New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Monster im 82

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Does anyone know where I can find these skis (I've only located them at untracked.com). Also, why isn't head's website updated with the im 82 on it? Any ideas what lengths it comes in?

Thanks for any help.
post #2 of 18
Thread Starter 
I found the lengths, I think. 161, 172, 183. Any idea why they don't have a 178ish? I feel the 172 will be too short and 183 too long for many skiers (like myself)!
post #3 of 18
Awesome ski. I picked up a pair in 172cm in April and skied them at PCM and Snowbasin.
They were a 2006-2007 ski so they should be available at most Head dealers as the inventory comes in.
Dawgcathching also carries them and will likely give you a great deal when he gets his allotment. Bob
post #4 of 18
Does it come longer than a 183? My guess is that the level skier that should be on that ski should be able to handle a 183 no matter what. That is probably their reasoning... I am only 5'7" 160lbs and I would ski the 183 - there are not many skiers significantly smaller than I am accept for women.
Later
GREG
post #5 of 18
Max length for the 06/07 iM82 is 183.
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by veeeight
Max length for the 06/07 iM82 is 183.
Wow... I love the concept behind the ski, but that seems like a mistake to me. I have never skied it though so it may default to a short turn where you would want something closer to the height of your forehead... interesting.
post #7 of 18

manuverability a desirable quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Wow... I love the concept behind the ski, but that seems like a mistake to me. I have never skied it though so it may default to a short turn where you would want something closer to the height of your forehead... interesting.
Helluva:
A 183cm ski is head height for someone 6' 1" or forehead hight for a 6'2' skier.

I think Its Head realising that that ability to turn quickly is very desirable for many skiers; trees, narrow trials, etc.

Head skis are generally pretty stiff and require some reasonable radius designs to achieve that goal.

If you go to a softer ski (Pocket Rocket, K2 Chief) you can bend the ski more readlily for a tighter turn radius. But don't expect a Head, Stockli or similar ski to be as accomadating.

PS I have a pair of 1968 Head Standards in 195cm from the day when length was determined by measuring to your wrist when you streached you arm overhead. I would not want to ski those today eventhough I'm now 6'.
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Wow... I love the concept behind the ski, but that seems like a mistake to me. I have never skied it though so it may default to a short turn where you would want something closer to the height of your forehead... interesting.
I agree...

I seem to think it handicaps those who want a slightly longer than forehead length ski, but don't want to go significantly above that level. 11 cm inbetween the range is quite a bit. I guess the volkl ac4's in the 177 will still top my list...
post #9 of 18

size gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by utahskier
I agree...

I seem to think it handicaps those who want a slightly longer than forehead length ski, but don't want to go significantly above that level. 11 cm inbetween the range is quite a bit. I guess the volkl ac4's in the 177 will still top my list...
The Volkl AC4 comes in 163, 170, 177, 184 and 191 cm;
The Head 82 comes in 150, 161, 172, 183 cm; and
the Head Im 88 comes in 164, 175 and 186 cm.

If you can credit the mfgs with some method to their size options and you find the Volkl AC4 just right in 177, then you may assume that because that length is the mid point of the available length spread, that the mid point in the length range of the IM 82's and 88's would relate to your comfort level on those skis.

Just a thought that has been expressed to my by a friend. Overly simplistic? probably.

It may make sense if assume any logic in the selection of length offered by current ski mfgs.
post #10 of 18

Get the im88s!!!

i bought my monster88s for a trip to japan at the end of the year. But i couldn't wait so i have been skiing them for the last week in the crap conditions of season06 in australia. After the first day i was in love on the groomers but was supporting the opinion that fat skis should stay in the powder. But after a few pointers (having only ever skied on skis <70mm i was A-framing a little during carved turns) and concentrating on the getting my inside knee over i have not been able to go back to my other skis, they are that good! Even in the current conditions which range from sheet ice to mushy bumps i have no desire to go back to my fischer RC4s. Anyone who thinks 88m is too fat for normal skiing should a) spend at least a couple of days getting used to the extra width on the groomers and in the bumps and b) grow some balls. You tell your skis what to do not the other way around and in the case of my monsters, the seem to love to oblige.

I truly think this burly fatty could be my ideal one ski quiver.
post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
The Volkl AC4 comes in 163, 170, 177, 184 and 191 cm;
The Head 82 comes in 150, 161, 172, 183 cm; and
the Head Im 88 comes in 164, 175 and 186 cm.

If you can credit the mfgs with some method to their size options and you find the Volkl AC4 just right in 177, then you may assume that because that length is the mid point of the available length spread, that the mid point in the length range of the IM 82's and 88's would relate to your comfort level on those skis.
I think the problem exists that Head has not seen to have allowed for a "middle" length ski. One is forced to choose from the 172/183 lengths. Perhaps they feel that the 82 is a slightly lesser ski than the 88 and should therefore be skiied shorter (as the 82 is 3cm shorter in each iteration than the 88). In my experiences, however, I feel that 6cm can make a huge difference. Maybe the manufacturers at head don't feel the same way...or perhaps it is a money saving scheme!
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahskier
I think the problem exists that Head has not seen to have allowed for a "middle" length ski. One is forced to choose from the 172/183 lengths. Perhaps they feel that the 82 is a slightly lesser ski than the 88 and should therefore be skiied shorter (as the 82 is 3cm shorter in each iteration than the 88). In my experiences, however, I feel that 6cm can make a huge difference. Maybe the manufacturers at head don't feel the same way...or perhaps it is a money saving scheme!
utahskier... I sent you a pm on this as well.

I think you're probably very close to the truth with your speculation about money saving. Head doesn't sell anywhere near as many skis as Volkl does, and it may well be that having 5-or-7cm increments in their all-mountain skis would just be too much of an investment in design costs, molds, manufacturing, inventory, and marketing. (Head *does* make most of their racing skis in 5cm increments.)

Having said that, another way to look at that 11cm jump in length is to think a little bit about the kind of skiing you enjoy. If you tend to like carving short turns and skiing moguls/trees/chutes more, then maybe that 172 isn't all that bad. OTOH, if your preferred skiing is fast cruising on groomers and blasting down open powder and crud fields, then the 183 might be ideal.

Given where you ski and what you weigh, I'd probably suggest the iM88 in the 175 length. If there's any way for you to demo that ski versus the Volkl AC4, that might be ideal. The sidecut is almost identical between the two skis. The difference is that the Head is a bit wider througout the ski.
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahskier
I think the problem exists that Head has not seen to have allowed for a "middle" length ski. One is forced to choose from the 172/183 lengths. Perhaps they feel that the 82 is a slightly lesser ski than the 88 and should therefore be skiied shorter (as the 82 is 3cm shorter in each iteration than the 88). In my experiences, however, I feel that 6cm can make a huge difference. Maybe the manufacturers at head don't feel the same way...or perhaps it is a money saving scheme!
Thinking some more about your post...

I'm not entirely sure that Head has decided not to allow for a "middle length ski" for *everybody*. It's partly that your weight range falls right in the gap between the lengths that particular ski (the iM82) is built in.

A 175 in the iM88, for instance, might fall smack dab "in the middle" for your weight, the 186 might be perfect for me, but somebody that weighs halfway between the two of us might find that there's no "middle length ski" for them - in *that* model.

You're right about 6cm making a lot of difference. I might argue, however, that a 6cm difference in length is MUCH more significant in racing skis than in all-mountain skis. Also keep in mind that even the longest length the iM82 comes in - 183 - would have been considered ridiculously short ten years ago.
post #14 of 18
BP is it possible that the two lines (i.M 82 and i.M 88) are actually designed to complement each other, so that someone slightly off the 172cm i.M 82 (by weight or stability desires) would go to the 88? And then back again to the 82 in 182 for a light weight skier with long-cruiser desires?

Sort of like half-step gearing on a bike, but it does chime with the thoughts expressed by some in recent fat ski threads.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
BP is it possible that the two lines (i.M 82 and i.M 88) are actually designed to complement each other, so that someone slightly off the 172cm i.M 82 (by weight or stability desires) would go to the 88? And then back again to the 82 in 182 for a light weight skier with long-cruiser desires?

Sort of like half-step gearing on a bike, but it does chime with the thoughts expressed by some in recent fat ski threads.
Could well be, comprex.

The problem utahskier (and most everybody else) has is that it's really difficult to demo all the lengths and models you would like.

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose jump in the water by buying the skis that you *think* are going to work best for your skiing *most* of the time. Years ago, very few of us had large quivers of skis for every different condition and yet somehow we managed to have a good time.
post #16 of 18

This is an old thread so I'm not sure if any of the previous contributors care any longer, but I bought a pair of the Head IM 82's left over from last year (same ski as this year, only cosmetic differences) and I absolutely love them and wanted to tout their virutes.  I bought them at levelninesports.com and got an unbelievable deal to boot.

 

I'm 6' tall and weigh 230 lbs and am 54 yo.  I've been skiing for 40 years and have been instructor (many moons ago).  I am an expert skier and am in pretty good shape.  I come from an Eastern skiing perspective...IE - Always skied the East until about the last 10-15 years when I started skiing out west, but I still ski a fair amount in the east as well.  The pair I bought were 183's.

 

I arrived in SLC for a Monday-Friday week...arrived Sunday night Jan 25th and skied Monday Jan 26th at Alta that had received in excess of 30 inches of new snow that weekend with 19 inches coming Sunday night.  Near the top of the Collins chair shortly after 11:00 AM we noticed that the first line of skiers was making their way on the traverse across the Ballroom (for those of you not familiar with Alta, the Ballroom is a huge wide open bowl).  It had been closed all weekend and I was probably in the first 50 to 100 skiers down what was my first experience of bottomless powder.  Well, the skis helped in 30+ inches of deep pow, but admittedly it was more a problem with the Indian than it was the arrows.  That said, I survived that first day very nicely and gained proficiency in the deep, deep snow as the day progressed and these skis were 300% better than my old Atomic Betarides for this kind of classic off piste condition.  OK...a true powder ski would have been better, but as an All-Mountain tool they were unbelievable.

 

The rest of the week (Snowbasin, The Canyons and Snowbird) we had 4-10 inches of new snow each day except Friday.  And the off-piste performance was absolutely terriffic, especially in fresh snow of a foot or less.  On groomers they were much better than I expected.  Late in the day on Thursday at Snowbasin a few of the main goomers as you approach the bottom of the mountain started to get a little scratch to them.  No problem, just leaned em over and they gripped as well as just about any other ski I've ever skied.

 

Where I was most impressed though was on Friday.  It had been windy Thursday night and no new snow, so the bowls at Snowbird had a windblown dense powder crust.  And when you went in and out of treed areas, the snow texture would change from that dense, chunky windblown to light fluffy pow that had been protected from the wind elements.  These skis just ripped it all up.  Point em down the hill and they just powered through everything in their way!  Like being on train tracks.  They just inspired so much confidence...just the way you want a ski to make you feel.

 

I also skied the bumps a bit as well, although my best bump days are behind me.  Knees and back just don't like that kind of skiing much anymore.  These are not the best bump skis I've had for sure...but they were adequate.  I was able to navigate them and turn them quickly enough to manage.

 

If you live out west and get these kind of epic conditions often enough, I recommend first hand the IM 82.  If you want something a little beefier or better in that deep, deep stuff but don't want to commit to an all out powder ski, the IM 88 would be worth a look too.

 

Head did a great job on these boards...I'd buy them again in a heart beat and you can't beat the deal at levelninesports.com either.

 

Warren from NJ

post #17 of 18

Yes, Head was being cautious with their expenses when changed the Monster line creating the 88s, 77's and eventually 82's.  Overly cautious.

 

I think 11cm is too big of an increment.

 

The 88's were too much ski for me (150lbs.) at 186cm, but the 175's were a tad short.  That's the reason I went with the slightly softer Monster 82's at 183cm.

 

I prefer the longer & softer ski (82's @ 183cm) over the shorter & stiffer one (88's @ 175cm) in order to ski faster in rough snow.

 

The shorter 88's are more maneuverable in tight trees, however.

 

So it's your call.

post #18 of 18

If you are really stuck on long skis I have a nice pair of 203 cm slalom sks you could buy....

 

I break these out once a year for Retro day and remember each time how much difference there was between good and average skiers at the time. 

 

While it is fun to try this once a year I really really prefer shorter skis because skiing is an awful lot about turning ....

 

 

Mike

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