or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

i.m.77 review question

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I am just curious about this ski. It is getting rave reviews by folks who have reviewed it here but at realskiers review site the Head IM77 chip got a pretty average review and it has it listed as very unstable above 25mph. I thought the chip was supposed to be very stable at speed according to folks who reviewed it here.
post #2 of 10

I'm one of the people that have a pair

Disclaimer. I am one of the people that bought iM77's last spring and still love them. ....

I don't think the reviews state that the ski is "very unstable" above 25 mph (I don't interpret the speed chart that way), but I agree that the review was sort of a let-down compared to prior year reviews of the iM75 and certainly not nearly as positive as my own feelings about the ski.

I personally haven't felt anything in the ski that would lead me to believe that the ski is unstable at higher speeds (but have only been on them twice). For what it's worth, Dawgcatching's review here and the Footloose sports review were very positive.

Also (and this is a bit of a reach) the review for the im70 says "Now Head's third most versatile all mountain ski, after the new 77 and 72." It could have said "after the new 72 and the 77". (especially since the iM72 review was glowingly positive).

That's the reason we should demo, and I certainly don't think you should take the review of the iM77 as reason not to demo it. If I were making last springs decision again, I would still get the iM77 and not the iM72 or iM88 (but that's just me).

I still believe any Head Railflex ski be demoed in the +15 binding position.
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
OK thanks...I am just curious. I thought the Chip was supposed to add the stability at speed etc..The non chip version is rated as much better and more stability at speed etc...

Also it is suprising that the review for the IM75 was stellar last year and this year its replacement is very mediocre. I also noticed this for other skis by glancing at some reviews and comparing them to last years-for instance the K2 skis got really good ratings but this year mostly 3's and the skis are prety much unhchanged.
post #4 of 10
I skied the 75 when it was a baby. Super solid on ice, gangbusters at speed, you could not buy a short turn.

Never skied the newer 72, have no idea what it's like.

Bought the 77 Chip on dawgcatching's advice and it adds LAYERS and LAYERS and LAYERS of confidence. It has the stability of the former 75 and the maneuverability of an F1. LOVE THEM!
post #5 of 10

light and lively

One of the most interesting differences is that the iM77 is much lighter and more lively than the iM75, and yet the review numbers indicate exactly the opposite. What I wanted was a single ski for trips out west 50/50 on trail and off trail, and I wanted more waist width than 70-72 but didn't want to go real wide.

And yes to the chip stiffening the ski. One of my days of skiing was mid-atlantic spring (frozen in the morning, slushy by noon). The iM77 was great in this, holding a edge in the morning but not getting deflected by slush piles in the afternoon. Don't hesitate to demo.
post #6 of 10
Disclaimer: I too bought a pair of 77 chips from Dawgcatching and I have to echo the sentiments expressed here.I love this ski. Although I would say it maybe SLIGHTLY less stable at speed than the old 75chip (and I mean slightly) this is extremely wellcompensated in that the 77chip is DRAMATICLY quicker and more maneuverable. It si still among the most stable skis I've been on and will carve many turn shapes with ease while holding beautifully on hard snow/ice. Compared to the 75chip, this is a significantly more versatile ride.

Am I biased because I bought the ski?--Probably, but I have had no disappointments. I was immediately comfortable on this ski on both Eastern hardpack and soft spring crud. It is one great ski IMHO. I too was surprised by Keelty's luke warm review. But, I have no regrets. I wanted something wider than 72 for soft spring slop/crud and this ski is sure to be quicker and better on ice/hard pack than the 88, so I still feel it is the right ski for my purpose. My original intention was use in Spring crud, but it is so easy to ski that I think it might just be coming out a bit more often than I planned.

Just my opinion FWIW.
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback. It just seemed odd that the non Chip version would get higher stability and speed ratings from the chip version which I assume is the same exact ski minus the chip(which according to the specs is supposed to add stability).
post #8 of 10
I have loved the 77 Chip, and since it came into the store in February, was easily our #1 selling ski (Elan 666 being number 2). It seemed that whoever I sent out on that ski fell in love. I like it because it has the perfect balance between nimbleness and power: you can get some pop out of the ski when driven hard, can ski at GS speeds in crud with no qualms, yet you can reasonably navigate a mogul field, due to the mid-weight feeling. Plus, you can really relax on it if so desired, something not always possible with top-end skis. Stability-wise, it is every bit as good as the Metron B:5, just a different ski (Metron is turnier and feels like an all-mountain slalom and, probably due to length, isn't a crudbuster like the 77).

I would say that it is worth a demo, at least. I was able to demo, back to back, the Head 77 Chip, Elan Magfire 12, Fischer AMC79, Metron B:5, Dynastar Legend 8000, and Metron M:11 puls ti. I liked all of them, for different reasons, but probably the Chip 77 and Magfire 12 get the nod as my favorites in the group: they seem to do everything a little better than the rest. Not to say that each ski wasn't outstanding in some particular area, and that one couldn't go wrong with any in this group, but given that these skis are the "Swiss Army Knife" of skis, the overall performance of the Head and Elan seems a tad higher than the other skis tried. Your mileage may vary...
post #9 of 10
I demo'd it against the Metron B:5 and for my skiing style the B:5 just blew the pants off of the 77. I'm not saying the 77 isn't a great ski, it is. Just not for me. I bought the B:5. BTW, I have to disagree with Dawgcatcher on the crudbuster comment. I find the B:5 will chew up anything I put it in and found it to be as stable and easier to ski than the 77. I think what it comes down to is turn shape. If you like SL turns the B:5 is a good fit. If you like GS type turns than the 77 will likely be a better fit.
post #10 of 10
Thread Starter 
I was just curious about the speed rating. With the info and description it didnt seem like this ski would get the 25mph rating. After looking through various reviews for all mountain skis I think there might be typos on the reviews for some speed designations. For instance the AMC76 says 'Definite Speed Limit...for intermediates' etc yet it is in the high speed category. Other models also say not good at speed, above 25 mph etc yet have the high speed designation as well. In some cases there seems to be inconsistencies in some of the data vs the descriptive review.

I am making a list of stable all mountain cruisers to demo this winter and have been reading reviews and user comments. Its hard to find any consistency in reviews from one service or publication to another. Its hard to sort through the marketing hype or what publication is getting paid by the manufacturers. The input here helps though as it is good to listen to skiers who really have spent time with a model and can give an unbiased summary.

I am doing my homework and maye being a little too picky but the magazine reviews especially seem to have a lot of misinformation. For example the Ski Magazine gear guide has the dimensions on a few skis wrong. Also they appeared to have recycled the review for the IM77...the wording appears to be nearly identical to the one for the IM75 last year. It makes you wonder if they even have tested the new skis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion