Ski Make: Head
Ski Model: Monster 72 170 with Tyrolia LD 12 Railflex bindings (117 72 102)
Snow Conditions Used In: Groomed, chop, bumps, powder
Number of Days Used: 20 so far
Your Ability: Advanced
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 30
Avg. Days per Year Skiing: 120
Previous Skis: Head XRC 1100 Chip, Mojo, Atomic M:11
Your Height/Weight: 6' 170#
Comments:
Move over, M:11, The Head Monster is a better one ski quiver.
I demo’ed and purchased this ski based on Peter Keelty’s reviews. (“All mountain cruise” ski of the year, see www.techsupportforskiers.com Of all the skis I have owned or demo’ed, the Monster 72 comes closest to being a one ski quiver, at least for my skiing preferences, which are all mountain skiing at moderate speeds, off-piste preferred, nothing extreme and no park stuff. (Ruin a slope by putting silly metal objects all over it – makes no sense…….)
Compared to my XRC’s, the Monster 72 is slightly slower edge to edge, but only slightly, and yet is much more forgiving in the crud and deep snow, even though the XRC 1100 chip is very respectable in these areas. Yesterday I skied the Monster in 2’ of fresh dry powder at over 10,000’, with gradually heavier conditions on dropping down to 7500’. I almost took out the Mojo’s with their 90mm waist, but was glad to have selected the Monster’s, as they were more fun and rewarding to ski.
Fat skis like my Mojo’s accommodate too much laziness. Yes the’re fun, but the Monster rewards good (I don't claim to be an expert) technique with a satisfying arced turn feel but yet still has plenty of forgiveness and versatility. The 72 is a great choice for 60/40 off piste, on piste.
I am coming to prefer this ski to my M:11’s. The Monster is a better powder ski, as the M:11’s, (162) tend to nose dive in the deep stuff. The Monster is a more forgiving ski, and will gladly skid when requested, while the M:11 is more demanding, not wanting to skid but rather hook up and carve everything. Not that I’m giving up my Metrons, however.
After owning and demo’ing many skis over the past few years, I have decided that my preference in equipment is a sidecut between 14-16m and a waist width between 68-75mm. Head skis have just the right combination of dampness and agility to fit my style.
My only criticism of the Monsters is that I would have preferred to purchase them without the railflex plate. The railflex system, IMO, puts the boot higher off the snow than necessary for off-piste skiing. Also, the railflex system develops slop over time – my XRC’s, which I have used for 2 ½ seasons, have some annoying play where the binding rests on the rails. At some point, I will probably remove the rails and remount with bindings with less stand height. Also, IMHO, I am somewhat cynical as to the real world effectiveness of the “integrated free flex binding system” business.
The Head Monster 72 is a highly versatile ski for a wide range of ability. I’m very glad of my decision to purchase them.
Ski Model: Monster 72 170 with Tyrolia LD 12 Railflex bindings (117 72 102)
Snow Conditions Used In: Groomed, chop, bumps, powder
Number of Days Used: 20 so far
Your Ability: Advanced
How Many Years Have You Been Skiing: 30
Avg. Days per Year Skiing: 120
Previous Skis: Head XRC 1100 Chip, Mojo, Atomic M:11
Your Height/Weight: 6' 170#
Comments:
Move over, M:11, The Head Monster is a better one ski quiver.
I demo’ed and purchased this ski based on Peter Keelty’s reviews. (“All mountain cruise” ski of the year, see www.techsupportforskiers.com Of all the skis I have owned or demo’ed, the Monster 72 comes closest to being a one ski quiver, at least for my skiing preferences, which are all mountain skiing at moderate speeds, off-piste preferred, nothing extreme and no park stuff. (Ruin a slope by putting silly metal objects all over it – makes no sense…….)
Compared to my XRC’s, the Monster 72 is slightly slower edge to edge, but only slightly, and yet is much more forgiving in the crud and deep snow, even though the XRC 1100 chip is very respectable in these areas. Yesterday I skied the Monster in 2’ of fresh dry powder at over 10,000’, with gradually heavier conditions on dropping down to 7500’. I almost took out the Mojo’s with their 90mm waist, but was glad to have selected the Monster’s, as they were more fun and rewarding to ski.
Fat skis like my Mojo’s accommodate too much laziness. Yes the’re fun, but the Monster rewards good (I don't claim to be an expert) technique with a satisfying arced turn feel but yet still has plenty of forgiveness and versatility. The 72 is a great choice for 60/40 off piste, on piste.
I am coming to prefer this ski to my M:11’s. The Monster is a better powder ski, as the M:11’s, (162) tend to nose dive in the deep stuff. The Monster is a more forgiving ski, and will gladly skid when requested, while the M:11 is more demanding, not wanting to skid but rather hook up and carve everything. Not that I’m giving up my Metrons, however.
After owning and demo’ing many skis over the past few years, I have decided that my preference in equipment is a sidecut between 14-16m and a waist width between 68-75mm. Head skis have just the right combination of dampness and agility to fit my style.
My only criticism of the Monsters is that I would have preferred to purchase them without the railflex plate. The railflex system, IMO, puts the boot higher off the snow than necessary for off-piste skiing. Also, the railflex system develops slop over time – my XRC’s, which I have used for 2 ½ seasons, have some annoying play where the binding rests on the rails. At some point, I will probably remove the rails and remount with bindings with less stand height. Also, IMHO, I am somewhat cynical as to the real world effectiveness of the “integrated free flex binding system” business.
The Head Monster 72 is a highly versatile ski for a wide range of ability. I’m very glad of my decision to purchase them.
:
