or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How wide (complement to M:B5)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How wide (complement to M:B5)? - Page 3

post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Noodler and dawg, 176 for me? Or 184?
I have forgotten: you are 5 foot 10, 165lbs, correct?

If so, 176 definitely. The 176 feels much more substantial than the 175cm iM88. I was going to get a 184, but it was WAY too much length for me. The 176 is going to feel like a 180+ when compared to most 88mm-waist skis. The 184's I have sold were all to people 200+lbs (actually they were both 230+).
post #62 of 79
I'd say you should start with the 176cm, but do realize that it's really a 172cm if you measure the chord length (Elan uses the "material" length along the base of the ski). Add to that the fact that it has a fairly aggressive kick tail and the contact length is only 155cm (your 162cm B5s are probably about 145-146cm).
post #63 of 79
Thread Starter 
Close, dawg. I started the season 6' and 175. I'm down to about 165 now. Height hasn't change...
post #64 of 79
Have you had the opportunity to Demo the Jet Fuel yet?

I have been totally happy with my Metron, but I've been talking to my ski guy about a ski purchase for a friend and he said, "if you like your metron's you'll love the New Nordica Jet Fuel!"

His comment was that.....everyone who demoed at the dealer demo days didn't want to get off them once they got on them.

Why did he say that to me????? And why am I interested??????? There's absolutly nothing wrong with my b5's and yet, I just gotta try the Jet fuel!
post #65 of 79
Thread Starter 
It won't have the sidecut or snap of the B5. It's a very different feel. I don't like the longer sidecut, myself.
post #66 of 79
You might like the Snoop, pretty quick and snappy on the groomers for a wider ski. Has a fair amount of sidecut, about the same as the Head 88 I think, a little softer tip with a stiffer tail. I skied the 185, and it was a little quicker and livlier than the equivalent length Head 88, a shorter length would I'm sure be even quicker.

I tried a lot of the skis recommended here but not all, and my favorite was the Stormrider TT. I tried the 188 and I thought it was about the closest to doing everything well. These skis were fun and made me want to ski aggressive everywhere on the mountain, but still were easy turning and manageable at the same time. They turned on a dime, came around so easy on steeps and bumps and still had plenty of power through the crud. They made pow skiing easy. Also really liked to rip on the groomers long turns or short with good edgehold.

The tip and tail are fairly soft, and when I first flexed them I didn't think I'd like them, but the shop guy pointed out that most of the ski is really stiff except the very tip and tail. Whatever they did it worked.

Also tried the 170 M11-B5 and that was a blast on the groomers. Really quick with a lot of power, this ski is not soft at all. I would like a longer length, but I came away thinking that the M11-B5 (or possibly the Rotor if it skis anything like the Atomic) and TT would make a great 2 ski quiver.
post #67 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcat
Also tried the 170 M11-B5 and that was a blast on the groomers. Really quick with a lot of power, this ski is not soft at all. I would like a longer length, but I came away thinking that the M11-B5 (or possibly the Rotor if it skis anything like the Atomic) and TT would make a great 2 ski quiver.
I have a apir, and yes they are a blast. I am real tempted to trade them for some Sweet Daddys though.
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
It won't have the sidecut or snap of the B5. It's a very different feel. I don't like the longer sidecut, myself.
So, you're saying that I may like to try it just to say I did, but not likely the ski for someone who loves the B5.
post #69 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
So, you're saying that I may like to try it just to say I did, but not likely the ski for someone who loves the B5.
Yes. This is how I have found all of the Hot Rod series that I skied this year (Top Fuel, Nitrous, Eliminator). Nice skis (don't get me wrong), but nothing like the feel of the B5, nor the sidecut.
post #70 of 79
Metron gang broadens their horizons:
Phil got the Titan 9's and Seths.
Trekchick got the teledaddy's and the Karma's
What did ssh decide about getting a FAT one!?
post #71 of 79
Not a gang member but I am getting the Snoop Daddy with a freeride binding for bc and as a wider ski to compliment my Metron B5's.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post
Not a gang member but I am getting the Snoop Daddy with a freeride binding for bc and as a wider ski to compliment my Metron B5's.
The snoop Daddy is what I had my eye on when I came accross the teledaddy's. I just couldn't resist the 160.00 price tag on the teledaddys. Way excited to try these!
post #73 of 79
Steve-o

Go snoop or Sugar.

I have not skied the Snoop but have read some rave reviews.

I own 2 pair of 173 Older Sugars.

My concern is that the newer Sugar & the Snoop are too soft.

My Sugar's are beastly. And it is not the plate. I was going to remove the plate and mopunt the binding directly in the channel that the palte sits in. When i took the plate of, I found it ws completely (in fact wimpy) flexible plastic. so i put it back on & remounted the binding.

From experience, i can tell you the sugar skis about anything with ease, powder, crud, windslab, even what i call 'ICE FINGERS".

It can be carved somewhat reasonably although somewhat awkwardly on hardpack.

At 88mm underfoot the Snoop may be more versatile. My concern when i flexed it was it seemed really soft in the tip. I was thinking about trying the Snoop myself or the iM88 to complement my B5's for deeper (or in our case, in the great PNW heavier days)

I could be persuaded to part with 1 pair of the Sugar's. With all the ski we have, they have not been skied on a lot!

Best of luck. let me know what ya hthink when you demo some!

One word of caution on the Stockli's. check out the mounting point. On their WC laser Slaloms it is very far forward compared to every other slalom ski Ilooked at. (Head, Volkl, K2, Atomic) As you know, Atomic's are mounted farther back then almost any other ski.

Definetly demo!!!!
post #74 of 79
SSH:

I brought my Karmas with me to Colo last season (3 days @ Breck/1 day @ Keystone) mid-April and loved how they worked considering the conditions.

They're 87 underfoot, so that would put you in the ballpark.

I would say look at those and the M:EX (i demoed those back in 04/05 and really dug them), since they're pretty close in size and i think flex.

Also, if you're near Breck you might consider demoing the Movement skis they have this season at Racer's Edge. I don't know much about the skis, but they seem cool...

http://www.movementskis.com/

finally, although I have never skied them yet (hopefully Tryone's gonna get me on a pair!) the Bro keeps getting great write-ups for it's edge hold and the way it handles all conditions. I know that the likes of Alpinedad uses that as his everyday ski...just some food for thought.

Basically, don't be afraid of a little extra width!
post #75 of 79
Thread Starter 
A blast from the past... Thanks, guys...

It's likely that my objectives for this year have changed since I started this thread, and it's very likely that I'll actually go a bit narrower than the B5 for my other ski--less radical sidecut. The forerunner at the moment is the Nordica Mach 3 Power, but there are others I'll consider, as well. If I can pick up two skis this season, the Snoop is looming big. I'll definitely be demoing them this fall...
post #76 of 79
I know it's cool to be wide now but it just doesn't match the description in your initial post (am I remembering it correctly after all this reading?). I recall that you think the B5's are good for almost all conditions (agree - at least for the M11's that I have) but your looking for something more specialized in the steeps, bumps and groomers.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can say wider is better for the last two (and the first is debatable) - especially bumps.
post #77 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
Ha! You got me, va!

I'd like it as a complement to the B5. In other words, for typical Colorado skiing, but probably more difficult snow (windslab, heavy cut-up, mashed potatoes, etc.). Next year, since the ESA is on Colorado, I will expect to do all of my skiing in Colorado. So, no really deep dumps are likely. More like 12"-18" tops, and typical days are mixed terrain and conditions (steeps, bumps, groomers, et. al.).

That's why I'm thinking 80-90mm waists would be best. Wider than that may not be suitable for the "all around" conditions that I ski virtually every day.

What say ye?
Here's what I've said. But, I've decided that my focus is going to be different than I had anticipated when I wrote that: Focus on technique improvement and passing my L III skiing and teaching.
post #78 of 79
Interesting read even though you changed course.

I think we need a 2 ski quiver thread to compliment that 3 ski quiver thread that got so big.
post #79 of 79
2 ski quivers and three ski quivers?
pfft!
My husband couldn't do it!:
I'm not sure if I could do it!

Well.....maybe I could if you kept me from chatting with Phil.
Nah...........I'm a gear addict, with or without his influence.
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 › How wide (complement to M:B5)?