or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron M:EX

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
There are some great deals on these skis now and have spoken to both sellers and Atomic directly. According to Atomic based on my metron scale I should be on 155's. The seller recommended 165's. I am a solid intermediate and currently on Atomic R:10 170's and was looking for something a little wider, more all around. My son is a rider and i would like to venture off trail more with him in the trees and powder. I also took a bad spill and tore my ACL in 2005 and have slowed down a bit. I am 5'10'' and 190lbs. According to the very nice people at Atomic, the M:EX skis very big and the 155's would ski similar to a 170-175 in a non-Metron ski. I have tried the M:EX in 165 here in crappy mashed potato in the midwest and found them a little difficult to turn at times. Probably a combination of conditions and my weak knee. They did however work much better than my R:10's in this crud. I think the 155's would be easier to handle but wonder if I give up a lot going this short. This aspiring to get better skier would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.
post #2 of 9
I'm 5'11" and currently 190.

Last season I was between 180-185 and the season before 175-180.

2 seasons ago I rode the M:EX in a 175 and loved it. Didnt' buy it because I was in full-blown demo heat after not having had new gear for almost 15 years.

Last season I rode the M:EX in a 185 and hated it. Too unwieldy. I would concur that they ski long.
post #3 of 9
I am about your size and would ski a M:EX in a 175.
post #4 of 9
A couple timely reviews


To be honest - I wouldnt recommend these skis to an intermediate... If you already tried them in a 165 and "found them difficult to turn", then youre going to really dislike the 175s. And 155 is too short for someone your size. fwiw - perhaps look at another ski
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input guys. I am still curious what is the dowside of skiing a shorter ski. Given the surface area of the metron M:EX in a 155cm is more that a lot of other mid-fats at 170-175.
post #6 of 9
Not an expert in answering these types of things - just know how to ski - how about:

The 155 is not designed for your weight/height - over flexing ski, ski not behaving as it should be/designed, not enough edge area for your weight/height, ski could wash out easily, not enough fore of ski underneath you so you could feel like falling over the front of ski when skiing fast/soft snow/powder/crud, didnt you say you wanted to hang with your son off-piste? Most importantly - people will laugh at you Didnt you say your 190 lbs and 5'10".

A couple years ago I skied K2 Recons - you will like them much better and will work better for you in a 174.

A thought - if you already bought 155's and are justifying the purchase - then go ski and have fun!
post #7 of 9
I am new to this forum, but thought that I might be able to help since I have similar skis. I am 5'8'' and 155 lbs, in my late forties. I ski regularly in New England on 170 R:11's, and occasionally ski in the West or South America. Last year I bought 165 M:EX's and used them at Alta for 5 days. To me they are very different skis - the M:EX's are much more versatile but they don't turn on eastern hardpack like the R:11's. In any event, to me, I wouldn't want the M:EX's any shorter - they skiied right at that length in different conditions.
post #8 of 9

I'd get another ski

Based on your initial post, get something softer flexing than an M:EX, maybe Legend 8000, Apache Recon, Bandit XXX in a 170.

I think the M:EX is a burly ski in any length. I've skiid the 175 and 185, and like them both, but they are what they are.
post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 


Thanks guys for the feedback. I have decided to order the M:EX in the 165 and give them a try. At $300 with Neox 412 bindings I don't see how I can go wrong. I will be at Breck and Arapahoe in February and will try to demo the Recon there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion