or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2006 Head Monsters?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Has Anyone tried the new monster 88's?
post #2 of 12
I skied a pair last week, they are fun but IMO there are better skis coming out next year.

post #3 of 12

Which skis would those be and where do u do most of your skiing?
post #4 of 12

2006 Monster 88, 175 cm

I just bought a pair of Monster 88's, 179 cm, new for 2006.
I have very little experience skiing deep powder, since I ski mostly in Vermont.

I skied them at Jackson Hole, and compared them to this current years (2005) Monster 85's (172 & 179cm).

I felt the new ones were a bit softer thant the 179's in that you could turn them at slow speeds on the flats.

I felt the new ones (88's) could turn very quick like the 172cm ones.

So, they had the best of both worlds... stable at high speed, yet easy turning at slow speed.

They really like to be carved on edge. Not an easy floater.

It had snowed several feet during the week at Jackson Hole, and it was cold on top of the mountain and deep and slushy at the bottom. The skis cut through all conditions like it was flat groomed trails.!!!!

They have lots of rebound (spring) in the center and especially the tail--like a GS ski. Yet they can be skied like a racing ski---with weight driving forward on the edges. They will cut through heavy wet powder with ease, and also icy chunky crud. They rebound really well off of the bumps.

I ended up buying the 88's after comparing them to the Monster 85's in the 2 different lengths.

I am 49, 5'11", 180 lbs. I have been skiing since age 10, about 20 days/year and like the bumps and cruisers. I ski mostly icy/hardpack expert terrain at Killington, Vermont. I am an expert recreation skier, but not a competitive racing or bump skier.
post #5 of 12
Did you happen to compare them to the Monster 77's? I'm currently on Monster 75's and I am considering either the 77 or 88, but I think the 88's might be too much ski for the East coast.
post #6 of 12
I don't know, G-man..going to the 88's seems to fit your approach to bikes...have you ever gone to more suspension and not preferred it???

That said, I demoed a pair of Seth Pistols (fat-fat twin tips) in Vermont this weekend-found that they carved about as lively as my 70mm waisted axis x pros..and, if you go with the 88's you'll finally have some real pressure to join your buds in their yearly western trip!

post #7 of 12

Did anybody who skied the iM88 in powder, also ski the Legend 8800 in powder to be able to compare them in that condition.
I'm sure, without having skied the iM88, that it is probably better at carving on the groomed, but I want to know how it compares in the powder to the excellent 8800
post #8 of 12
I skied the 77's for an entire morning a few weeks ago on varied conditions and I thought it was a very sweet ski. Never skied the Monster im75 though, so I can't compare. The Head 77's, Elan MagFire 12's and the Volkl AC4 were my three favorites. I couldn't believe how well the AC4 performed in the crud and groomed stuff. The MagFire 12 just felt awesome underfoot. In another thread, Gonzostrike described how their predecesor (the 666) felt and I got the same impression. There are some sick midfats coming out this year!
post #9 of 12

About the iM88:
Harald Harb wrote:
"...I skied on the new iM88 all mountain ski from Head. This is without a doubt the biggest breakthrough ski of the year. This ski carves on groomers and it is excellent in the bumps and terrific in crud and powder. It is so easy to turn as well as forgiving; an intermediate skier can have fun on it. I have a pair now (175 length) and they are going to Big Sky, Fernie and Alaska, later in March with me."
post #10 of 12

77's vs 88

Originally Posted by RatherPlayThanWork
Did you happen to compare them to the Monster 77's? I'm currently on Monster 75's and I am considering either the 77 or 88, but I think the 88's might be too much ski for the East coast.
No, I only skied the 88's. Not the 77's. But I skied the 88's this past weekend in slushy Killington, and they were quite quick!! They are probably not the perfect ice ski (to say the least) but they do turn quickly for east coast skiing.
They are not that great on ice though...but they are quick turning, even at slow speeds. I would not get the 77's if you want to do some serious powder skiing. That is why you get the mid-fats in the first place. The 77's would be a nice hybrid if you don't want to get an ice ski for the east or a dedicated powder ski for the west or for slushy spring skiing.
post #11 of 12
Could someone post the sidecut measurements of the IM88.
post #12 of 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews