New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Magfire12 vs. IM78

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Open invitation to Dawg or anyone who can compare and contrast these two?
post #2 of 22
Thread Starter 
To clarify, I read the reviews but was looking specifically for turn shape/radius variability and hard snow ability on the 12.
post #3 of 22
I've got a pair of the 12's in the 176. Used them for spring skiing last year. I think that this is where these really excel, as they handle the frozen cordoury early in the morning, and handle the soft snow and slush equally well as the day wears on. It seems that they have a naturally larger turn radius, but handle shorter and variable radius turns fairly well. Not bad in bumps, either. I will say, however, that these came through with a terrible factory tune, though. Don't know if this is common with Elan skis, but this is the second pair I've had, and the other pair had the same problem. Can't comment on the iM78's, haven't skied them yet.
post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Open invitation to Dawg or anyone who can compare and contrast these two?
Are you talking about the Mag12's from 06/07 or 07/08? As you know they are two different skis.
post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
07/08's,
post #6 of 22
I have only skied 4 runs on the Heads and 2 on the Elans but here is a link to my impressions of the skis:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...Alta+Demo+Days

As you can see, I thought they were very similar and was very impressed by both skis. The Elan has a naturally longer radius but they skied similarly in terms of both radius variability and hard snow grip. It would take more focussed testing for me to really sort out the differences.
post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks, very informative.
post #8 of 22
Shorter radius=East coast;

Longer radius=Rockies & West coast
post #9 of 22
Thread Starter 
yes, but if I'm using on days with no freshies or good stuff in the trees, then I am torn here on the radius. The 17+ isn't all that large but a 14.6 with 78 underfoot, may be more of carving tool. I also want to use on soft bumps. SB, did you take into the bumps? Michael, you saw Dawg on them. Comments?
post #10 of 22
Thread Starter 
I am buying the Magfire 12 in a 176. can't resist.

Any comments are still invited. I will also add how does the MAgfire 12 compare to the Head Im82? since it's 82 at the waiste as well.
post #11 of 22
There were a few bumps on the run I was skiing but not enough to really judge. They both did fine with the nod to the Head since it is a little quicker edge-to-edge.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I am buying the Magfire 12 in a 176. can't resist.

Any comments are still invited. I will also add how does the MAgfire 12 compare to the Head Im82? since it's 82 at the waiste as well.
You'll be happy with this choice.
As I posted in my review of the Elan Wave Spice, Short turns are do-able on the mag 12, though the LR turns are more natural to the design of the ski.

We'll have to compare notes on these two skis when we hook up at Steamboat.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I am buying the Magfire 12 in a 176. can't resist.

Any comments are still invited.
Ron's quiver;

EAST COAST:
Supershapes (05/06) 170 hardpack icy days
Magfire 12's (125/82/108) for anything else. I loved the performance of the 82's, these are more nimble and maneuverable so they should be a blast. My bet is the 78's are a bit more "carving" oriented and quicker.

Steamboat:
IM78 171
Mojo90 176


Ron is now an official ski gear ho .

I bet he has a true fatty in no time!

Michael
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post

Ron is now an official ski gear ho .

I bet he has a true fatty in no time!

Michael
I don't have a true fatty. Does this mean I'm not an official gear ho?:
I better get shopping!!!
post #15 of 22
I have skied on both the IM78 and magfire 14 and I purchased the head in a 183 length. Highly recomend the head my stat's are 187cm and 105kg. I found the head to be the best all mountain ski i have skied on, did everything easily. I will try and post a more detailed review of both when I have more time.
post #16 of 22
Finndog, you said you're going for the 176s. Just out of interest, how tall and heavy are you?

Don't mean to derail the thread but I'm looking at the magfire 12s too and am unsure whether to go for the 168 or the 176. Am 180cm (5 eleven) tall but only 73kgs (160ish lbs)... am leaning towards the longer ones for more grip on ice, but any ideas?
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
I don't have a true fatty. Does this mean I'm not an official gear ho?:
I better get shopping!!!
TC,

You could own 100 skis and never be called "Ho" .

However, if you live west of Omaha you absolutely need a 85mm or wider ski to be an official (female) Gear Ho, and 95mm or wider ski to be an official (male) Gear Ho.

Michael
post #18 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzbassist View Post
Finndog, you said you're going for the 176s. Just out of interest, how tall and heavy are you?

Don't mean to derail the thread but I'm looking at the magfire 12s too and am unsure whether to go for the 168 or the 176. Am 180cm (5 eleven) tall but only 73kgs (160ish lbs)... am leaning towards the longer ones for more grip on ice, but any ideas?

6' 175#. Finnesse skier. I would see what Trek or Phil have to say, (resident Elan folks). My guess is the 176 but to me, I might go with the 168. Keep in mind these havea slight TT and you will loose about 3mm. I typically ski on 170ish lengths, (not less) so the thought of a 168 skiing like a 165-6, seemed too short.
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
Michael, I am good company, You, alpinedad, Phil and many others...... I believe Trekchick has a few pairs as well????
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
6' 175#. Finnesse skier. I would see what Trek or Phil have to say, (resident Elan folks). My guess is the 176 but to me, I might go with the 168. Keep in mind these havea slight TT and you will loose about 3mm. I typically ski on 170ish lengths, (not less) so the thought of a 168 skiing like a 165-6, seemed too short.
okay sweet as dude cheers for that pm about to go to phil heh. I didn't realise they have a raised tail, yay I'll be able to ski backwards . Actually now that i think about it, I think I did read it somewhere but it didn't sink in.

sweet, I'm finally getting my own skis heh. hope you enjoy yours.
post #21 of 22
Thread Starter 
Send Phil a PM or post, he'll be happy to help.
post #22 of 22
The new Mag 12 is a really nice ski, very predictable yet a top performer. It feels a little heavier than last year's (just a tad though) and I thought with a little less energy (more Nordica in feel than the old 666/Mag12). The iM78 would probably feel a little lighter, perhaps stiffer as well, but very manageable in all conditions, and a little more like a carver/bit less GS in feel.. I haven't spent enough time on the new Mag 12 to be thorough, as I couldn't get a pair for myself. Really hard to find much of a bad word about either.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews