EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › atomic metron 11 B5 & metron 11 B5c
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

atomic metron 11 B5 & metron 11 B5c

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I am looking at a pair of metron 11 B5 and a pair of metron 11 B5c. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the 2, besides the B5c being a year newer.
Also i am 180 lbs 5'8". Can't decide between the 158 or the 164. thanks mondo
post #2 of 12
From what I understand just cosmetics. This is a good versatile ski with a lot of performance built in. Get the one that is cheaper, unless you have to have the latest graphic. It is my understanding that they won't be made this year.
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks RicB.
post #4 of 12
I had a pair when they came out, IMHO, they were the best of the Metron series. Please ignore the upcoming "Welcome to 2006" posts . One of the common mistakes with these skis was to get them too short, err on the longer of two sizes.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks phil thats just what i needed to hear. 164 for me. it will still be the shortest ski i have ever owned.
post #6 of 12
how big of a guy are you?
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
One of the common mistakes with these skis was to get them too short, err on the longer of two sizes.
mondo,

As a reference, I am 6' even. According to Atomic, I should be on the 164(?) Metron B5. I bought a 172 and it worked very well for me. Heed Phils advice, he used to ski Metrons a lot .
post #8 of 12
RicB is correct. The C on the newer year only stands for 'connected' . Both skis share the same construction. You might like to check out the power chart on ATOMICSNOW.COM. At your weight it suggests a 170 or 176 depending on your prefered turn shape and skill level. Good luck with your search.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
how big of a guy are you?
D'oh I missed he said how big he was in the first post.

170 would be the length I would suggest. Unless he is a real strong skier, the 176 will be too much ski for him. By re reading his thread, I will stick to the 170 as the suggestion.
post #10 of 12
180lbs on 158s ? I'll never understand powder skis.

These will turn magnificently. Enjoy.

Too short.
post #11 of 12
While I doubt you would get the 164 to fold up or over ski the 164, you may find more versatility in your turn shape and in soft conditions with the 170. My advice would be to pass on the 158. Atomic put a lot into the metron skis and you will get a lot of enjoyment out of them.

I personally owned and skied the 170 for a year and skied it all over the mountain and had a lot of fun on it, and my weight is close to yours.
post #12 of 12
I am about 147 lbs. and have the 170 Metron11 B5. Great skis, smooth and energetic. I would recommend that length over 164 unless you really have a small hill and do short turns only.

There were a few times I wish my skis were a few CM longer, but never shorter.
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 › atomic metron 11 B5 & metron 11 B5c