or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Head Monster IM75 vs. Dynastar intuitiv 74
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Monster IM75 vs. Dynastar intuitiv 74

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I am considering purchasing one of these two skis and need a recomendation on sizing, as well as pros & cons of the two skis by anyone who has skied both of them.

I am a Level 8 skier, weigh 190 lbs, (should be 170) ski mostly East coast conditions. I already have a pair of Atomics that I will use if its nothing but ice. I also ride a snowboard for what few deep powder days I see on the east coast. (sorry)

I enjoy high speed GS turns when the terrain permits. However, I also want to be able to make tight slalom type turns without extreme effort.

With E-bay pricing, I am willing to make this purchase without demoing either ski. But, I don't want to buy the wrong size.

post #2 of 12
Dude, you didn't give your height.
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
I didn't give my height because I have read (maybe here) that a ski doesn't know how tall you are only how heavy. But, I'm 5'10" if that helps.
post #4 of 12
I have no idea why people keep insisting on using height as a factor in ski sizing.

Physicsman, or anybody, will you please explain what height has to do with sizing, if anything? Salesmen and ski companies continuing to relate ski size to a skier's height can only work if we assume that all people have the same build type. Since we don't it seems ridiculous to even discuss height unless we're talking fine tuning for world class racers.

So going by your weight, I'd say you'd probably want a 175cm. Intuitiv 74. I weigh 225 and have the I-74 in a 182, and I can rip big GS turns and ski tight bumps on them pretty easily.

I haven't skied the IM75's so I don't know how their performance compares to the Intuitiv.

[ December 20, 2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Carvemeister ]
post #5 of 12
I'm 5'9" and weigh 190lbs..I'm a level 8 skier from the N'east.

I bought the Intuitiv 74(175 cm's) from Cupolo Sports(Ebay special I think-thought it was a great deal that I coudn't pass up). The reviews on it sounded like it was right up my ally for my skiing style and for what I wanted from one ski.

I nailed it!!!!....Skied it Monday in 12-18" fresh at Mt Snow VT. The perfect ski for those who want that variable performance for on-off trail mix. All you have to do is THINK about turning on this ski and it simply goes into autodrive performance. What a ride it gives. Nice width for floating the fresh and great sidecut for the later day crud for awsome GS carving at speed.

I was initially a little hesitant to go with the 175 cm length figuring maybe it may be a bit short for myself since I like to let em run wide open on the groomers. Not so...very stable and smooth at speed. I think optimally for me a 178-179cm length would be right. The 175 rather than the 182 cm fits me better and my style. I loved the powder performance and skis ability to turn on thought.

Hope maybe this helps.....
post #6 of 12
RPTW, I skied the iM75 CHIP and reviewed it in this thread. In short, I didn't like what the "chip" did to it. Just when it was about to take off, the chip deadened the feel (for me). If you're talking about the non-chip version, then I can't help you.
post #7 of 12
I think weight is a more important factor than height but height is still a variable in determining ski length. A taller skier can but more torque on a ski (r X F) or the cross product of force and radius (r=height in this case) for you Physics types. If you are tall and in between sizes for your weight than I would bias my ski choice towards the longer size unless you needed a shorter length for bumps and trees (terrain is also an important variable). I was always sold a ski besed on my height alone. I started going shorter over the last few years and am happier with my choices especially since I ski a lot of bumps and trees. I still find my newer skies have plenty of stability for going as fast as I dare on cruisers (I have never run a GS course so I don't know how what race speeds feel like. All I know is I pass most people except for those on race skis).
post #8 of 12
Originally posted by Ray C:
I think weight is a more important factor than height but height is still a variable in determining ski length. A taller skier can but more torque on a ski (r X F) or the cross product of force and radius (r=height in this case) for you Physics types.
I think your formula for torque is not only incorrect, but irrelevant. The only torque which I could see being applied by a skier (unless he's flipping ariels)would be a rotary torque of the ski on the same plane as the ski base, which is both undesirable when skiing shaped skis and also not influenced by the skiers height.

I'm not an expert in physics, but I do like to pretend I am on my days off.
post #9 of 12
The formula is correct and not irrelevant. I hope you are not planning a career in engineering. In simple terms think of it this way. If you stick a shovel in the ground where do you get the most leverage to break the earth, near the end of the handle or near the blade? When you are skiing and your center of mass moves either forward or to the side a longer (or stiffer, or more tortionally rigid) ski is going to resist bending more than a short one. Since a taller person has their center of mass higher off the ground they will generate as much torque on the ski as a heavier person with a lower center of mass during a dynamic movement (as opossed to say a static weight centered on a simple beam supported at two ends. Consult Roark's text on stress and strain formulas for more info). As I stated before I agree this is less of a factor with new shaped skis that are designed to be tipped on edge more than bent but the same mechanics still apply and height is still a variable in chosing a ski length. Keep in mind that this is just one simple element of a complex dynamic system however it is in no way insignificant.
post #10 of 12
Stand by Ray, while I pull my head out of my ass. I'm going to stick to pretending that I used to be a sherpa instead.

It seems that your formula is correct, and after thinking about your explanation about the center of gravity being higher, I actually think I've got the picture.

Uh, you know, I was just trying to get you to explain it a little better, so the others would understand, that's all. Uh huh.

post #11 of 12
there seems to be a lot of reference to anatomy in this thread...height, weight, ass, etc.

Comps between the two skis from my observations.

Dynastar I-74
First Feel: lighter, quicker, softer, giant sweet spot, more rebound snap, easier to initiate, finesse ski
Performance: better in bumps, great in freshies, only ok on ice/hard pack; moderate GS on groomers ok, upper limits to speed are obvious
Drawbacks: can be overpowered by heavier and stonger skiers

Head IM-75
First Feel: heavier, slower to initiate, firmer mid-body, slower rebound snap, power ski w/o limits, rock solid confidence feel
Performance: ok in bumps, awesome on groomers, great ice grip, speed is no concern, bulldozer strength in broken crud, good float in powder
Drawbacks: for those that like snap this feels dead, requires more athletic/skier skills to tap potential of the ski

for a recent review read http://travel.canoe.ca/SkiCanadaProd...st_mid-fat.pdf

Have fun!



[ December 23, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: dsgould ]
post #12 of 12
I own a pair of the iM75's. I agree with just about everything Dsgould had to say about them. One of the reasons I bought them was because I was looking for a midfat that would hold up to eastern conditions (ice) and still give me the float I need for off piste, spring crud, and for trips out west, and this ski certainly fits the bill. I would be careful, however, not to buy this ski too long. I go about 205 lbs, and the 177 is all the ski I want. I think this accounts for a lot of people's impression that the ski is overly damp; I think with this ski most people should probably drop down to a size smaller than they would normally buy. I'm thinking at your size a 170 would be plenty. Also, if you buy this ski too long it will probably be a bear to turn in tight spots. The ski carves very well, and I don't have a problem with them turning for me. But if you try to horse them around, you're in for a long day. Despite Peter Keelty's accessment that they do just about anything for just about anybody, I don't think that I would recommend them to anyone that still uses a lot of rotary movements and foot steering to start their turns, as these are going to be just too much work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Head Monster IM75 vs. Dynastar intuitiv 74