EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › which ski: Atomic Metron 11 B5C, Head IM 78 or 82.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

which ski: Atomic Metron 11 B5C, Head IM 78 or 82.

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
East coast skier. 
 Height 5'6"   weight: 165-170  age  54 years young
intermediate skier- ski mostly groomed blue. No off piste. Just got back into it after a long layoff.

My present skis are 160 cm Fischer RC4 Race SC. Love this ski. They are the '07 model (really a RX 8 with different graphics from what I've been told). After a long layoff from skiing and being on traditional "straight" skis, I got these to learn to carve (thanks guys for your suggestions from last year from my post "what size ski"). I went from scarving turns on rentals to carving the very next day. Couldn't believe the difference. As a matter of fact, these skis do not really like to skid. Just tip the ski and around they go. Love the 65 mm waist. My only regret on these is that i wish i got them 5 cm longer.

I thought of expanding my quiver and adding an all mountain ski. As mentioned, the RC4 SC is such a great ski on groomers in hard pack and ice. it's just very turny (which i like), doesn't care to go straight, and maybe because of the length, feels a little squirrelly when building momentum. It also can get a little taxing on the legs over the day. It's not a relaxing ski (but did I say fun). I was looking for something to compliment this ski on days where it's mainly crud or where I want a little longer, less turny and more stable ski. Also, they would still be used for groomers and not off piste. I saw great deals on these skis since they were last season and the season before.

Atomic Metron 11B5c  in 164 (would this ski be too stiff for my weight and level ?)
Head IM 78 & 82 (both in 171 & 177)
Head iXRC 1100 in 171 ? (I think it was that length. Is this ski too close to the RC4 SC so not worth looking at?)

Would love some input on these from people who have skied them. Also since i'll be using them for groomed trails, should I even consider these skis and just stick to the Fischers.
post #2 of 13
Thread Starter 
Really would like some input on just the Atomic Metron 11 B5c. That's the ski I'm looking at and can't demo it. Main thing is if it's a real stiff ski and would be an effort for an intermediate of my weight and height and would I be getting almost the same ski as my fischer Race sc. Thanks.
Edited by scoops71 - 3/22/10 at 2:18pm
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 

Anyone.. anyone.  hoping to hear someone's opinion on this (before this thread gets buried). As I said, it's a really good deal (Metron 11 B5c), but if I'm not really gaining anything (more versatility, sp.), then it might be money better spent else where. Not a lot of reviews on it, but would like to hear what you guys think of it in reference to someone without the skill sets yet of what most of you posses. Appreciate any input. Thanks.

post #4 of 13
The Metron has the same turn radius as your RC4s so they probably just as turny. I'm your size weight age skiing Nomad Crimson 169. These are 86 underfoot, 19m turn radius, lots of fun on everything but boilerplate, fun on the groomers, soft enough for bumps and really stable in spring conditions. Seems they don't make the version (not TI) i have anymore the new ones CrimsonTi are stiffer. They became my everyday ski this year.
post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Jimmy. when i was at the store, someone also mentioned the Nomad (Crimson, blackeye) line and said it would be a nice match for a two ski quiver. The Metron was at such a good price, and being a 164 cm, R=14 (as opposed to the 160 R=12of the RC4), 76mm at the waist, as well as, and according to an old webshot of  the older Atomic website, a 70/30 ski. Thought it might be more versatile than the RC4 and a great all mountain. Maybe I should look more into the Nomad line. most skis now are on sale. Just was on Dawg's new website. Great deals.
post #6 of 13
 I have the Atomic Metron 11B5c in a 170cm length.  I weigh 148 lbs.  I am also 56.  It is a great frontside ski.  I don't find it too stiff at all. It has a lot of energy and is quite fun.  Perfect for small hills in the midwest, or east.  I have not skied the Nomad but I imagine it is pretty good too, but it is probably lighter. The Metron is slightly heavy in the middle which helps its' stability.

I personally think you will find almost any 170cm ski will be less squirrelly than a 160cm. These days, I even prefer my SL skis to be 165cm.  
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
 Thanks, Dgudaitis. It looks like I just may go that way. How is it's edgehold on eastern hardpack? I take it having a slalom sidecut it must be quite good. Maybe it will replace my RC's, especially being a little longer. 
I know I said that I just wanted info on the Metron, but I've been reading such good reviews here on the IM 78. I dismissed it because it's a 165 and I'll be skiing eastern hardpack on piste.  i gathered it skied shorter than what it is but searching the threads, it seems that a lot of ice coast skiers ski it. Has anyone skied it at that length, and should I have dismissed it ?

I know demo is key, but since I can't demo this and due to commitments, my ski season is probably over so opinions would be nice. I check the online reviews from the ski mags, but personally, I find the reviews from the members here much more informative.
post #8 of 13
I am also a big fan of the RC4 SC especially the earlier versions before they changed them in about 2008 to a less forgiving ski, The Metron was meant to be skied short, so only going to a 164cm length is a good choice, I think the Metron 11B5 will be good for you and most likely the best choice over those particular Head skis, I liked the Metron 11 skis even more than the current Nomad series which replaced them, mainly as I feel they hold a better edge on the firmer snow.
post #9 of 13
The M11 B5c is much beefier than the Fischer RC4 SC. It is also a much faster ski with bit more rebound and crisper feel. That said, It is also the softest of the three different generation of M11. I own all three generations and like the 2nd gen most. I’m 5’6”, 168lb, 55 yr. 70-80 days split between east (Killington) & west – 164 cm M11 ski. The first two rendition of the M11 did not sell well – too much ski for most. Atomic had to trim the tip from 131mm to 123mm between 2nd & 3rd gen to dial it back. Like all Atomic – edge grip is off the chart – good & bad, depending on skill level. Great Eastern Hard pack ski – could easily qualify as an all mountain ski for VT, not so much for out west. Head does not come close in the edge hold department. Used the M11 as a all mountain ski out west when they first come out but moved on to more soft snow specific boards for western skiing since. The Nomad Crimson is much damper than the M11. Great edge hold, damp, not as quick from edge to edge and much less rebound – seems like the design signature of the Nomad line. If you like a fast ski with great edge grip and smooth yet crisp feel (two qualities that are generally mutually exclusive), try the Atomic D2 VF82 in 166 cm. The ski will blow your mind. My first reaction to the D2 was ‘I’ve got to get me one of these’. The edge hold is one of the best I’ve ever experienced on a pair of Atomic – clean and smooth. The double layer construction isolates vibrations – I can see the death cookies I’m skiing on but I don’t feel them. I can hear the ice I’m cutting thru but feel no chatter, almost like the feel of ice skates on smooth ice. The variable flex allows me to sleep on them when I’m just drifting along and yet comes alive when I’m hauling it. It is a bit planky in the bump, but if you can ski a round and smooth turn in the bump, then it is not an issue. Non-stop top to bottom in the on Outer Limit (icy bumps) is very do-able. So if you want to replace the RC4 with a crisper feeling ski at a great price, the M11 fills the bill. The D2 VF82 should be demo just for the experience.
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
 Thanks guy for your input. Looks like the Metron it is. I'll still keep the race sc's. i love the ski. I probably got it 5 or 10 cm's too short. It turns almost telepathically and is so easy to ski. I felt like my skiing jumped two levels. No skidding. Just arcing turns. It just felt like it could get pushed around if the snow conditions weren't right. Maybe it's just the length. From what I was told by the Fischer rep, it became the '08 - present RX8, so I was also thinking of getting an RX8 in 165 or 170, but the Metron deal came along and it seemed to good to by pass, plus it seemed more versatile for what I do.
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
 Just a quick question to Paulski, KingGrump, or anyone else that knows the old RC4 SC's. Had I gotten a longer length, would the ski have felt more stable and versatile, and would I have even been asking (or looking for that matter) at the Metron and those other skis.

....and I could be wrong but the RX8 may not be  the same ski as the old Race SC (even though I heard it was. Varying reports)
Edited by scoops71 - 3/24/10 at 11:28am
post #12 of 13
I found as you went longer with the RC4 SC as I did one year it became noticibly less forgiving at lower speeds, I normally used that ski in a 170cm length and I was around 95Kgs ( I have lost weight and got fitter, now at 85Kgs) I test skis as part of my job, so I regularly test the RC4 in a 165 and found them to be fine for edge hold and even more forgiving at lower speeds, once I bought a set of 175 SC's for a trip to Whistler, I found that was a mistake, they were noticeably  more likely to catch an edge at lower speeds and yet they didn't offer me anything extra at the high speed end, my thoughts are unless you are feeling the limit of the 160cm RC4 SC skis at speed, then don't go longer.
I tried the 2011 version recently at Winter park, now called the Super Race, still one of the most powerful edging skis I have even been on, but they are even less forgiving at low end speeds.

We get the 2011 skis here fairly soon and the closest I found to the old SC was the Progressor 8 for Fischer, I didn't see any ski called the 08 or RX8 in the 2011 lineup, but then Fischer didn't have the entire range available at Winter park.

When the RX8 first came out I was very impressed, at the time my choice of ski was the RC4 SC, I was curious which was better the RC4 SC or the RX8 so I got both in the same size, both with the factory tune, and spent a lot of time trying to work it out, I came to the conclusion that if pushed really hard the RX8 didn't hold an edge as well as the RC4, and the RX8 was slightly better in off piste conditions, but there wasn't much in it.
post #13 of 13
My 11B5c still in wrap and Neox 412 in the box, looking for a pozi #3
I thought I got the last pair.  Post your deal see who has the last smile
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 › which ski: Atomic Metron 11 B5C, Head IM 78 or 82.