2013 Head Rev 105 ski

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

There was not much in the way of new snow on Saturday, but plenty of different kinds of old snow.  Early on the ski was quick on groomers, but I had trouble getting good edge grip, the ski chattered a lot under me.  Getting a lot more forward pressure quieted things down significantly.  The ski is not stiff at all, but it still manges to smooth the rough snow really well, so Head still has their magic glue formula to make very damp skis.   The dampness helped a lot in frozen crud as well.  If you appreciate a quiet un-phased ride, this is your ski.    On smooth windbuffed snow patch the ski totally ripped, but I have a hard time thinking about a ski that would not be fun on that kind of "hero snow".  Biggest surprise of the day was in bumps, the nicely rounded tail and softer shover makes it quite agile and easy to ski on bad bumpy runs. 

Alex - when I tested the Rev 105 I had the rep set the bindings 20mm forward of the factory mark (pretty simple with demo binders).  I know from testing a lot of Head skis and owning quite a few pairs myself, that the default mount position is probably too far back for skiers that really use their edges and know how to release their tails.  What you describe regarding the grip and chatter can almost always be resolved through fine tuning of the mount position.  I experienced none of those issues, but of course Mt. Rose was really soft on that Tuesday demo day.

Since you have fairly easy access to the skis I think it would be great if you would take them back out and experiment with the mount position.  Please report back.

Finally skied these on Saturday. Conditions where 8" of chopped up pow, crud, a couple of groomer runs. I'll keep it brief, but if you weigh over 185, forget it. These things need metal in a very bad way. They're very soft both lat. and long., deflect when hitting nearly anything, and bottomed out quickly on the firm. Hook up? Rebound? Nope.  IMHO, the Inferno is a far far better and more versatile ski. I thought I'd be skiing the whole day at least on these, but after a couple of hours I was running for the bottom of the mountain and back to the usual ride. Just couldn't find a reason to love these at all. That said, I'm sure they'll ski profoundly differently for a light skier. b

Great sequence. Very good turn for lumpy bumpy weird surfaces. Look how long he gets as he comes into the fall line. I can see where a ski like the Rev would work. 

Is the Rev 105 just a modified Motorhead inferno 104?  How is it different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD 

Is the Rev 105 just a modified Motorhead inferno 104?  How is it different?

It is a completely new ski from the ground up. It's a different shape, different width, different camber profile and different construction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD 

Is the Rev 105 just a modified Motorhead inferno 104?  How is it different?

No resemblance in any way. The Inferno is a really nice on all mountain crusher that works in a variety of conditions. Not super stiff, but has very nice crud capability, no troubles on piste, turns easily in the bumps, etc... Skiers of different sizes all seem to like them if they've tried them. One of the marketing mysteries of this season. No press, no nothing, just a nice ski. For me, the Rev 105 would look at a bit of uneven snow from 50 yards away and start to shudder and deflect on my feet. The Rev has a skier weight limit. I don't know what it is, but I know at 205#, I'm well over it. The replacement for the Inferno (can't remember what it's called) is indeed made in the same mold as the Rev 105 and looks like the Inferno but is red and shares the Rev's16m sidecut with a tail similar to the Inferno. It's supposed to be even softer than the Rev 105 which is very hard to imagine to be correct. I hope it this isn't the case. If you can find the Inferno on close out, it's a really nice every day ski for the west and even would make a nice 'Josh' tree ski for the east in a shorter length. 

Sorry Whiteroom. Didn't scroll down to your post before I typed, but it's right on.

Thanks!

I just skied the Inferno's for the last two days.  I really liked them and yeah, they're giving them away?

sacrifice looks very interesting too!

Curious about the construction of the Rev's. Sandwich or cap, carbon and wood, like some of the Mojos, or metal and wood, or just straight wood? Assume if the tip has i setup, there may be some liquid metal there too. Or not? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

Just quit your job, buy a ski shop at the base of the hill, and you can ski weekdays.  As a bonus, you can write off your skiing and be broke all of the time.

 

Holiday prefers a certain kind of turn, he calls it the "impact" turn.  Using the terrain to absorb the release (down-unweight) and then tip into the next turn, if I have that right.  Which is why he prefers certain types of skis that execute that turn well.  The type of turn a skier likes to typically make has a lot to do with which type of ski he/she will prefer. 

 

(wrote something I thought would add some value here, and boom, it dissappeared, so here's a second shot, more brief..)

Nice info, even if a few people really don't like the ski that is my favorite over 100mm ski I've ever skied..

the interesting thing about skis and bikes right now is that they are better then ever (duh), but also have a much broader range of target performance. some co may make the best 6inch travel freeride bike ever produced, and I wouldn't like it, and on the flip side, another may make the fastest 29er xc race bike ever seen, and many would hate it,

same w/ skis,

dps may make the coolest "5pt whatsit rocker hipster" ski that smears better then any ski ever and stomps landings like nobodys business, and I may not like it, because, once again, it's what we are looking for and the sensations we want to feel.

that said, I loved the rev 105. it was solid, fun, floaty, carved well, steered well, drifted when I wanted, not as a default (as I find so many "new school" shapes), and made me smile, lots! to Markojp's point, I weigh 169 at 6ft, and  a light 169 (whatever that means. as reference, Dawg is a heavy 150ish with those monster quads)

Also in response to a stat, the rep gave me the tech skinny on the 16m number, as he saw it as many of you do, as a probable liability, but it did't ski like a 16m ski for me, more like a 18 to 19. for reference, my everyday ski is a 24ish meter ski (mx98, old one, square tail, no early rise).

side comment!

Dawg, nice range! dawgcathing and I have been talking about range a bit, end of last year and this year. I thought with his current strength (he can probably lift more w/ 1 leg then i can with 2), his range should be extende, a lot.

and,

in these pics, I see some great range of motion. nice work, scott. Also, love to see the active move w/ the toes/tips down after the absorbtion, another move we were working on.

So,

yes, I think Head has another clear winner of ski! go find it, and ski it. It skis so much better then so many of these skis that are getting great viral following that I can't understand how people  can like them, oh yeah, htat goes back to my original comment, different targets, different sensations.

PS,

scott, I like hte impact turn for holding an edge in a speed control hard snow turn, i still use my "contact" turn in good snow. seems all we ski is hard snow and dust on crust this year though, so "platform" or "impact" seems to be my turn du year.

cheers,

holiday

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holiday 

goes back to my original comment, different targets, different sensations.

 

Quoted for truth. I see it as "clusters" of skiers, made of folks who look for a similar set of somatic feedbacks from a ski, often for similar ideals of skiing, not so clear on style and technique. But the key, IMO, is not so much sidecut or flex or whatever, nor backcountry soft vs. icy groomers, nor skill set, as it is a subjective quality, a sort of a feel as the outcome unfolds that we want from the ski.

Weird example: I really like the way that the BMX98 loses its edges. I don't care about pit bull grip as much as I care about precise, progressive feedback as the edge starts to slip. So I can decide what I want next. I'm sure for a lot of you, it's just the opposite. You want that sense of absolute, will-not-break-loose-grip so you can attend to other stuff. A little vagueness at the limit is a small price to pay. Or maybe you have faster reflexes or a different style, the lower predictability is no big deal, so you don't even consider it abrupt.  

I'm thinking that we downplay the sensate body when we talk about gear. Our brains are noticing whatever forces the ski is sending up at us, and adjusting our muscles and COM to redirect those/other forces back to the snow. All in a few hundredths of a second. Meanwhile our brains are evaluating how close the last cycle was to what we wanted. If it's close, that feels good. The ski rocks. If it isn't, the ski is a problem. If it never gets close, the ski sucks.  

So my cluster membership may literally perceive a ski differently than yours simply because our inputs are different from yours, each will end up interacting with the snow differently.   Guess this could be an extension of the aggro-finesse axis, except that I don't think it's always measurable from watching. You could look all power and aggression, but your head could be searching for nuances you want from the tail at a certain part of the turn. You could look airy and light, but be wanting the ski to stay planted regardless of all the forces hitting it. So which is which? 

Only way I can explain - using Holiday and Dawg's lead - how several good skiers can have such a polar take on a single ski. 

Sorry Alexn, but I have to disagree with the comment that  this is nice review.

I will begin by saying, I have not skied on this ski.

But the review makes no sense at all!

The tip is not something slapped on the ski in front of the sidecut. the 16M radius is inclusive of the tip geometry. So that entire concept you mention is out the window.

Next, the ski does not even have a big tip compared to the waist  The tip is 144 the the waist is 105. That makes the tip 37% wider then then waist. That does not even come close to my 179cm Atomic GS ski. which has a 114mm tip and a 70 mm waist Guess what, the tip is almost 63% wider then the waist. And I am not going to even mention Race Stock Slalom skis or the B5metron or numerous and sundry other skis I own that have a much bigger differential between the waist and the tip.

My explanation of your opinion of this ski is that you don't know how to ski a smaller radius ski. A  big tip (at least for all the skiers I know enhance turn initiation and draw the ski more easily into the turn, certainly not a detrimental element

I have one additional theory, I please understand Alexn I am not trying to trash you personally in public, just some observations that may explain you disdain for this ski.

Look at your Avatar. Now, I will give you that it is 1 microsecond in time and static photos often do represent  a full picture of ones technique.

But look where your outside hand is in that photo. that hand should never be that far across your body. Causes really bad upper body rotation, but in the opposite direction that you want to be moving. you should be reaching out to the side of your outside ski,absolutely no need to come across your body first which totally turns your shoulders backwards from where they should be.

Actually this is kind of how you turn a motorcycle. It's called counter steering. You turn you bike slightly in the opposite direction of the turn before you a turn to create the lean  But in skiing it is a bad trait.  Because you do not need to be counter rotated. It also makes you follow your skis rather then skiing into and out of counter.

In conclusion, I didn;t write this to be mean or critical, just some observations.  And maybe I am totally wrong.

You have a lot good going in hips, parallel shafts good inside lead of the inside ski and hip, but ya need to get that upper body going in the right direction.

One last explanation with the HEAD ski. Their factory tunes are awful particularly on their wider skis. Way too much base bevel and much too little side edge bevel.

That could certainly contribute to the less then positive review of the ski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xela 

Nice review.  Do you think there's a longer version that might be more to your liking?  Or, perhaps this ski is just aimed at someone else entirely.

I agree with Atomicman's observations about tighter turn radius skis and their affect on some skiers.  I'm just glad that there are still some manufacturers willing to put deeper sidecuts on big skis and not following the general trend in the other direction.  I feel like the Head lineup caters to the more technical skier and the Rev series is no exception.  However, it will always be the case that one must match ski flex to skier weight and ability.  I believe this is actually much more important than length in ski selection.

I come in at 175 lbs. and felt like the Rev 105 and the Sacrifice both were just fine for me.  Of course the demo day was extremely soft and quite deep in places, so you have to take that into account since I prefer a softer ski on softer snow.

I think a comment on Head's ERA 3.0 rocker design is also important.  Head (just like Blizzard and DPS in my mind) has figured out a nice formula in their design of marrying their rocker profile to the sidecut geometry.  Their execution in the Rev series (at least the 90 and 105) is different from the bigger Blizzards and DPS skis), but it still works.  Some rocker skis feel very disconnected through turn initiation whereas the Head ERA 3.0 design feels very connected - I barely noticed the rise on the Sacrifice until I got it in some big fluffy moguls.  Once again though, I cannot provide a definitive view without having some time on these skis on some serious hard pack.  Even the groomers on the demo day were fairly soft.

Spent yesterday on the bigger ride, (186 Bodacious) in about 12-15" of new cascade 'butter'. For a lighter person, this ski can be a handful. For a heavier skier, it has a large sweet spot, no speed limit, crushes chop, and will turn on a dime without much effort at all. It might well be the best ski I've ever ridden for 3D conditions. Skied on the 2013 Blizzard 8.5ti (181) a few days ago and thought it was a very nice more piste oriented ride that'd be a great daily driver/teaching ski and complement to the Bodacious. Love most Head skis. Like the 170 Titan, but not so much the 177 which was a surprise. So much for the turn radius theory. I'm a big fan of the Inferno. Here's the interesting one. Skied a 187 Bonefide. The Bones were stable and held well as advertised, but I just didn't really feel the love. I'm pretty certain the tune was the issue as it just felt grabby/hooky compared to the 8.5ti and my own pair of Bodacious' that have detuned rockered surfaces. While I'd love to attribute my disappointment in the Rev 105 to the tune, pilot error, etc..., which might have explained it's poor behaviour on piste, it doesn't explain how easily it deflected in crud/chopped up powder compared to any ski mentioned above. Just couldn't find a sweet spot at all. Being that the Revs biggest fans (same pair of skis tested) are 180-5 lbs or less, the only thing I can attribute its lack of stability to is being just too soft for a larger skier. Any other thoughts that might have been overlooked?

Alex,

My guess is the early rise compounds the soft flex until you get the turn well underway. You would probably like it better without the early rise, or with a little more stiffness, or both.  In any event, it's probably not your ski, and you are probably not their target audience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markojp 
Being that the Revs biggest fans (same pair of skis tested) are 180-5 lbs or less, the only thing I can attribute its lack of stability to is being just too soft for a larger skier. Any other thoughts that might have been overlooked?

When I demo'd the Rev 105 and the Sacrifice I had the rep adjust the bindings about 20mm forward of the factory mark for me.  For me on Head skis I always prefer a more forward mount position than Head's default factory mount.  On my Chip 78s I'm 32mm forward - sounds extreme, but on that ski it's perfect for me (they have the PRD 14 bindings so it was easy to test a lot of spots).

Probably is the flex more then the shape, as you say.

And i didn't give enough credence to your pack in the photo.

Man, I hate skiing with a pack. complelely screws up my balance! I am baout the smae size as you.

The Atomic d2 non-FIS GS is really not thta stiff. In fact the tip in front of the D2 control deck is pretty damn soft. But as you bend the ski the upper deck progressively engages and does stiifen up. 

Even my Mojo 94 and Monster 88 have a bigger tip compared to the waist then the Rev 105.

anywho, I will try to get out on a pair myself! And thanks for being a good egg. I really didn't want to criticize you, you look like a great skier. But just explorign the possibilities of why you didn't mesh with the ski.

And i would not discount the tune. head usually has a 1.5 to almost 2 degree base bevel and a 1 to 1+ side edge bevel.

I would immediately grind them and put a 1/3 on them if I bought a pair!

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

Atomicman- thanks for the feedback, I do not doubt your good intentions.  The avatar picture was taken quite a few years ago, backcountry skiing in South America, I am in rental boots and carrying a decent size pack, so not too typical skiing situation for me.  Incidentally I am on a Zag ski, with pretty small radius (I think now it is called Zag Gold and it is about 15m or so),  You are correct that I prefer a longer sidecut radius ski (like my ProRider or Bonafide), however I do own (and like) a short radius ski (DPS 112RP), which is also a pretty wide ski.  I get your argument on the tip-waist ratio, although all your other examples are pretty stiff (your GS ski and Metron for example). Maybe the Rev105 is too soft for its shape.  DPS also has no metal, but is quite a bit stiffer underfoot.  What I value in the ski is balance of its characteristics, such as flex, shape, and damping.  There are plenty of skis that hit that balance equation for me, but Rev105 just was not one of them.  I am also a heavy guy these days, 190lb, that also plays a role.  In fact I keep disagreeing about a lot of skis with lighter guys like Dawgcatching here, and I suspect that weight plays a major role in it.  

 

P.S. Thanks for the technique tips, I am aware of the occasional left hand problem, although I gotten it to be quite a bit less in recent years.  You have a good eye!  That particular day I was skiing with a backpack, so I doubt body rotation played that big of a role (it is pretty darn hard to ski with a pack and turn your body around, you will get thrown around pretty quickly).  

I just reviewed a few skis from a demo day, including the Rev 105.  I really like the Rev.  As I am a lighter skier (5'-10" and 140 lbs) this is consistent with other observations about this ski.

It took me a while to get comfortable, but once I found the sweet spot, the Rev totally ripped. Loved the flotation on untracked and cut up snow. Worked really really well for me on snow covered moguls.  The Revs absorbed bumps and terrain features effortlessly, yet did not feel damp and heavy.The other thing I found was that I could ski longer, without getting as tired.  Who knows why.  I mentioned it to the rep and he just said something about "new technology."   

I tried some wider skis, but for me this is as wide as I would need, at least for the prevaling conditions in the PNW.  I was looking at a number of 98's but just might snatch a pair of these when they're availabe.

Guess this is a ski you need to demo.  Head sent me a pair of rev 105's.  After reading the reviews I got scared because I am a big guy.  I weigh in around 240 and from above reviews I was sure this was going to be a ski I sold after about an hour on the ski( this would be the same fate as the rossi super 7 and the dps 99 whaler rp, one and done as they say in college basketball).  I was skiing moonlight basin and conditions ranged from very hard in the morning to wet slop in the afternoon.  As a side note I took these out of the package and skied them with Heads factory tune.

First run firm groomer.  Instantly I felt very good on this ski. I was amazed how well this ski carved.  I agree with everyone who has said you need to be forward on this ski.  If i was forwarded and skied aggressive it was awesome.  If I skied neutral it felt ok, easy to ski like any fun shape but didnt feel like it charged.  Get forward rewarded big time for it. I had no complaints and nothing but smiles when skiing on the groomed.  The longer I skied it the more I liked it.  as the snow softened the ski became only more fun.  I loved the ski on groomed , had no complaints about stiffness or edge grip. 

off groomed, conditions were hard the first runs, I think the ski did just fine.  As the conditions softened the ski shined.  Even in the heavy mank the ski charged through.  Other reviewers complained the tip got deflected.  I had no issue with that. In my opinion this ski just needs to be skied forward and put on edge. 

I no longer think this ski is to soft to a big guy, because I am a big guy.  I guess this ski is a keeper for me and would recommend you try it for yourself!

other skis I own and love just for comparison sakes- dynastar cham 97/107, nordica soul rider/patron, line influence 105.