Originally Posted by mudfoot
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.
Tom / PM