New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron 7.2 puls

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I am 45, male, 230 lbs, intermediate level. I ski mostly blue runs. I have ventured down the odd black. My last set of skis were 200 cm straight skis. I have never been able to ski in powdery conditions (a combination of lack of skill/perseverance, heavy weight and skinny skis).

After a bunch of searching, I have decided to buy the above skis, which are last year's model available here in Canada and in Europe. They are similar to the Metron 7, but have the puls. This will be my first shaped skis. I want the shape because I want to carve and most of my skiing will be on groomed runs. However, with the width, I hope to at least venture off-piste. But if I decide to give up the off-piste skiing, I won't be stuck with some really wide ski.

My metron index (1340) is in between the two sizes, 172 and 180. Which would you recommend?

I would really like to hear from anybody who has actually skied the Metron 7 or 7.2, or even the latest version 7pps, in those two particular lengths.
post #2 of 26
Can't you test them out?

Given you are 230lbs and used to straight skis (assume long) you will probably feel more at ease with the longer 1m80's but there's no substitute for tryzing them out.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
They are last year's model on clearance. I am buying from a larger store which does not have demo's. Up to today, the mountains weren't even open. I would just like to make a decision and buy. If I was buying a high-end ski, I probably would take the time to demo.
post #4 of 26
Carving skis for gromed slopes in general should be short.
If you really want to carve, look at the equivalent of a slalom ski, but for your level. WC slalom skiers use 165 (mens).
If you think giant slalom, my personal view (others might not agree) is that you need to much speed to be able to use them correctly. This makes them difficult to learn with. Especially if the slopes are crowded.
Also, they are easier to ski "old shool" style, and that is a hindrance. It's to easy to fall back to your old style and think that one is carving just because the ski's has it printed all over them.

My verdict: As short as possible. 172 in this case.
(I got the B5i in 162 and I'm 196 lbs but I carve in the steepest groomed slopes I can find at the site. I don't know the american rating system for slopes.)
post #5 of 26
Thread Starter 
Conventional wisdom say to go short if you want quickness, tight turns, etc. and to long if you want stability, float, etc.

Nothing beats actually skiing them, but as I said this is not possible. I was hoping that somebody similar to my size has skied these two lengths of this particular model to give me some insight in choosing. This is not a high end model so I have not seen as much reviews or comments as, say, the M9 and M10. If I were to consider the M9 or M10, I would definitely buy the 171 based upon what I have read.

I was hoping that somebody who actually skied the M7 in the 172 and 180 would post their comments.
post #6 of 26
The Metron 7 isn't enough ski. It is the lowest of the Metron series and IMHO a step back. Look for the 9 or 10. It is easy to err on the short side with these and it is a common mistake. For your size, if you are in between on the MEtron scale, go longer.
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
Phil:

I think I am being realistic in my choice of the M7. I am 5'11" and 230 lbs., but at least 20 pounds is excess fat. I started skiing more that 25 years ago but took off about 10 years when the kids were really young. In the last three years, we have taken one week ski vacations with the odd ski day thrown in. I can easily ski the blues and can pick my way down the odd black run, but in either case I won't score any style points.

I am curious about your comment "it is easier to err on the short side with these". I have read comments that Metrons (and certain other skis) "ski short" and I am never sure what that meant. Does that mean you should ski them in a shorter length than other similar skis or that the skis feel short when you ski them so you should get longer skis?
post #8 of 26
If the M7 lacks torsional stiffness, then the best advice would be renting skis instead and making sure you can change skis during the rental.
A carving ski that is too beginnerish is soft and won't be able to hold it's edge. Thus it's pretty much impossible to carve with it. In other words, it looks like a carving ski but isn't one.
Carving in easy slopes is very easy on your body and you might be able to cope with more advanced skis than you think. I don't think you should waste money on something that just sprays snow instead of turning.
I have not tried the M7. I'm not sure how advanced or not it is. I'm just speaking in general.
Try renting first. Try different skis.
Cheap skis that you don't use are wasted money. Skis that you feel uncomfortable with is quite expensive considering it's the enjoyment you pay for in the end right?
post #9 of 26
I weigh 160 lbs, and tested the Balanze 11 which is a womens ski that is virtually the same as the Metron 9. I was interested in the skis performance because I was looking for a ski for my daughter (who is lighter than I am).

You need at least a Metron 9. The Metron 7 would do for a light person who has never skied before.
post #10 of 26
These are easy skis to use. Go big and don't get a 7. I only weigh 180 and found the Metron 9 too soft.
post #11 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate all of your input, but I was really hoping to get some comments from somebody (ideally, similar to my size and ability) who actually skied the Metron 7 to help me make a decision one way or the other.

Newfydog, I read a post where you were once a nationally ranked racer. With all due respect, I don't think it makes sense for a recreational skier like me to choose the much stiffer 177 cm Metron 10 on the basis that you find the Metron 9 to be soft for you.

I will need to make a final decision soon. It is snowing and the local mountain just opened. And the salesperson is starting to lose his patience with me.
post #12 of 26
Also, the M7 has a 4Tix binging, that is the lowest of the low in Atomic adult bindings. IMHO (again) not the binding of choice for your 260lb frame.

The salesman can wait a bit. just out of curiocity, what other brands of skis does this shop carry? I would still like to see you on a beefier ski than the 7, but it is your money and it sounds like you are already sold on it and you are here looking for validation. If that is the case.."Oh yes, yes, the Metron 7 is indeed the right choice of a ski to make for you, go for it, you will love it"*




*Above comment is untrue and was made against the posters best judgement
post #13 of 26
I'm about 200 lbs, and I haven't skied the 7s. But, I have skied the 9,'s 10's, M11's and MB5's (stiff as a 2x4). I'm a solid level 8 skier. I preferred the 9's.

Someone like Newfydog, or anyone with race background would likely disagree, because they're used to remarkably stiff skies.

I find the M9 offerers the most balanced combination of options. It's plenty stiff on harpack, and quick, edge-to-edge. It allows you to command the turn, confident the ski will hold-up under pressure. Yet, it's not so stiff that you feel you're riding a train rail.

The Metron B:5's I used to own were the most amazing ski I've ridden.
But, they were so "high-performance" (STIFF) that my legs turned to Jello before noon.

If you already ski blues, and blacks are within range, and you're involved enough to be writing on this board, I suspect you should give the 9s a try. I haven't flexed the 7's. But, for a guy of your size, with growing skills, I'm not sure how we'll they'll keep-up with your needs.

My M9's are 171 cm. At your size, I'd definitely go up a notch. You will not find the M9 too stiff, and they'll give you much more room to grow.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
Newfydog, I read a post where you were once a nationally ranked racer. With all due respect, I don't think it makes sense for a recreational skier like me to choose the much stiffer 177 cm Metron 10 on the basis that you find the Metron 9 to be soft for you.
.
Yeah, I said that wrong. My point was the 7 would likely be too soft for you. You may very well like the 9.

By the way, I've skied the Atomic R11 R10 and R8, and I find the 11 a bit stiff and the R8 is not too soft.
post #15 of 26
Personally, I enjoyed skiing the 9's, it was a fun and playful ski. The 10 is a beefier version of the same ski (M11 construction and IMHO a better ski). The 7 is a low level skied and shouldn't be skied by anyone above a 5 or one who wants to improve in the sport. I would sooner see you on a Elan Magfire 8, Volkl AC2, or even one of the Atomic Nomads.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
I will need to make a final decision soon. It is snowing and the local mountain just opened. And the salesperson is starting to lose his patience with me.

There were always ample warnings
There were always subtle signs



post #17 of 26
Thread Starter 
Phil: 230, not 260! Please don't make me fatter than I already am! I'll be the first to admit that I am problably seeking validation or rationalization in my purchase. I have joined many other forums for fishing, golf, digital photography to discuss equipment before buying. There are always well informed people who have something to say about anything. And the other great thing about the internet is the anonymity; one can ask a possibly stupid question in a public forum and the worse thing that can happen is a flame (not that it would bother me, I'm pretty thick skinned).

At the risk of boring you and appearing defensive, I did compare other skis in the shop for price and flex (er, just the good ol' subjective hand flex against the floor). Izor 9:7 (same price, similar flex), metron 10 (2008, almost double price because not on sale, stiffer), Nomad High Noon (almost double price, similar flex) Head Monster im72 (06-07, same price, much softer but the 177 was not available), Magfire 10 or 12? (double price, really heavy and stiff). Of course, I had no way to hand twist the ski to test the torsion, but I assume (rightly or wrongly) that the torsion should be relatively comparable to the longitudinal stiffness.

Here is a link to site with a picture of the Metron 7.2:

http://72.30.186.56/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=de_en&trurl=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.yatego.com%2Fsport-forstner%2Fp%2C45b5f97d2e7b9%2C456c0a5ebbc5f3_3%2C l%2Catomic-m2tron-metron-7-2-ski-carver

The 7.2 is not exactly the same as the 7. The 7.2 was specially made for certain stores in Canada and Europe. It has the same sidecut of the the Metron 7, but it also has the puls inserts of the Metron 9, which I am told makes it stiffer than the 7. It is about the same price as the Izor 9:7, but I am sucked in to the metron idea of the bigger shovel, tail, sidecut and more off-piste bias.

I did notice that there was a significant increase in stiffness when you go from the 172 to the 180. I can see that with my size I should go 180. But I have also read some posts where a few guys about my size tested the 171 and 178 in the M9/10 and found that the longer ski to be less enjoyable. Hence my dilemma. I have been flip-flopping between the two sizes for over a week.

I would like to improve, but what I really want is more enjoyment. The sad fact is I think that my abilities have diminished with time (less activity, more weight, less strength). The last time I skied, I found my old boots so stiff that I skied with the top buckle completely undone so I could have some flex forward. With my old skis, I tended to skid all my turns unless I went steeper and faster to put a lot pressure on the skis which would completely tire me out.

Whew, so there you have it. This is certainly more than what I originally wanted to say. I must have too much time on my hands.
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
Of course, I had no way to hand twist the ski to test the torsion, but I assume (rightly or wrongly) that the torsion should be relatively comparable to the longitudinal stiffness.
That would be wrongly.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
Phil: ( 1) 230, not 260! Please don't make me fatter than I already am! I'll be the first to admit that I am problably seeking validation or rationalization in my purchase. I have joined many other forums for fishing, golf, digital photography to discuss equipment before buying. There are always well informed people who have something to say about anything. And the other great thing about the internet is the anonymity; one can ask a possibly stupid question in a public forum and the worse thing that can happen is a flame (not that it would bother me, I'm pretty thick skinned).

At the risk of boring you and appearing defensive, (2) I did compare other skis in the shop for price and flex (er, just the good ol' subjective hand flex against the floor). Izor 9:7 (same price, similar flex), metron 10 (2008, almost double price because not on sale, stiffer), Nomad High Noon (almost double price, similar flex) Head Monster im72 (06-07, same price, much softer but the 177 was not available), Magfire 10 or 12? (double price, really heavy and stiff). Of course, I had no way to hand twist the ski to test the torsion, but (3) I assume (rightly or wrongly) that the torsion should be relatively comparable to the longitudinal stiffness.

Here is a link to site with a picture of the Metron 7.2:

http://72.30.186.56/babelfish/transl...7-2-ski-carver

The 7.2 is not exactly the same as the 7. (4) The 7.2 was specially made for certain stores in Canada and Europe. It has the same sidecut of the the Metron 7, but it also has the puls inserts of the Metron 9, which I am told makes it stiffer than the 7. It is about the same price as the Izor 9:7, but I am sucked in to the metron idea of the bigger shovel, tail, sidecut and more off-piste bias.

I did notice that there was a significant increase in stiffness when you go from the 172 to the 180. I can see that with my size I should go 180. But I have also read some posts where a few guys about my size tested the 171 and 178 in the M9/10 and found that the longer ski to be less enjoyable. Hence my dilemma. I have been flip-flopping between the two sizes for over a week.

I would like to improve, but what I really want is more enjoyment. The sad fact is I think that my abilities have diminished with time (less activity, more weight, less strength). The last time I skied, I found my old boots so stiff that I skied with the top buckle completely undone so I could have some flex forward. With my old skis, I tended to skid all my turns unless I went steeper and faster to put a lot pressure on the skis which would completely tire me out.

Whew, so there you have it. This is certainly more than what I originally wanted to say. I must have too much time on my hands.
1. Sorry, you still more of a binding than the 4Tix

2. These might be half the price of the other skis, but they are 1/3 the quality. Either you will outgrow this ski very quickly or it will hinder your advancement. ability scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (YOU)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (7.2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (What you should be looking for Metron 9 or 10)

It's your money, I just think it isn't money well spent. You will be looking to buy new skies that much sooner. I prefer buying soemthign that I can either grow with or into, not something that I am ready to grow out if. I don't think this sales person is doing you a favor selling you this ski. I am not saying that I wouldn't NOT sell it to you, but you would have to twist my arm form me to take your money.

3. Torsional Stiffness is much more important than longitudinal. The 7/7.2 is an ENTRY level ski. Being soft torsionally is a characteristic of an entry level ski.

4. I am familier that there is a slightly different ski with the 7 and 7.2, I own some 9/9.1's from a feew seasons back.



The difference is nothing on the snow. And that is one ski on each foot.
post #20 of 26
I don't see any at the moment, but in the past ebay has been full of M:9's in the longer lengths at good prices. More than any other metron model.
post #21 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all your help. I think I have beat this to death.

FWIW, I pm'ed one of the bears who actually demoed the M7 (172, 180) as well as the M10 (171) and M11 (172). I'm not sure if I have permission to identify him or to copy and paste his response, so I will just summarize because I found his comments to be most useful.

He weighs 215 and is an advanced-expert skier. He demoed all three skis during a ski vacation, skiing off-piste and trees, soft snow, some ice and no powder. His description of his skiing ability certainly put him several notches above my abilities and experience. By coincidence, he was skiing on one of my local mountains. He says he found the M11 too heavy. For him he felt that the M7 was a better all round ski than the M10, given his preference to ski in the trees. He said the the M7 was the softest of the bunch, but not too soft to cause any concern. It did have trouble on ice, but was stable at speed on groomers. Interestingly, he tried the M7 in the 180 and found that it was sluggish, hard to turn and reminded him of skiing long straight skis. He ended up skiing the M7 at 172 the rest of the week. Apparently, his buddy also really liked the M7. He recommended the 172, would not want to buy the 180 himself, but said I might consider it because I am slightly heavier.

I am firm in my decision to buy the M7, just flipping and flopping on the size. FWIW, I really trust the salesperson that I am dealing with. We spent more than a week trying on different models and sizes of boots. He also brought in equipment from other locations so that I could select the size I want.

When I finally decide, and after I ski them, I will post a review. If I made a mistake, I can always put them on eBay or save them for one of my kids who are outgrowing their stuff each year.

Speaking of eBay, and for future reference, if a Canadian buys skis from the U.S., what duties have to be paid?

As always, thanks.
post #22 of 26
While I really think an M9 or a blackeye or a Nomad high noon would suit your better, I will say that if your skill level is truly suited to the M7 (with pulls) then you will find the 172 much easier to use on the groomed. It will not have enough float for you in off-piste deep snow however. Mind you at 230 lbs, the 180 in that width of ski won't be much better in the deep stuff.
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post

Speaking of eBay, and for future reference, if a Canadian buys skis from the U.S., what duties have to be paid?
.
You never know with shipping to Canada. There are alot of ebay sellers who have decided there are not enough of us to deal with, and refuse to sell to people registered up here.

My worst experience was a pair of $35 footbeds from REI. Shipping to Canada was $10 more than the US. Then they charged about $8 duty and a $10 handling fee. A bit much for a cheap item. Sometimes things come in with no fees, sometimes Christmas gifts, clearly marked "gift" get hit with a fee.

My solution is to use a shipping outlet just over the border. Were lucky enough to have a mailing and shipping service 60 kilometers south of here. The cheap gas alone makes the trip worthwhile.
post #24 of 26
Wow , you have cheap gas up there? Imaigne that is a relative term now. I don't think the number of registered eBay users is any issue. The problem is the border itself and ebay will not offer much in the way of protectionsfor either party. Simple effective cheap delivery confirmations are not supported accross border so you get into insurance costs which are also exorbitant even for small value items unless a seller just wants to toss any caution to the wind.

I've heard of crazy duty fees as well. It seems they are determined on more than value or lots of errors are made.

----------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post
You never know with shipping to Canada. There are alot of ebay sellers who have decided there are not enough of us to deal with, and refuse to sell to people registered up here.

My worst experience was a pair of $35 footbeds from REI. Shipping to Canada was $10 more than the US. Then they charged about $8 duty and a $10 handling fee. A bit much for a cheap item. Sometimes things come in with no fees, sometimes Christmas gifts, clearly marked "gift" get hit with a fee.

My solution is to use a shipping outlet just over the border. Were lucky enough to have a mailing and shipping service 60 kilometers south of here. The cheap gas alone makes the trip worthwhile.
post #25 of 26
I have eyed the Metron 9 and Volkl AC2 for a while as probably choices. How would these skis differ - on piste and off ?

------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Personally, I enjoyed skiing the 9's, it was a fun and playful ski. The 10 is a beefier version of the same ski (M11 construction and IMHO a better ski). The 7 is a low level skied and shouldn't be skied by anyone above a 5 or one who wants to improve in the sport. I would sooner see you on a Elan Magfire 8, Volkl AC2, or even one of the Atomic Nomads.
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
Hey, everybody.

I finally ended up buying the 172 cm. Metron 7.2. I thought I would give you my review FWIW. They are last year's model so I am not so sure how relevant is this review. The dimensions are still the same 122-72-106 14.5 m radius. They have the same puls as last year's Metron 9 in the front and back. This year's Metron 7 has the "short puls" which appears only to be in the front. I don't know if this is a real difference or cosmetic.

When I first picked them up after the bindings were installed, I was surprised how heavy they felt. I had expected that they would weigh much less than my old 200 cm Rossignols with Saloman 727. Fortunately, they felt very light when skiing with them.

I skied five days with them over the Xmas holidays. We've had great snow days, anywhere from 4 to 12 inches of fresh powder each day. As I stated earlier, I've never beem able to ski in deep powder. Well, new skis really hasn't changed that. There is extra width compared to my old skis and I got more float. The shorter the length also made it easier for me to turn in the thick stuff. But I still found it too much work to ski in the deep stuff. I need to get in better shape, lighter in weight and even fatter skis.

On the groomed runs, these skis were a lot of fun. They were extremely easy to carve short fast turns. I have only skied straight skis. I did demo parabalic skis more than 15 years ago and I found that they turned me more than the other way round. These skis went straight and only turned when I wanted them to. I could cruise and make nice long turns if I wanted. The sidecut in the Metron 7.2 is less agressive than the higher models. The skis were forgiving. I found that I could easily ski using my old techniqe and do skid turns when necessary. I found I was able to ski much faster (at least it felt faster) than my old skis with more control. The width of the heads helped the skis go float above fresh soft snow on groomed runs and crud or cut up snow at the end of the day. Normally with my straight skis, I would catch edges or get thrown around in those conditions. I have not had a chance to ski them in extremely hard packed or icy conditions. Despite their weight, they felt light when you were skiing. I got a private mail from another epic member who was about my size who demoed both the 172 and the 180, who felt that the 180 was too heavy and long for him. As you you know, I never tried the 180's. Anyways, I am very happy with the 172's. I am having more fun than ever. I haven't hit the limits of these skis.

One caveat, I am an intermediate skier. On a green or blue run, I can look like a hero for about a minute before my legs are burning and I am breathing hard. I can pick my way down on black diamond runs but with alot of work; no fun but I can say I did it. So take this review FWIW.

I hope everybody has a Happy New Year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion