EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are the older Metron 9 a decent ski by todays standars?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are the older Metron 9 a decent ski by todays standars?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Greetings! I cannot afford the hot new skis so I am looking at older skis but the problem with older skis is I do not know whether I can trust older reviews as the technology seems to be rapidly progressing. I am thinking of buying a pair of 2005(? blue) M9 still in the wrapper w/o bindings for $150 but not sure whether I will be happy on them. I know people loved them at the time but I am wondering how they compare with today's skis.

I am 6', 240lb, 49yr getting back into skiing after a long break that predates shaped skis. I am skiing on ice coast slopes so I need something that will bite the frozen hardpack and not flake out on me at speed or hitting crud. I am not particularily aggressive but I do not want to worry about my boards when I find myself pushing my comfort level.

I am sure my skills could use some improvement but here are my impressions of the skis I have tried:

used K2 3500: too flimsy and unstable, returned them to the store.

new head iXRC 300: good edge hold but scary at speed. Store would not take them back so I sold them on craigslist.

borrowed K2 Axis XT: edge hold seemed ok although I think they needed a tune. Seemed to perform well but felt uncomfortable. Transitions from hardpack to loose granular felt to my legs like the skis were hitting sandpaper although they did not actually lose speed. At the end of the day my thighs were burning and knees were sore.

demo Rossignol Zenith Z9: I loved everything about this ski except the $900 price

So is it possible I will be happy with the Metron 9 or should I demo a few more then hold out for a deal on something I know I like? On another note, if the M9 would be give me the comfort, edging, and stability I seek, would I be able to mount my AT bindings on it? It would be nice to have one ski for everything and my BC needs are not very demanding.

This is a great site! Thanks for any suggestions
post #2 of 17
IMHO, the M9 would be a good ski for someone who did not intend to ski at high speeds and did not weigh over 175 lbs. For you I would recommend something with a little more beef, like atomic SX11/12, Fischer RX8 and above, Head Supershape Speed or 1100/1200 SW, and a host of others that I'm not personally familiar with.
post #3 of 17
I don't know how your skill level compares to mine, but I skied that ski for 2 yrs. I found it to be excellent on hard pack and the little ice I found here in the Sierras, it held well. I did not find it as good on real crud and have since gone to a fatter ski for those conditions. It did well in softer snow and lite powder conditions that I skied at the time. Overall I liked the ski and only sold it cause I decided to go a bit fatter, in fact I replaced it with 3 other skis. See what this site can do to you.: If you can demo for your conditions great, if not I think that there are many reviews here that accurately describe the ski in todays world.
post #4 of 17
Originally Posted by mralaska View Post

demo Rossignol Zenith Z9: I loved everything about this ski except the $900 price

Thanks for any suggestions
post #5 of 17
M9 is a nice ski. For 150, go for it.
post #6 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback! Ghost brings up a point that nags at me because I am a heavier than average. Although I am not a speed freak, I also tend to find myself wanting to turn it loose a little when things feel good. From people who still like the m9 I would be interested in how your weight compares with mine, and how it performs going fast on scraped hardpack.
post #7 of 17
i agree w/phil. nothing wrong with buying "new" older skis. in fact, there's wisdom in it, esp. if you're trying to kcd!(keep costs down) and you'll still get great skis. since they are "older", you should also be able to get "new" older bindings that belong to that ski, while still kcd-ing, and they'll be new/better than old/used bindings. i recently bought new neox 412's for $150 total, delivered price. i believe these would be for the metron 9 as well, but phil would know more. i also recently read that the 9 maybe an undiscovered sleeper in the metron line. either way, great skis for $300 total, what's not to love?
post #8 of 17
I am 6' 240# and ski on the same blue Metron 9 171cm. It is on the soft side - definetly a speed limit associated with it where they chatter. I also run Atomic SL9 slalom skis at 160cm - no speed limit (no float in pow either). Guys our size need a burly ski if you are going to ski at speed. note the Metron has a very aggresive sidecut & likes to be on edge all the time

Summing up - I wouldn't buy them again (got sucked in to the low price as well).
post #9 of 17
I skied on the M-9 171cm(Blue)for 2 years. Great ski for all conditions but not for all skiers. Short TR so they can be nervous at higher speeds. If you are going to short swing all the time they would be fine. Over 35mph mmmm not so good. Specially for your size. IMO limiting.........Here a solution.
post #10 of 17
I have had the blue M9s you mention for two ski seasons now in 171 length, 6' 175# 49, probably advanced intermediate. Used in CO yearly and NY. I like them, they can really turn, and maybe I don't go over 35 like slider, because I don't find them "nervous" at speed, but maybe I don't know what that is!!!!!

Perhaps your weight may be a factor as others noted, cant comment on that, but $150 isn't much to try. If you buy bindings that can be moved to another ski, buy them (the bindings) carefully with this in mind, then you can swap ski with only ski expense involved if you dont like.
post #11 of 17
Go to Ken Jones Ski Mart in Manchester NH and ask for Tim Huff, he's an Atomic rep and a very good friend. Tell him a buddy of his with the yellow helmet told one to see him.

He can take care of you and may be find you something.
post #12 of 17
5'7",147LB,69YRS-I SKI THE M-9 2007 IN 157CM.A few blacks mostly groomers but fairly fast.They do chatter a bit at speed.Seems like 171 would be too short for your wt but they definetely are an enjoyable ski.Just skiied them 5 days straight days, from 9am to 4pm, the last week of Jan at Mt Sunapee.Found them to be very responsive especially on hard pack.Don't know what level skiier I am and don't know if it makes a difference when evaluating but I did enjoy them.
post #13 of 17
I got a phone call last night from Tim. Hope you enjoy the skis.

He's pretty entertaining isn't he...
post #14 of 17
Atomic Metrons.

Possibly the heaviest ski. Ever. They should be outlawed.

They are good for nobody.
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
I got a phone call last night from Tim. Hope you enjoy the skis.

He's pretty entertaining isn't he...
Yup, he talked me right out of my bargain bin mentality. He agreed with those that thought I was too heavy for the M9 and he also thought that I should get more used to carving skis before I would be comfortable on anything in the Metron series. He figured the perfect ski for me was the SX:B5 which, as luck would have it, he happened to have a lightly used pair of his own available for sale. I suppose I could have spent a buck or two more and got a pair of new z9's off ebay or shopped around and saved a buck or two but snow was in the forecast.

I skied them today and I am gonna stick with this pair. The skis did everything I asked them to, even when I asked them to do the wrong stuff. Misjudgements in balance or edging were met with authoritative and immediate feedback but they recovered just as fast when I got back in the saddle. I felt a little nervous when I let them flatten out but tipped on edge I doubt I will ever find their speed limit. The fresh snow made the mountain softer and bumpier than usual so I did not get a true test on frozen hardpack but the occasional scraped patches I encountered lead me to believe there will be no issues there either.

The only problem I had was my boots, which are too big for me and padded to take up the extra room. They seemed fine up to now but these skis seem to feel it if an errant toe slides the wrong way. At one point I hit a bump head on and one boot actually got knocked half way off my foot. I managed to stomp it back down but after that I backed it down and made it a point to go around the bumps, which was no problem either. I guess I am on speed restriction until I get properly fitted boots.

Slider: I appreciate the ebay link. Those seemed like they might be a similar style to the k2's I borrowed, which are still in my vehicle and the owner seems to have fled the scene. I may have inherited an extra pair of skis!
post #16 of 17
Glad your happy with the skis, just think how much better they'll be with proper fitting boots. Tim is good at that too.

He's someone you'll want to keep in touch with, he is connected...

Oh yea, Shaped skis are not meant to be skied flat, keep them on edge, drive the tips.
post #17 of 17
They were an awful ski by yesterdays standards.
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 › Are the older Metron 9 a decent ski by todays standars?