or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

M:EX vs R:EX

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I love my R:EXs and ski them in a 184 for alpine (which feels too short for crud and powder but great in the bumps) and also have a pair of 191s I use for AT. I am considering replacing my alpine skis with the M:EXs but the Atomic sizing chart has me at between a 165 and 175 and there is no way I would consider a ski that short. Can anyone who has skied the R:EXs and the M:EXs give me a good all points comparison? I am particularly interested in how they compare at the same length, but also would like any info on stiffness, carving, and crud and mogul handling differences.

I have searched the previous threads and it seems like everyone is skiing it way short. Is the 184 really that unwieldy? I am 6’5”, 210, ski pretty fast and will use it for my all-mountain ski since I have other powder and mogul specific skis. Thanks. Any info will be appreciated.
post #2 of 19
Sounds like you could handle the 185 M:ex. I'm 6'. 180, ex racer and feel pretty good on the 175, though I think I'd prefer a 180 if they made it.

I skied the R:EX some time ago. It was a nice ski, but I think the M:ex is more fun. Better carving, more float, similar stability.
post #3 of 19
Cant compare the two - however - I do ski the 175 MEX and agree with Newfydog. At 6'1" 185 the 175 is a very nice all mountain ski - at times a little longer would be better - given your size a 185.
post #4 of 19
Thread Starter 
OK, just so I've got this straight, there is absolutely no one out there who thinks that a 185 M:EX is too long for me if I really like the 184 R:EX? It's unanimous, the Atomic Metron sizing chart is way short for hard skiers? I don't know if it's my weight, height, or style, but I don't see the R:EX as an unforgiving or hard to manuver ski. Isn't the M:EX in the same length easier to ski?

I've read all the previous M:EX threads (and there's a lot of them) and I'm still on the fence, but at 6'5" I cannot picture myself skiing fast in variable snow or terrain on 175s, I don't care how stable they are.

Alright then, speak now or forever hold your peace. I'm holding you all responsible if the 185s turn out to ski badly for me.
post #5 of 19
At your height/weight, I would certainly go with the 185's.

I'm 5'11", 180-185. I ski the 175 M:EX. Fun in that length for me, but for deeper snow, longer would be better. With that said, I don't really consider it a "deep snow" ski - I think it's a wide, powerful GS-style carver. I wasn't thrilled with it's off-piste performance. I ended up skiing my Rossi Z9's instead.

I'm looking to unload mine for something a little less stiff. Probably a pair of wider twins.
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
I cannot picture myself skiing fast in variable snow or terrain on 175s, I don't care how stable they are.

Alright then, speak now or forever hold your peace. I'm holding you all responsible if the 185s turn out to ski badly for me.
Well. Atomicman, who has skied a few Atomics goes Mach speed on 163 Metrons B5s, and thought the M:ex was a bit of a tank. If you refuse to go fast on short skis, get the big ones, and don't hold me responsible if you don't like them. Just sell them cheap, and PM me first.
post #7 of 19
You said you "ski fast" and you are a BIG guy. The MEX chart put me in a 165 - I went 175... 185 if you are a good skier! If you are an intermediate/advanced - not real strong or aggressive go 175... They are a pretty stiff ski... stiffer than Mantras, Seth's, 8800's... IMHO I think they are a great, everyday all mountain ski - sold my 8800's over these.
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma View Post
.. They are a pretty stiff ski... stiffer than Mantras, Seth's, 8800's... IMHO I think they are a great, everyday all mountain ski - sold my 8800's over these.

I've heard they are stiff, but mine are much softer up front than my M:10's. They are soft enough to bend in powder.
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
My original post was intended to find out how the M:EXs compare stiffnesswise to the R:EXs. I read about 50 posts on previous threads and no one actually said one way or the other. Can anyone tell me? If they are stiffer or softer then where?

A lot of people consider the R:EX a stiff ski, but I don't seem to have trouble bending it, so comments like the M:EX is a tank and really stiff don't mean much unless I have a basis for comparison. Sorry if I am being a pain in the a$$, but without having one to play with I am shooting in the dark. I know about the different sidecut and other qualities, I just need to know if the 185 M:EX has a significantly different flex than the 184 R:EX. According to the Atomic sizing chart, if I gain 40 lbs. I should still be on the 175s.

Kuma, Newfydog, and Axebiker thanks for you comments, they are the best info yet.
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
My original post was intended to find out how the M:EXs compare stiffnesswise to the R:EXs. I read about 50 posts on previous threads and no one actually said one way or the other. Can anyone tell me? If they are stiffer or softer then where?

A lot of people consider the R:EX a stiff ski, but I don't seem to have trouble bending it, so comments like the M:EX is a tank and really stiff don't mean much unless I have a basis for comparison. Sorry if I am being a pain in the a$$, but without having one to play with I am shooting in the dark. .
Ok, get out two sawhorses. Put them at the contact points of the tip and tail. Measure the distance to the floor.

Now drape a 33lb bag of Solid Gold Hundenflocken dog food over the bindings.
Measure again. Then ship the dog food to me.

My MEX's deflected 32mm. My M:10 deflected 24 mm. I don't have an REX here, but if you want I can do an R:8 or SL9 or many others.

best I can do
post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post
Ok, get out two sawhorses. Put them at the contact points of the tip and tail. Measure the distance to the floor.

Now drape a 33lb bag of Solid Gold Hundenflocken dog food over the bindings.
Measure again. Then ship the dog food to me.

My MEX's deflected 32mm. My M:10 deflected 24 mm. I don't have an REX here, but if you want I can do an R:8 or SL9 or many others.

best I can do

LOL !!!


If youre ever in Tahoe you can demo mine! One advantage of buying 175's is they would be easier to sale... In fact, you have two prospects on this post!

Another consideration is where you like to ski- trees, chutes, wide open bowls, groomers... I prefer a quicker ski, nimble for trees, chutes... so the 185 never crossed my mind.
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post
Well. Atomicman, who has skied a few Atomics goes Mach speed on 163 Metrons B5s, and thought the M:ex was a bit of a tank. If you refuse to go fast on short skis, get the big ones, and don't hold me responsible if you don't like them. Just sell them cheap, and PM me first.
metrons are 162 , With that said, this guy is 5 inches taller then me and weighs 25 lbs more then i did when i skied on the M:EX
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
My original post was intended to find out how the M:EXs compare stiffnesswise to the R:EXs. I read about 50 posts on previous threads and no one actually said one way or the other. Can anyone tell me? If they are stiffer or softer then where?

A lot of people consider the R:EX a stiff ski, but I don't seem to have trouble bending it, so comments like the M:EX is a tank and really stiff don't mean much unless I have a basis for comparison. Sorry if I am being a pain in the a$$, but without having one to play with I am shooting in the dark. I know about the different sidecut and other qualities, I just need to know if the 185 M:EX has a significantly different flex than the 184 R:EX. According to the Atomic sizing chart, if I gain 40 lbs. I should still be on the 175s.

Kuma, Newfydog, and Axebiker thanks for you comments, they are the best info yet.
Hi Mudfoot - Unfortunately, I can't directly answer your question, but maybe the following comments will give you a bit of related data.

I have never skied either an M:EX or a R:EX, but I did own a 10:EX in a 184. I am shorter than you (5'11") and a bit heavier (215 lbs), but my experience on that ski is *exactly* like yours. I found it very easy to bend, very easy in bumps, and somewhat too soft for general skiing, especially at speed. It always puzzled me why so many people thought the 10ex was a stiff ski, but then, I realized that most of them don't weigh 215, either.

From what I have heard over the years, it sounds like Atomic only made minor changes to the flex when going from the 10ex to the later models.

Like you, I would never consider skiing the 10/M/R:ex shorter than 184, and I make this statement in spite of having an absolute hoot on my 168-ish Explosivs as well as my 190 Explosivs. The difference between the 10ex and either Explosiv is clearly flex. The Explosivs at either length are clearly a significantly stiffer ski than the 10ex's.

Further supporting your comments about the importance of flex in determining the suitability of a ski, hoping for a bit more stiffness over the 10ex's, I bought a pair of 188 G4's. Many people claimed that the G4's were very close to the 10ex's in sidecut, stiffness and general performance, so I thought that going a bit longer than my 10ex's would make the G4's just about perfect. Man, was I wrong. The 188 G4's were **VASTLY** stiffer than the 184 10ex's, and even significantly stiffer than my Explosivs. Shorter lengths in the G4 ski absolutely fine for me. The reason seems to be that in the G4's, Volkl drops the underfoot stiffness with length, while in the Explosivs, it seems like they don't change the underfoot stiffness very much with length.

Anyway, I hope this long rambling story helps a bit in your decision.

Cheers,

Tom / PM
post #14 of 19
In my opinion, the M:ex and R:ex are very different skis. The M:ex is really a carving ski wth a wider waist, ala Nordica Hot Rod series. The R:ex is much more touring/off-piste oriented as it was designed to be lightweight and has a bit less shape, make it more adept at the crud one normally encounters on such excursions. The Atomic Kongur (tele ski) is the same thing as the R:ex, just a little stiffer. I think it would be a better choice for someone who routinely does your type of skiing.
post #15 of 19
Thread Starter 
Thanks again everybody for your comments, particularly Newfydog who I think I owe a bag of dog food. Your flex test is the best info yet.

My main concern is that I have to jack my weight up about 50 lbs on the Atomic Metron chart to qualify for the 185s, which tells me they must be really stiff, and therefore unlike the flex of the same length R:EXs (which are only slightly stiffer than my 10:EXs Tom). As Physicsman mentioned, manufacturers often make their longest ski with a stiffer flex than the rest. I like to ski fast but if I have to be going 35 mph all the time to make them work they are not what I am looking for.

Takecontrol618 may have hit on a solution. The Kongurs appear to have the same dimensions as the R:EXs, but my experience with tele skis is that they are always softer than their alpine counterparts, not stiffer as he suggests. I also like that I could use my old bindings and not have to buy a new pair of Neoxes, and I have seen a lot of places dumping them for cheap. I think I'll check them out. It will be ironic if I end up on 184 (tele) Kongurs for alpine skiing when I use 191 10:EXs for AT skiing.

As always, your comments and knowledge are greatly appreciated.
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
My main concern is that I have to jack my weight up about 50 lbs on the Atomic Metron chart to qualify for the 185s,

The Kongurs appear to have the same dimensions as the R:EXs, but my experience with tele skis is that they are always softer than their alpine counterparts, not stiffer as he suggests. .

I would first throw out the Atomic chart for MEX. My MEX has a much higher index than my 171 M10 but is not any harder to use. In contrast, I had some R:11's in a 180 and found they were quite stiff for my 180lbs and only worked with all my weight on the outside ski (I can ski two footed rollerblade style on all my other skis)

second, I personally would avoid the Konger like the plague. It is the only Atomic I ever thought just sucked. I only used them once, swapping back and forth with a friend (an Atomic sponsored skier) but we both found they had no dampening, a floppy wandering tip and something else wrong we couldn't pin down. He gave them away to a friend.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post
I would first throw out the Atomic chart for MEX.....
Agreed. My 162 B5's have (or had as I've just flipped 'em) an index of 1260 if I remember correctly & my 175 M:EX's index is 1430.

The M:EX definately skis 'softer' to me than the B5. My M:EX are great but I wouldn't really call them a true Metron, ie stiff, turny & skied short.
post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 
"I would first throw out the Atomic chart for MEX. My MEX has a much higher index than my 171 M10 but is not any harder to use. In contrast, I had some R:11's in a 180 and found they were quite stiff for my 180lbs and only worked with all my weight on the outside ski (I can ski two footed rollerblade style on all my other skis)" Newfydog

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderjon View Post
Agreed. My 162 B5's have (or had as I've just flipped 'em) an index of 1260 if I remember correctly & my 175 M:EX's index is 1430.

The M:EX definately skis 'softer' to me than the B5. My M:EX are great but I wouldn't really call them a true Metron, ie stiff, turny & skied short.
SOLD! These two statements (together with the Newfydog's patented dog food flex test) are what I have been waiting to hear. I'm going for the 185s. Thanks again!
post #19 of 19
Thread Starter 

Too Tall to Demo

Thanks again to eveyone who contributed to this thread. I finally pulled it together last night and made my first ever e-bay purchase of a pair of 185 M:EXs. Because of my size it is almost impossible to find demo skis in a length I would actually buy, so this forum is a godsend for obtaining info on how a particular ski will actually perform. Based on all your comments, combined with ski test results from other threads, and particularly Newfydog's revealing dog food flex test, I feel confident that the size and flex will be just what I want as a successor to my 184 R:EXs.

Got last year's model M:EXs with Neox 412 binders for $399, plus $20 shipping. I can't wait to ski with my buddy who just paid almost $700 for his new Mantras (w/o bindings) and see how they stack up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion