EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2007 Head Monster 77, which size?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2007 Head Monster 77, which size?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I am fairly certain that the Head Monster Im 77 is the ski for me.(I can get a great deal on them right now) I am just not to sure as to the size I should get. I apologize in advance for dragging people into a discussion about last years skis, but I feel that last years 77 and this years 78 are about the same.(except for the price of course)

I am 5'7"(5'8" on a good day, 150# and a strong level 7 skier. I currently ski old Volkl Carver's that are about 4 years old.(163cm)
I skied in Vail this past winter and demoed Volkl Unlimited AC3's in a size that felt a little big for me. I managed it, but it just felt too "beefy". I can't remember the size exactly but I know that it was longer than 163cm. Anyway, a little about me. I have predominately skied the East since my early teenage years and have just made the move out here to Colorado! I love to ski the groomers(because that is what I know) and have begun to venture into more crud and powder conditions in Vail this past winter. I love to carve and enjoy feeling the flex and energy of a ski. I don't however want any surprises from my ski and I have heard that the Head Monster 77 is a strong and compliant "friend" in this respect. I can only suspect that in the coming years I will see myself on piste about 85-90% of the time and will see powder about 10% of the time.

So, here is my dilemna. Which size is right for me? I have been to a couple of shops and all tell me to stick to the mid 160's. I tend to think that everyone is correct in this conclusion as my own research on slope has confirmed this. Would I run into the issue of overpowering the 163? (I doubt it though) Should I bump up to a 170cm? I ski to have fun and I don't want a ski that I can't manage. Thanks for the help everyone! :
post #2 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skier-X85 View Post
I am fairly certain that the Head Monster Im 77 is the ski for me.(I can get a great deal on them right now) I am just not to sure as to the size I should get. I apologize in advance for dragging people into a discussion about last years skis, but I feel that last years 77 and this years 78 are about the same...

I am 5'7"(5'8" on a good day, 150# and a strong level 7 skier. I currently ski old Volkl Carver's that are about 4 years old.(163cm)
I skied in Vail this past winter and demoed Volkl Unlimited AC3's in a size that felt a little big for me. I managed it, but it just felt too "beefy". I can't remember the size exactly but I know that it was longer than 163cm. Anyway, a little about me. I have predominately skied the East since my early teenage years and have just made the move out here to Colorado! I love to ski the groomers(because that is what I know) and have begun to venture into more crud and powder conditions in Vail this past winter. I love to carve and enjoy feeling the flex and energy of a ski. I don't however want any surprises from my ski and I have heard that the Head Monster 77 is a strong and compliant "friend" in this respect. I can only suspect that in the coming years I will see myself on piste about 85-90% of the time and will see powder about 10% of the time.

So, here is my dilemna. Which size is right for me? I have been to a couple of shops and all tell me to stick to the mid 160's. I tend to think that everyone is correct in this conclusion as my own research on slope has confirmed this. Would I run into the issue of overpowering the 163? (I doubt it though) Should I bump up to a 170cm? I ski to have fun and I don't want a ski that I can't manage. Thanks for the help everyone! :
The outgoing Monster is a great ski. Consider the 163cm and don't go any longer. It's a beefy ski, a 170 will not provide any advantage.

The new Monster 78 is really all new. The outgoing 77 was a cap construction ski, while the new 78 is a more race-like sandwich construction ski.

Cheers,

Michael
post #3 of 23
If your weight is stable at 150lbs then you are prob. OK. I ski the im77chip at 170cm and weight in more like 180lbs. I find this quite manageable and could prob. go a little longer, but I don't see the need.

I enjoy this ski very much. I can carve hard snow, smash through crud and even navigate bumps (well, as well as I can on any ski...). This ski is stable and responsive, but on the damp side, like all Heads. If you like this type of ski then you should have no problems. The only potential surprise is that the chip model has a slightly stiff tail and you can be surprised by it if you get in the back seat. It doesn't kick, but it can wake you up. I don't know if the regular 77 is similar.

If you are sticking mostly to groomers the 163 is fine. If you are planning to do a lot of off piste skiing, then you might want to consider the 170, but it sounds as though you are most comfortable at 163. I see no real problem with this.
post #4 of 23

better hurry!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skier-X85 View Post
I am fairly certain that the Head Monster Im 77 is the ski for me.
2006 Head im 77 skis for $99 at level 9!

http://www.levelninesports.com/speci...1699308170 d7
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
thanx for the help everyone! How would I know that the model I am looking at is chip vs non-chip? it is 2007 model year...i thought i heard that they got rid of the chip for that year...this ski sounds like a real ripper!
post #6 of 23
Thread Starter 
...and which is better...(in your opinion)...chip vs non-chip?
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skier-X85 View Post
...and which is better...(in your opinion)...chip vs non-chip?
Well, the ones from Level 9 are the Chip model. Not sure about the ones you have your eye on - you would probably have to ask the retailer.

I fall in the category that believes the chip does actually do something, as in making the ski slightly smoother as the speeds increase and/or the vibrations rise. Some people scoff at the idea. I think there's little enough difference to care all that much, but I'd buy a chip versus non-chip if everything else is equal.

I also agree that the 163 would be a very good length for you. If you start doing a LOT of off-piste skiing, you're probably going to end up with a wider ski as the second thing in your quiver anyway. Stick with the 163.

By the way - wise choice of skis.
post #8 of 23
I skied both these in Whistler last year and felt that the chip made a difference. The ski felt more damp and stable. The thing I noticed most was the difference between the proper ski with the railflex binding and the flat rental ski with a rental binding. The rental was a dog (and yes it did have a good tune) but my instructors chip/ railflex skis were very nice to ski on.

too many people are skiing too long, go the shorter length and enjoy them.

IMHO the new 78 is a better ski and a better allrounder but you will not be able to get much of a deal on them as they are new and everyone wants them.

chip/ railflex/ $99 - bargin enjoy your new found skiing in Colorado.
post #9 of 23
I am 5"11 and 190 and skied the iM77 chip in a 170, which was one size shorter than I would normally ski and bought the iM78 in a 178 to replace the 77.

I think all of the advice here is right on (which I don't always feel). 163 is the right length, chip does make a difference, iM78 is a completely different ski, for what you described I would jump at the iM77 for $99.
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
The ski that I am looking at says that it features intelligence technology...
http://www.rei.com/product/742571.... would this mean it has the chip?
post #11 of 23
No, that ski is the non-Chip (which is still a good ski). The Level Nine site that was referenced has the 156 for $99. I would wait and see if they don't put the 163's on sale at the same price? $299 doesn't strike me as a killer deal. (just an opinion).

Intelligence Chip System - Intelligence with Chip is a magnified dampening system
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
I have done some research and some people liken the Chip system to making the ski feel "dead". Hence many people applauded the discontinuation of it. I don't really feel, at my stage of skiing that chip vs non-chip will make much of a difference for how often I will use the ski. In either case, can anyone compare the Head Monster IM 77(no chip) to the Volkl AC3 Unlimited's?
post #13 of 23
Thread Starter 

Head Monster IM 77 vs Head Monster IM 72

I have begun thinking that due to my favoritism for on-piste conditions, maybe the Head Monster 72 is a better choice for me. Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between the 72 vs 77's at 163cm?
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skier-X85 View Post
I have begun thinking that due to my favoritism for on-piste conditions, maybe the Head Monster 72 is a better choice for me. Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between the 72 vs 77's at 163cm?
The 72 is not in the same league as the 77. Don’t go there! The 72 is an overly damp intermediate ski.

Consider the Fischer AMC 73 or Dynastar Contact 11 if you want something with a thinner waist.

Michael
post #15 of 23
Head im77chip for $269 (bindings extra):

http://www.levelninesports.com/head-...cm-p-2343.html
post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 
I appreciate the assistance. Just trying to make sure the 77 has enough carving prowess on the front side with great crud/powder float as well.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skier-X85 View Post
I appreciate the assistance. Just trying to make sure the 77 has enough carving prowess on the front side with great crud/powder float as well.
It's got plenty of carving prowess, but I think most people would tell you that powder/crud float would be "good" as opposed to "great". It's just not a wide enough ski to deliver what most people would consider to be "great" float.

Don't over-think this too much. Given what you said you wanted in the original post, the iM77 in the 163 is a very good choice.
post #18 of 23
i'm 5'6ish 150 lbs, would 156 cm be too small for me? that deal is too good to pass up! i've been thinknig about getting an im 72, but heck, i'm willing to get this if 156 cm would work for me.
post #19 of 23
Some may disagree, but I say that is a little on the short side.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiDeC58 View Post
Some may disagree, but I say that is a little on the short side.
Ditto, stick with the 163cm: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=011

Michael :
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
I pulled the trigger on a the Monster 77 @ 163! I am stoked and look forward to breaking them in...now I just have to wait around for the snow!
Thanks all for the help!
post #22 of 23
Thread Starter 
They just came in and now I need to get some bindings for them...Dawg recommends the Tyrolia Railflex RFD 12. Anyone use these that can provide some insight on them and where to possibly get them?
post #23 of 23
Thread Starter 
...and would I need to find a Tyrolia Certified ski shop in order to get these mounted correctly on my skis?(once I find the bindings of course)
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 › 2007 Head Monster 77, which size?