New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Monster 72 Review

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
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.
post #2 of 23
Glad you liked them Steve! They are a great ski. Did you get them for less than $375? I still have them for sale if anyone is interested. Hand tuned and hand waxed: better than new with 3 days on them, 170's w/LD12's
post #3 of 23
I fully agree with you Steve. I have 40 days + on my Monster 72's and they are the most versatile skis I ever owned. I'm 5'-7", 160 lbs so I went for the 163 with a 14 m radius. I skied mostly east but with 9 days in Lake Louise and 1 at Kicking Horse. I agree with all your comments. The only negative is that they do not hold that well on ice. They are much more forgiving that my last years Metron B5's and weight about half as much!!!

Really a good, all around ski. I saw a lot of these out west. BTW, I saw quite a few with a top finish similar to the Atomic Race skis out west and without the railflex. That combination is not available on the east coast.
post #4 of 23
I have to disagree with you, Guyf, about the ice hold of the Monsters. Our first week in Courchevel this year was extremely icy so I tried out various skis one day while the Monsters were being edged and waxed - Exclusive Carve, Burning Luv, 5* etc - and the Monsters held the ice far far better than any of the skis I tried with waists 5-7 mm narrower. Although I gather from Mr Eng, who has both the Monsters and the Supershapes, that the Supershapes do handle ice better. I wonder if it's worth my while to try the Fast Thang?

I have to totally agree about the versatility though; by contrast our second week in Courchevel was snow all the way, nearly ankle deep powder on piste, deeper off, lots of choppy crud and bumps by the end of the day and they handled everything without turning a hair. Hero skis.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guyf
I fully agree with you Steve. I have 40 days + on my Monster 72's and they are the most versatile skis I ever owned. I'm 5'-7", 160 lbs so I went for the 163 with a 14 m radius. I skied mostly east but with 9 days in Lake Louise and 1 at Kicking Horse. I agree with all your comments. The only negative is that they do not hold that well on ice. They are much more forgiving that my last years Metron B5's and weight about half as much!!!

Really a good, all around ski. I saw a lot of these out west. BTW, I saw quite a few with a top finish similar to the Atomic Race skis out west and without the railflex. That combination is not available on the east coast.
Thanks for the review. I'm new to skiing (just blues) and I'm 5'9" 174. Do you think the 163 or the 170's are the better option for me?
post #6 of 23
that's a close one, I would demo if possible. If you can't, the 163 would be safe. Your height makes me think 163 but your weight makes me think 170. (even though I would love to sell you my 170's)

ICE HOLD- they are good ice ski's, they aren't a SS or a RX8, but they certainly can hold a decent edge.
post #7 of 23
You're probably right, I was comparing their ice hold to Atomic Race skis; probably an unfair comparison...

They are great all-around skis!
post #8 of 23
Hey guys, I too am considering the Head Monster i.M 72's in the 177 size. I'm a novice skier but getting better quickly...or at least feel that way! I'm 33, 6'5", 245 lbs. I will be skiing in Snowmass, CO every March and then just the local very small spot we have in St. Louis in the winter.

Leaving in a few weeks for Snowmass for a week where I will waste $150 in rental equipment this year plus another $150 13 months later in March of '08. Also, through winter of '07/'08, I'd spend $100 in rental fees. That adds up to $400 in just 13 months.

My local ski shop recommend these skis and have one pair left of 177's for $549 with bindings. What bindings, I have no clue.

Wanted to get your thoughts on these skis, my idea to buy over renting, maybe what bindings to put on...although the $549 price included bindings. Also, what case do you recommend for the plane trip. Soft case or hard...where do I buy that and how much?

Thanks in advance!!!!!!
post #9 of 23
Hi Guys..I would like to know what do you think about XRC 800...
Thanks
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stocks View Post
Hey guys, I too am considering the Head Monster i.M 72's in the 177 size. I'm a novice skier but getting better quickly...or at least feel that way! I'm 33, 6'5", 245 lbs. I will be skiing in Snowmass, CO every March and then just the local very small spot we have in St. Louis in the winter.

Leaving in a few weeks for Snowmass for a week where I will waste $150 in rental equipment this year plus another $150 13 months later in March of '08. Also, through winter of '07/'08, I'd spend $100 in rental fees. That adds up to $400 in just 13 months.

My local ski shop recommend these skis and have one pair left of 177's for $549 with bindings. What bindings, I have no clue.

Wanted to get your thoughts on these skis, my idea to buy over renting, maybe what bindings to put on...although the $549 price included bindings. Also, what case do you recommend for the plane trip. Soft case or hard...where do I buy that and how much?

Thanks in advance!!!!!!
It's a great ski - really good for all-around skiing.

If you're looking to buy, you really ought to check out this post from dawgcatching:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53294

His shop has been an excellent supporter of EpicSki and many of us (me included) have had great experiences buying skis from him. He's got new pairs of the 72 with excellent bindings for $399.

Save yourself some dough and help support a loyal EpicSki person.

Soft case is fine - I'll bet dawg has those too.
post #11 of 23
Bob,

Thanks for the advice. $400 with those RFD 11 bindings? Wow..the cheapest I saw on the internet (including Ebay) was $406 and that was w/o bindings.

Does he put the bindings on?
Does he set them for my size and rating?
How much is shipping?

*or do I just buy them and have my local shop do it?

Thanks!
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stocks View Post
Bob,

Thanks for the advice. $400 with those RFD 11 bindings? Wow..the cheapest I saw on the internet (including Ebay) was $406 and that was w/o bindings.

Does he put the bindings on?
Does he set them for my size and rating?
How much is shipping?

*or do I just buy them and have my local shop do it?

Thanks!
I don't want to answer for him, but in my case (actually, my wife's case because we bought skis for her a year ago), I called him on the phone, settled on the ski model and length, gave him the boot sole length and stats for the skier, and the skis arrived a few days later mounted, DIN'ed, and ready to ski.

It could not have been a more trouble-free transaction. Best of all, my wife absolutely loves the skis (Head 1400's).

Just send a pm to dawg. He'll give you his shop phone number and you can call with all the questions you can think of.
post #13 of 23
I really enjoyed these reviews. I just got back into Skiing after about 10 years away, but I have 20 years exerience prior to that.

My local shop set me up with some Monster 72s in the 177 size. After reading up a bit, I now see that my skis are a little long -- I'm 5-10, about 170. Hence my difficulty in the bumps, but I never was much of bump skier anyhow and that's not what I'm looking for in a ski.

They were also my first shape skis. So although they turned relatively easily the first couple times out, it wasn't until I hit the big slopes with some expert friends that I realized I wasn't turning properly. After that most of my dozen times this season were really about developing my turning techique. And I have to say, I learned to love these skis more, More, and MORE!!! Outside of the tight bumps, it just feels like there is nothing these skis cannot do. I'm very thankful to the guys at the local ski shop for recommending them. . . . and I don't mind that they're long but now that I realize just how long they are I wonder what the 163s or 170s would feel like.
post #14 of 23
Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Squirrel View Post
My local shop set me up with some Monster 72s in the 177 size. After reading up a bit, I now see that my skis are a little long -- I'm 5-10, about 170. Hence my difficulty in the bumps, but I never was much of bump skier anyhow and that's not what I'm looking for in a ski.
I got a good deal on a 156cm pair (the shortest size they come in).
Will a small (5'4", 127#) "lower intermediate" (planning to take lessons to improve) be able to handle these skis on southern Ontario groomed slopes?
post #15 of 23
I totally agree with stvbck - Head iM72 is a very very good ski. I am 5'10", 165 lbs and ski it at 170. Have been a recreational skier for 30 yrs. Advice: get it from dawgcatching.
post #16 of 23
Hi nevils, thank you for your reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevils View Post
I totally agree with stvbck - Head iM72 is a very very good ski. I am 5'10", 165 lbs and ski it at 170.
Oh, I don't doubt the skis are very good, just a bit concerned about their size compared to my own (lack of).
post #17 of 23
imo 156 would be too short, go with 163
post #18 of 23
ps-the 72 is longer made. check around you may be able to find them.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevils View Post
imo 156 would be too short, go with 163
163cm skis for a 162cm/57kg individual? :
post #20 of 23
still think that 163 would be good, but finndog is right they are no longer made and unfortunately it looks like dawgcatching doesn't have them any more.
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevils View Post
still think that 163 would be good, but finndog is right they are no longer made and unfortunately it looks like dawgcatching doesn't have them any more.
They are still available online.
Locally, they are available in SportChek for $330 Canadian.

However, looking at availability brings me to the following questions:
* Is there a difference between the 2006 and 2007 models?
* What are the differences between the SLD-11, LD-12 and RFD-11 bindings?
post #22 of 23
no difference between the 06 and 07 except graphics - bought mine mounted with the Tyrolia Railflex LD12 bindings - don't know about the binding differences, maybe somebody can jump in help out
post #23 of 23
i too have these skis. I'm 5'10" 145lbs and I got the 163. I think these are exceptionally great for lighter skiers--the swingweight is low--very easy to turn the skis. The skis perform great in the bumps, are easily maneuverable through choppy terrain, and have just enough stiffness to carve reasonably well. The only problem I have is that they tend to sink down into deep snow. So if it's deep and flat, I get stuck, whereas my buddies will just glide through. That's why I recently purchased a pair of rossignol B2's which have more float. But because of the 72's, I'm now hooked on tyrolia bindings and I plan on installing the light-weight SL 100 flat mounted bindings on my B2s. I wonder if anyone thinks this is a good/bad idea?

In terms of bindings, I have the SLD11. I think the only difference between the LD12 and the SLD11 is weight (the SLD is a bit lighter) and the LD goes up to a din of 12. But they're similar. RFD11 is this year's version of the SLD. It's basically the same except there's this thing called the speedrail, which allows you to adjust the bindings to different boot sizes without having to disassemble the binding--kinda like a demo binding. I like tyrolia bindings because of their relatively low delta. (delta = heel height minus toe height). I have lange boots with heel lifts and once tried rossignol/look bindingsm which had too much delta. I was way off balance (always in the back seat) and boy, my quads were so sore!! With tyrolia, I'm well balanced and my quads are happy as can be!! What a difference a few millimeters makes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews