or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Supershape Titans (78mm) vs Head Monster 82
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Supershape Titans (78mm) vs Head Monster 82

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Both around 170-172cm....

 

Thoughts and opinions much appreciated......

 

I primarily ski on piste, fast, wide-arcing gs type turns, but as conditions get worse later in the day I want something to handle the crud without going back to my car to put on something else.  5'10 155lbs

 

Thanks so much!

 

Jonathan

East Skier

post #2 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullkip View Post
 

Both around 170-172cm....

 

Thoughts and opinions much appreciated......

 

I primarily ski on piste, fast, wide-arcing gs type turns, but as conditions get worse later in the day I want something to handle the crud without going back to my car to put on something else.  5'10 155lbs

 

Thanks so much!

 

Jonathan

East Skier

 

I own the Titans in 170cm.  They're a powerful & nimble ski, but not really ideal for large radius turn.  They have tons of sidecut and really happiest doing fast slalom than large arcs.  While OK on crud, they're obviously not really meant for it.

 

Hate to say it, but you'd probably love the MX88.  I also own this ski (in 178), and to be quite honest the Titans haven't seen the snow since I skied the MX88's.  They are so powerful, stable, fast, forgiving, and just a joy to ski.  Way better at GS turns, way better at crud, and only a TINY bit worse at tight carving.  Quite simply, worth it. 

post #3 of 17

I currently ski the Titan as my everyday ski. I'm 210 lbs, ski the 177. I find it fine for what we typically encounter here in the East. I have/also owned the Monster 78, Peak 78, Peak 84, etc, all are fine skis. The Titan is more groomer oriented, but will handle most eastern crud just fine. Have also owned the Kastle MX78, and have skied the MX83, both great skis. Have also heard nothing but good things about the MX88, but have never tried it. Might be a little wider than what I would want to ski everyday in the East, the MX 83 would be my choice, although I would have to try the MX88 first. I might also want to try the new Head Revs, too. But if your selection is limited to the Titan and the Monster 82, and you ski primarily groomers, than I think you'll be happy with the Titans.

post #4 of 17

Haven't skied the Titan's, owned the iM82's, am pretty sure the Titan's will be a better ski for the east. They apparently ski very long, BTW, so at your size the 170 would be an upper limit, bet you could do fine on the 163. Seriously. Check with Bob Peters here, he used to rep for Head, owned a pair of Titans. 

post #5 of 17

I'll second that recommendation. The Titan skis long, no doubt about it. I had that in the back of my mind when I first read your post. The 170 is going to feel like a lot of ski at your weight. Even at my weight, the 177 is pretty substantial. I could have skied it in the 170, but chose the 177 for a little more versatility in funky conditions. I actually did speak about that with Bob Peters before I bought mine. Bob and I are about the same size, and his feelings about the length were similar. If you have the chance, demo them in both lengths. But if not, Dawg also said that the 170 was a lot of fun, and he's about your size, so you would probably be okay. The 170 seems to be a pretty universal size. Just don't go any longer.

post #6 of 17
I'll second the TItans skiing long. I had a pair of 177 cm and I probably would have been better off on 170. Mine had the rental binding which may have made them heavier as well.
post #7 of 17

Head Monster 82 would have to be several seasons old, and, I believe Head did some major changes to the Titan for the '13/'14 season. The current Titan's got reviews last spring that seemed to indicate this version skis better than the original Titan. So, you may want to check what year they are manufactured. The Monsters have been used for years as a good 80 ish waist cruiser. The Titan uses some higher technology associated with the Head premium Supershape line of skis and are more demanding. At your weight, the 170 should be a better ski, but, the original Titan's did get some mixed reviews.

post #8 of 17
I'm 150 lbs and 6ft so even lighter than you and i'm on 163 Titans, 2 seasons old so last season for you guys, and love them.
Very quick edge to edge and short radius and also strong going fast. The 170 would be too much for me as these are just about perfect on hard, groomers and a few inches of new. Camber ski though no rocker like this years so.......
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by snala View Post

I'm 150 lbs and 6ft so even lighter than you and i'm on 163 Titans, 2 seasons old so last season for you guys, and love them.
Very quick edge to edge and short radius and also strong going fast. The 170 would be too much for me as these are just about perfect on hard, groomers and a few inches of new. Camber ski though no rocker like this years so.......

 

I think that's an important point.  I may be out to lunch (wouldn't be the first time), but I skied a few runs on the 2013/14 version of the Titan at Snowbasin at the ski retailers' thing last Feb and I thought there was a fairly significant difference between the 12/13 model - which I love - and the 13/14 model - which has some level of "rocker".

 

If nothing else, I think it would be good for someone considering the 13/14 model to demo a couple of lengths if at all possible.  Where the models prior to this year's actually did seem to ski "long", I didn't have that feeling about the 13/14.  My impression was that the "marketing rocker" actually does shorten the effective length of the ski.  My own personal opinion was that the 177cm length of the 13/14 definitely skied "shorter" than the previous models.  I didn't ski the 170.

 

I just had the chance this past week to ski on my friend's 170cm 12/13 Titan and I really, really like that ski.  I didn't have the same impression when I skied the 13/14.  Still a very good ski, but I didn't have the really giddy gut reaction to the 13/14 that I do to the 12/13. 

 

Edited to add (for anyone who doesn't know it) that I used to be an on-mountain rep for Head and now I'm one for Rossignol. 

post #10 of 17

The Titans that I own are the 12/13 model, which I really like. It would make sense that the 13/14 with some slight tip rocker would tend to ski shorter, although I haven't had a chance to try them yet. I'm about 6'1", 210 lbs, and I'm not sorry that I bought the 177's, although I would recommend that anyone south of the 190 lb mark might be wise to demo the 170. I am heading to a demo this Sunday to try the new Titans, as well as the Rally and the Rev85. However, they are forecasting a significant amount of snow into Saturday night and Sunday, so I'm not sure that skiing them on a powder day would be a good test. If I want to try them on some good old fashioned New England hardpack, I'll have to head up on Saturday. Or I could ski them on both days and have the best of both worlds. When I get it figured out, I'll report back.

post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post
 

The Titans that I own are the 12/13 model, which I really like. It would make sense that the 13/14 with some slight tip rocker would tend to ski shorter, although I haven't had a chance to try them yet. I'm about 6'1", 210 lbs, and I'm not sorry that I bought the 177's, although I would recommend that anyone south of the 190 lb mark might be wise to demo the 170. I am heading to a demo this Sunday to try the new Titans, as well as the Rally and the Rev85. However, they are forecasting a significant amount of snow into Saturday night and Sunday, so I'm not sure that skiing them on a powder day would be a good test. If I want to try them on some good old fashioned New England hardpack, I'll have to head up on Saturday. Or I could ski them on both days and have the best of both worlds. When I get it figured out, I'll report back.

 

I'll be interested to hear your reaction to the Rev85.  Of this year's models, I actually liked that one more than the Titan.

 

Don't think I skied the Rally, but I'd have to look back through my notes to see.

post #12 of 17

I've heard mixed reviews of the Rev 85. I'll try it on Sunday, but they are still forecasting 12"+ at the mountain where the demo is being held. But there's a shop at the mountain where I have a season pass that has a pair set up to demo, so I'll get a chance to try them later on in more everyday NE conditions.

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post
 

I've heard mixed reviews of the Rev 85. I'll try it on Sunday, but they are still forecasting 12"+ at the mountain where the demo is being held. But there's a shop at the mountain where I have a season pass that has a pair set up to demo, so I'll get a chance to try them later on in more everyday NE conditions.

Mac,

If you try the Rev 85's, my experience is they ski best with your boot right at the center mount point of the ski. Even small deviations made a difference for me.

post #14 of 17

It's understandable that the mount point could make a difference depending on the amount of rocker that the tip actually has. From what I've heard, the rocker in the Rev series is more noticeable than the Supershape line.

post #15 of 17

Okay, got to ski a handful of skis yesterday in about 12" of fresh that fell overnight. I got to the mountain early, but the lifts to the summit were on wind hold, so the lower mountain got tracked out pretty quickly. About mid morning, the summit lifts opened. There was no grooming at all, some of the trails were drifted over, and others were scoured off by the wind down to the frozen granular base. So you never knew what you were going to find, depending on what trail you went down. All the skis I tried were 177's, except the Head Venturi, which was a 181.

First up was the Head Venturi 95. An easy choice considering the conditions, and probably my favorite of the day. I was near the head of the line when they opened the lift to the summit, so I got the full spectrum on the way down. Very fun ski in every condition, easy to ski without being wimpy, even held it's own on the wind scoured hardpack. If I was looking for a 95mm ski, this would be it.

Next up, the new 2013/14 Supershape Titan. My first impression was that they felt somewhat heavy. My next impression was that these are not as playful as the 2012/13 model that I presently own. My next thought was that they are a lot of work in these conditions. Couldn't really tell if they skied shorter because of the supposed slight rocker because of the conditions.Granted, these were not the conditions that the Titan was made for, but they took a lot of attention to ski in those conditions. Felt almost like a full on race ski, all business all the time. Or maybe I just wasn't up to skiing them. I can imagine that these really rip on hardpack conditions, but in the crud and bumps they were more work than what I wanted. I think another demo is in order in more normal New England conditions.

Head Rev 85. By now, my legs were a little burnt from the conditions, and I skied these right after the Titan, which also took a toll on me. The Rev 85 skied easier than the Titan, no surprise there, easier to control, better suited to the conditions. Wasn't sure how it would hold up to eastern hardpack, but it gripped very well on the scraped off spots that I encountered. Got through the bumps without much trouble. Could have been happy skiing these for the rest of the day. Didn't knock my socks off like the Kastle MX 83, but not the same conditions, either. I think another demo is in order for these, too, as soon as conditions return to normal.

Head SS Rally. Had been looking forward to trying these. Somewhat narrower waist than the Titan (76 compared to 80), but clearly cut from the same carver blueprint. Possibly a somewhat softer flex than the Titan, but by no means wimpy. Easier to ski in the crud and bumps, just a touch more relaxing. Really wanted to hook up as soon as you encountered any hardpack, very strong edge grip, almost to the point that they felt a little railed. After the top of the mountain opened up, I managed to find a section of windblown untouched powder that no one had skied yet, which turned out to be a little more set up than I suspected, and these skis would grab on to it and just rail across the trail. Wasn't really interested in surfing over the snow, it just wanted to hook up and carve. It took some attention to keep them going down the hill. My take on both the SS Titan and Rally is that they have traded some of the playfulness and versatility that the older Supershapes were know for in return for a more serious carving nature, especially in the case of the Titan. But I could see myself owning a pair of the Rally's as my everyday eastern ski. The verdict is still out on the Titan. But keep in mind that the conditions I tried these in were far from normal New England everyday conditions. I wouldn't buy any of these skis based on my opinions formed on that day, with the exception of the Venturi.

The last few runs I made were on a pair of my older Head Monster 78's that I had brought with me while my Titans were in the shop being tuned. And my final impression of the day was that they were probably the best skis I had been on all day. And they stopped making these why?

post #16 of 17
Good review Mac.
Could it be as simple as the the Rallys are closer in overall dimensions to the old Titans vs the new Titans and that is also a factor in why you prefered them? Your description of the Rally sounds a bit like the old Titan's strengths?
Having >78mm waists and changes in the proportionality of the front vs back measurements of the old vs the new Titan means it really isn't the same ski at all in my opinion but they kept the name. I'd say Magnum lovers might say the same thing too.
The greater sidecut radius's alone, the 170 goes from 13.5 to 14.3m, and the rocker vs camber is possibly slowing the skis tight turn/rail (fun?) feel factor down a bit I'd say.
Mine have 12.4m radius's, 77mm waists, and are like a fat, not quite so stiff, slalom race ski. When I tired the new ones in July with the fatter fronts and wider waists and slimmer tails (13.1m radius) it didn't really feel like the same ski at all now, felt more like a wide GS type ski and maybe slightly stiffer too than the old one?
Its funny also, as the I thought on here a while back that someone sugessted the old 78 Monsters became the original Titans but with KERS and a race plate so maybe not a coincidence you liked them too ;-P
Edited by snala - 12/16/13 at 8:27pm
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 

Good to hear Mac.  I recently purchased 78, 82 and 88 Monsters all in great shape because I had read so much about them.  Can't wait to try them all.

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 Supershape Titans (78mm) vs Head Monster 82