EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What Length Head Monster iM 70?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Length Head Monster iM 70?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hi. I am 5 foot 8, 155 lbs, and a lower-level but improving expert who is typically fast and aggressive. I was looking at a ski that could ski the whole mountain, crud and pow as well as some groomers, and the iM 70 from Head may be a good choice (also looking at the iC 160 from Head, which may be good as well). I have race skis for the hardpack days, but still want some versatility in all conditions from my all-mountain skis (especially on a road trip). Therefore, I am shying away from wide (84mm) skis-they are great off-piste in deep snow, but I just don't care for their lack of performance on the groomed. Plus, a typical day here in the Northwest is 3-8 inches of new which gets cut up quickly.

What length should I be on for the Head iM 70? I was thinking either 170 or 177. For reference, my current skis are the Elan SLX laminate in 155cm and the Head iGS laminate in 180cm. Some other lengths that felt right for me during demo were the Elan M12 in 176, the Volkl G3 in 177, and the Fischer Big Stix 75 in 175.
post #2 of 20
I demo'd a pair of iM70 in our last season in Oz. They were amazing, the conditions were icy and fast, and these ski's performed amazingly. I didn't lose it over the ice at all. There was no powder around, so I don't know how they'd perform on that.

I am 5 Foot 4, and weight 130lbs (?60kg), and I am 163cm tall. I skied the 163cm lenght. - just felt right as I am also fairly powerful in my legs, and could handle this extra length.

I was considering to buy these skis, the only thing that stopped me was the $$$$$.

Hope this helps some.

[ April 08, 2003, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: schuss ]
post #3 of 20
For the whole mountain, the Head Monster i.M 70 ia a geat ski. I bought it in the 70x configuration - that is, with the factory installed Railflex plate.

I am 5'8" and 150 pounds, an average improving intermediate, skiing the 170 cm length. I have the bindings set in the "forward" position, which feels just about right for me, although they are still a trifle further back than on my Rossi Bandit X and Bandit XX.

We had a strange "spring skiing" day yesterday in which the air was cold, the snow was dry, and the wind packed and re-packed the powder all day. The Bandit X had some difficulty with bulling through the wind packed powder, but the Bandit XX and the Monster i.M 70x did it quite well.

Hope this helps.
post #4 of 20
I´m 6´ and 180 pounds and tried the 177. Perfect for me, and I like to go fast. Nice kick out of the turns. Carves really well. The Volkl vertigo motion in the same lenght felt dead in comparison. Also the vertigo´s ice grip was terrible, really a soft snow ski. The monster´s grip was good, but not as great as the hype may lead you to think. .
Also, this ski has a speed limit, it will chatter at high speeds on hardpack, but I guess you use your iGS for that.
Altogether still a very nice all-mountain ski, which I prefer over the Vertigo motion and the Bandit XX.

post #5 of 20
How are those Head iGS skis working for you?
I ski the Head RS119 in a 180 and the Head Monster iM85 in a 179. I think the 177 iM70 would be good for you. It will give you a little bigger fore and aft balance platform than the 170.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: NordtheBarbarian ]
post #6 of 20
Have been demoing a lot of the Head skis lately in various lengths, am planning on picking up a pair for next year. I will say that the iM70 is a very impressive ski, as are most of the Head skis that I've tried. They are a pretty beefy ski, though, and although I usually gravitate towards longer skis, I think in this case I'd advise you to go shorter. I go about 205 lbs, and the 177 was all the ski I wanted. I would think that at your weight, a 170 would be plenty. These skis seem to be very stable, and anything longer would just be a lot of extra work. If you go to Heads' website (www.Head.com) they have a chart that recommendes the right size for your weight. The only mistake that I see you could make in buying these babies would be to get them in the wrong length. I know that every time I buy a new pair of skis (which I do quite frequently) I have to revise my opinions about what size to get.
Just my two cents worth.
Good luck
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by NordtheBarbarian:
How are those Head iGS skis working for you?
The iGS is working great! So smooth and reassuring at speed, and such a fast ski. The flex is perfect for me (I found a few of the other GS skis I tried to be a bit more in flex and therefore more work for someone of my size) but the iGS is exactly the ski for me. It is actually deceptively fast due to the smoothness of the ski-like driving a BMW 8-series on the autobahn when you look down at the speedo and are suprised to be doing 150mph. Wicked hard snow grip and rebound, and so easy to initiate, with a huge sweet spot. I have found it to be a bit heavy in anything but groomed snow, but no complaints so far-I am either on that ski or my Elan SLX T's most of the time.

So, you think 177 over 170 on the iM70? I was thinking that too based on my preferred lengths for other similiar skis, but I have heard more than one person that the iM70 skis long, and that 170 would be a better choice. I recently skied a ski that was probably too long for me (the Axis XP in 181) and the extra length just killed the verstility in crudded-up bumps and tight spots. But, that is a wider and therefore likely longer-skiing ski than the iM70, and as there is no way to demo, I can hopefully make a choice based on the advice from this board. Basically I want a ski that has adequate fore-aft stability in soft snow (nothing under 170), is fairly quick, floats reasonably well, as well as being bump-friendly. Mostly this ski will get play on the pow/crud days (over 4 inches) that we often get here in the PNW. I am not as worried about performance on the groomed.
post #8 of 20
dawg, buddy, you will have need of no longer than 170 in the i.M 70. Don't kill your fun by going too long.
post #9 of 20
"Mostly this ski will get play on the pow/crud days (over 4 inches) that we often get here in the PNW. I am not as worried about performance on the groomed."

I would go a little fatter for these conditions. Try the Head iM 75 Chip.
post #10 of 20
Well, you certainly won't have any issues on hardpack either with the 75 chips...
post #11 of 20
You guys are going tooooooo long!

I'm 5'10", 180 and ski a 160 cm ski 80% of the time and only go to a 170 cm on big mountains in bizarre conditions.
post #12 of 20
Rusty, what are those 160 cm skis? I have Rossi T-Powers in 160 and my other skis in 170. I'm shorter and weigh less than you [5'8" and 150 lbs] - and considering your work and experience, I'm sure I couldn't carry your, uh, boot bag as to skiing skill.

My Rossi Bandit X and XX are both 170, and my Head Monster i.M 70X is 170 - are you saying these are too long?
post #13 of 20

I pro-rep for Fischer and ski the WC SC in a 160. In fact I spent most of the season on the same ski in a 155 length. Another great short slalom is the Elan SLX (I think that's the correct model) and or the Atomic SL9. I skied the Atomic ski prior to working for Fischer. I have tried the Elan version once or twice.

I just have more fun on these little hyper carving snappy little skis. They all have a trmendous amount of energy that takes a while to get used to.

I appreciate your comment about my skiing and I assure you I'm a very average skier with a weary beat up middle age body! Thanks for the kind words.
post #14 of 20
. . . and Rusty, you are PSIA Level . . . what? . . . and you instruct full time? . . . and you ski how many days a year?

Trust me, I couldn't possibly catch up to you on skis.

I got a pair of Elan PSX Shorts from a friend of yours. These are training skis 123 cm long. They are really neat skis which I've enjoyed immensely, but I am no more talented a skier on those than on my 170 cm skis, and even on those 123 cm jobs, the bumps challenge me. I've convinced myself that, while ski length is important, there is no magic bullet and no substitute for balance, strength, skill and technique.

I would give away all the skis I own (many) and ski on rock skis for the rest of my life in exchange for the confidence, skill and grace with which the professionals ski.

[ April 16, 2003, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #15 of 20
III,FT,125 or so!

You are correct in saying it's not the arrow as opposed to the archer. I will say there are skis that I don't ski well on due to;

1) length
2) tune
3) my need for cants which I do under the bindings
4) ski shape and/or degree of sidecut

Find a teacher that you believe knows what he/she is doing. Take a lesson once a week. Practice hard between lessons.

There is another thread here concerning balance. I'm getting more and more convinced correct movements create good balance. I'm sure many would disagree.
post #16 of 20
Originally posted by Rusty Guy:
You guys are going tooooooo long!

I'm 5'10", 180 and ski a 160 cm ski 80% of the time and only go to a 170 cm on big mountains in bizarre conditions.
I tend to agree with Rusty. However, those who don't carve well, will find very short skis to be somewhat unstable. If you generally skid your turns a little longer is probably better.

I also am amazed at how wide skis are now the norm. People are now suggesting 75mm skis for 4 inches of snow. That makes me laugh, especially when I remember Tog going all over Brighton in 10 inches of snow and crud on his 62mm race skis.

As Oboe mentioned, there is no substitute for skills, when it is all said and done.
post #17 of 20
Go with the 177 iM 70 or the 177 iM 75. Don't buy too short of a ski it will hold you back. You already have the slalom ski. Why get a compromise ski. Get something that can handle speed and crud. If you were happy on the Fischer 175 and the Volkl 177 then the 177 Head is the right length.

All those people who say the iM70 177 is too big, they should go to the gym this summer.

[ April 17, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: NordtheBarbarian ]
post #18 of 20
Ya, well a guy with the screen name "Nord the Barbarian" who posts a picture of "himself" in his profile that's a dead ringer for Hunter Thompson - he WOULD say that. Is that a dog or a chimpanzee in the photo?

Hey, dawg, if you realy like the G3 in 177, maybe you SHOULD consider the Monster 70 in 177 . . . but let me know what you think if you ever get a chance to ski it in 170.

I'm sorry, "Nord", that you did not get the job as Grand Mufti of Iraq. Maybe next time. Hey, is this another "Generation of Vipers", or WHAT?!
post #19 of 20
That's a wolverine in the foreground and a red shark in the back.

One thing you should keep in mind if you are a "improving expert" you should buy a ski for the skier you want to be, not exactly the ski that matchs your ability now. You will improve, your ski will not. Do not let your skis hold you back.


[ April 18, 2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: NordtheBarbarian ]
post #20 of 20
There you go again!

I must disagree with Nord.

If you buy a ski for the skier you are not, THAT can hold you back. Get skis you can handle well NOW. If you then get so good that it's the SKIS holding you back, treat yourself to a new pair - you'll deserve it!

Skis which "hold skiers back" are skis which are beyond their capabilities to handle, at least as often as it's skis TOO EASY to handle and which will not stand up to speed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What Length Head Monster iM 70?