Originally Posted by Atomic_918
You're kind of comparing apples to oranges.
The B5 answers the question "where's the beef". I think its an amazing ski, but I'm in western NY with about 550' of verticle so for me I think its more than what I need. It also has a shorter radius than the M9.
The M9 is softer with a bigger radius than the B5.
I skied the B5 last year in a 162. I skied the M9 last year in a 164. Like I said I thought the B5 was amazing. I had a blast on the M9.
At 5'11" and 220, I told myself I needed a stiffer ski and more length, so I went with the M10 in a 171. Quite frankly, I was disappointed compared to my initial reaction to the M9.
I've got a pair of Izor 9.7s in my office. I'll try them this weekend. Not sure what I'm going to do with the M10s.
I demoed the M9 (171) along with the Volkl AC4 (170) and the K2 Apache Recon (167) and had far more fun on the M9. Not to say I didn't like the Volkl or the K2. I hear a lot of folks saying that the M10 would be more versatile, but I don't see why. Being a softer flexing ski, you would think the M9 would perform a bit better in softer snow. Perhaps not in heavy crud, but at least in powder. Anyway, I'm glad went ahead and bought the 9 instead of the 10. I figure that if I liked the way it skied in the demo version, I would be opening myself up to a potential mistake if I didn't buy that model.
All that being said, I REALLY wish I could have gotten my hands on a demo of the B5. The only length they had available (Norway Haus in Beckenridge) was 152, which would have been far too short (6'0", 200lbs).