EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why couldn't HEAD make a 180cm Monster 88??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why couldn't HEAD make a 180cm Monster 88?? - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Hi Jason,

Most of the big skis taken off-piste by hard chargers experience the kind of damage described by H.S. Heads are not unusually fragile IMO.

Michael
:

I PUT 4, FOUR sidewall cracks in mine in less than 20 days last year. NONE were hard hits, just simply accidently sking over a rock like anyone accidently does on an open trail. The big crack, a foot long section, came from turning over rock ridge I didn't see on lower ovation at Killington (it was open). I was trying to take it easy on them, because I know how weak they were.

In contrast, I put one compression in my big daddy's and one in my public enemy's last year. The BD's happened while jumping/dropping into a steep slope and NAILING a baby head sized rock with full force. The PE's took a compression while skiing very thin cover and airing a little to a thin spot.

If you look at the im88's the wrong way, the sidewalls simply die. Otherwise, it's a great ski, but I'm glad they finally beefed up that part. Hope I can get mine waranteed - I understand impact damage isn't ususally covered, but these simply didn't stand up to normal use that most skis would easily survive.
post #32 of 51
More useless banter from the inexperienced with modern equipment (me):

I've noticed a big difference in the amount of cover available, and hence deemed acceptable between east and west. A weakness, if it exists, would likely be more apparent in the east. I myself love my skis too much to ski rocks with them. If the face doesn't hold snow and isn't covered in ice, I won't ski it.

I guess there are two questions. Does the im88 have a higher speed limit at 186 than at 175, and if so would jgleucht exceed the 175's limit on the runs that mean the most to him. I wish I could say, but not having been on these skis I don't know. I can say that ski stability as far as vibrations at speed goes has come a long way; even my 165 SCs don't complain when pushed beyond 60 mph on icy hardpack (though the shape isn't right for those speeds and the skis are not working as they should). I wouldnt' be surprised if the 175 im88s were fine vibrationally, but there is a lot to be said for an extra 11 cm of length when it comes to using terrain ignoration to handle surface irregularities at high speeds.

I also know that speeds that are above a skis limits on hard snow are often no problem on deep softer snow, and that a really stiff ski like a SG leaves a lot to be desired when the snow is soft and deep. When I bought my SGs I demoed the next smaller size before trying out the 208. Yup, the next smaller size would have been a little more friendly in bumps and tight places, but it still was obviously out of place when not ripping at high speeds, and it had a speed limit that I was able to find. Despite what the advertisements say, I still think that if you really want a ski to excel at very high speeds, you should just bite the bullet and get one specially made for that purpose (and not a race ski if you're out on deep snow), and another ski to switch to.

imho, If your charging through something that has seen a thaw and freeze cycle or two, or has maybe a few sun cups, some crud, and making big turns at speed, longer is better. Nevertheless I stand to be corrected by anyone who has skied the ski in those conditions in a damn the torpedoes manner. If you have please chime in and tell us where the limits are.
post #33 of 51
another data point for you. i'm 6'4 and 185lbs. i never raced but ski pretty fast if not always pretty. i have been skiing the im88's in 186 with salomon 914s for two seasons now in jackson and a couple days at killington/pico.

they rule. get the 186 especially if you want confidence ripping out west. with your racing background you are probably a stronger skier than me anyhow. mogul skiing in them is a bit different than i was accustomed to, but they can handle great as long as you stay forward and drive them. ditto for trees.

i haven't had any problem with the sidewalls in 40+ days but i did have some of the topsheet start peeling off near my tips (because i ski like a hack)
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgluecht View Post
Wow, talk about a response. Great input guys.

I am pretty sure that I would be satisfied on the 175 for what I have been skiing the last 4-5 years when I head out west -- everything but the stuff you have to hike for. But thats the area I need this ski to handle. I find that its the equipment that prevents me from charging when I do make the hike (highlands bowl[aspen], Imperial Bowl[breck]). I just haven't found a ski that I was confident in. The shop guys always throw me something that is always IMO too short or too soft: Recon 174, Volkl G3 177, Dynastar Speed SX 178 (own from many years ago). I would say the pace and steepness of skiing that I would like to ski is similar to that on the Team Green video at elanskis.com

The Recon was great for at Alta/Snowbird early last year (Utah had little snow). It was short enough for me to ski the bumps and get through the trees to the last untracked areas with ease. I just didn't feel up for the hike to ski Baldy Chutes at Alta. I could have skied it, just not the way I would have liked. Maybe a longer Recon would do it. But would the added width of the Monster 88 make that much of a difference (at 175)?

Blizzard?? You have caught my attention. The Chronus this year (88mm waist, and available in 180) sounds exactly what I need. Not sure how I like the Blizzard bindings. Anyone demo these yet? The magazines don't have them.

My GS race skis are 183 (Fischer RC4 WC and Volkl P40F1's). I would like my freeride ski to have the all mountain versatility in a 180-183 package. I have taken the P40's in the woods before, and it was fine for length, just need more girth. After sizing up the Monster 175 and my GS skis, it appears that the 186 monster will have the same snow contact length as my GS skis. I guess because of the slightly twin tip. Does this sound reasonable?

Warranty issues with construction?? Should I be concerned? I bought the 2006/2007 model. Would it be worth it to pick up this years model with the new construction and unload my current ones on ebay or something?

You guys are great. Appreciate all your input.

Jason
I cannot believe that you are talking about the Recon and the 88 as if they are in the same category of ski. The Recon is a dog - possibly the worst modern ski I have been on.

On Blizzard bindings they are just Markers with a different name. Pretty reliable IME.

I bet you would like the 186cm given your GS background but you should demo it before you buy. I still think that the 175 will give you the versatility you listed in your first post. It is seriously the kind of wider ski that you can get on everyday and enjoy.
post #35 of 51
You know, you've got the skis now. Put bindings on 'em and try it out for a few days. If you don't like it, sell it. Consider the money lost a rental fee.
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew R View Post
On Blizzard bindings they are just Markers with a different name. Pretty reliable IME.
I don't think Blizzard use Marker bindings anymore. If you look at the pictures of the new skis, the toe bindings look very different from Markers. Also, the Marker website does not mention Blizzard as a partner (only Völkl, Nordica, K2 and Kneissl are mentioned).

Does anyone know who makes them?
post #37 of 51
For what it's worth, here's another vote for keeping the 175. I'm the same size as you, and would honestly be shocked if more than 1 or 2 posters on here ski faster or more aggressively than me. former racer, blah blah. I bought the 88 in a 175 about a month ago.

In fairness, I haven't skied these yet, so my opinion is only based upon everything I've read and heard, but it pains me to see you getting doubts due to what is mostly muscle flexing from others, in my opinion.

You get a lot of people skiing on bigger skis than they NEED to, purely for ego. Do you think that Glen Plake uses downhill boards on gunbarrel because they are the best ski for the job? Sure, he can handle them... but why does he really ski on them?

I am an absolute research nut, and spent so much time looking into replacing my recently deceased 178 g4s that it's sickening. I have zero tolerance for skis not performing at wicked fast speeds. Here is what I found...

Across the board, from many, many sources, the head 88 in a 175 has no speed limit! It is regarded as being as stable and damp as a GS race ski at high speed. It is much more forgiving, yes, but that is due to it's construction reacting differently at slow speed vs. high speed. And I'm sure it has less energy out of the turn and isn't as quick edge to edge. Of course you could ski the 186, and of course you would have no problem handling it. If you have a serious race background at 24, you probably grew up racing on 210 rc4 planks!

The thing is, what do you gain from skiing the 186? Pretty sure you'd only gain float, but come on now, we're talking about a ski with a 89 mm waist here! You weight 165 lbs! The 186 is for folks who put no value on added flexibility in the trees, bumps, etc., or for those well over 200 lbs who can use a little extra float, or, as is fairly obvious from some of these posters, those who get a kick out of telling people online that they ski the longest length, and that anything else is less than badass. Remember that ski manufacturers are well aware that these people exist, and make ski lengths accordingly to fill the market. I'm sure you'd be able to take the 186 in the trees and bumps "no problem", but I'd bet you'd be working a fair amount harder at it, and would have nothing to gain from it but weary legs by 2pm on a powder day and feeling like glen plake without the mohawk (presumably).

Keep the 175, ski wicked fast all over the mountain, get more than enough float and crud busting capability, and enjoy better maneuverability in the trees, bumps, and at slow speeds.
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by skelonas View Post
The thing is, what do you gain from skiing the 186? Pretty sure you'd only gain float, but come on now, we're talking about a ski with a 89 mm waist here! You weight 165 lbs!
[snip]
I'm sure you'd be able to take the 186 in the trees and bumps "no problem", but I'd bet you'd be working a fair amount harder at it, and would have nothing to gain from it but weary legs by 2pm on a powder day and feeling like glen plake without the mohawk (presumably).
Come on now, you're talking about a ski with 89 mm waist as if it was wide!

And since when was working hard a bad thing - the more you put into your skiing the more you get in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorSkier View Post
I don't think Blizzard use Marker bindings anymore. If you look at the pictures of the new skis, the toe bindings look very different from Markers. Also, the Marker website does not mention Blizzard as a partner (only Völkl, Nordica, K2 and Kneissl are mentioned).

Does anyone know who makes them?
They are blizzard versions of Markers Duke and Jester (the non-touring version of the Duke).
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorSkier View Post
I don't think Blizzard use Marker bindings anymore. If you look at the pictures of the new skis, the toe bindings look very different from Markers. Also, the Marker website does not mention Blizzard as a partner (only Völkl, Nordica, K2 and Kneissl are mentioned).

Does anyone know who makes them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by torfinn View Post

They are blizzard versions of Markers Duke and Jester (the non-touring version of the Duke).
I was wondering this also. Thanks for the heads up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by torfinn View Post
Come on now, you're talking about a ski with 89 mm waist as if it was wide!

And since when was working hard a bad thing - the more you put into your skiing the more you get in return.

Midfats are a ton of fun, for sure, but you'll find many who are still warming up to the idea that 89 is midfat.
As for working hard............Depends on how long of a day you're planning on spending on the snow, and fatigued you may get.
And now the discussion of a reason to have a tree ski in your quiver.
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorSkier View Post
I don't think Blizzard use Marker bindings anymore. If you look at the pictures of the new skis, the toe bindings look very different from Markers. Also, the Marker website does not mention Blizzard as a partner (only Völkl, Nordica, K2 and Kneissl are mentioned).

Does anyone know who makes them?
Marker - Dukes and Jesters but by a different name. I am not sure about the IQ system anymore but as we were talking about a freeride/ flat ski I assumed we were talking about the freeride bindings.

But back to the thread - you will find that the 175cm 88s really rock for everything you listed as a priority.
post #41 of 51
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input, everyone. I think I will stick with the 175s for now, as they appear more versatile. If I find myself going over the handle bars on the steep/open runs, I guess I will just need to add another ski to my growing collection. Anyway, I need to focus my attention to my boot issues. I get serious instep pain and heel pain in my XWave10's... i bottom out the flex and the lower shell crushes my foot. So much for getting a softer/easier flexing boot. Time to go back to something in the 120-130 area.

Thanks again,

Jason
post #42 of 51
Good luck and have fun Jason


Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
As for working hard............Depends on how long of a day you're planning on spending on the snow, and fatigued you may get.
And now the discussion of a reason to have a tree ski in your quiver.
From the moment the lifts are open 'till they close, lunch eaten in chairlift between runs

I have a tree-ski, it's called a Sanouk For proper bushwhacking I guess you'd need a Machete
post #43 of 51

.......another $.01..

Jason,
imo...Give the 175s a chance...
post #44 of 51
The im88 is my favorite ski I don't own. I've demo'd both sizes. Me, ex-college racer, but never a contender, 5'10" 195lbs

First, the 175. Great all mountain, ripped trenches, but speed limit was apparant, crud busting limited. Fun ski, but felt like I needed more length.

Got to try the 186 last year. Pure pleasure. Still ripped trenches, easy to initiate, better float, better crud busting, no speed limit. Sometimes size does matter.

When my g4's run out of ptex and get put out to pasture, I'll be hunting down a set of im88's
post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgluecht View Post
The Recon was great for at Alta/Snowbird early last year (Utah had little snow). It was short enough for me to ski the bumps and get through the trees to the last untracked areas with ease. I just didn't feel up for the hike to ski Baldy Chutes at Alta. I could have skied it, just not the way I would have liked. Maybe a longer Recon would do it. But would the added width of the Monster 88 make that much of a difference (at 175)?
The im88 is a much more worthy ski than the recon and 10mm is noticeable. If you want to ski them predominantly off trail then take the 186. The 175 is a great do everything length. At your size you will probably be fine on either option. If you want to do more technical lines it is often better to choose a sightly shorter ski(the 175). I would go with the 186, but I am 200lbs.
post #46 of 51
Thread Starter 
Thanks guys. I haven't seen the Monster get a bad review anywhere, so I am just going to go with the 175.

Now, if my line on a set of Dukes pays off in a few weeks... I may be looking to replace or add to the Monster. I'll wait to make that decision when I have the Dukes in hand.
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgluecht View Post
Thanks guys. I haven't seen the Monster get a bad review anywhere, so I am just going to go with the 175.

Now, if my line on a set of Dukes pays off in a few weeks... I may be looking to replace or add to the Monster. I'll wait to make that decision when I have the Dukes in hand.
They'll be OK, but I still think you should be on the 186's at your height and with a race background. They dude I know with 175's is about 5'9, 160 lb, and mostly skis trees at Jay with them. The 186 would be better for you all around especially with a lighter turntable binding.

Again, I'm 6'1, 180 lb, and wouldn't dream of skiing the 175.
post #48 of 51
I'm about 5-10 lbs heavier and an inch shorter than you- I found the 175's to be a great ski. I spent a powder day at Alta with them in about 18" of fresh. They are a fairly stiff ski with a relatively soft shovel that rises in pow and a beefy tail that rails on hardpack. I skied them in everything but bumps and loved them, especially in long turns and cut up powder. I went with the 177 Mantras in the end because I like quick turny skis. I've been an Alta local for 15 years and ski a bit of the "out West" snow. I really didn't pine for a longer ski.
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgluecht View Post
Thanks guys. I haven't seen the Monster get a bad review anywhere, so I am just going to go with the 175.
.
Good choice. You'll love them.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that you'll find that you'll ski them instead of vice versa.
post #50 of 51
Haven't read the whole thread just your first post. I too have the 06-07 im88 in 175. I am significantly smaller than you (5'8, 140 right now). They are great for me and right size. They were stable enough adn I didn't overpower them at my weight and speed. You are probably on the border. Skis are stable enough that you should be fine on 175 but if I were your size, I would have gotten the 186 if you go fast.

If you already have the skis, just stick with them. You will be fine and new years skis will be much more costly.
post #51 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Ultra knar.
HS you're my hero, because you're............... ULTRA KNAR!!!
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 › Why couldn't HEAD make a 180cm Monster 88??