or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Market Place › Classifieds › Classified Archive › FS: 2005 Head i-SL $300 160/165/170cm NEW
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FS: 2005 Head i-SL $300 160/165/170cm NEW

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi. I have a few pair of i-Slalom's that I need to move. $300 per pair-we have 160, 165, and 170cm in stock. Don't let the race-ski graphics fool you-this is a superb groomed-snow free ski. Relatively stable at speed, in arcs big and small-a great East-Coast or hard-snow choice. This is the production cap ski, not the race-room ski with vertical sidewall (identical to the i-SL Chip, but without the chip). Comes with the Carve CP13 plate, which require Tyrolia FF+ bindings (or other non-railflex designs). Bindings plus skis (the FreeFlex with DIN 5-14) would run $425. PM me if interested-thanks!
post #2 of 12
I might be interested in a pair. Are you a ski shop? Where are you located?
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcsNorth
I might be interested in a pair. Are you a ski shop? Where are you located?
Yes, we are a shop in Oregon! No snow here-we are liquidating some skis!
post #4 of 12
I'm curious. You say they are "relatively stable". How might they compare to some of the more popular high-perf carvers (ie; RX8, 6 Star, S12, etc)? If you've skied them, how do they stack up to the chip version?

They seem like a good match for me - East-coaster with a preference for tight radius high speed carving. Agree?
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walks
I'm curious. You say they are "relatively stable". How might they compare to some of the more popular high-perf carvers (ie; RX8, 6 Star, S12, etc)? If you've skied them, how do they stack up to the chip version?

They seem like a good match for me - East-coaster with a preference for tight radius high speed carving. Agree?
Hi. The i-Slalom, when skied in a longer length, is very comparable to some of the retail carvers. I find the tail to be a bit stiffer on the i-Slalom than on some of the other mentioned, but otherwise they are very similiar. I would say lighter than the S12, a bit more powerful than the RX8. The i-Slalom can do GS or SL turns. I don't have enough time on the Chip to comment on that ski!

I have found that for East Coast skiers, the retail slalom skis make excellent free skis, when skied in a longer length. They are rarely marketed as such, but around here, you see coaches and instructors on them all day, especially if it is sunny with no new snow!
post #6 of 12
I think you're right about the retail slaloms as a good free ski. The only one that seems to have really caught on that way is the Atomic SL9 which I've considered as well. I think people often shy away from anything with a "race" designation, not really knowing what they're missing.

In any case, you suggest longer lengths as a free ski. I'm 6' 165 lbs. I was thinking about the 165's, but maybe I should consider the 170's?
post #7 of 12

Sl length

Walks:

I'll defer to Dawg on the specific length recomendation for this ski, but to share my experience w/ Atomic SL9's, I'll say 160 - 165 for you.

I skiied the SL9 in 160 and it was awesome. But when It came time to buy I freaked at the shortness and bought the 170. It was a mistake..nowhere near the same experience.
These skis are ment to be skied short. I'm 6' and 212. I would get 160 for myself if I got another consumer slalom. At you weight I think the 170 would be an unremarkable ski. 160-165 max , but ask Dawg what his impression is, he is very accurate and clear in his ski reviews.

good luck!
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
But when It came time to buy I freaked at the shortness and bought the 170. It was a mistake..nowhere near the same experience.
It's interesting that you say that. I had a somewhat similar experience when I bought my C11's last year. I was leaning toward 170's, but decided to go short with the 160's. I believe 165 would have been ideal, but the C11's aren't available in that size. Now, I realize the C11 is not a slalom ski per se, but it's dimensions are very similar to the SL11, and it was Atomic's top carver last year, so I figured, what the heck, go shorter. I love the skis, but I can't help but wonder what the 170's are like and if I should step up to around 165 with my next pair of skis. That said, considering you outweigh me by 47 lbs and prefer 160's, I probably made the right choice.

It would help if I could demo more often, but I just don't get out enough or have any convenient demo options.
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walks
I think you're right about the retail slaloms as a good free ski. The only one that seems to have really caught on that way is the Atomic SL9 which I've considered as well. I think people often shy away from anything with a "race" designation, not really knowing what they're missing.

In any case, you suggest longer lengths as a free ski. I'm 6' 165 lbs. I was thinking about the 165's, but maybe I should consider the 170's?
I would agree with Gotama on the length: 160/165 is probably right for you. I was skiing primarily the 160 earlier in the season, and could arc any size turn with it: it would run well in big arcs, and was a great fall-line ski as well. Stable at speed: not as much as a race GS, but easily as stable as a high-end, hard snow ski like the S10 or RX8. On hard snow, it would be my choice. Back here in the PNW, we often get soft snow, and the groomers get cut up and rough. For those conditions, I would go 165: the extra length is nice in rougher snow: much smoother and less demanding. I am 5 foot 9, 155lbs.

I really don't know why consumer slaloms have not caught on as free skis, especially for East Coast skiers. 3 years ago, I used to own a Volkl P50 slalom in 170, and it was super fun as a free ski! I also loved skiing my Elan SLX's all over the place.
post #10 of 12
Thanks for your help, Dawg. I'll keep these in mind. Now I just need to convince the SO that I need new skis yet again!
post #11 of 12
Dawg,

Tried to PM you, but your limit was reached. Are the skis you're selling the same as on page 13 of the '04/'05 Head catalog?

Also, you mentioned non-Railflex bindings - would new Look bindings well on this ski?
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
PM should be now empty. Look bindings won't work on this ski-the plate will only work with Tyrolia Free Flex bindings. I threw away the catalogue, but this ski is the same cosmetic and layup as the Chip i-SL, but without the Chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundance1962
Dawg,

Tried to PM you, but your limit was reached. Are the skis you're selling the same as on page 13 of the '04/'05 Head catalog?

Also, you mentioned non-Railflex bindings - would new Look bindings well on this ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classified Archive
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Market Place › Classifieds › Classified Archive › FS: 2005 Head i-SL $300 160/165/170cm NEW