EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Metron M:EX or 2007 Atomic M:11B5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron M:EX or 2007 Atomic M:11B5

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Atomic gurus - need your input please. I am looking to replace my Atomic R:11 T1 Beta Puls skis but I have some questions.
I'm 5'2" 128 lbs and my R:11's are 160's and they are fantastic (except the weight).
Looking at the 2005/06 M:EX but the length is an issue - shortest available is 165. I'm afraid that may be too long; I ski mostly off piste with varied conditions.
So, do I go for the deals on the closeouts in the longer length or wait for the M:11 B5's?
post #2 of 23
IMHO the M:ex is a tank in any length. Wait for the M11 B:5. It will be much more versatile then your R11 BP and much easier then the R11 off piste and carve better on the groomed then the R11 or the M:EX.
post #3 of 23
You should check out the M10 or even M9 in your length. A little more sidecut than the M11 but pretty close and a great off piste ski. I went from the R11 to M10 and found it every bit as capable and versatile much liek Aman refers to the M11B5.
post #4 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
You should check out the M10 or even M9 in your length. A little more sidecut than the M11 but pretty close and a great off piste ski. I went from the R11 to M10 and found it every bit as capable and versatile much liek Aman refers to the M11B5.
don't you mean a the M10 & M9 have less sidecut or put another way a larger sidecut radius then the the M11.

More sidecut would make a tighter turn, less sidecut would make a longer turn?

Yes, no? Senor?

But I believe the M11B5 (next years ski) is in the 15-16M range if I am not mistaken.
post #5 of 23
the 07 is indeed a 15M.
post #6 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2oChick
.......
Looking at the 2005/06 M:EX but the length is an issue - shortest available is 165. I'm afraid that may be too long; I ski mostly off piste with varied conditions.
So, do I go for the deals on the closeouts in the longer length or wait for the M:11 B5's?
I'm certainly not an atomic guru, but I do love my atomic Metron B5's.
My stats are very similar to yours, though I don't have the advantage of the terrain you are skiing, so I ski mostly groomed. I'm on the B5 in a 162, which is very long by the industry standards, but I love it!

The one ski that is coming out for 2007 that really has me interested is the M11 B5.
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ghlight=metron
As for the length of the M:EX, you may like them a lot in the 165, depending on your lower body strength, and style.
But...if it were me, I'd wait and get the M11 B5.


But then.....If you opt to buy the M:EX and they don't work out, you would easily be able to sell them and get your money back, as they are a popular ski.

Have I helped, or just confused you more?

I still think I'd wait and get the M11 B5.
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick

I'm certainly not an atomic guru, but I do love my atomic Metron B5's.
My stats are very similar to yours, though I don't have the advantage of the terrain you are skiing, so I ski mostly groomed. I'm on the B5 in a 162, which is very long by the industry standards, but I love it!

The one ski that is coming out for 2007 that really has me interested is the M11 B5.
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ghlight=metron
As for the length of the M:EX, you may like them a lot in the 165, depending on your lower body strength, and style.
But...if it were me, I'd wait and get the M11 B5.


But then.....If you opt to buy the M:EX and they don't work out, you would easily be able to sell them and get your money back, as they are a popular ski.

Have I helped, or just confused you more?

I still think I'd wait and get the M11 B5.
In addition, they are discontinued for next year a may there maybe a high demand
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
don't you mean a the M10 & M9 have less sidecut or put another way a larger sidecut radius then the the M11.

More sidecut would make a tighter turn, less sidecut would make a longer turn?

Yes, no? Senor?

But I believe the M11B5 (next years ski) is in the 15-16M range if I am not mistaken.
Now I'm getting confused. Like Phil says I think the 07 M11 is about 15M in a 170ish length as opposed to a 171 M10 which is about 13.5 or 14 m radius. So the M10 has a little more sidecut and a little tighter radius. Isn't that what I said? Either way they will be quite close and given the end of season deals that may be available on the current 10/9 they may bear looking into for her as opposed to full pop on next year's new ski.

I think the 11 is going to be a very good ski and I'm not sure why I haven't bothered to grab a pair and ski them yet.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Now I'm getting confused. Like Phil says I think the 07 M11 is about 15M in a 170ish length as opposed to a 171 M10 which is about 13.5 or 14 m radius. So the M10 has a little more sidecut and a little tighter radius. Isn't that what I said? Either way they will be quite close and given the end of season deals that may be available on the current 10/9 they may bear looking into for her as opposed to full pop on next year's new ski.

I think the 11 is going to be a very good ski and I'm not sure why I haven't bothered to grab a pair and ski them yet.
No, you said the m9 or 10 has more sidecut then the M11, You probably meant the M11B5.

But you are correct the M9 & 10 in a 171 is 13.5M
post #10 of 23
H2o

Returning to the original question, I agree with A-man, the M-ex in a 165 is a bit much for your size. You mention that you ski a lot off piste, but don't mention whether you see a lot of soft, deep (ish) snow. I am a big fan of the M-9, M-10, M -11/B5 but I think of them first as carvers and only secondarily as off trail skis. Naturally, if your off piste skiing is mostly is skier packed conditions or fairly shallow powder, the the big sidecuts can be a lot of fun.

One of the things that makes the M-ex so great as an off trail rig is naturally it's width, but also it's fairly straight shape. If you are not stuck on Atomics, I might suggest the Rossi B3W. It has the wide straight shape of the M-ex but it is lighter and is available in shorter sizes. If you do want an Atomic specifically, then I'd suggest you consider waiting for the '07 Sweet Mama which will be light, nimble, and available in short sizes.

SJ
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
No, you said the m9 or 10 has more sidecut then the M11, You probably meant the M11B5.

But you are correct the M9 & 10 in a 171 is 13.5M
To me that is a little more sidecut which leads to a slightly smaller turning radius which is what I meant/thought I said. Regardless it stills bears looking into the ski.

The sweet mama is a conisiderably narrower ski than the ex (70 under foot). The m:ex could be good but at that length and her size she would have to want to keep the speed up and be doing pretty big turns most of the time for it to be that functional.
post #12 of 23
Sweet Mama is 113-76-99 in a 159, 116-76-102 in a 167.

SJ
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim
Sweet Mama is 113-76-99 in a 159, 116-76-102 in a 167.

SJ
That 70 under foot does sound thin. When I first saw the sweet mama it struck me they were quite narrow, same as the slim daddy will be I believe. It's been a while.
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim
Sweet Mama is 113-76-99 in a 159, 116-76-102 in a 167.

SJ
Yep 76 under the foot ..... I knew I shouldn't have smoked that last bowl of crack.
post #15 of 23
I have the M:EX in 175 cm, and I'm 6'1", 200 lbs. I love the ski, but in my view, the 165 cm is going to be a LOT of ski for someone your size.

If you prefer off-piste skiing, 76 mm underfoot, whether it's the Sweet Mama or M11-B5 (damn that's hard to type), may be a bit thin.

Have you considered the Sweet Daddy or the Snoop Daddy? At 80 and 88 mm underfoot, respectively, they may be a better fit.

In addition, the people here who've skied them appear to rave about the lightness, edge-hold and ability to plow through anything.

Sounds good to me.
post #16 of 23
I wasn't gonna say anything
post #17 of 23
Good suggestion from the Cap'n but the Snoop only goes down to a 163. The Sweet Daddy does come in a 154 (113-80-98) while the Sweet Mama (113-76-99 in 159) might be similar in flotaciousness. I'm a Snoop lover and I'm pretty sure that there would be a strong resemblance with the others. I have a hunch that the Snoop is going to be a biggie next year.

How deep one skis regularly might be a major factor here.

SJ
post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 
Well, sounds like I'd be better off saving up for next year's M:11 B5's or the Sweet Daddy's. The Mama's are intriguing but I'm concerned about the narrower underfoot.
Seeing as most of my skiing is in So. Calif or Mammoth, the range of conditions can be hard pack/crud/packedpowder/dust-on-crust/powder, a ski with variety is definitely required.
And SJ, I have owned the Bandits in the past and I really liked the originals but I'm not a fan of the recent B-series. To me they rode limp and lifeless but they sure were easier to carry vs. the Atomics!
Thanks once again for the info -
post #19 of 23
SJ / PP is the tip on the SwD any softer than on the current Sugars?






I was rather annoyed at how easily those are deflected by crust/ 200, 173cm, level 7ish
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
SJ / PP is the tip on the SwD any softer than on the current Sugars?






I was rather annoyed at how easily those are deflected by crust/ 200, 173cm, level 7ish
I have never skied a Sugar Daddy, so I have no comparison.
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
SJ / PP is the tip on the SwD any softer than on the current Sugars?






I was rather annoyed at how easily those are deflected by crust/ 200, 173cm, level 7ish
And I haven't skied the Schweet so I can't say for sure either. I can say that the Sugar is quite a bit softer in the tip than the Snoop.
FWIW: the Sugar.

SJ
post #22 of 23
The Sugars have a softer than normal "Atomic" tip, because they're primarily designed for soft snow use (although they still hold an edge with authority).

I'm not suprised that the Snoop is stiffer than the Sugar, since it's narrower and expected to handle more "hard snow" duty.

By this reasoning, I expect that the Sweet, narrower still, would be at least as firm in the tip as the Snoop, and firmer than the Sugar - at least in the tip.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato

By this reasoning, I expect that the Sweet, narrower still, would be at least as firm in the tip as the Snoop, and firmer than the Sugar - at least in the tip.
Yup! Probably a very accurate guess.

SJ
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 M:EX or 2007 Atomic M:11B5