or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › What do you think of Head Monster?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do you think of Head Monster?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hello Everyone,

I am thinking about getting a pair of the Head Monster iM 75 SR2s. I am wondering if anyone on here has skied them and if so what you thought. I got some reviews from other websites and a lot of them say they are a great all around ski. I ski mainly in ME, NH, and VT. I have been skiing my whole life and i was on a race team growing up. Most of my skiing now is just for fun with friends, messing around but i do go fast. I like to change up my turns in that sometimes i make slalom and sometimes i make super g turns and everything in between. Occasionally if my knees are feeling good ill do some bumb runs too. I'm in desperate need of new skis. Right now i have a pair of 185 Rossi 7sk and a pair of 195 Rossi xk. Yes i still have non-parabolic skis i am ashamed. I can turn both of them with ease even though i am 5'3" and weigh about 130. Any help would be great.

Thanks in advance.
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapp
Hello Everyone,

I am thinking about getting a pair of the Head Monster iM 75 SR2s. I am wondering if anyone on here has skied them and if so what you thought. I got some reviews from other websites and a lot of them say they are a great all around ski. I ski mainly in ME, NH, and VT. I have been skiing my whole life and i was on a race team growing up. Most of my skiing now is just for fun with friends, messing around but i do go fast. I like to change up my turns in that sometimes i make slalom and sometimes i make super g turns and everything in between. Occasionally if my knees are feeling good ill do some bumb runs too. I'm in desperate need of new skis. Right now i have a pair of 185 Rossi 7sk and a pair of 195 Rossi xk. Yes i still have non-parabolic skis i am ashamed. I can turn both of them with ease even though i am 5'3" and weigh about 130. Any help would be great.

Thanks in advance.
I am a person who absolutely hates the head monster--I skied last year's model (i.M 75 chip superrailflex), which is the same as this year's. It is absolutely the worst ski I have tried. I'm 5'10 145lbs and skied the 170. For one thing, it is extremely heavy and very difficult to turn (forget moguls). For another, it has an extremely damp feel to it, which some might appreciate but I found it made my skiing experence kinda boring (I liked the Volkl EXP's which was stable but not damp).

The Monster is a fairly powerful ski--able to power through crud but its lack of maneuverability made it a very bad ski in my opinion.

However, as evident from reviews, many ppl found it to be an awesome ski. I would demo--I think reviews mean absolutely nothing. If you look on the www.techsupportforskiers.com site, I found the reviews to be absolutely the opposite of what I found (maybe I just have an unorthdox style of skiing!). But don't buy skis without demoing (its only 40 bucks at most resorts)-thats the golden rule!!!

Personally, I think the rossignol b2 is the best all around ski--stable at high speed and maneuverable at the same time. I'd also look at the Volkl 724 EXP which I found great on hardpack. If you like moguls, try the salomon scream hot, which is very good for that but nothing else. Also important, demo different lengths. It's amazing what a difference 10 cm makes. Don't buy until you demo demo demo--its worth it (and it's fun to try on different skis)!!!
post #3 of 20
wow, mrzinwin, you're the first person I've heard say they hated the monster. I've been "converted" for 3 years now. Head skis rule (I was a heavily biased Salomon guy before).

The monster 75 in my opinion is the most versatile ski out there, solid on ice/solid snow, love it in cut up and pow. It's the truest all mountain ski. The new Elan 666 is in the same category

I wrote a review on the Monster 75 two years ago. It rings true today as the shape has not changed but the chip is more responsive providing more torsional stability.

http://www.feedthehabit.com/gear_rev...ster_im75.html
post #4 of 20
I'm in the same boat with mrzinwin regarding the i.75 chip. Clearly, YMMV. That's why the demo process is so important! For my money, the Atomic Metron:b5 is the ultimate versatile ski. But, DEMO!
post #5 of 20
Put me in the camp that loves the Monster 75, demoed it earlier this year and thought it was a great ski for a fast skier, loves medium and long radius turns, but had no problem making shorter turns on it. The ski feels solid at speed, really hugs the snow, also charges through the crud, slop etc no problem. Great for a bigger mountains, it's very popular at Mammoth which is where I tested it. A lot of the guys on Realskiers like the binding moved to the forward position, would likely make it turnier if you like short turns, bumps. They have the new Monster 77 out also, supposed to be a bit livelier, another one to look at.

I also liked the EXP, more lively, and a nice hardpack carver, likely wouldn't be as good off piste as the Head.
post #6 of 20
the monster ripps, but it is a stiff damp ski. Two sheets metal , wood core. Weighing in at 145 would make this ski unmanigable. I weigh 205 and find it damp but nimble. I also ski out west. Not recommended for guys under 150 lbs.

Sorry about the spelling!!!
post #7 of 20
I own the Monster iM70 SR2 in a 177cm and it's everything I could ask for. I only ski on the East (for now) so a mid-fat powder ski isn't really useful. I also demo'd the 75 and that was a great ride, lots of fun. If I ever go out West, I'll look to visit a resort that is part of the Head Access program so I can borrow up for a while. The 70 handles everything I throw at it, short turns, med turns, gs turns, it doesn't care. Crud, ice, steeps, hardpack...haven't tried it in the bumps yet but all the speed I could ever ask for and then some!
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by powstash
wow, mrzinwin, you're the first person I've heard say they hated the monster. I've been "converted" for 3 years now. Head skis rule (I was a heavily biased Salomon guy before).

The monster 75 in my opinion is the most versatile ski out there, solid on ice/solid snow, love it in cut up and pow. It's the truest all mountain ski. The new Elan 666 is in the same category

I wrote a review on the Monster 75 two years ago. It rings true today as the shape has not changed but the chip is more responsive providing more torsional stability.

http://www.feedthehabit.com/gear_rev...ster_im75.html
I'm curious--have you tried any of the other skis i mentioned (rossi b2, volkl exp, salomon hot) in the same length as the head monster? Did you find that the monster was any more difficult to turn than these other skis? I can't imagine the monster being anything but much more difficult to turn than any other ski of comparable length. ALso, dont you find the monsters to be very heavy? Don't your knees kill you while riding the monsters on a lift with no footrest? Another thing I've noticed with the monster is that it somehow forces your weight backwards--no other ski does this to me. Has anyone else felt this? I just find it amazing how 2 people can have such completely opposite experiences with the same ski. Maybe I just don't weigh enough to be on this ski (I've tried the monster in a 162, but its no better). I hear heavier ppl seem to like it.
post #9 of 20
yep, skied them all. Found the Salomon to be flimsy and unstable at speed. Volkl, well, it's a Volkl - nice but not a nice price. B2, flimsy.

ssh - the Metron is a disgrace. Oh I had a blast on it, but the fact that Atomic destroyed the REX and replaced it with the Metron is sad. I skied next year's Atomic line and am not pleased. It pretty much sucked. Consensus was the same from 4 other testers I rode with.

As I said before, the Elan's are the big surprise for next year. Solid performers. But I'll stick with Head...skis.
post #10 of 20
I am 6'2"-220lbs (fighting weight should be 205lbs, so overweight but not too much).

I love the Monster i.M75 chip (and I ski it at 177). I actually bought it immediately after the first 2 runs. I was thinking Rossi B2, but I am more at home with Head. I hate the color, but that's a different issue, nothing to do with quality or performance.

I am amazed by how well they carve and had a blast in Big Sky in February 2004. Soft bumps like those out West are quite pleasant although in that sense the B2 maybe a better choice as it is a softer ski. It is stiff and on the icy bumps of the East or Midwest States it is hard work, in particular if you use it kind of long, but, on the steeps in Big Sky off Lone Peak or the expert terrain off the Challenger lift I could not have wanted a better ski in this group. It is my favorite ski in this line.

There is no way you should have been on a 170 to start with and I am sure that there are differences in our preference for materials that depend on the way we ski.
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSki

There is no way you should have been on a 170 to start with
It's interesting, but the chart (http://www.head.com/ski/files/pdf/ASize_Chart.pdf) on the head website put me on a 170 (5' 10" 145 lbs). I usually ski 170 for freeride skis--that length on volkl exp and rossignol b2 are perfect for me. I went for a 175 on the salomon hot and the salomon streetracer 9 and that felt like the correct length. But I've tried the head monster in a 163 with the bindings mounted forward and even that felt heavy and difficult to turn. Maybe I should have went down to a 156? It's just that I've spent so much time/money trying to demo these skis and get the great feel that everyone else is getting from these skis. However, I just get the same crappy experience every time.

Another thing I've noticed--people on this forum seem to prefer very short skis?!?!
post #12 of 20
Well, shorter skis = easier to manuever. In tight bumps you do not want to be the guy with long skis. Of course, if you like speed you go with longer skis. If you free ride in powder you do want them wide and relatively long. I still stay by my own impression. At 220lbs I could have gone to 170 Head Monster i.M 75 chip. I have a couple of guys I ski with who are maybe 5'10-5'11 but heavy, one is actually 230lbs and he uses 170 and goes everywhere but in bumps and that because he is no good in bumps and not because of the skis. He used to be on Bandit XX and changed immediately after trying the Monster 75. I have a collegue at my ski school who is over 270 lbs and skis on 175
According to the Atomic tables for the Metron B5, I should be on 174 or whatever measures they use in that segment. New Monster are getting wider, new Rossi Zenith and Bandit getting wider too. I guess we are going shorter as time goes by. Then, one day we will go back to less wide and longer skis. Just marketing? Maybe, but I definitely benefit from wider and a little shorter skis a little.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
Another thing I've noticed--people on this forum seem to prefer very short skis?!?!
My preference is to go as short as possible but no shorter.

Note that there is more to ski design than length and sidecut. The various components in skis make a huge difference in the ability of the ski to be stable at speed and in irregular terrain. For me, since I rarely/never get to ski in bottomless powder, my length concerns are around stability at speed. However, if you get a lot of deep snow days, surface area may be more important, so you may want to go longer.

I've cranked my 165s (Fischer RX8s) up to 50mph or so without any negative consequences... I suspect that my 162s (Atomic M:b5s) could go ever faster...!
post #14 of 20
I just wanted to chime in here. I asked about these skis a year ago on this forum, received some positve feedback, and haven't looked back since.

I purchased the Non-Chip version in a 170. I weigh around 185lb. With the bindings mounted forward (railflex), moguls are fun again, I can do short or long turns. As everyone agrees they love to blast thru crud, and they handle ice fine. I have only skiied them on the east coast and they haven't seen more than 10" of fresh snow. In the past with fresh new snow I would pull out my snowboard, lately I don't even bother.

Coming from an Atomic that only wanted to make short turns, these are a blast to ski. The first time I skied on them I suddenly had the confidence to get air again. I'm 41 and kept my skis firmly planted since my 20's. Now I even hit the terrain park on occasion.

One thing I have questioned. The shop I purchased these from does not sell the version with the Chip. They told me when they tried both, they couldn't tell the difference. Four of the employees personally ski the IM 75 as their own. I have read all the reviews of the Chip and always wonder if I am missing something.

If you happen to be a mountain biker, getting on these skis was like getting on my 1st 6" travel full suspension bike. You just suddenly feel invinceable. Hey, what more can you ask for at 41.
post #15 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks

Thanks everyone.

I am going to attempt to demo these skis see how they work for me. Hopefully they will be as good as the reviews are. I am thinking i will try the 160s since im used to skiing on like 185-195 i think going shorter than that would feel awkward for me. I tried out a set of salomon xscreams and they were like 185s they seemed heavy when i first put them on but i could turn them whenever i wanted to.
post #16 of 20

Metron Index

JohnSki;

just the guy I need to talk to , I hope....

I've demoed the Metron M:X in the 171 and liked them, but they are well below the ski I should use, as per the atomic index... due to my size i am at a 1490 or a 1520 depending on if I say I'm an intermediate or advanced skier, that is of course if you extrapolate the index beyond the spindly 242 lb skier...lol...

the only Metron that shows that kind or index number ids the M:EX, so does that mean that is what I should be looking at? My old skis are the K2 Enemies (black with silver stars) similar dimensions, a little smaller, to the M:EX....

This thread is the first I have read about the Head Monster 75, I'll try to find it the next time we go skiing.. As you seem to have some insight/experience with some bigger skiers, are there any other skis you could recomend that I try.. (6'2", 275 give or take whatever the ski gear adds, but at that weight what does a few lbs matter lol )

thanks for the info......
post #17 of 20
See if you can demo the iM70 and the iM75. I have the iM70 in a 177 and I find it's a breeze to turn and carve.
post #18 of 20
The new 2006 Monster 77 Chip is an incredible ski! Lighter and snappier than the 75, just as stable (rock solid in 170, more stable than the Legend 8000 in 178). Other testers have commented on the same-lighter feeling, but with the same Mack Truck heft feel at speed-nothing throws it off-line. Review to follow shortly.....
post #19 of 20
Ski flex should reflect your weight and skiing speed. I find that flex is much more important than length when choosing a ski.

The 75 is very stiff, and is probably best suited for those weighing 180+ and who get up on their edges pretty hard. Anyone lighter will find it a lot of work.

The Rossi B series are much softer, and better suited to lighter skiers.
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
I demoed the iM Chip 77 in a 170 this past weekend and it was great. I had no difficulties on the 170 and im only 5'4" and like 135. Some people told me that the 170 was a bit long and i should really get a 163 but coming from a 183 straight ski for slalom and a 193 for GS this 170 was nothing. It was also very light. Some reviews i read said that it was difficult in the bumps, but i really didnt think it was too bad. On groomers it was effortless to turn. Since it was cold and the snow was pretty hardpacked there really wasn't any crud for me to try it in but it was stable at high speeds i could make some nice short carved turns or open it up and do some longer GS to SG turns and it didnt vibrate at all. Once i began to angulate , the edge just bit and turned. it didnt matter if i was leaning foward, centered or on my heels it was cake to carve. I tried all 3 just for fun. It was a great ski to play around with. Im thinking about getting a pair. Thanks for all your help.

Zapp
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 › What do you think of Head Monster?