New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 Head Rev 90

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

 

Product:

Length Tested: 177cm

Dimensions/Turn Radius: 136 / 91 / 117, 16.6m radius

Camber: "Marketing Rocker" with Camber

Binding: Demo

Mount point: Suggested

 

Environment & Conditions:

Location of Test: Squaw Valley

Number of Runs: All morning

Snow Conditions: Spring conditions, not quite corn

Demo or Own: Demo

 

Tester Info:

Username: Xela

Age: 41

Height/Weight: 5'9", 150 lbs.

Ski Days/Season: 30

Years Skiing: ~20

Aggressiveness: Aggressive

Current Quiver: 2012 Blizzard Bonafide 180; 2006 Dynastar Legend 8000 172

Home Area: Squaw Valley

Preferred Terrain: bumps, off-piste, trees

 

Conclusion: A damp wide groomer ski.

 

Pros: Groomer ski that can venture off piste.

 

Cons: A bit hooky.  Dubious tail.  Some tip flap.

 

Review:

 

I don't know what to make of a 90mm ski in today's ski offerings.  I recently tried the Ski Logik Rave, at 92mm, and didn't think much about it one way or the other.  The Head Rev 90 began the day as a perfectly serviceable ski on some steep groomers.  As a rather damp ski, it didn't provide a lot of pop coming out of turns.

 

Even though the Rev 90 has the word "rocker" right on the topsheet, I would call this ski relatively flat.  Neither the rocker nor the camber are pronounced.  Looking at the ski, I'd say there is a touch of tip rocker and a traditional tail.  The sidecut, however, is obvious.

 

rev90top.jpg

 

rev90side.jpg

 

I was curious how it would carve, being wide, but with substantial shape.  As it turns out, it didn't carve too well for me.  Now some of that is undoubtably me, and some is likely the soft conditions, but I know I get more carve out of my 80mm skis.  Perhaps the sidecut is too aggressive for the soft snow or the types of turns I normally do.

 

While the Rev 90 didn't seem as pivoty and playful as some rockered skis, it did exhibit some tip flap in cut-up snow.  In fact, performance in crud was a notable disappointment for me.  It wasn't the tip flapping, but rather that it was hard to keep the ski tracking straight.  I don't know if it was the sidecut or perhaps hooky tips, but the Rev 90 did get thrown around when skiing crud.  I note that this did not happen with a ski 7mm wider and a similar sidecut one day prior.

 

On a similar note, there were times when skiing ungroomed spring snow that the Rev 90 would hook up unexpectedly and strongly.  I'm wondering if this is to be expected when skiing a 90mm ski in creamy conditions.  Regardless, it wasn't fun when it happened.

 

I decided to retire the Rev 90 at lunch time and get back on my ole' reliable Bonafides.  It wasn't just due to the hooky tips.  I also found that the tail of the Rev 90 wasn't always there the way I wanted it to be.  Especially in moguls, I would find what seemed like the "incredible disappearing tail".  It's not as if my Bonafides have a lot of tail, but the Rev 90 seemed to have both more and less at various times.

 

The Head Rev 90 is a bit of a puzzle for me.  Sometimes I think a ski like this exists just for completeness, so that the Rev 105 will have a little brother.  If I had to say to whom this ski was aimed, I'd say as a one-ski quiver for a groomer skier dealing with occasional soft snow, and who likes a damp feel.  I'm sure I know people like that, but I'm not one of them.

 

rev90specs.jpg

post #2 of 12

Appreciate the review. Interesting given that the 105 seems to appeal to good lighter skiers, and the 85 to nearly everyone. Perhaps as you say this is the "fill-in" model. I notice that it has a lot more taper than any other REV; wonder if that led to the weird tail feeling. The tip flap is also interesting, given that the i technology is supposed to have been moved to the tip (and I have always felt the i/Vers stuff actually worked, not all agree). Bob Peters, where are you when we need you? Yeah, I know; working for Rossi now...

post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 

I'm not exactly a professional reviewer; so, you may take my observations with a grain of salt.  Also, my technique is not perfect and it may be that I'm just not a good match for some skis.

 

I do find it interesting that alexzn mentioned hooky tips in his review of the Rev 105.  In the interest of full disclosure, alexzn is a friend of mine and I knew his opinion of the 105 before I tried the 90.  He has 3 inches and 40 pounds on me.  Still, I'm quite sure I wasn't making this stuff up.

 

The tip flap was less than some skis, certainly.  Frankly, it surprised me because I wasn't expecting it, given the minimal rocker on these.  Those tips are really wide, though, and mass is mass.

post #4 of 12

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Appreciate the review. Interesting given that the 105 seems to appeal to good lighter skiers, and the 85 to nearly everyone. Perhaps as you say this is the "fill-in" model. I notice that it has a lot more taper than any other REV; wonder if that led to the weird tail feeling. The tip flap is also interesting, given that the i technology is supposed to have been moved to the tip (and I have always felt the i/Vers stuff actually worked, not all agree). Bob Peters, where are you when we need you? Yeah, I know; working for Rossi now...

 


I wasn't super happy with the 90. Felt like too much of a tweener: missing the 85's stability in crud and on groomers, not all that much fun in bumps.  Just kind of a meh...ski.  We didn't order any: I would recommend looking at the 85 for a good crud ski/bump ski/frontside ski.  Look at the Head Rock n' Roll for a mid 90's Bonafide-style ski (but better in bumps and on groomers than the Bone, at least for lighter skiers like Chris and I), then jump to the 105 for more of a versatile softer snow type ski. 


Our Head order was 85/Rock n' Roll/105.  Seemed like those were the 3 best skis in the lineup (the new Inferno is intriguing, haven't much time on it though. This year's Inferno was one of the best skis on the market for good skiers).

 

 

post #5 of 12

Thanks for the excellent review, very thorough.
 

post #6 of 12

very nice skis!!!

post #7 of 12

maybe the sacrifice is better for an everiday ski?

post #8 of 12
I'm going to pull this one up from the dead after spending about an hour and a half on the Rev 90. I took out a pair of 184's and a 177 rev 85pro along with my own pair of 13/14 Titans. I ski the titans +1 forward, and after my first run on the 90's that was NOT very inspiring, moved the binding up to roughly +1-1.5. Just an amazing and very positive difference. Much more even feeling fore and aft if you use the entire length of the ski. The 85 by comparison is light feeling, fun, and pretty playful. The 90 with the binding forward felt much more solid and damp which is also a function of the extra length, but I'll take out some 177's for the sake of consistency. At the end of the day, got back on the titans.. A totally different creature (177) than either of the Revs. If you demo the 90, move the binding up +1. It's a much better, more stable ski with better edge grip and overall balance than at 0. All in MHO of course.smile.gif
post #9 of 12

^^^^ Interesting;  when I was running iM Heads I also liked a BOF mount, but preferred on the line for Supershapes. 

post #10 of 12

Head REV 90 2014 177cm are good for normal carving not very ambitious piste.
Carving turns are really good with these ski on all cultural parts of the mountain.
Edges will keep you well even in deep twist.You will be saloon tiger there :)
On slalom slope with higher speed you will make small jumps when you turn.

I think the problem is in the shape and flexibility.
On realy deep snow you will sink - 91 mm in the middle is too few.
The paint on the top is too delicate.

Please forgive me my bad English.

Żółwik

post #11 of 12

Just picked up a pair of 177cm new with binders on Ebay so I appreciate the mounting tip.  I was thinking about mounting them a bit forward anyway so this just confirms the plan.  I have a couple pair of Supershapes for front side carving so I thought given the short turn radius and soft tips these might do pretty well on moguls if purchased on the short side.  Time will tell! Thanks

post #12 of 12

Sure, that said, I hope you are under 180lbs and 5'10. Otherwise I think you will find them a little short.

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