or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Metron M11 and B5 discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron M11 and B5 discussion

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Stats: 165lb advanced skier.

I have the 162cm Metron B5s and I have enjoyed the ski in all conditions I've had it in. However, in deeper snow I'd like a bit more lift and stability. I've tried the Head IM88 and the IM82 which are both great skis, however I still like the 11m radius of the Metrons more. So, I'm wondering if I can get the extra float and stability by moving from my 162 to a 172. I'm a lightweight for a 172 B5 based on the Atomic charts so a better direction may be going to the M11 in a 172cm. Unfortunately I haven't been able to demo a 172cm B5 or M11 in powder conditions.

If there are any Metron skiers out there that have done this type of comparison please let me know what you have found.
post #2 of 47
Max, I think ssh might be the guy for this Q. send him a PM, he's pretty busy with his ESA duties right now.
post #3 of 47
There is a Gear Review on this subject. Someone used the Metron B5 in powder and got a good response with the extra length. It's been in just the past few weeks that I posted on it. Hopefully what I'm doing is the right way to attach the link for the other thread. If not look up in Gear review. Metron b5 in powder
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=35725
Good question! Love my B5's
post #4 of 47
Every credible review says that the B5 and M11 are not great powder skis. They are too stiff for powder (and bumps), especially if you are a lightweight.

My suggestion is: don't get hung up on the turn radius or the Atomic line. Get some friendly, turny skis (such as the Pocket Rockets) and enjoy.
post #5 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
There is a Gear Review on this subject. Someone used the Metron B5 in powder and got a good response with the extra length.
Thanks for the link, I had missed that one. To clarify, when I'm talking about deeper snow I mean snow that is alot deeper. In 12" my 162cm B5s rock. But when the snow gets deeper (24-36") and heavier they are more work. Don't get me wrong, they are still a ton of fun but I get the feeling that a 172cm B5 or M11 (I'm think maybe M11 since its softer) would really do the trick at my weight. Trying to time a demo with deep snow is darn near impossible so I'm hoping someone else of similar weight has already tried it.
post #6 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
Every credible review says that the B5 and M11 are not great powder skis. They are too stiff for powder (and bumps), especially if you are a lightweight.

My suggestion is: don't get hung up on the turn radius or the Atomic line. Get some friendly, turny skis (such as the Pocket Rockets) and enjoy.
I've skied my B5s in plenty of powder and bumps and like them quite a bit. I continue to demo skis on powder days to see if I can find something even better but when I go back to the B5s for a head to head comparison I always like them more that whatever I was demoing.
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
Every credible review says that the B5 and M11 are not great powder skis. They are too stiff for powder (and bumps), especially if you are a lightweight.
Shoot. And I was having all that fun w/ my M11's in powder. Should have read the reviews.
post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong
Shoot. And I was having all that fun w/ my M11's in powder. Should have read the reviews.
there's a difference between a ski being an ideal powder ski, and a skier being able to enjoy skiing powder.:
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
there's a difference between a ski being an ideal powder ski, and a skier being able to enjoy skiing powder.:
Of course, you're correct. And on a powder day, you'll see me on my Mantra's, but the M11's aren't that far off the pace. I ski the 11's in a 172, so that probably helps.
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
there's a difference between a ski being an ideal powder ski, and a skier being able to enjoy skiing powder.:
Exactly. The reason I prefer to look at reviews rather than get the feedback from posters is because 95% of posters feel that they have to praise their skis at all times in all conditions. Professional reviewers have no such hangups.

In 12" of powder I can have tons of fun on a Head iSupershape. But since Max_501 said "But when the snow gets deeper (24-36") and heavier they are more work", it makes little sense to get a longer version of the same B5/M11 ski. Just my thoughts.
post #11 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
In 12" of powder I can have tons of fun on a Head iSupershape. But since Max_501 said "But when the snow gets deeper (24-36") and heavier they are more work", it makes little sense to get a longer version of the same B5/M11 ski. Just my thoughts.
Rather than guesses I'm hoping someone has actually tested the outcome off adding the extra length for deeper snow.
post #12 of 47
I'll have my 172 B5's out in Utah in late February. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to ski some powder. If so, I'll report back.
post #13 of 47
If you want something for powder but like that Metron feel, get the M:EX's.
post #14 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
If you want something for powder but like that Metron feel, get the M:EX's.
I like the M:EX but if I decide to go with a larger radius ski I'll likely end up with the IM82 or IM88. Given my weight of 165lbs I'm thinking I can get plenty of float with a 172 Metron...just haven't been able to test it yet.
post #15 of 47
How about something in a 175cm, 80mm waist, ~17m sidecut, moderate weight and flex, with a quality construction. No plate, with a flat or low lift binding? Would still carve great, but the larger size would be a bit better in pow, better in bumps, trees, etc, where lgith weight is more important, and the 17m sidecut is right in between the m88 and metrons.
post #16 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
How about something in a 175cm, 80mm waist, ~17m sidecut, moderate weight and flex, with a quality construction. No plate, with a flat or low lift binding? Would still carve great, but the larger size would be a bit better in pow, better in bumps, trees, etc, where lgith weight is more important, and the 17m sidecut is right in between the m88 and metrons.
I find that I prefer a radius in the 11-12m range. Maybe I'll give the Crystal Ship a spin.
post #17 of 47
Max,

From one Max to another, Hey Bro,

Get off the heavy weight Metron kick and get yourself some Pocket Rockets for the deep stuff. Open your mind, one ski really can't do it ALL. Close but there are better skis for some things.

Max
post #18 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity
Max,

From one Max to another, Hey Bro,

Get off the heavy weight Metron kick and get yourself some Pocket Rockets for the deep stuff. Open your mind, one ski really can't do it ALL. Close but there are better skis for some things.

Max
Its not the ski for me. I've tried a few of the softer skis and I don't like the feel at all.
post #19 of 47
If you really want a stiff ski made for serious moves in serious powder, plenty out there: Atomic's Pimp Daddy, Dynastar's Legend Pro Rider, Stockli's Stormrider, Head's Supermojo. All well reviewed, all with as much beef as you can handle and more. All discounted in another month. But Uncle Crud is right - just because you can ski a 74 mm waist in three feet of powder doesn't mean it's your best choice.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
I find that I prefer a radius in the 11-12m range. Maybe I'll give the Crystal Ship a spin.
I am thinking something in the 80 waste 125 tip and was a TR of 15m
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
Every credible review says that the B5 and M11 are not great powder skis. They are too stiff for powder (and bumps), especially if you are a lightweight.
Hmmm... This must be why I saw more B5s and M11s at Snowbird this week than I have seen anywhere else... They were quite common in the lift and tram lines.

Yes, the longer M:11s would be a better powder ski than the longer B5s due to the stiffness of the B5s. I skied my 162 B5s everywhere for the ESA (steeps and deeps at both Alta and Snowbird), and found them to be quite nice (I'm 175lbs). Not quite as fat and floaty as a pure powder board, but certainly better than anything else with sidecut.
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Thanks for the link, I had missed that one. To clarify, when I'm talking about deeper snow I mean snow that is alot deeper. In 12" my 162cm B5s rock. But when the snow gets deeper (24-36") and heavier they are more work. Don't get me wrong, they are still a ton of fun but I get the feeling that a 172cm B5 or M11 (I'm think maybe M11 since its softer) would really do the trick at my weight. Trying to time a demo with deep snow is darn near impossible so I'm hoping someone else of similar weight has already tried it.
I skied this kind of snow at the 'Bird this week (a bit heavier than typical Utah pow, and easily mid-thigh to waist deep at times). The normally-sized B5 doesn't plane like the fatter skis do, so I think it makes sense for you to move to the longer M:11 to maintain the radius but get more surface area. It's really about the tip and surface area, especially at your weight, I think.
post #23 of 47
BTW, Max, you may also want to look at the Scott skis. They are even fatter, but with similar sidecut. I had hoped to get on a pair at Snowbird, but with my schedule and the canyon closures, I couldn't get down to the shop that carried them.
post #24 of 47
Max 501 and ssh,

I am curious, how much do you weigh guys? I am in the market for a B5 right now (at the right price) and I cannot decide between a 162 or a 172 length. I am 5'10 and 175 lbs and an advanced skier - fast on groomers doing everything from medium to long turns. I have a 5* in 168 which I honestly find somewhat short for me.

What do you guys think?

cyclist
post #25 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclist
Max 501 and ssh,

I am curious, how much do you weigh guys? I am in the market for a B5 right now (at the right price) and I cannot decide between a 162 or a 172 length. I am 5'10 and 175 lbs and an advanced skier - fast on groomers doing everything from medium to long turns. I have a 5* in 168 which I honestly find somewhat short for me.

What do you guys think?

cyclist
I'm 165lb advanced skier. The B5 is a pretty beefy ski. With the exception of the deep snow I mentioned I don't ever think of them as being short.

I find they work best with short radius turns which works for me because that's what I enjoy. If you love GS turns then they probably aren't the best bet.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
I'm 165lb advanced skier. The B5 is a pretty beefy ski. With the exception of the deep snow I mentioned I don't ever think of them as being short.

I find they work best with short radius turns which works for me because that's what I enjoy. If you love GS turns then they probably aren't the best bet.
As my name suggests, I'm a chick 5'6" 130 lbs and I'm skiing on the 162 B5. I demoed them in a 152 and a162. I liked the 162 better because it allows me to make long and short turns. the 152 demanded that I make tight turns all day. I like tight turns but wanted to get a few chances to relax.
162 for me was perfect.
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclist
Max 501 and ssh,

I am curious, how much do you weigh guys? I am in the market for a B5 right now (at the right price) and I cannot decide between a 162 or a 172 length. I am 5'10 and 175 lbs and an advanced skier - fast on groomers doing everything from medium to long turns. I have a 5* in 168 which I honestly find somewhat short for me.

What do you guys think?

cyclist
Cyclist, I am your weight. I ski the B5 in a 162. I demoed the 172, but found it too sluggish for my liking in comparison. The B5 is pretty unique in that I can open up the arcs to very long turns on groomed or completely ungroomed terrain, go mach schnell, and not be perturbed by the ski or conditions. Or, I can arc them into very tight turns on the same terrain.

For recreational skiing, I don't think there is much better...

But, if you don't like to arc tight turns, they may have too much sidecut for you.
post #28 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
..I can open up the arcs to very long turns on groomed or completely ungroomed terrain, go mach schnell, and not be perturbed by the ski or conditions.
I used to think that my B5s could arc large radius turns but after skiing the IM88 and IM82 I realize that's not really the case. I can coax a large turn out of them but they are not solidly edged like a 18 meter radius ski would be.
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
I used to think that my B5s could arc large radius turns but after skiing the IM88 and IM82 I realize that's not really the case. I can coax a large turn out of them but they are not solidly edged like a 18 meter radius ski would be.
You can arc a long radius turn on them, but they do not arc a long radius turn in the same way that an 18m (or 23m, or...) ski would, certainly. Personally, I prefer to be able to shorten the radius up more than I worry about a perfect minimum arc carved turn being that long. But, that's me, and YMMV.
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclist
Max 501 and ssh,

I am curious, how much do you weigh guys? I am in the market for a B5 right now (at the right price) and I cannot decide between a 162 or a 172 length. I am 5'10 and 175 lbs and an advanced skier - fast on groomers doing everything from medium to long turns. I have a 5* in 168 which I honestly find somewhat short for me.

What do you guys think?

cyclist
I have both sizes. I just bought a 162 after skiing the 172 for the better part of this season & the end of last. I am 6' 187lbs.

i skied my sons 162 2 weeks ago & immediately went and bought a 162. it does everything the 172 does but is more agile. Just as stable on edge. I found it to be better in the chop & up to maybe 15"-18" of powder.
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 › Metron M11 and B5 discussion