EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Metron 9 or 10 for worse snow conditions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Metron 9 or 10 for worse snow conditions?

Poll Results: Which skis should I get under these circumstances?

 
  • 11% (1)
    Metron 9 @ 171 cm
  • 0% (0)
    Metron 9 @ 178 cm
  • 44% (4)
    Metron 10 @ 171 cm
  • 44% (4)
    Metron 10 @ 178 cm
9 Total Votes  
post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Hi all, I'm a 23 y/o male at 189cm (6'2") and 100kg (220lbs), with skill level ~7 of 9. I have read a multitude of topics about these skis but I never found an answer to my problem.

There is not much more I can learn on a groomer, and my old skis perform disastrously on worse terrain, so it's time to get something wider. Although I will still spend a lot of my time on groomers, my main interest is good performance in broken snow and ice, bumps/moguls, and off-piste. I don't want those skis to destroy myself entirely before end of the day, though, an elegant cruise should always be an option.

Given my body size, and preferences, would you recommend the Metrons 9 or 10, and in 171 or 178 cm? My Metron index is somewhere in between, I like to ski short to medium carved turns. Also, should I get the Neox 412 bindings, or will 4tix 310 suffice?

Also, there is not much I know about the Metron 10, could someone please explain the differences between 9 and 10 to me?

Thanks a lot for your insight, there seems to be a great community on these forums!
post #2 of 14
The 10 is a very nice ski and IMHO, the most underrated of the Metron line. If you are looking short to med turns, the 10 in a 171 would be my suggestion. But for what you are looking for the ski to do, the Metron really would not be my "weapon of choice", I would suggest a Blackeye if you are decided on an Atomic. I didn't know it came in a 178, I knew the 9 did, not the 10. As far as the binding, get the Neox, the 4Tix will not be enough binding.
post #3 of 14
I skied the 9 for a couple seasons on my way up the ski progression ladder. I would suggest a stouter,wider, ski. The metron was a good ski but more and probably better are out now.
post #4 of 14
Neither. For broken crud and an easier cruise, get the M:ex.

I have the MEX in 175 and M10 in 171. I think I'd rather have the m10 in 178 because it has a 14.5 m radius as opposed to the 13m radius on my skis (too much overlap with the sl skis)

I think you will find the m9 too soft for your weight. With it's tight radius it does not have to torsional rigidity it needs....it pulls into a turn but washes out. (I'm 180lbs, ex racer)
post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the info to both of you. Phil, could you please try and elaborate on the difference between 9 and 10? Especially when it comes to handling moguls and whatnot?

And mkevenson, what do you suggest? My budget is somewhat limited, (Völkl AC4 are out of my budget, for example.) so I wouldn't like them to cost much more than the Metrons. Also, I won't be able to demo the skis before buying, as I live in a capitalism-forsaken part of Europe. ;-)

I don't plan to buy new skis after these for quite a few years. So if you have something else that can handle most terrains nicely on mind, I am not an Atomic fanboy or anything, your suggestions will be appreciated and carefully considered.

Added: newfydog, I may have difficulties getting the M:Ex here, as it is an older model. I'll keep an eye out, though. What makes them so good?
post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwinnie View Post
Added: newfydog, I may have difficulties getting the M:Ex here, as it is an older model. I'll keep an eye out, though. What makes them so good?

They are not as hyper as the m10, just nice solid neutral skis which do whatever you want them to. They carve and grip decently, but can be pushed around, and are soft enough to not kick in moguls. Decent float in powder and spring slop. They weigh a ton, but that makes then bomb proof in chopped powder.

In the past they were always showing up cheap on ebay, sierra trading post or even Costco.
post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 
Indeed, I read a lot of good about those skis.



Are these the ones you mean? I can get them for around $370 used, although I am kind of reluctant with ebay, as I need them shipped to central Europe.
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwinnie View Post
Thanks for the info to both of you. Phil, could you please try and elaborate on the difference between 9 and 10? Especially when it comes to handling moguls and whatnot?

And mkevenson, what do you suggest? My budget is somewhat limited, (Völkl AC4 are out of my budget, for example.) so I wouldn't like them to cost much more than the Metrons. Also, I won't be able to demo the skis before buying, as I live in a capitalism-forsaken part of Europe. ;-)

I don't plan to buy new skis after these for quite a few years. So if you have something else that can handle most terrains nicely on mind, I am not an Atomic fanboy or anything, your suggestions will be appreciated and carefully considered.

Added: newfydog, I may have difficulties getting the M:Ex here, as it is an older model. I'll keep an eye out, though. What makes them so good?
They are the same dimensions, the 10 is a beefier construction. Moguls are neither skis strong suite.
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Well, it's not like I plan to compete on real huge mogul fields, it's just that when it's not cold enough, there are a lot of bumps on the slope in the afternoon, which my old, light, extremely narrow and barely carved skis are terrible at, and skiing there is a pain.

A few years back I thought that it was merely my lack of skill, and that skis had barely anything to do with it, but after I tested some fat all-terrain Nordicas, I realised it was something entirely different, and I even managed to go down the slope graciously, not having to worry about the terrain so much... so that's one of the reasons I'm trying to get an allround ski. Then again, I never turn down the seductive call of off-piste. :-)
post #10 of 14
That's the ski. Here it is in the old colors

http://cgi.ebay.com/Atomic-Metron-M-...QQcmdZViewItem
post #11 of 14
You might be able to find Atomic Kongurs.
post #12 of 14
Hello All,
I think I live in the same or very similar country as gwinnie
Let me join the question "which of the Metrons 9 or 10 to choose?"
I am 26y, 6'1'' 185lbs, skill level "upper intermediate" (Let's say it's 7?) All my life skiing on heavy, straight 6'6'' long classics, doing ok on groomed slopes, not so good elsewhere (moguls etc...). I intend to improve my technique, with a little help of a good, versatile ski which by definition and opinions Metrons are supposed to be.
I still cannot decide whether to choose Metron 9 or 10 (for length I think I will go with 164)
I am afraid M10 is "to much of a ski" for me. I tried flexing it, and found it stiffer than M11:B5c, which scared me even more. On the other hand I read it is a very good ski, which is not so hard to handle after all. I am confused...
M9 seems to be a better choice, but maybe I will grow out of it too soon?
What's more, in my country M9 comes only with 4R 310 bindings (I think these are the same as 4tix) as for M10 I can choose Neox 310 or 412. Are 4Tix safe enough?

I would appreciate your advice, and letting know if I can handle the M10 without killing myself

One more question: recently I found out that the 07/08 model of Metrons 9 and 10 are different form the ones from previous seasons not only by the paint job but implemented technology.
Metron 9 includes Tex Puls technology, M10: Puls-Ti
07/08 Metron 9: Power Puls Medium, and m10: Power Puls Long.

Do you know if there is actually a difference in performance between the verions? (all the found reviews usually regard older verions)

Thanks for you insight and kind regards to all of you.
post #13 of 14
I ski the metron 10 puls Ti, and do not feel at all that it is too much ski for me, and doubt you will either. I ski the 164, and probably should have gone the 172 route or close..They are a pretty forgiving ski...If you are a level 7 than I would say metron 10..I would also say to go bigger .I am 5'9 160lbs about a level 7

Lee
post #14 of 14
I had the same 'due diligence' process you are doing a few months ago and found the M9 or M10 as my viable choices for Atomic. Like you I am at level 7 and the same height as yourself, though you have 30 lbs on me. I chose the M9 (and AC2 for Volkl) and will decide which to keep when I ski them. The M10 was very hard to find at the time. From what I learned you might be more pleased with the M10 due in part to your weight and definatley regarding bindings get the Neox binding over the 4 tix. Both are probably servicable but the Neox will have more room performace wise on the upside, and if you're trying to get to 8 from 7 it would be better with no loss if you don't. Since I was interested in mostly last years skis the integrated binding on them both was the Neox which I took as a plus.
Yhe ones you sho in the lisitng look a few years old but I donlt think there was a major differance in the last couple years abd the price cna be good. You mentioned a small reluctance/hesitation due to buying on eBay. All I can add here is research the buyer and pay by credit card. Don't rely on Pay Pal protections. Contact the buyer first and ask a few questions to gauge a response. Without making this longer you can contact a past buyer of the same item, or another if they have other items listed.
Good luck,
Tom
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 › Metron 9 or 10 for worse snow conditions?