New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head 2007

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I was able catch a glimpse at the Head 2007 stuff (although I haven't skied it yet, but this is what I have heard from those who have):

New skis:

Monster iM82: Laminate, same construction as the iM88. Comes in 173/184, more versatile (quicker) but same feel as the iM88. 88 is unchanged.

iXRC1400: new laminate construction w/Chip for 2007. 69mm underfoot and even smoother and more stable than the 1200 SW chip (which remains, but will be called the i-Supershape Speed, or something like that). i-Superhape is unchanged.

New AT/Tele friendly board that is a bit softer than some of the alpine stuff currently available. I don't know much about it yet.
post #2 of 29
They'll also be offering a twintiped powder ski to replace the supermojo, a complete redesign. Here's a pic of a prototype:

post #3 of 29
Calling BS on the last post. Those are a cut down modified ski that appeared this year in Las Lenas. Interesting concept though. Think those brakes are good for anything?
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Calling BS on the last post. Those are a cut down modified ski that appeared this year in Las Lenas. Interesting concept though. Think those brakes are good for anything?
I think you have a pretty $hitty sense of humor.
post #5 of 29
It gets better in real life as compared to this internet thing. Taking things too seriously is an occupational hazard; or were you just kidding:
post #6 of 29
Thanks for the info dawg. IMO, the more Head laminate skis the better, their laminates always seem to be excellent performers.
post #7 of 29

Head IM82

I saw the new IM82 last evening in a 172 and a 177. Dimensions at 172cm are 122-82-108 with a 17.75 turning radius. The sandwich construction looks dynamite. They look like they will be a great wider second ski, especially for an eastern skier. Or a one ski quiver for a westerner. My shop is mounting them with a Tryrolia Railflex LD12 with a riser to make it easier to get up on edge. For me, this ski looks more useful than the 77 or 88.

Anybody skied them yet?
post #8 of 29
Head collection 2006-07 (first prewiew, not completly):

post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
I saw the new IM82 last evening in a 172 and a 177. Dimensions at 172cm are 122-82-108 with a 17.75 turning radius. The sandwich construction looks dynamite. They look like they will be a great wider second ski, especially for an eastern skier. Or a one ski quiver for a westerner. My shop is mounting them with a Tryrolia Railflex LD12 with a riser to make it easier to get up on edge. For me, this ski looks more useful than the 77 or 88.

Anybody skied them yet?
now that I have the iM88 and have skied them for 3 days, I don't see the point of the iM82.

-the 6mm waist difference doesn't seem necessary to increase edge to edge quickness. the iM88 is very quick.

-the 6mm waist difference and overall smaller dimensions will translate to less float in soft snow than the iM88.

maybe the iM88 is going away and the iM82 and Mojo 90 will fill the gap?
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
now that I have the iM88 and have skied them for 3 days, I don't see the point of the iM82.

-the 6mm waist difference doesn't seem necessary to increase edge to edge quickness. the iM88 is very quick.

-the 6mm waist difference and overall smaller dimensions will translate to less float in soft snow than the iM88.

maybe the iM88 is going away and the iM82 and Mojo 90 will fill the gap?
It might make a difference for an eastern skier, who will spend more time on the hardpack and who rarely gets dumps of more than 6-8+/- inches.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
It might make a difference for an eastern skier, who will spend more time on the hardpack and who rarely gets dumps of more than 6-8+/- inches.
no, I doubt it. 6mm doesn't make that large a difference. I grew up skiing the east and have GREAT reference point memories for those conditions. changing from 88mm to 82mm doesn't make it that much different for east vs west.

I think it's too much niche-making. the skis are made similarly. the 6mm difference isn't significant. 12mm would be. 18mm, 24mm for sure.

wider skis are becoming more adept at handling shorter radius turns on hard snow.

waist width steps of anything less than 10mm seem silly, if the skis are made similarly -- that's what my experience is starting to show me.
post #12 of 29
I would go 82 versus 88 for skiing the east. I suspect the 82 will have much better edgehold than the 88, plus easier initiation. thus the skier can be more aggressive on ice. Granted you may still want the 88 for areas in Vermont, but where I ski the 82 is plenty.
Later
GREG
post #13 of 29
but the iM77 better still, IMO.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
but the iM77 better still, IMO.
I'll find out...in about 2 hours.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13
I'll find out...in about 2 hours.
Please let us know your impressions.
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
but the iM77 better still, IMO.
But the IM77 does not have the laminate construction with vertical sidewalls like the IM82, so how do you really know that the 77 is better still.
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
But the IM77 does not have the laminate construction with vertical sidewalls like the IM82, so how do you really know that the 77 is better still.
right you are! I thought the Head website said that all the Monsters had vert sidewall sandwich construction. but I just checked.

never mind, I have no idea what the 77 skis like.:
post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud

maybe the iM88 is going away and the iM82 and Mojo 90 will fill the gap?
The Mojo 90 is the softer of the three, a bit more slanted towards pow. The iM88 is going to be the crudbuster, and the 82 more suitable for either lighter-weight skiers or people who want a more maneuverable ski. The 88 is a fabulously quick ski edge-to-edge for something of its width, but a 19m turn radius and big tip just aren't ideal for someone who wants to crank out a bit shorter turns. The iM82 will likely be manageable in the bumps, the iM88 just a lot of work. For people who want a fairly wide ski that feels stout and stable, yet live on a small hill and want a ski that makes more than 3 turns to get to the bottom, the iM82 will be a better choice. Most of the people from the Midwest who buy skis from me choose something with a smaller turn radius, whereas out here in the West, we have more room to make turns (plus, the slopes aren't as crowded!)
post #19 of 29
I'd like see a Mojo100 with same kinda constuction as the mojo90. The Supermojo is just too beefy and the mojo90 would be nice if it were just a tad wider. That's my wishlist for santa for next xmas
post #20 of 29
If the i.M 82 has been around this year, I would have purchased that over the i.M 88. I'm a lighter weight skier, so float has never been a real big issue for me and it is less work to get an 82mm ski to higher edge angles than an 88mm. I rarely get to see the kind of day the 88s were meant for anyway, but they fill the role nicely of a bomber GS ski too which is a nice change from the slalom radius I usually ski in the midwest. I skied the 88s out here and it took literally only 3 - 4 carved turns before I ran out of hill, and the last turn was the only one where I was going fast enough to really bend the ski.

As it stand right now I am almost assuredly going to call up dawgcatching next year for a pair of the supershapes to replace my SL:9s. I like the new topskin design on those.
post #21 of 29
Whether you purchase the 82 or the 88, my eastern shop would recommend a riser plate under a Tyrolia Railflex LD12 in order to make it easier to get skis on edge. Western skiers might not need the plate.

All IM88 owners, what bindings are you choosing to mount as it is nice to have a binding choice instead of being locked in to one manufacturer's binding.

Stan
post #22 of 29
Look P12 Jib. could have used Jib's brakes on a P12 Riser but chose not to. seems to do fine carving without the riser.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
my eastern shop would recommend a riser plate under a Tyrolia Railflex LD12 in order to make it easier to get skis on edge. Western skiers might not need the plate.
The Railflex LD 12 already has 35mm of lift, if my memory serves me correct. I think a plate under that would be overkill.

BTW, I have this set up on my 8000's and now on the im77. It seems to be plenty of lift to get the job done.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
As it stand right now I am almost assuredly going to call up dawgcatching next year for a pair of the supershapes to replace my SL:9s. I like the new topskin design on those.
That is key to ski performance.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13
The Railflex LD 12 already has 35mm of lift, if my memory serves me correct. I think a plate under that would be overkill.

BTW, I have this set up on my 8000's and now on the im77. It seems to be plenty of lift to get the job done.
Thanks for the head's up (no pun intended). I will have to check this out with them.

Stan
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13
I'll find out...in about 2 hours.
Did you ski them?
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
Whether you purchase the 82 or the 88, my eastern shop would recommend a riser plate under a Tyrolia Railflex LD12 in order to make it easier to get skis on edge.
Ack! - that's absolutely horrible. I can't believe a shop would recommend mounting a riser plate underneath a Railflex binding. What shop said this? They should be boycotted.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gostan
Did you ski them?
Here's my review.
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Ack! - that's absolutely horrible. I can't believe a shop would recommend mounting a riser plate underneath a Railflex binding. What shop said this? They should be boycotted.
My mistake. The riser plate was only to be used if I chose a non Tyrolia Railflex binding. The shop knew what they were doing as there is sufficient lift already in place with the Railflex bindings. I am a little bit excited about these new toys and confused the binding choices.

Stan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion