EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › I am 6'6" & need a short turner metron B5 172 or sl 166 race ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I am 6'6" & need a short turner metron B5 172 or sl 166 race ski?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I am 6'6" and weight 200-220. I currently have stockli stormriders xl 184 and fischer worldcup rc4 RC 185 and both are excellent mid size turn radius skis. I am wanting to add a short turner to my line up that will handle my size to be skied in Ohio and other midwest resorts.

I have previous tried fischer rx8 175 which was a fantastic short turner but it started to became a noodle on me when skiing at Seven Springs from mid to upper speeds trying to keep up with someone on a metron B5. I was thinking of the metron b5 in a 172 or maybe actual volkl or fischer race sl skis. Is the metron B5 in 172 still pretty quick in short turns like the fischer rx8 175 I tried previously? I was informed the B5 in a 172 will not noodle on me.
post #2 of 13
I skied the 172 B5 at 7S last year. I thought the ski worked well at springs. Its great on groomers, just ok on bumps. The B5 skis huge for its size. 172 is good for a person north of 200lbs. That ski in 172 has a 13m radius so it is a turner. The B5 has a lot of energy once you get up to speed, but its also pretty damp.
post #3 of 13
The B5 in that length is likely a pretty nice ski for you. It'll ski long (and a bit on the heavy side). Any chance you can get out on a pair to see what you think?
post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 
I am having a hard time finding any metron B5's to demo but I am heading out of town this weekend to ski so maybe some shop will have some. I really want to demo a B5 because it is fairly expensive to buy and get stuck with if I don't like the B5. It will probably be hard to unload it in 172. I prefer to buy used in good shape due to budget but the B5 even used seems to hold its value.

I do miss the rx8 for super tight arcs for extremely small hills. The RX8 was a fun, light, easy to toss around ski. The rx8 and my fischer worldcup rc4 rc's do not ski anything alike but the rc's are going to rock I think when I get a chance to crank them up to speed. My stockli xl's and rc's ski very similar.
post #5 of 13
I'm 6'5" and 280 lbs. I ski the RC4 SL in a 166 and absolutely love them for quick turning and ripping up the groomers. They hold up just find for me.
post #6 of 13
I will probably sound like a hole for saying this, but I don't understand this whole routine with tall and heavy skiers on short skis. I'm 6'1" and only 190lbs, and anything less than 175cm feels like a toy to me. Now of course, to each their own, but I don't get it. Is it primarily because they make turning so much easier? At some point don't they run out of edge for grip on ice and hardpack? Or run out of straight line stability at speed?

I've gone shorter and shorter on my skis over the years, but 175cm is about the lower limit of my comfort zone with current skis.
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I will probably sound like a hole for saying this, but I don't understand this whole routine with tall and heavy skiers on short skis. I'm 6'1" and only 190lbs, and anything less than 175cm feels like a toy to me. Now of course, to each their own, but I don't get it. Is it primarily because they make turning so much easier? At some point don't they run out of edge for grip on ice and hardpack? Or run out of straight line stability at speed?

I've gone shorter and shorter on my skis over the years, but 175cm is about the lower limit of my comfort zone with current skis.
Its true. But 172 B5s ski big. Very heavy, Damp, good edge hold. Its a really nice carver, especially for mid Atlantic condition's when things get warmed up in the afternoon and sloppy. The extra width is pretty helpful.
post #8 of 13
Stockli now has an FIS series and the SL sounds a bit stiffer than the normal SL though the dimensions are the same (both are legal), but with your weight the 166 SL/FIS may do it (13.2 radius) ... or the regular SL 171 (14.1 radius) ....
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I will probably sound like a hole for saying this, but I don't understand this whole routine with tall and heavy skiers on short skis. I'm 6'1" and only 190lbs, and anything less than 175cm feels like a toy to me. Now of course, to each their own, but I don't get it. Is it primarily because they make turning so much easier? At some point don't they run out of edge for grip on ice and hardpack? Or run out of straight line stability at speed?

I've gone shorter and shorter on my skis over the years, but 175cm is about the lower limit of my comfort zone with current skis.

I'm a little shorter than you and the same weight. I haven't skied anything under 175 that feels like enough ski to me either. I suppose if you put a lot of weight on a short stiff edge it works to some extent for holding an edge, heck hockey players are on pretty short edges. That said I like to relax a bit going fast, there's plenty else to worry about at speed besides your 165 wandering around under you.
post #10 of 13
Quite true! There is no time for a "coffee break" mentality when on a short SL, you do need to stay on top of and "ski" the ski.

Regarding relaxation ... we did have an old aviation saying ...

.... "Never stop flying the airplane till it's tied down or in the hangar" ...

Same holds true no matter what skis you are on ... guess when you are likely to catch an edge ... or encounter the dreaded "snow snakes" ??

post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I will probably sound like a hole for saying this, but I don't understand this whole routine with tall and heavy skiers on short skis. I'm 6'1" and only 190lbs, and anything less than 175cm feels like a toy to me. Now of course, to each their own, but I don't get it. Is it primarily because they make turning so much easier? At some point don't they run out of edge for grip on ice and hardpack? Or run out of straight line stability at speed?

I've gone shorter and shorter on my skis over the years, but 175cm is about the lower limit of my comfort zone with current skis.
I was skiing a 165 race stock SL and these did NOT feel like toys.
post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 
skier 219, I know what your saying trust me if I had it my way I would be out west and again and would not own any skis under 188 or maybe next time 194 in length and would rather slay the mountain. The extra length is really nice for charging more my ski style with massive powerful turns. I am finding that I ski more to my potential on longer skis with my height. Longer length is also more relaxing for all day cruising that is for sure because my stance does not have to be constantly centered as much. I do not feel comfortable on 184 or 185 short skis for out west charging but they did seem to have the stability at speed for the most part. I have found the 188 is my lucky number for minimal length for charging. I also find that I am more tense dropping over the edge on 185 or less skis in steeps with my height but my confidence comes back on longer skis.

I just wanted to add a short turner to the quiver for non-relaxing mood that has lighting quick reflexes, power and hopefully grip for super small ski hills. Short skis will never come with me on trips out west!

I am not the skier I use to be, I think my injuries have finally caught up with me over the years and I know that I can not be on a short turner on some days. Occasionally I get lucky and my body is working some days and I ski the way I used to on regular basis. I hate to admit but I can tell a difference in my skiing as I age with the knees and hips not wanting to be up to par anymore but I will still ski up until the day I die!
post #13 of 13
Grizz:

If you can't find the thing that pushes your button, I have an unskied, unmounted Dynastar Omeglass SL (circa '05) in a 165 length. It is the retail version of the race Stock SL and has the black phenolic sidewall (grippier than the white sidewall version)

If you think you need a world cup ski, this is not the ticket but if you don't.....this would save some money for you.

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 › I am 6'6" & need a short turner metron B5 172 or sl 166 race ski?