or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head M75 monsters

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

I have a buddy that is looking to sell me a pair of once used Head m75 Monster skis that are pretty much identical to the picture I inserted below.  They come with Head Mojo bindings on them.  Problem is he said he bought them a season or two ago but doesn't know exactly what model year they are thus I don't have the slightest clue what a fair offer on them is.  Does anyone recognize these and know what a good price is for basically a brand new pair would be.  He roughly threw out $400 but neither of us know if that's a high or low number.




Thanks all.

post #2 of 14
Thread Starter 

They are 170s 

post #3 of 14

Head produced that topsheet in 2008 and 2009.  I'm not sure between the two, but I'd guess 2008.  Not a common model - there was a Monster 77 (in previous years), a Monster 76 (a softer cap construction for intermediates) and a Monster 78, which was a wood/metal sandwich laminate and remains a damned good ski (I own a pair).


Aha!  I found a reference to them on the Levelnine site (slow work day).  They're sold out, so no price info there.  $675 retail price when new (back in the day).


It's a 2008 ski - an upper intermediate / low advanced model, so I'll hazard a guess that it's not a cap construction ski like the Monster 76.  It uses 'aircoat technology' (hollow glass fibres) to lighten the ski.  The same spiel indicates the old Monster 77 is a more stout beast.  


"This awesome all mountain ski can deliver lightweight performance to a large spectrum of people. With a do-all attitude, the quality and value of the Monster 75 is hard to beat. A great choice for one ski that will take you everywhere with a smile. This ski is light enough to be controlled by intermediate skiers, but as with any of the Monster line, its probably better classified as an advanced ski ...


... All this may make this sound like a do everything ski, and while it is close, this ski is probably not ideal for the very aggressive skier who puts exaggerated force on their skis and thus need a beefier ski (the Monster 77 comes to mind for those types.)"



Finding a nearly new Monster 77 might give you a price point that you and your friend can agree upon.  $400 might be a bit steep, and the bindings might be worth as much as the skis at the moment (assuming they've only been used once like the skis).


Good luck.

post #4 of 14

Hmm.  Going to change my mind here.  I found a larger shot and it looks like a cap construction to me.




LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 

Great reply, thank you very much.  I was between going cheap on these or splurging on some new Volkl RTM 75is so maybe I'll spend the extra $300 and pick up a new set of 2013s.  Since you seem very knowledgable do you know anything about the RTM 75/RTM 75is lines?  I'd call myself an intermediate with aspirations of improvement.  Ski the Northeast US so primarily groomed snow....rarely hit powder.

post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 

What do you mean by a cap construction?  I've been out of skiing for a bit thus some terms confuse me

post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 

So I just briefly read up on Cap vs sidewall skis .....in what way does this sway your opinion?

post #8 of 14

At the moment I don't have an opinion to sway, sorry.  We'll need to find out a bit more about you and how/where you ski before we can determine if the ski suits.  


But first, if you're getting back into skiing, spending money on properly fitted boots is the best investment you can make.  There's a couple of threads running on that same topic at the moment, but a quick summary is to find a good boot fitter in your area and put your trust in them.  Boots first, then skis.  With properly fitting boots you can ski any ski.  With badly fitting boots even the best ski can be hard work (not to mention painful).


Cap and sandwich are just two alternate ways to construct a ski, as you've read.  Plus, there are a number of approaches to cap construction (see the attached link below) that deliver the full spectrum of results in the finished ski.  Without knowing a bit more about the ski in question I'm just guessing, and I've run out of information on your ski.




In the absence of any further information my one hesitation would be this; assuming the ski was constructed along the same lines as the 76 it may be too little ski for you.  Of course, this would only be of concern if the ski is too light and/or flexible for your skiing.  If you're "an aggressive skier who puts exaggerated force on their skis", as it says above, then you may want to pass on those skis and look elsewhere.


I've just found this "The 'carbon jacket' construction (of the Head Monster 76) differs from Head’s famed sandwich constructions but it does make for a light and agile pair of skis that are both forgiving and highly accessible".  So on the face of it the 76 and the 75 appear to have a slightly different construction.  Based on the description in the Levelnine site, it appears your Monster 75 is a bit more ski than the Monster 76, but not as much ski as the sandwich construction of the Monster 78.  Again, it depends on your particulars as to whether it would work for you.


In the Monster series Head put out a very well-respected line of skis that stood the test of time over a decade or more (i.e. throughout most of the 'noughties').  The Monster series became the Peak series, and now the Rev series, with various adjustments along the way.  Head skis tend to be damp, smooth, often powerful, with a glued-to-the-snow feel, and you generally feel the edge engage with the snow along the full length of the ski.  I like them (I have three pair).


Just fossicking around to get a feel for the Monster 76 and I found these threads.  As you can see, the 76 (and probably the 75) might not be enough ski for a strong, aggressive and/or heavy skier.  






For my $0.02 you can get a more modern, lightly used second hand ski for $400 that will outperform that Monster 75.  If you're just getting back into skiing, you're not above average height or weight, and you don't fang around the hill at Mach speeds, then they may work nicely for you.  If so, you might like to hack your mate down a bit in price.  


Let us know some particulars and we'll see if the 170cm is your preferred length.  Another 'general rule' is to size the ski somewhere between your mouth and just above your eyes.  Of course, that too is another sweeping generalisation that might not hold true in all circumstances.  We'll see.


Best of luck.


post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 

Thanks for another well thought out and lengthy reply.  I honestly don't know quite how I would characterize my skiing style.  Size wise I'm 6'2 190lbs.  The 170's come just about my mouth so I think they're atleast in the right ballpark size wise.  The current skis I have that are pretty much a beginner ski from what I've read are K2 Apache Stingers (2010 model) so maybe you can draw a conclusion on what's a good step up from what I'm currently on.  I am on good pair of Dalbello boots so think I'll be keeping them.I would like something a little faster but also a ski that makes turning easy.

post #10 of 14

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.


Head over to the following thread and make an estimate of approximately where you are on the scale.  Please also let us know where you ski (resorts), what you ski (on piste, off piste, bumps, glades, trees & pow etc.) and how you prefer to ski (long fast gs turns, aggressive short tuns, point-and-shoot guided missile tactics, cruisey sightseeing trips around the hill prior to a long boozy lunch, that type of thing). 




You're by no means small, and a 170cm ski is the extreme low end of the range for you.  If you're ok on skis (and improving) I'd say the Monster 75 won't be enough ski to help you progress, or at least not for long.  The Monster 75 in a size larger (maybe 178cm) would give pause for thought, but 170cm seems short and the ski doesn't seem to be quite substantial enough (at least what I understand of it).  I'm 6'4"and 210lbs and I started with an intermediate 170cm ski.  After around 10/15 days I'd progressed to the point where I had to get something else.  I was overpowering the skis.  I could easily have progressed on something more suitable and been able to ski them for years.  That mistake cost me a bunch.  If you can ski at all you should be looking at a carving ski in the mid-to-high 170s as a starting point (edit - depending on the skis of course).


As an example of what you can get with circa. $400 these days.  The Head Monster series evolved into the Head Peak series in (I think) 2010.  I'd be surprised if you can't get a brand new pair of Head Peak 78s with bindings from 2011 for that sort of money.  It's a buyer's market right now after an average (or worse) snow season last year.  I think you can save a heap on that $700 or so you were planning to lash out on the RTMs.


If you decide you're not going for your friend's Monsters, you should actually try to demo some skis if possible.  That's easily the best way to get an idea of what you like.  If not, there's a couple of retail stores who post on this forum, and they'll be more than happy to help you out with something at a great price I'm sure.


I'll be interested to see where you sit on that scale.

post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 

Ok so after looking at the chart I'd say I'm a level 6.  I typically Ski at Mount Snow or Sugarbush in Vermont.  I ski on piste.  Find myself skiing all blues and easier blacks.  Conditions are typically on the firmer side out here, don't get fresh powder often.  The turns I make are typically long with some of the point and shoot missile method mixed in.  I'll have to look at the Head Peak series, didn't know that was the monster line's newer version.

post #12 of 14
Originally Posted by EastCoaster18 View Post

Thanks for another well thought out and lengthy reply.  I honestly don't know quite how I would characterize my skiing style.  Size wise I'm 6'2 190lbs.  The 170's come just about my mouth so I think they're atleast in the right ballpark size wise.  The current skis I have that are pretty much a beginner ski from what I've read are K2 Apache Stingers (2010 model) so maybe you can draw a conclusion on what's a good step up from what I'm currently on.  I am on good pair of Dalbello boots so think I'll be keeping them.I would like something a little faster but also a ski that makes turning easy.

I owned a pair of the Monster 95's with that cap/aircoat technology; touring skis. It gives the skis a very light, lively feel unlike other Monsters. Great for hiking or skinning, could be nervous coming down. 170 is waay too short for you at your size, given the construction, even if you're a level 6. Also agree about not spending 7 bills on RTM's. The Head Peak 78 is a detuned Monster 78, reviews saw it as a nice intermediate ski but not much upside. I'd think about year old new skis like the Elan Waveflex 78 Ti, Blizzard 8.1 Magnum, Rossignol Avenger 82 Ti, Head Peak 82. They'll be manageable, but can grow with you. 

post #13 of 14
Thread Starter 
Do you guys have any thoughts on the Fischer Watea 84s in the 2012 model? Just went by a local store and the salesman thinks they're a solid all purpose ski that turns well. He suggested 176s.
post #14 of 14

There are a few decent reviews on this site.  Type "Fischer Watea 84 review" into the search bar at the top of the page and you'll find them.  


Here's one



The general tone of the reviews I've seen indicate they're good skis for lighter skiers and softer conditions, but they're not the best tool for hard / refrozen snow, and may not be enough ski for bigger skiers.  For conditions "on the firmer side" there are better options, and those options would likely involve some metal in the layup.  I'd also be inclined to point to towards something mid-to-high 70s in the waist.  84 is at the top end of the widths you should be considering at this point.

Edited by sinbad7 - 1/15/13 at 2:26pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion