EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Selling Metron 175cm M:EX....too SHORT!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Selling Metron 175cm M:EX....too SHORT!

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Just thought you guys should know....I'm going to sell off my pair of 175 m:ex's with 1018 race bindings. I bought them this year and skied them 4 times, mint shape. I'm into the setup for about $385...going to sell them to my housemate for $300...I'd ask for more, but he's a broke ski patroller.

At 185-190 lb, it is nowhere near enough ski for me to feel stable on in rough snow at speed and in bad light, and just not versitle enough to be worth hanging on to. Squirrelly. Too much sidecut. I'm also worried about hitting rocks and compressing edges on them, so I never skied them off trail. I can go out and carve trenches on my im88's just fine, evidently, and go ski everything else too. My housemate is 160 lb and skied them, likes the setup, so he'll take them.
post #2 of 25
Wow you really chat these up as a hot ski! I don't know what limit I could put on what I would pay for a squirrelly way too short ski.

Of course it could be it's just an effort to show how core you are as opposed to simply trying to sell a ski. Another option might be to try and stand on the centre of the ski instead of the back seat even in flat light and maybe it wouldn't be so squirrley of course for some I guess simply going to a longer ski could work instead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Just thought you guys should know....I'm going to sell off my pair of 175 m:ex's with 1018 race bindings. I bought them this year and skied them 4 times, mint shape. I'm into the setup for about $385...going to sell them to my housemate for $300...I'd ask for more, but he's a broke ski patroller.

At 185-190 lb, it is nowhere near enough ski for me to feel stable on in rough snow at speed and in bad light, and just not versitle enough to be worth hanging on to. Squirrelly. Too much sidecut. I'm also worried about hitting rocks and compressing edges on them, so I never skied them off trail. I can go out and carve trenches on my im88's just fine, evidently, and go ski everything else too. My housemate is 160 lb and skied them, likes the setup, so he'll take them.
post #3 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Wow you really chat these up as a hot ski! I don't know what limit I could put on what I would pay for a squirrelly way too short ski.

Of course it could be it's just an effort to show how core you are as opposed to simply trying to sell a ski. Another option might be to try and stand on the centre of the ski instead of the back seat even in flat light and maybe it wouldn't be so squirrley of course for some I guess simply going to a longer ski could work instead.
I sked w/ Highway, he is tall and can "leverage the ski". I can see it being too short for him.
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Wow you really chat these up as a hot ski! I don't know what limit I could put on what I would pay for a squirrelly way too short ski.

Of course it could be it's just an effort to show how core you are as opposed to simply trying to sell a ski. Another option might be to try and stand on the centre of the ski instead of the back seat even in flat light and maybe it wouldn't be so squirrley of course for some I guess simply going to a longer ski could work instead.
It's not a for sale post smart guy, I already have them sold to somebody.

I'm skiing them properly, in fact, that seems to be the problem.

Don't worry, it's already been well established that I'm way too core for epicski.
post #5 of 25
I don't see anything wrong with HWstars post. Bigger guy, aggressive, mentioning stability issues with a 175CM ski. Flat light, irregular snow, = no confidence on a short ski. I am sure HWstar can get by on the ski, but why should he when he has a longer more stable ski available?

PS: People should not be so quick to discount opions that vary greatly from your own.
Highway star thanks for the update.
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 
Point being, if I posted up:

"I'm a expert skier that skis the larger mountains on the east coast, prefers softer snow and skis fast. I'm 6'1" and 190 lb. I was looking at the M:EX...atomic's sizing chart puts me between 165cm and 175cm. What size should I be on?"

Of course, 50% of people would say 165, and 50% say 175. When, in fact, 185 is the correct answer.
post #7 of 25
Have to agree with you. I am about your size 6' 185 and don't like anything under 180cm. Most of my skis are either all mountain, powder or race skis. I do some part-time work for Salomon and get to try all the lengths. I just don't like shorter skis as well as those in the 180s and 90s. Has nothing to do with being "core" in my case.
post #8 of 25
On a different note, I was surprised to see the MEX on ebay for under $300 without bindings and like $408 with last year's Neox. Excellent price for this setup.
post #9 of 25
Is it just the length or is it a combination of length and ski? Do you think a Völkl Superspeed, or SX11 in that length would be stable enough?
post #10 of 25
I suspect it's a combination of the ski and the length and HS's technique. All of those things factor in here. But, I'm surprised that he would have gone out on the M:exs in that length in the first place. I would have suggested the 185 for him...
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Is it just the length or is it a combination of length and ski? Do you think a Völkl Superspeed, or SX11 in that length would be stable enough?
Ehhhh.....the M:EX is pretty much the right flex for it's length, and just about right overall for the average 160lb person.

I'm having a very difficult time thinking of any ski under 180cm that I've owned or demoed that I've liked....hum.
post #12 of 25
Nice constructive message L7 ! Ya might want to see Hwy Star ski first...I never have..so I would never jump to giving technique advice..he might rip ya. Next time don't bother - don't need negative comments on this site - lives too short for any of us...thanks in advance.

PS: I am not going to have a cow if someone wishes to place a post selling something by the way. Not breaking my heart! RELAX...your heart will live longer and you'll get more turns in.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I'm having a very difficult time thinking of any ski under 180cm that I've owned or demoed that I've liked....hum.
You must have demoed/owned race stock slaloms? Or did you not like them?
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danimal
Nice constructive message L7 ! Ya might want to see Hwy Star ski first...I never have..so I would never jump to giving technique advice..he might rip ya. Next time don't bother - don't need negative comments on this site - lives too short for any of us...thanks in advance.

PS: I am not going to have a cow if someone wishes to place a post selling something by the way. Not breaking my heart! RELAX...your heart will live longer and you'll get more turns in.
Yea you're right, what we need is more blowhards constantly stroking their ego under the guise of helpful info or sale alerts. I wonder why the ski performs badly in flat light. Must have borrowed technology from head that senses the light and changes the ski's characteristics.

I've never seen him ski either and he might rip. However, I have long noted an inverse relationship between how much someone talks about how they rip and how well they actually rip. Trust me I have met many of both.

I stay relaxed and my heart is fine by simply venting on those that deserve it and leave the rest. Everyone needs release now and then I just like to direct it. I guess some would say you don't even need to respond if you didn't like it yet you did. Relax it's just letting off a little steam on someone who THINKS he is too core for the place.

PS I don't have a problem with the opinion per se it's the approach to sharing it while ego stroking that rankles just like in many of HS's posts. I've let most slide but was just in a mood to shoot back on this one. One length will do some things better than the other length no doubt and it's easy enough to state that preference without the chest thumping.
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Point being, if I posted up:

"I'm a expert skier that skis the larger mountains on the east coast, prefers softer snow and skis fast. I'm 6'1" and 190 lb. I was looking at the M:EX...atomic's sizing chart puts me between 165cm and 175cm. What size should I be on?"

Of course, 50% of people would say 165, and 50% say 175. When, in fact, 185 is the correct answer.
I was gonna say around 184 for you. Go with the dynastar legend 8000 or 8800. Every aggressive advanced skier who enjoys the steeps and high speeds I have talked to who has rode them, absolutely loved them. Including me. I demoed a pair and then bought a set that night. The 05's. Plus they come flat!
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by huckingfellers
I was gonna say around 184 for you. Go with the dynastar legend 8000 or 8800. Every aggressive advanced skier who enjoys the steeps and high speeds I have talked to who has rode them, absolutely loved them. Including me. I demoed a pair and then bought a set that night. The 05's. Plus they come flat!
Why not reccomend Legend Pro's
post #17 of 25
Its clear from HWStars many posts that he prefers longer wider boards with little sidecut. Taking that into consideration its no surprise that he doesn't like the 175cm MEX.

Its worth noting that the sidecut of the MEX and the IM88 are pretty close to one another (something like 19m on the 175cm MEX and 21M on the 186cm IM88...I'm doing that from memory so I'm probably off a bit...still they are fairly close).

I've skied the 175cm MEX and it rips just fine for me at 165lbs. I like the IM88 better, but I'd never call the MEX squirly. Not even close. BUT...I'm running the MEX up against my Metron B5 while HWStar is running it up against his big powder boards he enjoys. So, our perceptions are going to be vastly different.

BTW, I'd think the MEX in a 175cm might be too much ski for the average 160lb skier.
post #18 of 25
L7, I'm with you man! He blows more smoke than Chernobyl!
post #19 of 25
I own a pair of 175 M:EX's and have quite a few days on them in varying conditions. At 6', 190lbs and a solid level 8 skier on any scale, I am pretty sure I can leverage the ski.

The problem with the skis in my mind has nothing to do with stability as they are remarkably stable at varying speeds on everything but ice; stay off the ice! I suspect that many people simply have their bindings mounted to far forward, which is counter productive to the skis traits. I noticed some of the same problems initially, moved my bindings back a little rode a radically different ski.

For what it is worth I don't like the skis. They are too stiff for the short size and wide girth, a problem many of the new "All-Mountain" heavily shaped skis share in my opinion. Contrary to Atomic's chart, I found the 185's to be far easier ski, shorting turning radius (surprisingly), better float (obviously), most importantly better edge control on slick surfaces.

Curious if anyone else has encountered the same?
post #20 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NE1
You must have demoed/owned race stock slaloms? Or did you not like them?
You know, I never have. I've skied a number of commercial SL race boards, and a few race stock GS, but no race stock SL.

I did like the atomic SL:9 in a 160, amazingly enough.
post #21 of 25
I think everyone liked the SL 9 in 160s. they were a pretty fun ski.

By the way HWStar. I thank you for the recommendation of going to the 186 in the heads. They ae a fantastic ski. Skied them on bulletprrof at stowe last Tuesday, (with a few soft snow stashes in the trees, pretty sparse though) and they ripped. Tons o fun. Maybe we can get together for a run one day at the KillingRock.
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
You know, I never have. I've skied a number of commercial SL race boards, and a few race stock GS, but no race stock SL.

I did like the atomic SL:9 in a 160, amazingly enough.
Bizarre, we had four pair & sold 'em all.

All 3 of us hated 'em!
post #23 of 25

Yup

Yup,

With all due respect..I did not get a sales pitch or ego from his message, but that's the majic of the written language..I suppose..you can't ever be sure as everyone owns their own perception.

The more someone talks,,,,etc. etc. Totally agree with ya..age old tell for sure.

ps: I hate flat light by the way..cripples the best skiers I know, including your's truly! Gets like that...I hit the wine glass!!

Happy New Year..take care.

DJB

Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Yea you're right, what we need is more blowhards constantly stroking their ego under the guise of helpful info or sale alerts. I wonder why the ski performs badly in flat light. Must have borrowed technology from head that senses the light and changes the ski's characteristics.

I've never seen him ski either and he might rip. However, I have long noted an inverse relationship between how much someone talks about how they rip and how well they actually rip. Trust me I have met many of both.

I stay relaxed and my heart is fine by simply venting on those that deserve it and leave the rest. Everyone needs release now and then I just like to direct it. I guess some would say you don't even need to respond if you didn't like it yet you did. Relax it's just letting off a little steam on someone who THINKS he is too core for the place.

PS I don't have a problem with the opinion per se it's the approach to sharing it while ego stroking that rankles just like in many of HS's posts. I've let most slide but was just in a mood to shoot back on this one. One length will do some things better than the other length no doubt and it's easy enough to state that preference without the chest thumping.
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Squirrelly. Too much sidecut. I'm also worried about hitting rocks and compressing edges on them, so I never skied them off trail.
The M:Ex is suggested by Atomic for skiing 50% on and 50% off piste. If you never took them "off trail" you didn't really try them out. I am 210 lbs and ski 184 REXS, and 191 & 198 10:EXs, which I believe all have fairly similar sidecut and flex to the M:EX. From my perspective, at your weight you should not be on a 175 anything. I am not suprised they seemed squirrelly. My 184s are a serviceable all-round ski, but if I can avoid the bumps and stay in the crud they seem way too short, although I find them to have sweet even flex.

It is amazing that a thread that basically started with "I don't like these skis, so I'm selling them to my housemate" would generate this much input, but then again I'm in.
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
L7, I'm with you man! He blows more smoke than Chernobyl!
Ha, I didn't even see this until someone cross posted it into one of his chest thumpings on TGR. I would let it go from most on lots of occassions but between here and TGR it just gets to be too much with the guy.
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 › Selling Metron 175cm M:EX....too SHORT!