EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Rev 105 vs. Head Sacrifice 105 paradox
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Rev 105 vs. Head Sacrifice 105 paradox

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

In my ideal world, I would demo each candidate ski and then buy my favorite one.  But my this year my final candidates for a new wide ski are both Heads, and in Washington state there are no Head dealers.

 

I demo-ed a lot of wide skis last season  (  http://tinyurl.com/9lw25qe ) , I've read reports about the new skis, and I've got it down to Rev 105s or Sacrifice 105s.  They have the same dimensions and pretty much the same rocker/camber blend, but they don't ski the same.

 

How to decide between them?   Like Blanche duBois, I'll just have to rely on the kindness of strangers.  And that's where you come in.

 

There have been some reviews online, but they seem contradictory.  On one hand, it is agreed that the Rev is slightly stiffer than the Sacrifice.  On the other hand, there are more than a couple of claims that the Rev is "a tad underpowered" (skinet.com's phrase) and the Sacrifice "has slightly more top end" (Dawgcatching's phrase).  Usually the stiffer ski is more 'top end' and more powerful, so I'm puzzled here.

 

(Avid followers of this stuff may note that I'm sometimes substituting 2012's Inferno for 2013's Sacrifice in the comparison.  One ski replaced the other and apparently has the same layup and flex, differing only in sidecut.)

 

Does anyone have anything to contribute?  Noodler?  Dawg?  Alexzn?  Markojp?

 
 

____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #2 of 19
Stuertevants is a Head dealer. They have the whole Rev line in stock and on the ski wall. No Sacrifice though, but I'm sure they could get ahold of a pair quickly for you. I'm pretty sure they'll have a pair of 105's in the demo fleet as well, but you'd have to call and ask.


I'm in the 'didn't dig the 105' camp and in my narrow minded way without having skied the Sacrifice, wondering why they got rid of the Inferno which I thought was a pretty fun ski. Of course if capital 'I' think its fun, well then it certainly must be. smile.gif. My theory is the whole 'Motörhead graphic thing has been sort of a marketing disaster.
post #3 of 19

Not sure why this is such a conundrum for you. Within the category of ~~105mm there are lots of choices. Some are relatively soft, some relatively stiff and some are in the middle. Naturally the stiffer models are less nimble and easy going in soft snow but have a higher top end. Also naturally, the softer skis are the opposite. The middle is medium and that's where these two skis live. For my tastes at least, the Rev has a better turn finish due to the flatter tail but the differences are splitting hairs. I'd happily ski the Rev as an everyday ski for Tahoe (but I also have 5-6 other real faves in the 98-105 range)

 

One cautionary note........if the pic in your avatar is you or that's the way you typically ski then a stiffer ski might be a better choice. The Rev skis like to slice and throwing them across the hill such as that pic shows would for sure generate a pretty rough ride. OTH, if that's just a pic that is unrelated.....then no issues.

 

SJ

post #4 of 19
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the correction.  I guess what I recollected is that last season Sturtevants had no wide Heads to ski on.

 

And what is "capital 'I' think"?

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

Thanks for the correction.  I guess what I recollected is that last season Sturtevants had no wide Heads to ski on.

 

And what is "capital 'I' think"?

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

 

 

Just the self-important with extra emphasis and confused punctuation what I think is kool and right so it must be so "I"... as in me, markojp... tongue in cheek of course. smile.gif

post #6 of 19

Really tough to say w/o a demo.  My Infernos are great, although they ski weird with Duke bindings on there.  So does everything else w/that binding though.....

 

REV 105 is turning out to be a popular ski.  It is pretty supple, lots of tip, likes to be on edge it seems.  Maybe more sidecut than I like in a ski like that. 

post #7 of 19
Big drift, but what are your thoughts about the Duke changing the feel of a ski Dawg? And what type of customer is typically buying the 105?
post #8 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

Naturally the stiffer models are less nimble and easy going in soft snow but have a higher top end. Also naturally, the softer skis are the opposite.

 

Thanks, SJ.    I think you missed the paradox I tried to describe.  What you write (quoted above) has always been true, but it is contrary to what I observed in online comments.  The weight of opinion is that the slightly softer ski has a better top end.   I.e., the softer Inferno/Sacrifice is has more top end and the slightly stiffer Rev is "a tad underpowered" when the same testers call the Sacrifice  "… built for aggressive skiers, big terrain".

 

I recognize that the differences must be small. (Hey, splitting hairs is what we do in this forum!)  And it's perfectly possible that I'll like both skis differently but equally.  But I'd still like to sort this out better because I'm sure that I won't have a chance to demo.

 

 

Quote:

...if the pic in your avatar is you or that's the way you typically ski then a stiffer ski might be a better choice. 

 

Yes that's me, so this would point me TOWARD the slightly stiffer Rev.

 

 

 

Quote:

 The Rev skis like to slice and throwing them across the hill such as that pic shows would for sure generate a pretty rough ride. 

 

And this argues AWAY from the Rev (away from a rough ride) and TOWARD-- what I'm starting to figure out-- is the possibly damper Sacrifice.  Similarly, I do remember how the slightly soft and very damp Infernos smoothed out rough snow.

 

So that's the direction I'm leaning now.  And too bad, because I hate their graphics and the useless turned-up tail.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #9 of 19
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

 

Thanks, SJ.    I think you missed the paradox I tried to describe.  What you write (quoted above) has always been true, but it is contrary to what I observed in online comments.  The weight of opinion is that the slightly softer ski has a better top end.   I.e., the softer Inferno/Sacrifice is has more top end and the slightly stiffer Rev is "a tad underpowered" when the same testers call the Sacrifice  "… built for aggressive skiers, big terrain".

 

I recognize that the differences must be small. (Hey, splitting hairs is what we do in this forum!)  And it's perfectly possible that I'll like both skis differently but equally.  But I'd still like to sort this out better because I'm sure that I won't have a chance to demo.

 

Yes that's me, so this would point me TOWARD the slightly stiffer Rev.

 

 

 

 

And this argues AWAY from the Rev (away from a rough ride) and TOWARD-- what I'm starting to figure out-- is the possibly damper Sacrifice.  Similarly, I do remember how the slightly soft and very damp Infernos smoothed out rough snow.

 

So that's the direction I'm leaning now.  And too bad, because I hate their graphics and the useless turned-up tail.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

 

If you keep chasing your tail like this you are bound to catch it eventually. Best of luck.

 

SJ

post #11 of 19

For the little bit of time I had them on hard pack (and it wasn't very hard) I felt that the Rev was damper than the Sacrifice.  Other differences have been pointed out and I agree there has been some discrepancies between the observations.  If you can wait until Thanksgiving then I guarantee a number of regular Epic posters will most likely get more time on both and have further observations.  We're just heading into early season demo days now.

post #12 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Why not the Inferno if you like your knowns known?

 

My only complaint with the Inferno was a too-long turn radius.  So the Sacrifice is surely better for me (and so would be the Rev 105, if it's not too wimpy).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

If you keep chasing your tail like this you are bound to catch it eventually.

 

 

Hee hee.  Well put.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #13 of 19

The whole turn radius thing is a bit dubious. There's the running surface, amount of camber, stiffness, etc... a load of variables involved in how a ski turns. The one thing I really liked about the Inferno was how quickly it would turn a nice C shape, and how well it skied in soft bumps as well as 18" of chopped up powder on a steep pitch... All in all, I thought it was/is a much nicer and more versatile ski (for me) than the 105 could ever hope to be, but then again, I'm 205.

post #14 of 19
Thread Starter 

Here's another take that might fit the facts (not that I know enough of them) and solve the seeming paradox of a stiffer ski being not as good for hard charging off piste:  Maybe the Sacrifice is just slightly softer, deader and heavier than the Rev 105, so it is thus is less responsive, less lively, and less likely to bounce around at high speed in lumpy crud.   As if the Rev 105 were a sports car and Sacrifice more of an SUV.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.


Edited by crudmaster - 11/1/12 at 2:41pm
post #15 of 19

You'll probably end up paying 2X as much for the REV than the Inferno, which you've never skied?

post #16 of 19
Thread Starter 

Shred, I actually loved the Inferno, with only one complaint about how it skis   (  http://tinyurl.com/9lw25qe ) , and Head seems to have fixed it with the Sacrifice.

 

And markojp, I agree that the radius thing doesn't matter off piste, but when on piste I prefer SL turns to GS turns.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #17 of 19

And you need to consider why very very few off piste oriented skis have much tighter than around 18-20m of sidecut. Sounds like you really want a  piste ski that will take you off the trail. It's starting to sound like you need a pair of Titan's, and a pair of Infernos, or for one ski does all, a pair of Rock and Rolls (94) if you're really intent on the Head thing.

post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 

I think that sidecut doesn't matter much when skiing off-piste.  In 3-D snow it's the shape of the ski when flexed that is the primary determinant of how 'turny' the ski is.  But when we're on piste the side cut matters a lot.

 

So when skiing off-piste, what matters most is the proportion of camber-to-rocker, and the stiffness, with width and length being secondary.

 

When skiing on-piste, it's mostly the stiffness of the cambered portion and the sidecut that matters, with length and width as secondary factors, and the rockered portions don't get involved except a little bit when the ski is tipped way over.

 

So I think that I'll prefer the Sacrifice over the Inferno because it'll perform about the same when off-piste, but it'll be turnier on-piste.  Which is what I said I needed in last year's post regarding the 11 wide skis that I demo-ed ( http://tinyurl.com/9lw25qe ).

 

I predict that by mid-December you'll hear how my theory turned out, because I'll probably buy the Sacrifices and report to y'all at length.

 

Regarding the 'Head thing', I DO think that they've shown better design and innovation than the other majors over the last 20 years, with the recent years of the Peak models being the exception.  I may have been gonzo over the full-length Monster 82's from 2006 to 2011, but I don't have a pro-Head prejudice so much as I'm trying to manage a fair-minded obsession about the tools of my passion.

 

These days, I haven't found any ski to have reached a higher state of perfection FOR ME than Salomon achieved with the Enduro 850 XT.   I'd really like to find a wider version of that for the wide ski in my 3-ski quiver.  I almost found it in the Nordica Girish, but it was too burly for my 155 pounds.

 

The specs of the Rev 105 resemble a wider version of the Enduro, but I suspect that it's not so metal-and-wood, dead/damp, stick-to-the-snow as the Inferno/Sacrifice is.

 

So that'll probably be the big acquisition for this season.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #19 of 19
Thread Starter 

I just realized that I've answered the central question of this thread, but never posted it.   Here's a quote (with bold face added) from my post in another quick demo thread:

 

 

Head Sacrifice - 181cm, 144/105/131 (16m radius)

They're cambered, have a little tip rocker, and a lot of sidecut.  (And Head greatly reduced the turned-up tail when the Sacrifice replaced the Inferno.)  Their flex is medium-soft, they're pretty damp, they have some rebound, and have decent edge grip, so they carve pretty well for a mostly off-piste ski.  They have a round flex (unlike the Ritual), and on-piste it feels like 90% of the ski engages with the snow. They feel like a lighter, softer and less damp version of the very damp Head Rev 105 (which is no surprise since they have the same dimensions).

 

I didn't get to test them in powder, but given their flex and my experience on the Rev 105's, it's easy to conclude that they'll steer through powder like a dream.  Those who want to pivot or slarve won't be so happy, though.

 

I'd recommend these to lighter skiers who want a wide 70% powder - 30% on-piste ski that isn't fully rockered.

 

 

 

And for anyone considering the Rev 105 (which I bought), here's my take:  http://www.epicski.com/t/118747/rev-105-the-wide-ski-for-this-hard-charger

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

 

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 Rev 105 vs. Head Sacrifice 105 paradox