New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic B5 prices?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Has anyone seen any good end-of-season deals on B5s? I was thinking about picking up a pair if I could get them for ~$700 w/bindings, but I can't find 'em for anything like that - at least not in 172s. The e-bay prices are so high, I'd just assume pay full price for 2007s.

If you see any deals, hook me up!
post #2 of 27
Chris,

What skis do you have? I thought you had a carving ski?

Try calling Brian at Seattle Ski & Rental in Shoreline, 206-548-1000. He is not a big fan of the B5 (too heavy, prefers other carvers) but may be able to help you.
post #3 of 27
Chris,

Might be willing to sell my 172's 05/06 with neox 6.14's. have not skied on them since I bought the 162

PM me!
post #4 of 27

interested in them

could you give me a price
post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alg
What skis do you have? I thought you had a carving ski?
I bought a pair of 162cm Rossi Z9s at the start of the season after demoing them and finding a deal. They have been fun this year, but they aren't really enough ski for me. I'm a pretty big guy going pretty fast. So, depending on what's available, I may buy B5s and sell Z9s.
post #6 of 27
172 will be a monster on b5 did u try them allready .I ski 162 and more than enough ski.I am 5'8" and 240 and ski at a level 8 ...Ski will do it all at 162 ,short turns,long turns,skidding turns,hopping turns...floats in powder "deepest was only 6 inches" floats in crud"crud was deeper"..i guess i am saying demo before ya buy
post #7 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidbump
172 will be a monster on b5 did u try them allready .I ski 162 and more than enough ski.I am 5'8" and 240 and ski at a level 8 ...Ski will do it all at 162 ,short turns,long turns,skidding turns,hopping turns...floats in powder "deepest was only 6 inches" floats in crud"crud was deeper"..i guess i am saying demo before ya buy
Hm.

If 240 lb level 8s (which, coincidentally is within a hair of what I am) don't ski 172s, who does?

I have not demo'd the 172. I did demo the 162 and liked it a lot. I felt it was quite a bit stiffer than the Z9s I ended up buying. But in the end, I've more or less decided that the 162 Z9s are too bendy for me. I'm afraid of running into that same situation with B5s.
post #8 of 27
I'm 6'1" and about 220 pounds. I have been skiing both the 172 (4 days on them, including today) and the 162 (total of 30+ days on them). The 172 skis much more massively than the 162. It does not handle like a slightly longer 162 - which had been my expectation. Not sure what about the combo of differences in length, shovel/tip size, flex, etc makes this so. I find the 162 to be a pretty easy to handle ski, pretty versatile ski. Turn radius is easy to manage, etc. Plays pretty well in bumps. Simple fun - and able to bounce off the groomers when something beckons. While the 172 is more stable running flat & buys some front-to-back forgiveness - it takes a ton more management to make it turn the way you want. Especially to drive it into shorter turns - unless you are moving really fast to drive the shovel into engaging early and flexing fast. They will, however, do wider turns easier than the tight radius spec would make you believe. Just my sense of things...

Heck, if you are sure you want the 172's I might add my name to the list of those who are offering you a pair. In all fairness to yourself though, you should consider how many people here who have skied both are suggesting you at least test drive the 172 before laying down your $$$.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by alg
He is not a big fan of the B5 (too heavy, prefers other carvers) but may be able to help you.
I can see preferring other skis for any number of legitimate reasons. But, I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you claim the weight of the B5 is an issue when skiing, the problem is you and your technique. Not the ski.

Unless you are wasting time and energy lifting your skis and hopping all over the place, you just don't notice the weight. How much extra energy does it take to roll these on edge? I claim "not much".
post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
Heck, if you are sure you want the 172's I might add my name to the list of those who are offering you a pair. In all fairness to yourself though, you should consider how many people here who have skied both are suggesting you at least test drive the 172 before laying down your $$$.
Hmm. I guess I should consider this a little more.
post #11 of 27
THis thread was posted a few days ago. Worth a look???

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=39149
post #12 of 27
Chris: I'm 200 lbs, 6'1" and level 8. I prefer the 172 cm over the 162 cm. To me, the 162 was a fabulous ski, but too active - always wanted to turn.

I find the 172 plenty nimble. I can ski almost anything with them, except perhaps the tightest, hard bumps.

I prefer medium radius turns, and I love the stability and smoothness of this ski. In addition, it bulldozes through anything - a powerhouse with excellent agility.

I'm sure that those who prefer the 162 do so for good reasons. But, the 172 was exactly what I was looking for.

BTW: Fully agree with Spindrift on the weight. It's only an issue when carrying the skis. I've never noticed it on the snow.
post #13 of 27
i was on the 172 m11 for about 30 days and i switched to 162 b5 and i find it more versatile ,a better fit for the way i ski.I have no problem with short med or long turns on the 162 b5..the 172 m11 i had a problem on steep short turns
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
if you claim the weight of the B5 is an issue when skiing, the problem is you and your technique. Not the ski.

Unless you are wasting time and energy lifting your skis and hopping all over the place, you just don't notice the weight. How much extra energy does it take to roll these on edge? I claim "not much".
Well said!
post #15 of 27
I'll agree with spindrift and atomicman.
I'm 5'6" 130 lbs. I ski on a 162 Metron B5 and LOVE IT!

There are a lot of days that I ski from 9 AM to 9 PM. Weight has never been an issue. I get normal leg fatigue, like I would on any ski for 12 hrs.

On more than one occasion, I've had odd looks from people and a few comments like..."that's an awful lotta ski for a you!"
Doesn't matter. I'm not looking for approval from them, just a good time on the hill. The B5 delivers!
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
I'll agree with spindrift and atomicman.
I'm 5'6" 130 lbs. I ski on a 162 Metron B5 and LOVE IT!

There are a lot of days that I ski from 9 AM to 9 PM. Weight has never been an issue. I get normal leg fatigue, like I would on any ski for 12 hrs.

On more than one occasion, I've had odd looks from people and a few comments like..."that's an awful lotta ski for a you!"
Doesn't matter. I'm not looking for approval from them, just a good time on the hill. The B5 delivers!
Wow trekchick, that is an awful lot of ski for you!

Well actually, it does get my curosity up, since i am 6'0 and weigh 187lbs. How can we both be on the same size ski?

Did you ever try the 152?
post #17 of 27
Chris: What's your weight, ski level and turn preference? The Metron index (thousands of links somewhere on this board) is likely your best indicator of size suitability.

According to the Index, I was closest to 172, which was indeed the right one for me.
post #18 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
I'll agree with spindrift and atomicman.
I'm 5'6" 130 lbs. I ski on a 162 Metron B5 and LOVE IT!

There are a lot of days that I ski from 9 AM to 9 PM. Weight has never been an issue. I get normal leg fatigue, like I would on any ski for 12 hrs.

On more than one occasion, I've had odd looks from people and a few comments like..."that's an awful lotta ski for a you!"
Doesn't matter. I'm not looking for approval from them, just a good time on the hill. The B5 delivers!
I'm not concerned about the weight issue. I have sugar daddy's with CR 614 race bindings, which turn 'em into pretty heavy skis. Complete non issue.

I agree with Atomicman - that DOES seem like a lot of ski for you! I'm about ONE HUNDRED pounds heavier than you. It would seem like you and I would have very different experiences on the same ski.
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Chris: What's your weight, ski level and turn preference? The Metron index (thousands of links somewhere on this board) is likely your best indicator of size suitability.

According to the Index, I was closest to 172, which was indeed the right one for me.
I'm 230-240 lbs, 5'11", and level 8.

On paper, Atomic thinks I should like the 172. But having demo'd the 162, I have to agree that it is a pretty substantial ski - significantly more so than the Z9 162.
post #20 of 27
I'm 6'0" and 205 pounds. I ski the 172, and absolutely love it. I'm not geared toward slalom type turns, and love the stability at speed in many conditions.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisInSeattle
I'm 230-240 lbs, 5'11", and level 8.

On paper, Atomic thinks I should like the 172. But having demo'd the 162, I have to agree that it is a pretty substantial ski - significantly more so than the Z9 162.
If you've skied the 162, you know what if offers. However, at your size, weight and skill level, the 172 is made for you.

You'll arc 'em easily, and you'll get back everything you put into them. In my case, they gave me more confidence at speed and on rough terrain. An easy, smooth board.
post #22 of 27

My 2 Cents...

howdy, kidz,

skier stats: 6ft, 220lbs, level 7/8...quiver: 9sl's from 158cm-166cm & 8 high end carvers from 158cm-165cm...conditions: ne hardpack/boilerplate/sugar & ice...

the b5 is a bunch o' ski! i like to cruise w it BUT i don't relax! it is NOT the happy go luck cruiser some would have you believe...:

i ski the 162cm (04-05 cause i WANTED the additional weight): w neox demos. for my conditions, it wants to turn, turn, turn (wasn't that a song from the '60's?) on the edges, doesn't like skidding much, nor being flat.

i seriously, can NOT imagine (for my conditions) man handling a 172cm. now for those of ya'll who have access to powder on a regular basis, a 172cm may be much easier to maneuver...BUT then you really aren't using the edge of the skis as much as the volume to 'float'.

so, as has been said many times, many ways (wasn't that a song from the '50's?) on these forums, depends what you what to do/use it for.

have fun, boyz & grlz,

bruce marks
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceacim
the b5 is a bunch o' ski! i like to cruise w it BUT i don't relax! it is NOT the happy go luck cruiser some would have you believe...:
I found the 172 easier to ski than the 162. The 162 was a bit too eager for me. It required non-stop attention, and more energy than I wanted to give.

The 172 was more relaxed. Still a thrill ride with a lot of pop - but not like a squirrel on espresso.

The flex isn't as intimidating as most believe. It's firm, like the 162. But, the extra length allows it to "give" more.

Ultimately, you should give both a try. You can usually find both sizes in demo shops.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Wow trekchick, that is an awful lot of ski for you!
Yeah. I ski like a girl!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Well actually, it does get my curosity up, since i am 6'0 and weigh 187lbs. How can we both be on the same size ski?
I could go into details about my daily tasks, but lets just say, I come from a good line of petite but strong women, and my daily demands have produced some really good lower body strength. And yet, I don't have an athletic build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Did you ever try the 152?
I did try the 152 but found it to be a little more demanding. In fact, I felt like I was "overstearing". They didnt allow me to lengthen out the turns. The 162 allowes me to take wider turns when I get a little lazy but lets me crank little tight turns too!
And yet I like the B5 because it likes to be driven. Definitely not a passenger ski.

The only thing I don't like the B5 for is chapperoning the school ski days. I spend too much time "handeling situations with little kids" and that is when the demands of the B5 are too much. But then....those days, I don't really get a chance to rip it up anyway.

I've thought about trying the new M11B5 in a 152. I hear it is a whole different feel. I don't want to get rid of my B5 but I'm curious about the new stuff. Maybe Phil has some input on that.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceacim
the b5 is a bunch o' ski! i like to cruise w it BUT i don't relax! it is NOT the happy go luck cruiser some would have you believe...:
Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceacim
i seriously, can NOT imagine (for my conditions) man handling a 172cm. now for those of ya'll who have access to powder on a regular basis, a 172cm may be much easier to maneuver...BUT then you really aren't using the edge of the skis as much as the volume to 'float'.


have fun, boyz & grlz,

bruce marks
I ski Michigan conditions. We have very little powder(in fact, most skiers on this forum wouldn't consider the quantity of powder we get, a powder day at all).
I am an edge to edge skier. This ski is awesome for our conditions at the length that I described above, for me !
I am also looking forward to using it for an "out west" trip.

Side note: One day we had 13 inches of snow(rare) Whoooo hoooooo! and I skied with my husband after we were done snow plowing. He on his Volkl 724 pros, and me on my 162 Metron B5's. I floated wonderfully while he sunk a couple of inches below the powder. He struggled a lot more than I did. He's thinking about an AC4 now!
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
Yeah. I ski like a girl!


I could go into details about my daily tasks, but lets just say, I come from a good line of petite but strong women, and my daily demands have produced some really good lower body strength. And yet, I don't have an athletic build.
I know this doesn't have anything to do with prices, but if you are on the fence on the 172 length, this pic may give you an idea of my size and give you some confidence in the ability to handle the length. If it's the right ski for your style, there will be no need to manhandle it.
Let me introduce you to this group from left to right.
AC4, Metron B5, K2 Snowboard, 724 AX3
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick
I did try the 152 but found it to be a little more demanding. In fact, I felt like I was "overstearing". They didnt allow me to lengthen out the turns. The 162 allowes me to take wider turns when I get a little lazy but lets me crank little tight turns too!
Trekchick: This exactly mirror's the experience I (200 lbs, 6'1", level 8) had on the 162's.

The 172's are for me what the 162's are for you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion