EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head i.Peak 78 Pro vs i.SuperShape Titan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head i.Peak 78 Pro vs i.SuperShape Titan

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi,

 

My waffling over my next ski purchase has slowly tilted me back to carver skis (away from 88mm+ skis for my 5'11" 185 lb frame), so have dropped my target width to sub-80mm and <15m radius. I have skied the i.Supershape Titan before: I found it tremendously stable at speed, noticeably slower edge-to-edge than something really skinny like an X-Shape STX (not necessarily a positive or negative, just pointing out it's 78mm underfoot and not 68mm), and with good but not stupendous ice hold. It's also a bit on the heavy side, which probably contributes to the dampness; it's not terribly relevant to me except I hate carrying heavy stuff!

 

I've been trying in vain to get a demo of the i.Peak 78 Pro. Could a helpful soul tell me how these two skis compare in general terms? Are they even remotely similar, and if so is one a sort of detuned version of the other? Or are they simply different?

 

(Yeah, I'm also considering the Kastle MX78 but as I've never skied Kastle and am unsure if I want to go much above 15m radius I'm temporarily holding back. Cost is not a factor, but I'm trying to improve my carving -- especially short turns -- and wasn't sure if the MX78 would help or harm me in that endeavor).

 

- KJ

post #2 of 13

The Titan is a significantly higher performing ski than the 78 Pro. Less forgiving, much larger envelope. As far as the MX78, cannot think of many skis that carve better unless you go for pure race stuff. But it's more of a GS-ish turner. If you're working on shorter radius, the Titan may be a better bet, or wait for next year's REV series that has very deep sidecuts. Noodler, I think, had a a thread on deep sidecut skis, you might want to search. Also keep in mind that if you buy a ski you can actually flex (rare these days), you can bend it into a shorter radius turn  with the right skill set. That's what the instructors are working on with you. 

post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 

Thank you very much for the recommendations. I've been so smitten with the MX78 (no small thanks to Dawgcatching) that I just can't take it entirely out of the running. Is the MX78 "GS-ish" in the Kendo vein, for example? I haven't been able to tease out whether the 16m radius (@ 168cm) is the "long radius" of the MX78's tail or the "short radius" of its tip. If it's the "long radius" then maybe there's hope for the MX78 after all: I'm more interested in being able to get into a short-radius turn, than to sidecut-ride it after the fact. With the Kendos it took a bit too much conniving to get it even to start a short-radius turn: it was more work than fun, so I just stopped trying.

 

To be honest I was pretty OK with the Nordica Fire Arrow 80 Ti (the green one) that I demoed a couple weekends ago but figured that since it doesn't have near enough float for my weight anyway I may as well go narrower for quicker edge-to-edge. (Forgot to mention this is for EC exclusively). Plus if I'm not mistaken the MX78 are lighter still and may even be more suited for bumps than the Fire Arrow Ti, but again this is speculation as I've never skied the Kastles. If you tell me the MX78 can almost as easily do short-radius turns as the Fire Arrow Ti, then I'll just buy the MX78 unseen and hope for the best.

 

Argh, end of season sales and I just can't pull the trigger on anything ... because there's almost no snow left to ski on here!

post #4 of 13

The Titans and Peaks are different skis.  The Titans are stiffer and better on firm snow, but give up the sweet flex profile that makes the Peaks so versatile.  If you want to ski the Titans in soft snow, your fore/aft balance has to be dead on and you need to watch where you're going, because the tip will spear into stuff rather than bending and floating over it.  The Peaks, on the other hand, have a tip that flexes wonderfully without being floppy (as long as they're on edge), and are much more forgiving in three-dimensional snow.  You can ski the Peaks a size longer than the Titans without getting your butt kicked too, which can be nice, if you like longer skis.

 

So, if you want a versatile ski, go with the Peaks.  If you want a carver, go with the Titans....though if you really want a carver, I'm not sure why you'd want something so wide.  You can stay on top of hard snow just fine with a ski that's <70mm under foot. smile.gif

post #5 of 13

The X-shape MTX has a speed limit, not because it's skinny, but because it's a beginner-intermediate level ski.  Lot's of skinnier skis have higher speed limits.

The 2012 I Supershape Speed has a puny little 14.6 m turn radius. 

 

Nordica Fire Arrow 74 EDT is a little wider than the above and a little narrower than the 80 Ti and has a turn radius of 14.5 in the 172 length (same as the 80 Ti).

Just say'n.

 

 

 

post #6 of 13
I echo everything said about theTitan. I have a pair of 177 cm and theTitan carve very well ,but they are heavy and stiff for sure I have skied them in boot top pow on occasion and they skied well. Really not that bad in bumps. I switched skis with my friend who skis the Kastle MX 88 and he felt the Titan by contrast to his skis seemed very heavy and in his words "clubby" I felt the 88 did not carve groomers anywhere near as well In crud I would prefer the Kastle88
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBoisvert View Post

So, if you want a versatile ski, go with the Peaks.  If you want a carver, go with the Titans....though if you really want a carver, I'm not sure why you'd want something so wide.  You can stay on top of hard snow just fine with a ski that's <70mm under foot. smile.gif


Exactly my thought. My colleague waxes poetic about his Fischer RX8 and frankly I do see his point. Again, the STX (not MTX) I skied was just 68mm underfoot, and boy was it fun though it did get a bit loosey goosey at speed. It's why I tried the Titan.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

The X-shape MTX has a speed limit, not because it's skinny, but because it's a beginner-intermediate level ski.  Lot's of skinnier skis have higher speed limits.

The 2012 I Supershape Speed has a puny little 14.6 m turn radius. 

 

Nordica Fire Arrow 74 EDT is a little wider than the above and a little narrower than the 80 Ti and has a turn radius of 14.5 in the 172 length (same as the 80 Ti).

Just say'n.

 

I hear ya. I'll try to check them out!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by roundturns View Post

I echo everything said about theTitan. I have a pair of 177 cm and theTitan carve very well ,but they are heavy and stiff for sure I have skied them in boot top pow on occasion and they skied well. Really not that bad in bumps. I switched skis with my friend who skis the Kastle MX 88 and he felt the Titan by contrast to his skis seemed very heavy and in his words "clubby" I felt the 88 did not carve groomers anywhere near as well In crud I would prefer the Kastle88


That's the tough choice I have to make. I find the existence of the Titan/MX78 disturbing because at my weight either I forego quick carving by getting 88mm+ skis like the MX88, Kendo, etc or I get a skinny ski for pure carving. Where does the MX78/Titan (or any ~80mm) ski fit in this picture? It'd neither be as quick edge-to-edge as a ~70mm ski, nor float me at all in any kind of decent snowfall. I know on the EC the latter is much less likely, but after suffering through the mashed potatoes a couple weekends ago I thought I'd better consider as wide a carver as possible. Short of the Line Prophet Flites I tried that day, I'm not sure there would've been a difference between 68mm or 80mm though ....

 

Thanks again for all the info and recommendations!

post #8 of 13

It depends on the ski and the snow surface.  On softer groomers, like we see out here, a 68mm ski isn't going to be necessarily a better tool than a 75-80mm ski. the edge width difference isn't all that significant.  On real ice, it can be an issue, but the MX78 held just as well as the Speed Omeglass ti I was demoing the same day, on what I would consider full-on ice.  Just a little slower to get onto edge.  I find the MX78 to be a superbly versatile carver/all mountain machine. It perhaps isn't as good of a pure carver (in terms of just sucking you into the turn and tossing you across the fall line), but it matches the performance of bigger-turn hard snow skis (like a Fischer WC RC), and is such a good all-mountain ski when the conditions change.  Most all-mountain skis don't have that kind of speed limit; actually, I don't know of another 176cm that is as stable as the MX78.  Most pure carvers aren't in that range for bumps and crud, either. It is a different beast than the MX88, with the stiffer race stock phenol sidewalls (instead of the softer ABS sidewalls on the 88).

 

Instead of focusing too much on the width, I try and look more at the whole picture of the ski. There are plenty of skis in the ~70mm width range that can't hold the MX78's jock strap.  As far as the Titan goes, the 170cm model I tried was much softer torsionally than the MX78.  It was quick, snappy, and fun. The MX78 was a cruise missile in comparison, with more power, grip, and stability. The 177cm Titan was more comparable in feel, but much heavier, not as quick, more work, more tank-like, not that much fun.  If you are looking for a narrower all-mountain ski with all the grip of a true carver (more than many, actually.  I would say the MX78 outperforms a Blizzard Supersonic on hard snow); get the MX78.  If in doubt, buy a Kastle Kti plate for it: that will beef it up even more.  I think I still have one sitting around the shop (no MX78's though, except for a new pair that I am selling on consignment for a customer in 168cm).  

 

Differences in width may make the ski less grabby off-piste, but yeah, the 78mm ski width won't float super well (well enough to work in 6-8" of new just fine, but not be "floaty"). For pure hard snow, nothing beats a 70mm or narrower width, but it can make a ski overly aggressive on hard snow.  Which width is correct would depend on your personal situation.  After skiing the MX78, I really don't have a desire for anything narrower: I like other skis just as well (Stockli Cross CX, Kastle RX12 for example) but that is because they are really fun skis, not necessarily because they are narrower.  I just like the stiffness in the tail, the plate, and the overall pop of the RX12, which really isn't a function of the waist width; it has more metal and a thicker layup.   Even some of the "carvers" are going up to 75mm in waist width: Fischer P900, Elan Waveflex 14.

 

Unless you live in a pure ice situation, you aren't going to find the grip of an MX78 lacking, or even that of the Head iPeak 78 Pro (provided they are well tuned).  Sure, it might not be a full-on ice skate, but a good skier who can get good edge angle won't find it to be a problem on many hills.  Now, I can't speak for those that live in heavy freeze thaw areas, or get lots of rain, but having skied the MX78 on seriously hard manmade (and injected) snow, it wasn't lacking. 

post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Unless you live in a pure ice situation, you aren't going to find the grip of an MX78 lacking, or even that of the Head iPeak 78 Pro (provided they are well tuned).  Sure, it might not be a full-on ice skate, but a good skier who can get good edge angle won't find it to be a problem on many hills.  Now, I can't speak for those that live in heavy freeze thaw areas, or get lots of rain, but having skied the MX78 on seriously hard manmade (and injected) snow, it wasn't lacking. 


Thanks very much for all that! About those 168cm MX78 you have on on consignment: was your 177cm Titan still be obviously more turny than a 168cm MX78? How about vs a 170cm Peak 78 Pro? I had been planning on getting a 170cm Titan if I went that way, which I know is short for me, though given that I'm 30 lbs heavier than you I suppose the 177cm Titans wouldn't be so planky for me.

 

Not to muddy the waters too much, but if I throw bumps into the equation, how does the Titan/MX78/Peak 78 Pro comparison fair?

 

(Apologies for those smacking their forehead with these questions. I know I should be doing the right thing and getting a pure carver for what I need, but I'm still trying to hedge: I'm not 100% certain I want the skis to be so specialized that I can't enjoy other types of skiing/conditions. This is part of the reason the MX78 and Peak 78 Pro are still in the running. Moreover, there's only so much short-turn groomer practice and running back-n-forth to change skis before it starts to ruin my companions' enjoyment of a ski holiday!)

post #10 of 13

According to your profile, you live in Boston and ski at Wawa and in NH.  If anybody's going to make good use of an ice skate, it's you.  This is really a case where you need at least two pairs of skis.  Talk dawgcatching into selling you a short-radius carver AND something wider for softer snow days. biggrin.gif

 

At your size, 170cm is too short for anything that's not a carver.  I ski the predecessor to the Peak 78 Pro in a 177cm, and I'm 170lbs and 5'7".  I wouldn't want to go any shorter than what I've got, either.

 

I also thought the 177cm Titan was a plank.  I couldn't ski that any longer than 170cm, at my weight.  If you're looking at the 177cm Titan, you'd probably be looking at the Peak 78 Pro in 183cm.

 

Regarding bumps, I don't think any of those skis will make a huge difference one way or the other.  You'll ski them however you well you ski them on any of them.

post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBoisvert View Post

According to your profile, you live in Boston and ski at Wawa and in NH.  If anybody's going to make good use of an ice skate, it's you.  This is really a case where you need at least two pairs of skis.  Talk dawgcatching into selling you a short-radius carver AND something wider for softer snow days. biggrin.gif


I hear you, and will probably go that way. I'm in that unfortunate situation where I wouldn't mind having a single "average" all-mountain EC ski but simultaneously want to improve my short-carve skills. Ah well, will just continue demoing.

 

Quote:
At your size, 170cm is too short for anything that's not a carver.  I ski the predecessor to the Peak 78 Pro in a 177cm, and I'm 170lbs and 5'7".  I wouldn't want to go any shorter than what I've got, either.

 

I also thought the 177cm Titan was a plank.  I couldn't ski that any longer than 170cm, at my weight.  If you're looking at the 177cm Titan, you'd probably be looking at the Peak 78 Pro in 183cm.

 

Regarding bumps, I don't think any of those skis will make a huge difference one way or the other.  You'll ski them however you well you ski them on any of them.

 

No worries: the 170cm Titan is as far as I will take that ski. To be honest, even at my 185 lbs the 163cm Titan was plenty stable at speed, and a great carver.

 

Quote:
Regarding bumps, I don't think any of those skis will make a huge difference one way or the other.  You'll ski them however you well you ski them on any of them.

 

Got it, that clarifies it for me perfectly. I had a moment a couple weekends ago (when it dumped on NH) where the 172cm Line Prophet Flites I was on made even the big -- if fluffy -- bumps a complete cinch. The next day when everything was hardening I was much less comfortable on the Nordica Fire Arrow 80 Ti (again, the green ones) on the exact same slopes. So I thought it was the skis, but in retrospect it was probably the previous day's snow slowing me down enough for my poor bump technique to work.

post #12 of 13

FWIW, the MX78 has remarkable grip for a ski that wide. I'd bet better than the Titan (haven't skied but have owned a bunch of near neighbor Heads), and will be quicker and lighter feeling edge to edge than the Titan. Both at comparable lengths (168, 170 respectively) will feel like a cross between a SL and GS ski. The MX's won't have the unusual stability at speed or the effortless cruising through heavy crud at low edge angles, but both will take care of business in bad snow. Two great skis for sure, but reward different styles and missions. You should think more about what you like in a ski than which one is "better." Also, all the feedback on the Titan suggests they ski very long because of the tail KERS. You do not want the 177 unless you plan to mach GS turns and either absolutely always stay out of the backseat, or love the feeling of rocketing into the next dimension on public slopes. MX tails are very different; progressive, not very poppy, accept a lot of different input. Forget the Peaks...

post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

FWIW, the MX78 has remarkable grip for a ski that wide. I'd bet better than the Titan (haven't skied but have owned a bunch of near neighbor Heads), and will be quicker and lighter feeling edge to edge than the Titan. Both at comparable lengths (168, 170 respectively) will feel like a cross between a SL and GS ski. The MX's won't have the unusual stability at speed or the effortless cruising through heavy crud at low edge angles, but both will take care of business in bad snow. Two great skis for sure, but reward different styles and missions. You should think more about what you like in a ski than which one is "better." Also, all the feedback on the Titan suggests they ski very long because of the tail KERS. You do not want the 177 unless you plan to mach GS turns and either absolutely always stay out of the backseat, or love the feeling of rocketing into the next dimension on public slopes. MX tails are very different; progressive, not very poppy, accept a lot of different input. Forget the Peaks...


Interesting that you should mention grip: Dawgcatching says above that the Titan is torsionally softer relative to the MX78, which makes sense now because the ice grip of the Titans was not remarkable to me when I demoed it. Perhaps it was the tune. Anyway, it was a big surprise a few weeks later when I skied the Kendo in similar circumstances and found it had stunning grip on ice, despite its relative girth. Of course, I wasn't asking it to make the same tight turns as with the Titan, so perhaps this is all moot.

 

The Titan really was memorable at speed though. It went from popping short turns like an M3 to driving like a Lexus sedan on the highway. It was the latter feel that perhaps led me to the wrong conclusion that the Titan liked GS turns better than short turns, which was the opposite of the X-Shape STX I had skied earlier. This is another reason why the MX78 is still in the running, despite the spec sheets saying it's is 16m @ 168cm vs the Titan's 13.5m @ 170cm (and even less for the 163cm). The question for me, in the absence of a demo, is whether I can still work on my short-radius carves with the MX78 or whether it'd be just too much work to bother. That'd be a deal-killer for what I want.

 

BTW I do favor light skis for quick response over heavier skis that punch through crud. It was another reason I was so smitten by the Kendo: it was relatively light but skied through anything, even at speed. Remarkable. Too bad it really was too much effort to short-turn with those.

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 › Head i.Peak 78 Pro vs i.SuperShape Titan