What will be the difference?

[pwong313]

I'm new to the boards and here's my first question. I just bought a pair of Atomic Metrons M10 in size 164. After talking to a couple people about it, most seem to think I should have gone with the 171s. So my question is, what will be the difference between them? I'm 5'11 about 200 pounds and have been skiing about 8 years. Most of the terrain I ski is the black diamond groomers, but I'm slowly trying to do more glades. I'm also trying to improve on the bumps, because I'm not good at them at all yet. I thought I should go a little shorter because I thought it would help improve my weaker abilities, and I assume I'm sacrificing a little speed. I didn't think the Atomics could be slower than the 6 year old Elan X carves I have. So I'm trying to decide if I should go with the 164s or offload them and move up. Any feedback is appreciated.

thanks,
pwong313

[JimG.]

164 is fairly short for someone who is almost 6' tall, but it isn't so short that I'd say you got the wrong ski. I've used skis as short as 168 and I'm 6'2".

You will have to adjust your speed on groomers, those shorter skis will be more of a handful at warp speed. However, if you want to learn to ski bumps and trees the shorter length will be a help to start.

I'm sure others will chime in, and not knowing too much about those Atomics I won't say anymore. I think you'll be OK.

Oh, and pick up a copy of the book "Everything the Instructors Never Told You About Mogul Skiing" at www.learnmoguls.com to improve your bump skills.

[Greg]

Welcome pwong313! Have you ridden the 164's yet? Don't let folks hype length too much. If they're a fun ride, go for it. I believe the Metrons are supposed to be skied shorter anyway. All that said, for someone your height and weight, I would think a low to mid-170's should be good. However, the difference between a 164 and a 171 is a whopping 2.76". Unless you're a real gear head and have ridden many different skis, you probably won't notice much of a difference. The shorter length will help in the tress if that's where you're looking to go...

[NYDrew]

I would stick with them. Why not? Shorter lenths are much better in the bumps and glades, and the metrons are so damn fat and cut that you reall should be thinking about active edge. (The amount of edge, not the lenth). Active edge is probably close to 180 on those.

[awf170]

Originally Posted by pwong313

I'm new to the boards and here's my first question. I just bought a pair of Atomic Metrons M10 in size 164. After talking to a couple people about it, most seem to think I should have gone with the 171s. So my question is, what will be the difference between them? I'm 5'11 about 200 pounds and have been skiing about 8 years. Most of the terrain I ski is the black diamond groomers, but I'm slowly trying to do more glades. I'm also trying to improve on the bumps, because I'm not good at them at all yet. I thought I should go a little shorter because I thought it would help improve my weaker abilities, and I assume I'm sacrificing a little speed. I didn't think the Atomics could be slower than the 6 year old Elan X carves I have. So I'm trying to decide if I should go with the 164s or offload them and move up. Any feedback is appreciated.

thanks,
pwong313

A) Keep the skis and be unhappy and wish you got longer ones

B) waste more money getting the longer skis

C) Lose some weight and be perfectly happy with the 164's(because it is weight that matters not height) But in a metron 164 should be fine because there meant to be a lil shorter than average. And It probably doesnt matter unless your skiing really fast.

[riverc0il]

ignorance may be bliss in this case, you may not want to know what the longer ski is like in the event you like it better and wasted money on the shorter ski say, are you fishing for an excuse to buy another pair of skis :P in all seriousness, with the details you provided i would have gone with the longer model even for trees and bumps. the go shorter camp is over rated and there is such a thing as too short. but it all depends what works better for you. demo the longer legnth and you make the call.

[thetrailboss]

Demo both, but in general, shorter is now better especially for shorter turns in bumps and trees...

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by thetrailboss

Demo both, but in general, shorter is now better especially for shorter turns in bumps and trees...

i gotta disagree with that general sentiment. the size that turns best for the individual skier is best and that is not alway shorter. i think many people are going too short these days.

[kabelnicke]

I would have gone longer, but I'm all for long radius gs turns. Good luck though - by the way... Don't by new skis, use this as an opportunity to develop your mogul and short radius skiing.

[bigbog]

Originally Posted by awf170

...A) Keep the skis and be unhappy and wish you got longer ones...

pwong313...whatever you do, don't listen to awf170, from day #1 he's been nothin' but gloom & doom... (ROTFL...).
The M10 has some width, although I didn't see the sidecut dimensions..? IMHO Europeans think that virtually ALL Americans are hung up on the "Power"_thing..that's why you're reading "power this...power through that.." on Atomic and Volkl websites...even on skis obviously designed for powder
Just find the M10's sweet spot/area...and ski it(nothing new ).