New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Peak 90

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

This ski is available many places at very discounted prices. I'm a big fan of Head skis and have the Titans and the I Speeds and read the reviews on the Peak series and thought I would enjoy a wider ski offering from Head that was not as carving oriented.


Skied the 177 cm Peak 90 the past few days at Vail. Was hoping for some fresh snow and softer conditions but instead encountered rock hard groomers and slush in the afternoon sun. I wouldn't say the 90"s are the greatest hard snow skis in the world but I was surprised how well they could handle very firm conditions.  Very good ski in soft  bumps . I think the milled out tip really works great in bumps.


I 'm thinking this ski will really shine in softer snow and powder. Appears to be very versatile and a real good price- value at their current steeply disocunted price point. I changed skis with my friend who had the Kastle 88"s. I think the 88"s were a little better on the firm groomers, but it didn't seem to me to be a significant improvement.


Anyway, other reviews (Dawgcathing) were very thorough and articluted the performance of this ski very well and provided pretty high praise. I can only say that I am very pleased with the ski and look forward to skiing it next year on trips west in hopefully more forgiving conditions than this past week.

post #2 of 8

I can also chime in on the Peak 84.  Roundturns, you and I must have been at Vail at the same time....depressing how bare those back bowls were eh? But..I digress. 


I grabbed the 84s (184 cm) also at a deep discount b/c I wanted a new front-side, hard snow and bump ski.  Certainly the slushy and re-frozen conditions at Vail gave me a chance to test them and they were the perfect choice for what I was looking for.  The 84's have metal in them and were extremely capable in terms of their strong edge control and the "Flow-Ride" tip did exactly what I was hoping for in the bumps by softly flexing as they ski engaged the bump and allowing me to stay right on top of the ski as I absorbed.  I found the skis to be very quick turning for an 84 waisted ski (I think turning radius is advertised as 18m on the 184s) and yet they handled the variable conditions quite nicely--even the grabby slushy snow.  I like a stiffer, aggressive ski that responds to firm inputs from the skier and these were exactly that.  I opened them up quite a bit since groomers were about the only option available and never really felt like I approached their speed limit.  I was really impressed with this ski and had a GREAT time on them.  It was a great purchase for me as a new front-side ski (especially) at the price. 

post #3 of 8

I have the 84s in 170--I think they are a bit too short for me.   When I am minding the shop they are great--they have held on the boilerplate that Tahoe had at the beginning of the season and worked well on the groomers and even off trail a little (and even in the one time I had them in the knee deep). 


I have found, though, that you really need to ski them.  If you go groomed to the softer stuff on the side of the trail without enough thought...  Also I found that they are a bit difficult if not carving on edge...I can't just flatten them out and glide without thinking.  Too fast without carving and they really wander around.  Too slow and it is is easy to catch an edge.  Sometimes at the bottom when you just want to run out to the lift, with legs tired--and not concentrating--it can be embarrasing.  Normally I am making picture perfect carved turns--but on the occasion that I stray from perfection, I have not found them very forgiving. 


Perhaps in a longer length some of the issues I had would go away.

post #4 of 8

Interesting Jjardin.  I did not have that experience.  I'm not sure how much you weight but maybe you were on skis that were a bit short?  I am a fairly technical skier and don't allow myself to be too lazy, but I was taking it easy at times and I never felt like the skis punished me for that.  I suspect the longer length would be more stable and allow more fore/aft variability in terms of your stance without a huge penalty in terms of the skis behavior.  I do think they are a ski that does not appreciate the skier being lazy...they really want to be skied rather than the other way around. 

post #5 of 8

My build is more football and less soccer--so length is probably the issue.   I gotta work out a bit harder this summer so I am in better shape next year.  


post #6 of 8

I am thinking of getting the 84's and debating over the length 170 or 177. 5'10" / 150lb advanced or there about. Sounds like maybe the 177 would do the trick. I have been skiing the Kendos and Mantras in the 177 length ( those are the only size the shops here rent ). The local mega sports store has a 30 day exchange policy so I can always go back and get the shorter/longer size . . . also skiing out here in Tahoe.

post #7 of 8

If you have the Mantras in 177, they the peak 84's will be no trouble for you in the same length.  If you are going to use them more as your bump and frontside ski then I guess the 170 might be ok too.  I don't find the 184's to feel over long, so I don't think you'll feel like you got too much ski even if you get the 177s.  For comparison, I am 6 foot 3, 185 lbs. 

post #8 of 8
Originally Posted by radiobb View Post

I am thinking of getting the 84's and debating over the length 170 or 177. 5'10" / 150lb advanced or there about.

If it helps at all, I am right around 5'10", 165 lbs., advanced as well and feel the 170 is enough for me in the i.Peak 84 Pro or the i.Peak 90,  With the flow ride tip instead of rocker, I feel these ski a little longer than some of the early rise/rocker skis.


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews