or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head im82 ?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Some helpful advice needed here. I've read some reviews on the im82's and it seems the concensus is that's a very versatile but pretty beefy board that could be a handful.

I'm tempt to pull the trigger on some 161's for a real good price as I'm looking for something is medium to long radius turner that'll be good in pow/crud. I'm currently on the metron B5's (162) which I love, but some days I just don't want to be doing short/med turns all day long & want to be able to cruise and let them run.

I'm pretty light weight 5'6" 135 lbs probably about a level 7-8 skier. My question for those who have skied the im82, is do you think im82 in a 161 would be too much ski for me? I havent ridden the im82, but it's a pretty stiff board when flexing it in the shop. Prolly just as still or more so than even the B5's?
post #2 of 18

Head Monster 82

I skied the 82 extensively for a week, unfortunately there was not powder during the week used the board. I am a masters racer, almost same size as you. This was a "Fun" ski for me and worked as a one ski quiver on a trip to South America August of 2006. I was on a 172cm Monster 82. I normally ski on a 180cm GS and 155cm SL Head race stock sticks. I have been a Head Ski fan for many years.

The ski is solid under foot. Relatively easy to initiate and has the traditional Head "damp" feel. The more athletic skills and movement you bring to the ski the more it responds (this is important….I have found Head to be a misunderstood brand. If you like quick initiation and snap from your turns you will be disappointed by the Head line of skis…otherwise if you bring the movements to the ski, it has the feeling of tremendous grip, power and energy). I found the 82 to respond to dynamic independent leg movements, athletic stance and high edge angles. It can be skied more relaxed and be very enjoyable. It is capable of a wide variety of skills. I found the ski to be very predictable and capable on hard pack groomers. Steep, icy faces with limited maneuvering room were a breeze. The tail had a good snap but not overly aggressive...just enough energy for quick release turns when required. It was reasonably useful in moderate bumps. The ski is very versatile. I could adjust from long radius GS style turns to quick SL linked and snapping turns. There are not many skis that can truly perform this way and provide the grip, snow feel and damp nature. Compared to the Monster 88, the 82 is lively and easier to initiate. The 88 is more of a bomber, “search and destroy”. Comparatively, the 82 is quick footed. My uneducated guess would be the 82 is good for 60/40 off-piste to on-piste and the 88 is more 75/25 off-piste to on-piste.

It looks like you are from Vancouver/Whistler area. If you are looking for more of a powder ski I would suggest the 88. If you are looking for something less demanding, quicker and having a groomer flair, I would suggest the 82. It is a great ski.

Check for some earlier review threads on the 82 by dawgcatching. He writes excellent reviews and is similarly impressed with the ski.
post #3 of 18
The 82 is plenty quick (save gates) and is best when mounted with a LD binging in the +15 position. It is a stiffer ski, its not for intermediates. I found it to have plenty of energy and good snap. Its damp, but not dead by any means. It is very capable in nearly all conditions it's awesome on the groomers and you will find it has plenty of float; especially someone your size. At 6' 175, I skied it in everything up to 18" of pow. I found it fine in those conditions, jut not as maneurverable as a my Mojo90's. It is great in soft bumps, no issues. Its very happy making GS turns and you will love it when you let it rip. Very stable. That said, you may want to look at the new 78, which promises to be another fantastic ski.
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
great feedback... any suggestions for mounting? at the mark or +1?
post #5 of 18
With railflex bindings you mount on the mark, you can literally move the binding forward +15mm, keep at neutral or backwards -15. All you need to do is loosen the center screw (you can use a quarter) and slide it.
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
I'll be mounting some rossi axials on them so I wont have the option of moving them around. What do you have yours set to usually?
post #7 of 18
Also Finndog I may have missed it but what length im82 are you on?
post #8 of 18
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
I'll be mounting some rossi axials on them so I wont have the option of moving them around. What do you have yours set to usually?
I have have the 77's and have tried forward, back, and like them best on the mounting mark. Real skiers has a good suggestion on how to find the proper spot to mount bindings, you might search here also. I would personally be concerned about mounting forward on a flat ski with out skiing them that way first. The 161 seems plenty short for a powder ski even for your weight.
Good luck
post #9 of 18
I own the 172 iM82, at 165 lbs find it a G.S. type that just wants to go faster and faster, so wonderful in the open, a challenge at lower speeds on populated hardpack. As an all-around for lighter skiers, I'd go for the next size down, but then the issue is that it'll lack float cuz of the big decrement. Wish Head would offer it in 5 cm intervals like the SS...
post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 
Pulled the trigger on the im82. Great deal from ptex.

Now my dilemma to railflex or mount flat for the im82's? I've seen posts that suggest railflex for a carving ski, but a flat binding mount for a powder/freeride ski. The reasoning being less lift & flat mount for better snow feel for off piste? And visaversa for carver.

I plan to use the im82 as a 50/50 ski. Suggestions?
post #11 of 18
The 82 doesnt need any help carving, especially if you got the 161. Mount 'em flat to keep their livliness at a maximum.
post #12 of 18
either or, if you are using them 50/50. You really won't see a significant difference. I think with RF, you get a bit more groomed performance, but nothing really noticeable. I always ski heads with RF in the +15 setting but I Think Takecontrol618 has a point at 161 lengths. Mount them flat on the mark and you shoudl be fine. Good job
post #13 of 18
I like the RF bindings for ease of installation of the plates on the ski, and the fact that you have some flexibility in moving the binding fore/aft and accommodating different boot sizes (often a plus if you sell the ski in the future). But after trying it both ways, I think I prefer flat bindings with less lift. I don't notice much (if any) penalty when carving on-piste but the skis feel much more stable underfoot off-piste. In general, I have found lifted bindings to be clumsy underfoot in bumps, powder, landings, etc.

What I would really like is a RF binding with a thinner plate that results in less lift. If they can do that in the future, it would be more ideal for 50/50 applications.
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 
Update: ended up mounting flat binding Rossi axial2's at the mark. I checked where the BoF mounting mark would be and was surprised to find that it was only 1cm forward of the factory mark. It was about 3cm more forward than my Atomic MB5's.

I was under the impression that Heads tended to have a more rearward mounting mark. Maybe they have changed their thinking with their newer skis and gone to a more forward mount?
post #15 of 18
Interesting, I also thought many Heads had a rear biased mount -- my iM77 certainly do.
post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
Had a chance to ski my shiny new im82s last weekend. My impressions pretty much mirror what everyone has been saying about these (esp Dawgcatching's review). It's an all mtn GS carver that will rip it up under the roughest conditions at any speed (but prefers fast). I can see how it could be a handful for a lower intermediate, it is a stiff board which performs best for the aggressive skier. Surprisingly, I found that I can relax on it as well arcing out long gs turns. I'll post a review once am able to ski it under a wider variety of conditions. It's a nice complement the short rad MB5 where I felt I needed to constantly be on edge. These were just as comfortable letting them run or laying them on edge.

And yeah, mounting on the mark worked fine for me. It felt nice and balanced. Not too much tip or tail.

Now a tuning question. From the posts I've seen there seems to be some discrepancy on the edge angles. I've seen 1/1 and 1/2. Any one care to comment?
post #17 of 18
I have a pair of iM82's in the 183cm length. I agree with essentially everybody here that it's a powerful ski that can handle most conditions, likes speed, and carves extremely well for a "fatter" ski. I also don't think it's horribly unforgiving - I think you can relax and skid it pretty easily, but it does really light up when being driven hard.

I'm not too sure about the idea of Heads having a bias toward rearward mounting. I think that possibly applies to the Mojo 90/Sweet Fat Thang, but every other Head model I've skied (which is most of them), has been mounted dead on the mark.

I've got mine tuned 1/2, which is what my area rep suggested for that model.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an on-mountain rep for Head.
post #18 of 18
Bob, I noticed my iM77 have the midsole mark about 3cm aft of where it is on my Elan Mag 12 skis, relative to the true center of running surface (CRS) in both cases. Elan lines up my ball-of-foot with the CRS, but Head puts me back 3cm or so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion