Mid Fat Ski Advice

[madskier6]

I posted the below message at EpicSki.com but also want to see what my fellow AZers think about this subject.


I apologize in advance for the long post but I'm looking for some advice on a new mid fat ski for me. I'm especially interested in the Metron B5 and M11 because of all I've read and heard about them. I can only afford one ski for my quiver at this time because I also have to pay for equipment and lift tickets for my wife and 4 children.

My basic info:

42 years old, 5' 10'' 200 lbs. I've been skiing for 37 + years, am a level 8 or 9 skier who loves to ski powder, glades and steeps. I'm good in the bumps but its not my terrain of first choice. Since I ski in the East, however, most of the challenging runs on the mountain have bumps so the ski I buy has to do reasonably well in bumps. I like short, slalom-like turns and usually ski along the sides of trails where the softer snow is. I do like going fast (GS turns) at times, but short turns and powder float are more important to me.

I'm currently skiing on 2001-2002 Dynastar Ski Cross 66 (Auto Drive) which I like but I blew out an edge trying to ride a rail and these babies are now my rock skis. I've now learned to stay away from rails and boxes.

Last weekend at Sugarbush North (Mount Ellen), I demoed the following skis:

Nordica Hot Rod Top Fuel - 170
Nordica Hot Rod Nitrous - 178
Volkl AC4 Unlimited - 170
Rossignol B2 (this year's model) - 174 (I think)

The conditions were excellent powder and packed powder (at least for the East). There was at least 8 inches of fresh powder from last Friday's Eastern storm. There were some bare spots but generally the base was pretty solid. I skied on trails with various conditions including groomers, bumps and powder runs.

My favorite of the bunch was the AC4 by far. It handled steep bump runs with ease, floated in the powder to my liking and also carved real well on the groomers. In short, it satisfied all my most important needs/requirements.

I liked the Nordicas also but not as much as the AC4s. The Top Fuel was a little too stiff for me but it still is an excellent ski. I liked the Nitrous better than the Top Fuel but they only had a 178 for me to try so it felt a little long for me. I believe skis closer to 170 are better for my height, weight and skiing preferences, especially for skiing in the East. The AC4 just seemed better for me compared to the Nitrous: turned easier in the bumps and on steeps and also floated better in the pow. I'm wondering though if I would like the Nitrous more than I did if I had skied the 170s.

I also liked the Rossi B2s but not as much as the AC4s. They just weren't as lively for me although they were easier than the Top Fuels to turn quickly, which I prefer.

Therefore, my order of preference for these 4 skis is as follows:

1) Volkl AC4
2) Nordica Nitrous
3) Rossignol B2
4) Nordica Top Fuel

I'm dying to try the Metron B5 and M11 before I buy. I plan on demoing both of them. Unfortunately, Atomic did not have a rep at the Sugarbush Demo Day. I've read all about the Metrons on the Internet and elsewhere and am very intrigued by them. I've gotten advice from ski shop people who after hearing about my skiing preferences tell me "you have to try them, they are a brand new mold of ski rendering all others obsolete." I think that may be going a little too far but they clearly are revolutionary. Here are my questions:

1. How do the B5s and/or M11 compare to the AC4s? I've read some of the reviews on this issue but am curious about people's impressions given my characteristics and skiing preferences.

2. It seems that the M11s may be better for me because while I am an aggressive skier, I'm not in great physical shape and I've heard the B5s are more physically demanding. Your thoughts on this aspect?

3. I want to demo the Nordica Nitrous in 170 to see if I would like them better than the 178s I tried. The 178 Nitrous seemed harder to turn than I like which I think may have something to do with their longer length. Will there be that much difference in my experience for only 8 cm?

4. How do the Dynastar 8000 and 8800 compare to the AC4 and the Metrons? I've heard good things about these skis and I like my current Dynastars. I know Dynastars are generally lighter and livelier than other skis but since I really like the AC4s are these too light and lively?

5. Are there any other skis you would recommend that I demo? I don't want to go crazy demoing everything but I can only afford one pair of skis and want to make the right decision. I'm tempted to try the Volkl Mantras and Atomic Sweet Daddys but am wondering if those powder skis are too limited for primarily Eastern skiing.

I understand the golden rule of all ski selection advice: DEMO, DEMO, DEMO. I have and will demo before I buy but am interested in your collective experience and wisdom based on my circumstances. Your advice will help me determine what and how much more to demo before I buy. Many thanks in advance for your advice!

[riverc0il]

4. How do the Dynastar 8000 and 8800 compare to the AC4 and the Metrons? I've heard good things about these skis and I like my current Dynastars. I know Dynastars are generally lighter and livelier than other skis but since I really like the AC4s are these too light and lively?

first of all, if you are looking for an all mountain one ski quiver, don't bother looking at the 8800 for the east. i have it's earlier equivelent (inspired big - same dimiensions, same ski) as my back country ski but prefer the legend 8000 for inbounds on all but the deepest of powder days for which the 8800 has a wider waist and better float.

second, i have no experience with the metron except having demo'd one of the skis from the line last year, sorry i don't know which one, and hated it.

i have not tried the AC4, but i did try the 724 PRO last year which is similar (that is the same line as this years ACx line, some changes were made though). i really preferred the legend 8000 over the 724 PRO. i felt the 8000 was much quicker and lighter. lighter without being too light and fragile, it had great support for it's light weight compared to the 724 PRO which was just really damp and not quick. i also felt the 724 PRO lacked the pop i was used to on my previous volkls (p40 plat and p50 motion). the 8000s are quick to turn and make any type of turn you desire and have the skills to make. great ski for trees and powder, and especially for snappy quick short turns on the side of the trail. my opinion on these two skis is that the 724 PRO would be preferred by someone that loves groomers that sometimes does natural snow whereas the 8000 excels on natural snow and does groomers okay in between powder days. please bear in mind that these comments are in regards to the 724 PRO and not the AC4, though i doubt there are too many differences.

i am a similar skier with similar preferences to you. for the record, i am 27 years old, 6'1", 210 lbs, and can pretty much ski anything in new england preferring natural snow, powder, and trees. i think you would be wise to add the legend 8000 to your list..

[Greg]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

i have not tried the AC4, but i did try the 724 PRO last year which is similar (that is the same line as this years ACx line, some changes were made though). i really preferred the legend 8000 over the 724 PRO. i felt the 8000 was much quicker and lighter. lighter without being too light and fragile, it had great support for it's light weight compared to the 724 PRO which was just really damp and not quick. i also felt the 724 PRO lacked the pop i was used to on my previous volkls (p40 plat and p50 motion). the 8000s are quick to turn and make any type of turn you desire and have the skills to make. great ski for trees and powder, and especially for snappy quick short turns on the side of the trail. my opinion on these two skis is that the 724 PRO would be preferred by someone that loves groomers that sometimes does natural snow whereas the 8000 excels on natural snow and does groomers okay in between powder days. please bear in mind that these comments are in regards to the 724 PRO and not the AC4, though i doubt there are too many differences.

i am a similar skier with similar preferences to you. for the record, i am 27 years old, 6'1", 210 lbs, and can pretty much ski anything in new england preferring natural snow, powder, and trees. i think you would be wise to add the legend 8000 to your list..

First off, I value Steve's opinions highly on these matters. With that said, you may want to add the Unlimited AC3 to your demo list. It has a bit narrower waist and is the successor to the 724 EXP which I did demo last year. I felt the 724 EXP had a lot of the "pop" Steve speaks of. Also, with the slightly narrrower waist (more forgiving as Volkl describes it - 74 mm), it may be better in Eastern bumps than the AC4. I haven't demoed any Unlimiteds though, so take these comments with a grain of..........snow...

[RossiSkier]

Try the new Rossignol B1. It's a steal at $360.00.

[bigbog]

...go with what you'll like for the places you ski...

$.005

[smootharc]

....with some similar-ish criterion and thinking....

and based on reviews (numerous) and postings regarding performance, I added a pair of Blizzard Titan Eight skis to my board holdings. Not had them out yet. But, darn it, they sure look cool and feel sweet. We'll see how they perform compared to the reviews. I'm very hopeful....

Not sure if these might enter into your equation, but....


http://www.blizzard-ski.com/goto/en/...ma-titan-eight

[irishskier]

I think you'd love the B-5's but you shouldn't even consider buying them in 172's. For this particular ski, shorter is better. Due to the technology in the B-5, there is no possible reason you could want the 172's but you should demo all three sizes (if you can) and compare them. I own the 152's (I demo'd the 162's for 2 days and ordered the shorter ones on the Atomic rep's recommendation). I thought I had made a big mistake when I first got out on the shorter skis but quickly realized the 152's were far superior to the 162's in every way, especially in the bumps & trees.

Everyone I know who hasn't liked these skis has either skied them too long or doesn't know how to ski them. I have had them for 1 full year now and can't say enough good things about them. They perform EVERYWHERE - chutes, trees, deep powder, ice, heavy spring snow, crud, etc. etc.

I would highly recommend the B-5's as long as you buy the shortest ones you can get......I met someone last weekend who was about 5'10" & pretty stocky who had the 152's. He said he had tried the 162's last year and didn't really like them at all. The Atomic rep talked him into trying the 152's this year and he bought them on the spot. He said it was like skiing an entirely different ski.

Don't worry about not being in good enough shape to ski them - I'm not in all that of great shape and these skis make me a much better skier than I really am. I demo'd the M-11's too last year and didn't like them nearly as much as the B-5's. Good luck in your search for the perfect skis! I've already found them!

[riverc0il]

man, don't get me started on atomic reps talking people down a size! i believe one reason i may not have liked the atomic offering i demoed last year is because the guy was insisting i go a lot lower than i am used to. i currently ski 178-183. i really believe 178 is my ideal size after numerous demos. i think the guy had me on a 168 or whatever the closest is to that size point in the line and i absolutely hated the thing. it was one of the metron's, can't remember which one. for the record, i am 6'1" 210lbs, 27 y/o, and an aggressive skier that can hit anything on the east coast... so no slouch to say the least. it either wasn't my ski or was way too short.

but hey, don't listen to me. i don't know of many other people who didn't like that line of skis. it's all about what works for you.

[SKIQUATTRO]

i have the M11 and it an unbelievable ski.

[salida]

The Atomics are good skis (trust me I've worked for them), however depending on your wants and needs there are a few downsides... They are really heavy, even with Atomic taking 1.1lbs off the the new neox bindings, they are really heavy. Also, with the design it makes for a much shorter ski, with lots of side cut... It makes for a fun ski, but one that is hard to straightline if you get in trouble in the woods, and similar float to a fatter ski, yet with it being shorter its a little harder to ride in my opinion...

Again the Atomics are good skis, but you may want to look at some other options besides the list you demoed and the Atomics... I would suggest looking at the Dynastar Line or the Elan line (I know, I know, no one skis elans these days, however if you get a chance to get on the 666, they are an awesome ski)!