EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head almost got it right with the im82
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head almost got it right with the im82

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
In my search for a 1-ski quiver (yes I'm back to 1 ski again!) I demoed the Monster 82 this afternoon. Head almost got it perfect. I LOVE its stability in varied snow conditions. It is a serious crudbuster that loves to make big sweeping turns and has excellent grip on the hardpack. However, it's not a nimble ski and I found its weight wore on me as the day went on. About a month ago I skied the Salomon Fury and loved how lightweight it was. However, it needed a little soft snow underneath it to excel. It really suffered in the hardpack/icey areas between the bumps and elsewhere. A Fury-im82 hybrid is what I'm looking for.

Does a lightweight all-mountain crudbuster, stable at high speeds exist?

My "Perfect Ski"
  • All mountain ski
  • 80ish waist for float - I'm probably on the large end of the spectrum at 5'11" 205 lbs and I haven't found a 70mm ski that provides the float and stability I'm looking for.
  • Excellent Hard Snow Grip
  • Stable at high speeds - I like big arcs at speed
  • Should be willing to bend in the bumps - perhaps something with a pliable tail? I suck at the bumps and will continue to ski them to challenge myself.
  • Shouldn't be super turney - I don't like hooky carvers that snag in the softstuff when you point them downhill.
  • Must be Nimble/Lightweight
I'm wondering whether the Monster 78 is going to be as beefy as as the 82. Or perhaps it will be as much of a moose as the 82?

Thanks in advance for your replies!
post #2 of 26
Thread Starter 
PS - What was Head thinking when they decided on that puke green color for the 82? :
post #3 of 26
Hi!
Maybe dawg has tried the M78. I regard his reviews very highly and I would also be interested how it compares with the M77.
Nevils
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
Maybe I should be focusing on the im77 instead of the 78? ssh's "10 skis reviewed" post warrants a look at the Afterburner as well.
post #5 of 26
I'll second the afterburner. But I actually ride the Jet fuel- the afterburner's metal sibling. But it's a tank, and it sounds like the hybrid you're looking for would the afterburner. metal is not a friend of the bumps either.

fwiw, the jet fuel is super nimble at speed, imo. grabs ice in a scary-fast kind of way too.
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 
bumpski
post #7 of 26
I think the Nordies will be heavier and beefier than you wan on looking for the Fury/82 bastard child. I would suggest the Atomic Sweet Daddy as an option and maybe an Elan 777. Another option is to find some older Atomic ME:X's.
post #8 of 26
I've skied the M78, it felt a lot like the M88, just thinner and quicker. The shape felt similar, the tip pulls you into the turn, the tail has easy turn release. Might be just what your looking for.

Demo a Rossi B3 and look into next years Dynastar Mythic Rider.
post #9 of 26
J:

Here is an interesting statistic.

Fury 172 w/bind = 6 lb 12 oz........1 ski
AB 170 w/bind = 6 lb 8 oz............1 ski

This just shows to go ya that stats don't necessarily tell the story. The skiing personality is pretty different between these two. You know the Fury has the light and nimble feel that you crave. The AB is definitely more damp and smoother but does not feel as nimble despite the fact that it is lighter.

My impression IS largely based upon the AB in 178 however and I rarely ski the 170.

SJ
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post
I demoed the Monster 82 this afternoon. Head almost got it perfect. I LOVE its stability in varied snow conditions. It is a serious crudbuster that loves to make big sweeping turns and has excellent grip on the hardpack. However, it's not a nimble ski and I found its weight wore on me as the day went on.
I found the IM82 to be incredibly nimble for an 82mm ski. It is also fairly light. What binding was on the ski that you demoed?
post #11 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoontasan View Post
I found the IM82 to be incredibly nimble for an 82mm ski. It is also fairly light. What binding was on the ski that you demoed?
Some Tyrolia demo bindings. I didn't take note of the model number but I believe the max din was 12.
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
J:

Here is an interesting statistic.

Fury 172 w/bind = 6 lb 12 oz........1 ski
AB 170 w/bind = 6 lb 8 oz............1 ski

This just shows to go ya that stats don't necessarily tell the story. The skiing personality is pretty different between these two. You know the Fury has the light and nimble feel that you crave. The AB is definitely more damp and smoother but does not feel as nimble despite the fact that it is lighter.

My impression IS largely based upon the AB in 178 however and I rarely ski the 170.

SJ
Thanks SJ!

I understand that actual weight and how nimble a ski is doesn't go hand in hand. It will come down to whether the AB gives me the edge grip on hard snow the Fury was lacking, while maintaining the crudbusting ability and stability of the im82. It's nice to finally know what I'm looking for in a ski!
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

My "Perfect Ski"
  • All mountain ski
  • 80ish waist for float - I'm probably on the large end of the spectrum at 5'11" 205 lbs and I haven't found a 70mm ski that provides the float and stability I'm looking for.
  • Excellent Hard Snow Grip
  • Stable at high speeds - I like big arcs at speed
  • Should be willing to bend in the bumps - perhaps something with a pliable tail? I suck at the bumps and will continue to ski them to challenge myself.
  • Shouldn't be super turney - I don't like hooky carvers that snag in the softstuff when you point them downhill.
  • Must be Nimble/Lightweight
I own the IM77, the IM82, and the Legend 8000. Based on the ski characteristics you seek, I'd recommend the 8000 as a great alternative.
post #14 of 26
I have yet to find a great crudbuster that is not heavy; there are lighter skis that do OK, but they still are not as good as the heavy iron in my experience.

I bought some Atomic Sweet Daddys for bumps and soft snow, and they are quite good in crud for such a lightweight ski. However, they have much less authority (for lack of a better word) in crud than my all time favs, the Elan M666 / Mag12. The downside to the Elans is that they are tanks -- a real bitch to carry around sometimes.
post #15 of 26
I agree completely with skier219. Just speaking for myself, light weight and excellent crud-handling are mutually exclusive.

Many people swear by the Atomic Snoop Daddy as a lightweight ski that works well in crud, but I haven't skied it.

I do know that I *really* like the way the iM82 handles practically everything.

disclaimer: Head gives me free skis.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
I agree completely with skier219. Just speaking for myself, light weight and excellent crud-handling are mutually exclusive.

Many people swear by the Atomic Snoop Daddy as a lightweight ski that works well in crud, but I haven't skied it.

I do know that I *really* like the way the iM82 handles practically everything.

disclaimer: Head gives me free skis.
The iM78 was much more nimble than the 82, and acutally was Ok in bumps! We all agreed that the 78 was quite a bit more versatile in short turn situations, but the 82 has the edge in crud. Nothing surprising there. The 78 will be a very good ski for many: for the skier who likes the traditional laminate, midweight feel of the 82/88, but wants a more 50/50 oriented ski that is a true one-quiver ski. The 82 is awesome, but probably more of a one-quiver ski for the guy who skis in a snowy area, or doesn't do bumps, or mostly skis on new-snow days.

I found the Snoop Daddy to be a little light in the loafers: it just didn't have the high-speed stability of the 777 I skied that day. It was light though, but got thrown around a bit at speed.

A great crudbuster/bump ski doesn't exist. A good bump ski will only be, at best, good, not great in crud at speed. A stiff crud ski will be way too stiff for bumps.
post #17 of 26
Picture of the Monster 78...



post #18 of 26
Quote:
  • All mountain ski
  • 80ish waist for float - I'm probably on the large end of the spectrum at 5'11" 205 lbs and I haven't found a 70mm ski that provides the float and stability I'm looking for.
  • Excellent Hard Snow Grip
  • Stable at high speeds - I like big arcs at speed
  • Should be willing to bend in the bumps - perhaps something with a pliable tail? I suck at the bumps and will continue to ski them to challenge myself.
  • Shouldn't be super turney - I don't like hooky carvers that snag in the softstuff when you point them downhill.
  • Must be Nimble/Lightweight
Sounds alot like the requirements I had when I was looking for new all mountain boards. I ended up on Volkl Karmas and can't be happier.
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
A great crudbuster/bump ski doesn't exist. A good bump ski will only be, at best, good, not great in crud at speed. A stiff crud ski will be way too stiff for bumps.
Thanks Scott. Your point is well taken. I'm not looking for a good bump ski, rather looking for a crudbuster that is manageable in the bumps. The 82 was close, so perhaps the 78 is exactly what I'm looking for.
post #20 of 26
Thought I would chime in. The Head Mojo 90 might be just the ticket for you. It is a twin tip, but don't let that distract you. The ski is light weight but very stable, particularly on hard snow, which is why I like them so much.

I wanted a good off-piste (1 ski quiver) that was nimble enough to ski in the trees, floaty enough to enjoy big sierra dumps, meaty enough to plow through the sierra cement the day after the big dumps on sunny aspects (my nemesis), and stable enough to tear up the groomers heading to my favorite stashes or skiing with the family.

The ski is 89 under foot and surprisingly lively for a twin tip. Actually a really fun ski on the groomers. I mounted the matching tyrolia (mojo 15) bindings and am really happy with the skis. I have demo'd just about everything out there thinking there might be something just a little bit better but I haven't found it yet. All in all I am really impressed with the Head skis, the mojo in particular. The only other ski I really like is the Mantra's.

Good luck.
post #21 of 26
Thread Starter 
Mojo 90? Karma? Everyone seems to be gravitating to fatter and fatter rides these days!
post #22 of 26
I bought a pair of iM82's (172) this season, and so far, I find a lot of truth in what you say, Magnus. They're smooth, destroy any crud I've found so far, float pretty well, surprisingly nimble and lively (even in bumps) for a 82 mm. Significantly more versatile than the AC4, IMO. But yep, by mid-afternoon, I can find myself wishing it were easier to fling around and to manage in short turns.

Part of this is length, I think. I'm pretty light (165) to be on the 3rd of 4 lengths. But the 163, which would have a friendlier flex for me - and is analogous to the 170 AC4 - is too short to float anywhere.

So I guess I live with it or go for your softer hybrid. Actually, second the Mojo 90 advice. It's smooth and nimble, like a Legend 8000, floats well in pow, carves nicely on all but the gnarliest ice, and at 176 feels significantly easier to flex than the 82 at 172. Only drawback I found was far lower speed limit. But I was skiing it short; no 186's to demo.

And the new 78 might be perfect, too, if you want quicker with less float.

Yet I wonder what Head has against smaller increments for its all-mountain skis. They give you Superhapes in 5 cm intervals.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Yet I wonder what Head has against smaller increments for its all-mountain skis. They give you Superhapes in 5 cm intervals.
I've heard the im78 will be available in 6 cm increments (165, 171, 177, and 183).
post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 
Now I've got the Atomic Nomad Series muddying the water!
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
The iM78 was much more nimble than the 82, and acutally was Ok in bumps! We all agreed that the 78 was quite a bit more versatile in short turn situations, but the 82 has the edge in crud. Nothing surprising there. The 78 will be a very good ski for many: for the skier who likes the traditional laminate, midweight feel of the 82/88, but wants a more 50/50 oriented ski that is a true one-quiver ski. The 82 is awesome, but probably more of a one-quiver ski for the guy who skis in a snowy area, or doesn't do bumps, or mostly skis on new-snow days.

How would you compare/contrast the im77 to the 78?
Thanks
post #26 of 26
I am looking forward to the Elan 888 next year. Another big ski that will rock.
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 › Head almost got it right with the im82