EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Demo day - 10 skis reviewed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Demo day - 10 skis reviewed - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes View Post
I might add the Stockli Stormrider XL to the excellent skis listed above.
That's definitely a good one to add (and I happen to own it and love it).
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
I am somewhat of an Elan fan (though ssh thinks I'm a full card carrying member : ), but that's because they make most of their skis with a construction that I prefer for its snow feel. I have not been impressed with anything in the Magfire line as of yet though (this includes the M666 which has identical construction to the Mag 12). If you look closely on the Elan web site you'll see that these skis differ from Elan's traditional racing ski construction which is a laminated woodcore. The Mag 12 and 666 use the "Response Frame Woodcore" and the Mag 10 and 8 use the "Power Woodcore". I honestly didn't even realize that the Mag 12 and 666 were different from my 777 and 999 until I was trying to figure out why I really liked those, but didn't care for the 666. There's clearly a fairly major difference in these constructions.
Hi Noodler,

Unfortunately, I think you have been given some inaccurate information regarding how the 666/Mag12 is built. According to the former Elan regional head rep and now race director, the construction on the Magfire 12, 666, 777, SLX Fusion Pro, and GSX Fusion pro are all identical (Response Frame Woodcore). They are using a hybrid of two laminate wood cores. When he came to the shop, he brought cross-cut samples of the 666, 777, and GSX, and wood layup was the same on all three. He said the only difference between the 666 and 777 are flex patterns and the obvious difference in width and sidecut. As I currently own both skis, I will attest to the fact that they are very similiar in feel. Did you try a perfectly-tuned pair of 666's, or was it a demo with some time on it? I have run icy GS on a pair of 666's, and they held very, very well-it is a laterally stiff, powerful ski. I won't say that the 666 is the world's best crud-buster (I have been skiing it's twin the Magfire 12 the past week in up to a foot of new) but it definitely will hold it's own, and is much more verstaile and energetic on the groomers than the 777. It is really just a narrower version of the 777. I would say that the Stockli is a little beefier in feel than the 666, and a little bit more comfortable at the highest speeds, while the 666 is more maneuverable and has a bit more energy in the tail for somebody of my weight.

Were the skis you had trouble with new and tuned? I sold a pair of 666's to Squeaky Wheel, and he loved them until he got a bad tune (base bevel was less than .5 degrees after the tune). A friend of mine, who is a very strong skier (ex-collegiate racer and one of the 5 or 10 best skiers on our mountain) bought the Magfire 12 last season after demoing everything in the shop. His comment to me was that it felt like a powerful race ski with more float and a bit more pop in the tail than his race-stock Fischer GS's. I am not saying that the 666/Magfire 12 is the best ski for everyone, but both my brother and myself have owned that model the past couple of seasons and been very happy with it.
post #33 of 58
Thread Starter 
dawg - I merely pulled the information directly from the Elan web site. I'd be interested in an explanation from the rep as to why his information does not match the "official" web site info. That seems very strange to me.

The 777 and the 666 felt nothing alike to me. I owned the 666 and tuned it myself (as I do all my skis). I skied it at least 7 or 8 days before I decided to return it on exchange for the 999.

I should also state for clarification that I never rode the Mag 12 Fusion. I also noticed that you ride the 666 in the 176cm and I never tested that length (many said last season that I rode the 666 too short).
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
dawg - I merely pulled the information directly from the Elan web site. I'd be interested in an explanation from the rep as to why his information does not match the "official" web site info. That seems very strange to me.

The 777 and the 666 felt nothing alike to me. I owned the 666 and tuned it myself (as I do all my skis). I skied it at least 7 or 8 days before I decided to return it on exchange for the 999.

I should also state for clarification that I never rode the Mag 12 Fusion. I also noticed that you ride the 666 in the 176cm and I never tested that length (many said last season that I rode the 666 too short).
I checked things out further, and you are correct about the 2007 skis being different. The information and contruction techniques listed on the site for 2007 are new this year and would only be applicable to this year's skis. I read the shop tech manual and called the rep, and here is the information I have: The construction of the 666/Mag12/SLX Pro/GSX Pro is slightly different this year, as they are using different densities of wood (the Response Frame Woodcore) which is a hard and soft wood. He said last year's skis were all identical in construction (666 on up through the 999), which is what I was referring to in my earlier post (sorry for the mis-communication). 2006 skis (SLX/GSX/999/777/666/Mag12) were all built with the single wood species laminate, not dual density RFW (2 species of wood). The Mag 10/Mag 8, as you noted, is Power Woodcore, so a completely different construction there. I haven't yet been on the '07 666 this season, but I skied it last year at the trade shows (assuming it was basically unchanged) and it was pretty darn nice. Hard to say if it is better or worse than the '06 until I ski them back to back. I wouldn't assume that the RFW construction is weaker than the traditional laminate, as the GSX Fusion and SLX Fusion are using it, but the GX and SX Fusion are not (the f
GSX/SLX are the stronger skis in this group, the SX/GX one step down). This is also the info I found on the website http://www.elanskis.com/pcc.asp?xpat...thid=&lang=eng and used the navigator to go to "Technology" and then "Cores" which show each type of core used and the skis using it. This probably doesn't explain why you felt the skis to be a different feel last season, but I bet it has something to do with the length. The 666 in the 168cm always felt softer in flex than the 176: they ski completely different. My brother is my height but 140lbs and skis the 168cm and loves it, but I find it to be really light in the loafers and not to my liking. My 176's, when we have swapped, pushed him around. The 168, as you figured out, wasn't probably the right length (whether the 176 would have worked for you, I have no idea).

You should be able to lump the 666/Mag 12 together. They are identical skis, as far as I can tell (except for the Fusion/non Fusion thing this year). I tried the one foot Mag 12/one foot 666, and the only thing I noticed is that they didn't look alike.

I hope this helps.
post #35 of 58
Thread Starter 
Thanks dawg - that clarification really does eliminate some of my confusion.
post #36 of 58
Nice reviews.....
post #37 of 58
Sounds like you were at Loveland the same day I was..

I took out my new Head im 77 non-chip 177's that day. Not much of an equipment expert, all I can say is I loved the ski - tight and responsive through high speed turns, easy to lay back on, outstanding in choppy snow (where I need the most help). Very happy with them - not so much with my new boots, but that's a different story....
post #38 of 58
Thread Starter 
ColoradoDave - did you try anything else that day? What did you compare the Heads to?

Oh, after re-reading your response I guess you weren't demoing that day. How did you make your purchase decision?
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
Oh, after re-reading your response I guess you weren't demoing that day. How did you make your purchase decision?
A little internet research, visits to a few different shops...that was about it.

I'm a mid-intermediate, and I was on 200cm Dynastar 5.1's for several years. I got tired of sinking in powder and twisting my ankles in chop show, so I decided to ditch the old school planks and get something shorter and floatier. I just sought out advice and winged it. And apparantly lucked out, as the skis seem to be exactly what I was looking for.

I guess you could say I'm not the most technically sophisticated skier or ski consumer out there. But, like you said, "it's great that you found a ski you enjoy. That's what it's all about, right? "

BTW, did you make a purchase?
post #40 of 58
Thread Starter 
In post #26 I mentioned that I decided to take a chance on the Elan MO2 as a possible "hidden gem". I've done more research on my purchase since then and found that on paper it looks like a very similar ski to the Nordica Ignition, but stiffer (it has a ton of camber - at least for now). Unfortunately it wasn't tuned for all-mountain skiing from Elan (way too much base bevel through the mid-section) so I took them in for a grind to get them back to 0 so I can reset the bevels.

I'm also trying to figure out the best way to remove the metal "rail" that runs down the middle of the base in the mid-section of the ski. After seeing the "bizarre" flex pattern of the Elan MO2.2 due to the inclusion of the metal rails in the base (http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=46985&page=2) I'd really like to pull it out of there.

Anyhow, for the short time I rode the MO2 it had good turn initiation, but lacked underfoot edge grip (no surprise since the bevels were wrong). It felt a bit too lively to me for hard snow use, but that's not when I'd pull it out anyhow (hard snow duties go to my Stormrider XLs).
post #41 of 58
Hi everyone, I just joined up today, but have been reading for some time. I can't tell you how much I appreciate everyones reviews. Noodler and dawgcatching I have been following your reviews closely, thank you.

I am dieing to buy new skis this year, and as much as I would like to build a quiver, realistically I need one ski to do everything. I have been on 2004 Head im70 163cm, I am 5'8" 175lbs, and I am probably a 7-8 ability. I ski Tahoe all season, and try to make a couple weekends a year in Colorado or Jackson. I ski the entire mountain.

I have been very happy with my Monsters, and so have been turned on by the reviews of this year’s im82s and 88s. However, as I read more, I am thinking that I probably don't have the "advanced/expert" level of skill and power that it sounds like the Head's want to really open up. So, after many reviews I am now looking more to the AC4.

Clearly every skier has his own feel, but can I take away from all these reviews that the AC4 is a slightly easier and more versatile ski than the 82's and 88's....while of course still eating up the mountain when really going hard.

Thanks for all the information!!!
post #42 of 58
Thread Starter 
From your description I think I would steer you even more to the Nordica Afterburner (right past the AC4) . Both ssh and Faisasy said that this ski could pretty much do everything the AC4 could with a similar feel, but it was also a bit less demanding and maybe slightly more versatile.

If you can demo you should definitely try both the AC4 and the Afterburner (and do it quickly - they're going fast in the popular lengths).

You might also consider:

1. Elan Magfire 12
2. Nordica Supercharger Ignition (forget the Park-n-Pipe marketing)
3. Head I.M 77 (even though I didn't like it doesn't mean that you'll agree)
4. Atomic Metron M11 B5
5. Volkl Unlimited AC3 Titanium (for comparison to the AC4)

I wouldn't characterize any of these skis as being too demanding (except maybe the AC3 - it's a stiffer ski). They're all a bit wider than what you've been riding without going too crazy.
post #43 of 58
Noodler, Thank You. I will look at those others as well. I can't help but keep looking back at the Monsters though, I really hope to find a demo day so I can try these all out.
post #44 of 58
AC4's AC4's AC4's,AC4's,AC4's...... I could not take it any more so I picked up a pair. I figured if all you Western skiers liked them on the groomers they would handle the New England Ice just fine. I'm 148 lbs 5,9" expert skier that likes to carve on both skis - I got the 163s cause most of you were skiing 170s and wieghed in at 180-195 lbs. I do not like super stiff skis that will decamber untill you hit 35 mph.... So I am hoping for the best. I'm all about wider skis as long as they have plenty of sidecut - less chance of booting out in the spring corn trenches.

Comfort me - tell me I will like them. I am going to JH next week but regretfully these skis will not make the cut in favor of my Outlaws (which I don't mind trashing on the less than adequate snow pack).
post #45 of 58
You'll like them, BCFresh... they are nice skis.

I just picked up the Afterburners. I think that they are even nicer skis, and a little less pricey. But, either are exceptional skis!
post #46 of 58
JediMonkey--

If you like the 70's, you'll probably like the 82 and 88. They are going to be a little more demanding, though. I can't really speak to the 82, as I've never skied them, but I have the 88 as my all mountain/powder/crud ski and really like it. I, also, ski Tahoe pretty exsclusively. I did demo the AC4 last year, and really liked it. Great ski. For me, the 88 was better in deeper snow/Crud (to be expected). The ac4 was a little better on the groomers. The 88 does do great on the hardpack as well. The AC4 is still pretty demanding as well. Like Noodler said, You also might want to check out the Nordicas. I've not been on one, but Heard lots of good things...

Also, if you go the route of the Heads, Dawgcatching has some amazing prices for those skis...
post #47 of 58
Hokiesnow, did you try the 05/06 AC4 or the 06/07? The latter is quite a bit different... and beefier.
post #48 of 58
ssh- I demoed the 05/06 AC4... I liked it quite a bit. I pretty much had it down to the Monster 88 and the AC4 last year and went with the 88. I'm interested in demoing this years AC4, and AC3. The reason I went with the Monster was because it gave me more in the Crud and Powder and didn't give up much to the AC4 on the groom. I felt the AC4 was more of a frontside carver type... Ironically, I'm looking for a versatile carver this year for the Tahoe area. I've had thoughts of Adding the AC4, but have been leaning to a carving ski in the 75-80 range-- topfuel, AC3, etc... Is it a crime to have two skis in the 80-90 range?! I feel it may be an inefficient use of funds. Nevertheless, I'm looking for a more groomer oriented ski this year; wife-willing of course! Everyone seems to be touting the ac4 over the ac3 this year as well. I've never been on a Nordica, but if they are damp and powerful like Head skis, I'm sure I'll like them. I'd like to demo one of them as well. Any thoughts? TIA....
post #49 of 58
Hokiesnow, if you like the Heads, you may fall head-over-heels for the Nordicas. They are as powerful but give back a lot more energetic sense. The AC4 this year is a level above last year's, as well. But, as I've mentioned, I've decided on the Afterburner as a better all-around ski for me than the AC4. I expect it to work really well in just about everything.
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokiesnow View Post
Also, if you go the route of the Heads, Dawgcatching has some amazing prices for those skis...
I'm happy to report that, as of about 30 minutes ago, he has one less pair of im82s in his inventory.:
post #51 of 58
Nice Purchase, Coach!
post #52 of 58
ssh- I was thinking Top fuel might be the one to compliment my monsters...Monsters for my fresh snow/tracked/deep crud ski, and top fuels for my groomer/it hasn't snowed in a few days ski... The question remains: will you ever ski your B5's again?!
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokiesnow View Post
ssh- I was thinking Top fuel might be the one to compliment my monsters...Monsters for my fresh snow/tracked/deep crud ski, and top fuels for my groomer/it hasn't snowed in a few days ski...
In that case, I'd suggest the Mach 3 or Mach 3 Power. The Top Fuel is a good choice, but it's width and design is a mixed-use ski. If it's really groomer/hasn't snowed in a few days, the Mach 3 might be your ski. I skied them in 10"+ at Copper yesterday and will do an extensive review within the next couple of days. They performed amazingly well, even in the deeper snow, and were incredible on the more packed (and even scraped-off sections with hardpack showing). They aren't that narrow, either (74 under foot IIRC). A GS ski construction, too.
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokiesnow View Post
The question remains: will you ever ski your B5's again?!
...well, they're still in my quiver...
post #55 of 58
I have been testing most of the skis mentioned toward the end of this thread over the past few days (the best early-season snow I have ever seen!). Afterburner, AC3, AC4, new Magfire 12, old Magfire 12, iM82, iM77, Legend 8000, Recon (my Stocklis haven't shown yet). To be honest, I liked every one of them! but for different reasons. Skis are getting so damn good these days. I will get my impressions posted when I have a chance.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
I am not saying that the 666/Magfire 12 is the best ski for everyone, but both my brother and myself have owned that model the past couple of seasons and been very happy with it.
Dawg,

Still looking for a pair of 176 flat M 666, condition of tops unimportant...still need a home for the MRR's. PM me if you come across any traded in....I don't care if the graphics are gray or black either....

As I ski in the east the 170 RX 8 and /or 168 allstar currently in the quiver are perfect 98% of the time....but I remain hopeful for some bluebird days.....and the bindings are lonesome. Would need to set up for tecnica shell 304mm, midsole likely unless you advised otherwise.

Thx hrstrat57
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57 View Post
Dawg,

Still looking for a pair of 176 flat M 666, condition of tops unimportant...still need a home for the MRR's. PM me if you come across any traded in....I don't care if the graphics are gray or black either....

As I ski in the east the 170 RX 8 and /or 168 allstar currently in the quiver are perfect 98% of the time....but I remain hopeful for some bluebird days.....and the bindings are lonesome. Would need to set up for tecnica shell 304mm, midsole likely unless you advised otherwise.

Thx hrstrat57

Sorry, but I only have new 666's! They are flat though, but it sounds like you are looking for something cheaper than new. Ski only is $509. I will let you know if I come across anything used.
post #58 of 58

IM 82 opinion and brief review...

Hi All,
Nice job on the reviews, Noodler.

So, I've enjoyed Noodler's opinion in the past and felt it accurate on many skis the I had skied as well, so I was especially mindfull of his Head im 82 review.

After more deliberation I decided to pick one up (Dawg helped me come to that conclusion as well), and am very glad I did.

ME: 6ft, 167lbs, 38 years old, level 3 ski instructor, level 9 skier, teach and ski mostly off piste for Eric Deslauriers All Mountain Ski Pros and a bit at Northstar. Ski all speeds, but rarely super fast anymore, I like a ski that I can ski slow motion billy goat turns, with plenty of skidding, then open it up into fast crud carves and quickly throw it back into a short swing at will, along with all the blends in between.

SNOW: new, wet rain on top, some pow to 12in, cut up heavy crud at Sugar Bowl plus groomers.

SKI: 172 IM 82
I was leary to go this short, but I have decided my 178 Jetfuel is too long and heavy feeling. i was thinking of going to the 170 and maybe even going back to the top fuel but in a 170 (i skied the 178 much of last year). I felt like i wanted a length between the 2 and a width between the 2, which is what brought me to the im 82. (I demoed hte 183, but felt it was tuned badly (railed) and too long)

and, It's GREAT! I didn't have the slow speed issues Noodler had, but it definitely is great at faster speeds as well (which was comforting on the shortest wider ski i've ever owned).

on the groomed it was solid in all shapes and radius of turns, it loved two footed railed turns, but didn't talk back when i shot it out of those into short swing. In the crud, it was unshakable while being friendly. The tip bends up way better then i anticipated based on previous Head experience and reveiws including Noodlers. It's a great crud ski, in all shapes of turns and speeds.

In the pow, WOW, this is one of the shortest narrowest skis I've skied pow in recent years (OK, the 178 top fuel last year), and it's great. the shovel bends up nicely and allows you to vary your input according to your desired path. it exceeded my expectations.

So, I haven't skied it in hard snow yet, but it's a wonderful midfat ski. I'm very happy with my choice and I don't have any head bias (except maybe slightly negative)

Maybe Noodlers ski he demoed was too sharp or railed or something so it only wanted to carve fast turns.

Thanks again for the feedback and Dawg, thanks for the input.

cheers,
wade

SKI: 172 IM 82.
first
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Demo day - 10 skis reviewed