 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hello all. First timer here. I rented a pair of Atomic M:EX for a powder day this past spring. I really liked them and am thinking about buying a pair. I am 6'3" 225lbs. Have been skiing for a few years. I ski about 75% off piste/bumps and 25% groomers. I liked the M:EX because it was great in the powder/crud and seemed very manageable on the groomers for a fat ski. Didnt really get to ski bumps with them.
Any opinions on them? How are they in bumps? They seem like a pretty heavy ski. Any other suggestions?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
This may be of interest to you only 185 and 165 unfortunately which may be too short or too long for you I guess in an ideal world you would want 170ish, I think alot of people ski em short. Ebay item No: 8812813340 . Alot of Snowheads have ordered from them b4 and seem pretty happy with their service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Crocane, Welcome to snowHeads.
I bought a pair of 175cm M:EX's at the end of the season as being discontinued they were being sold off. Hopefully there's still some M:EX's available in the US as I think some of the Epicski guys (do a search on http://www.epicski.com ) got them for under $200  . I'd never tried them but I took the chance as I love my Metron b5's & the general feel of Atomic skis - plus they were cheap  .
The M:EX isn't a Metron in the true sense of the word as it's not got a radical sidecut & you don't/shouldn't ski it way short as the others in the range, however if you like a stiffish ski that rewards input then it is just like the other Metrons  .
I'm 5'9" & 200lbs & would be a level 7 on the US scale. I've only skied them for a couple of days in March but was very impressed with them (as was srobbo who also tried them) in the fresh powder (about 12") & on piste. I haven't skied them on bumps but the reports from the Epicski guys is that they're very good. They are also v.good on piste but at 84mm underfoot they're obviously slower edge to edge than a true piste ski but for a mid-fat they're as nimble as you're gonna get. You can certainly lay down some nice rail tracks on them & their 19m radius makes them great for GS turns.
If they're to be your primary powder/off-piste ski then I'd go for the 185cm at your height/weight. If you have, or are planning to get a true fat ski for bottomless days then the 175cm would be fine, with the added manoeuvrability for bumps & trees etc. This is what I've done as I ski the 162 b5's (127-76-114, R11), the 175 M:EX's (121-84-111, R19) & 173 Sugar Daddy's (124-99-114, R28).
With regard to weight, the 04/05 M:Ex's are on the heavy side primarily due to the Neox 412 binding however Atomic lightened each binding by 1.1lbs on the 05/06 412's so go for this model if you can as it's no heavier than any other quality ski. I don't notice the weight of my 04/05 M:EX's when skiing as their swing weight is still low however you don't want to be cayying them too far. I'm used to my mega weight 04/05 b5's so to be honest every ski is lighter in comparison  .
One of the benefits of the rail mounted Neox bindings is that they are infinately adjustable so you can play around with the fore/aft balance to obtain your ideal set-up. It's very easy to do this, despite the awful Atomic instructions so let me know if you get them as I can send you a detailed set of instructions & accompanying pics.
If you like the Atomic feel but can't get hold off the M:EX's then checkout the new Sweet Daddy's or go wider with the Sugar Daddy's.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Great! Thanks for the input, links and opinions.
Spyderjon, I am glad to hear they do welll in the bumps. The weight of the skis/binding didnt really bother me but I didnt ski bumps and was worried that the weight would make them less agile in bumps.
As far as the length, I was going to go with the 175's. I see your point about going to a longer ski. My only concern is that I have never skied anything longer that a 175 and I am worried that if I go to a longer ski I will be loosing maneuverability in bumps and trees. Is that a legit concern or is 10cm not really enough to make a difference in bumps/trees? I skied them at 175's in about 15" powder and they were great but then again that was the first time I used fatter skis in powder.
I have one more question for you if you know. Is there any differences between the 04/05 boards and the 05/06 boards? I can find the 04/05 boards for around $250 but the 05/06's are about $400. Not sure if it is worth is to pay the extra $.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
"I found the M:ex (175 cm) to be solid as a rock. It rode like a bullet on rails, yet was capable of tight radius turns on the steeps. It floated in the fluff and could bulldoze crud with impunity.
With a 19 meter sidecut, the ski doesn't dictate the turn. It allows you to choose the radius (I'm adverse to "hooky" skis)."
Taken from http://www.epicski.com
There is lots of info on these skis on the epicski forums, If you run a search there I am sure you will find a wealth of info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As spyderjon mentioned, I did 'borrow' his M:EX's for a couple of hours. They did perform very well, superb in deep powder, plenty of float, but what did surprise me was the performance on-piste. Took a bit of getting used to, but you can 'throw' them about pretty quick, need to push them a little, but if your a reasonably aggressive skier then they will reward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| srobbo wrote: |
| As spyderjon mentioned, I did 'borrow' his M:EX's for a couple of hours. They did perform very well, superb in deep powder, plenty of float, but what did surprise me was the performance on-piste. Took a bit of getting used to, but you can 'throw' them about pretty quick, need to push them a little, but if your a reasonably aggressive skier then they will reward. |
srobbo That sounds like a buying signal to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the input guys.
Spyderjon, I may take you up on you offer on the binding when I get the skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Edmundh009 wrote: |
| There is lots of info on these skis on the epicski forums, If you run a search there I am sure you will find a wealth of info. |
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but that's exactly what the link in post #2 of this thread does for him: It automatically searches Epicski.com for the string, "Rex".
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
spyderjon,
| Quote: |
srobbo That sounds like a buying signal to me?
|
Possibly !
May relegate the 5* for next year and purchase a 'fatter' ski. Waiting for the ski test before making any decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I have a very different opinion on the 10ex/Rex/Mex from some of those expressed earlier in this thread. I have owned a 184 cm 10ex for the last several years, and find it light and too "maneuverable" in crud. I find it much more skitterish and less confidence inspiring than my G4 (essentially the same length and dimensions, but much heavier and stiffer), and prefer my 95 mm wide stiff Explosivs over both of them in crud / cut up heavy wet snow / etc.
These days, I only use my 10ex's if there is absolutely no way I can take along my usual two pairs of skis (ie, 66mm deeply sidecut pr for hardpack, and 95 mm wide Explosivs for soft snow), yet expect conditions ranging from serious hardpack to new snow. When I make this compromise, I can ski, but I am *never* truly happy as 80+ mm skis simply are not particularly good in either condition (at my weight, 210-215 lbs).
I think that this difference of opinion occurs primarily because of:
1) Perennially unstated weight differences among reviewers (ie, not like the guys in this thread that supplied their weight). Medium to light-weight folks (say, under 180 lbs) will find 80+ mm skis much more acceptable in soft snow than big 210+ lb guys. Up to a point, the lighter you are, the more you will like them;
2) Some reviewers (present company excluded) extol the benefits of 80-ish mm skis in spite of a complete lack of experience with 90+ mm skis. They are absolutely correct that 80 mm skis do much better than 65 and 70 mm skis in soft snow (especially if you don't weight very much), but they don't realize how much better it can get if you go even fatter.
BTW, FWIW, at my weight, I find the 10ex to be surprisingly good in moguls.
Just my $0.02,
Tom / PM
PS - For those snowheads who don't know me, and want to calibrate my comments, I have skied for 30+ years, am a certified instructor at a local ski resort here in the States, and like most people who have skied since the 1970's, came down several years ago from 205-210 cm skis. The shortest ski I regularly use is a 165 cm. slalom carver, and the longest are my 190 cm Explosivs for powder and crud.
PS#2 - A disclaimer: I have never skied the Rex or Mex, only the 10ex. I have heard repeatedly that any differences between these three models are minor, but have no personal experience to back up that claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Physicsman, thanks for the input. My problem is that I ski about 10 days a year and travel out west from Florida. With all the gear that I need to lug out there for myself and my family I dont want to lug 2 pairs of skis out there for myself. I guess i am looking for some compromise or a one ski quiver. Plus I dont know if I can justify the cost of 2 pairs of skis for only 10 days per year of skiing between them. You are right though, I have never skied true fat skis so i dont know how good it can get. Some bottomless powder day I'll have to rent a pair of powder skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Crocane, I understand completely about lugging equipment. FWIW, most of the western instructors I know use normal width (ie, 65 - 75 mm wide) skis for 95% of their personal skiing and instruction time, and only break out their fatties for the rare deep day. I don't know what skis you currently own, but if you don't currently own a good pair of normal width skis, you might be better served by purchasing these first, especially given your interest in bumps.
BTW, don't wait for a bottomless powder day to rent fat skis. Demo some fatties on a slushy spring day, when there is corn, or even when conditions are nothing more than dust-on-crust. It will give you a much better feeling for the wide performance envelope and utility of modern fat skis. If you only experience fatties on a bottomless powder day, you are almost guaranteed to come away with the opinion that's all they are good for, because they are SOOOO good in those conditions. Besides, it can be very difficult to find rental fats on a powder day.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Physicsman, good points. I currently own Rossi Bandits that I picked up a couple of years ago for very cheap. They are ok on piste and on bumps but they are terrible in powder (or maybe I was just terrible on them). I think they are 74mm under foot. I was shocked at how much easier it was to powder ski when I rented the m:ex's. My problem with buys skis is that I only ski 10 days a year max and it is hard to demo a bunch of different skis or justify the $$ for renting them. Plus I have only been skiing for a few years so I am still trying to get a feel for what I like and dont like as far as equipment goes. I will make it a point to demo some fatties next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Crocane, another reason not to buy now is that your tastes in gear will change with experience. At current discounted M:EX prices, you should be able to get 5-6 days of demos. With bindings, call it a week.
At your current level of use, whatever you get might last you up to 10 years. Better make sure you -really- like them.
Moguls and powder are different east and west and in between: where do you ski?
PS, PM do you prefer lift in slush?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| comprex wrote: |
| ...PS, PM do you prefer lift in slush? |
No, but the truth be told, my preference is not based on experimenting with the lift height on any wide ski (ie, one that I would prefer to use in slush), but on narrow skis on which I was experimenting with lift (several years ago), and happened to encounter slush / soft snow. The lower they were, the more stable I felt. To be specific, when I had a lot of lift, the restoring torque for roll motion generated by the ski seemed to be reduced to negligible values in soft snow. That effectively turned off one part of the feedback from the skis to me, and I didn't like it. I like to be able to feel when the skis are flat on the snow, and have to work a bit to get them off of flat.
The bindings on all my fats intentionally have as little lift as possible.
On the other hand, I don't have any problem getting 95mm wide skis up on edge on hardpack, so I might not be the right guy to ask about this.
I seem to remember that L7 or one of the other guys from Banff is a big proponent of lift on fats, and I keep meaning to give it a try, but, to be honest, I don't feel a big motivation to do so and I keep postponing the experiment.
Cheers,
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Comprex, I ski out west. Colorado or Utah. I see your point about renting vs buying but I am the kind of person that hates to rent something when you can buy for the same amount or a little more than you will spend in rentals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Comprex, I ski out west. Colorado or Utah. I see your point about renting vs buying but I am the kind of person that hates to rent something when you can buy for the same amount or a little more than you will spend in rentals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Crocane, I've just PM'd you the info you requested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spyderjon, thanks for that. Just sent you one back with one more binding question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.
