallen for the season. Over the next two days there should be another 36" to 48" of 25 to 28 degree snow. They will be opening 100% of their terrain on Tuesday, November 8.

We now return you to your pointless off-season arguing.
I've already been skiing....have you?
post #59 of 113
just an aside...

"engineering experience" does not necessarily make you a good engineer. "more engineering experience" does not make you a better engineer. Skiing faster than everyone else certainly does not imply that you're a better skier, and skiing slower doesn't imply that you're not as aggressive; you may just prefer to make slalom turns (aggressively).

yeah. I'm going to go back to lurking.
post #60 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer
Ok, I'm back, but I don't have time to read that...... I discovered this which will take up quite a bit of time, and is far more interesting than this annoying thread.....
Dude! Thanks. I needed the break.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion