New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 Head im88?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Wondering if anyone has skied the 2008 im88, and how they compare to the previous years. I love mine, but the sidewalls tend to crack pretty easy....might be able to get mine warrenteed again, but maybe not. They say the made them lighter. It has also been said that they "changed" the sidewalls. Que?

They are ugly as hell for '08, btw.
post #2 of 29
You need to get yourself a pair of 188 Bros as your everyday ski. The reason I say this is that they are seemingly bombproof. Tyrone can probably provide more info on their durability attributes, but from what I saw out west last year they are pretty rock solid (extra thick bases, thicker edges, angled sidewalls to prevent delam, etc.).
Later
GREG
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
You need to get yourself a pair of 188 Bros as your everyday ski. The reason I say this is that they are seemingly bombproof. Tyrone can probably provide more info on their durability attributes, but from what I saw out west last year they are pretty rock solid (extra thick bases, thicker edges, angled sidewalls to prevent delam, etc.).
Later
GREG
I've seen Bro's delam very bad. Plus they are nothing that I would want to ski on every day anyway. Too light.

I have two pairs of 179 public enemies...those are the skis that I actually beat on.
post #4 of 29
It's my understanding that only the sidewall material changed. The ski is otherwise unchanged.

They are not using Aircoat Technology on the i.M88.
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Just talked to Head USA.

They are aware that this is an issue for some people and have beefed up the sidewall on im88, going to ABS. Should be much more durable. Their stance on the issue is that the im88 is billed and marketed as a freeride ski, and as such should either hold up to that use, or be warrantied. Thus, they will warranty them for sidewall damage. 2 year coverage..

KUDOS TO HEAD!!!!!
post #6 of 29
Congrats, thats a great deal. Maybe I should buy those from now on... 183 supermojo 103... hmmmm
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Congrats, thats a great deal. Maybe I should buy those from now on... 183 supermojo 103... hmmmm
Supermojo's have always used the older weak sidewall material, same as the im103. Thus, they have always had sidewall problems. Not sure if they are still in the line....I don't see them on the website, only the new im95.

Not sure if I should stick to s916's on the im88, or go back to p18's, and use them more all around. Hummm. They were my (more or less) on-piste resort ski last year, with lifted s916's.
post #8 of 29
I'd go with the lifted 916's if you plan on carving them around the resort. I prefer to run a lifted setup as it puts you on the edge of the ski much more easily - especially when on a wider ski like the IM88.

AFAIK Head still makes the IM103 in some form (know they made it last year). For some reason the IM95 doesn't look that impressive to me...
post #9 of 29
I think a lift on the that ski will take away the feel you want when in fresh snow conditions.
post #10 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post
I think a lift on the that ski will take away the feel you want when in fresh snow conditions.
I don't really use it for powder, aside from when I come across it when I'm on them. As I said, it's my all around resort ski - the goto ski for Killington in particular.

I also have a pair of the 186cm Stocki Scott Shimidt Pro's. So, between the heads and those, one set is going to get p18's (or a variant, and be used more for soft snow, tree skiing, etc, and the other is going to be more for on-trail ripping with S916's (or a variant). Tough call on what to do.
post #11 of 29
Highway,
If it were me I'd lift the bindings on both skis no matter what and put a full plate on whichever ski you will be using mostly on groomers. Knowing the properties of both skis, I would probably use the SS Por's on groomers and save the IM88's for trees and such.

Lifting a ski that you ae skiing in fresh snow will not give you a disconnect from the ski/snow unless you are never putting it on edge and just smearing all of your turns. If you are putting the ski on edge in variable conditions (which you do) the lift will serve the same purpose there as it does on groomers and actually give you a more connected feel with your edges.

I have two pairs of fatter skis (DP and FB) and both have plates on them (DP's actually have a Salomon Poweraxe race plate on them). IMO they make the skis much more solid feeling underfoot. Simply lifting with a softer plate will not hurt your ability to bend the ski at low speeds in tight places (actually from a leverage point of view may help if you are putting the ski on edge).

Later

GREG
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
I don't really use it for powder, aside from when I come across it when I'm on them.
It would, of course, be difficult to use for powder when you don't come across it, or when you're not on it.
post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Highway,
If it were me I'd lift the bindings on both skis no matter what and put a full plate on whichever ski you will be using mostly on groomers. Knowing the properties of both skis, I would probably use the SS Por's on groomers and save the IM88's for trees and such.

Lifting a ski that you ae skiing in fresh snow will not give you a disconnect from the ski/snow unless you are never putting it on edge and just smearing all of your turns. If you are putting the ski on edge in variable conditions (which you do) the lift will serve the same purpose there as it does on groomers and actually give you a more connected feel with your edges.

I have two pairs of fatter skis (DP and FB) and both have plates on them (DP's actually have a Salomon Poweraxe race plate on them). IMO they make the skis much more solid feeling underfoot. Simply lifting with a softer plate will not hurt your ability to bend the ski at low speeds in tight places (actually from a leverage point of view may help if you are putting the ski on edge).

Later

GREG
Greg, you should not have lift on ALL your skis. Only the ones you spend most of your time carving with. Skis that primary see powder, trees, bumps, and thin cover are best off with a flat mount. I would also caution against too much lift on speed oriented skis.

Lift is overated for edging. It helps, but not that much, even on a fat ski. Lift's biggest advantage is reducing boot out on narrower skis. Most midfat and fat skis will carve pretty well with or without lift, the difference is only maginal - and it DOES detract from the ablity to slide the ski signifigantly more than it helps them carve.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Greg, you should not have lift on ALL your skis. Only the ones you spend most of your time carving with. Skis that primary see powder, trees, bumps, and thin cover are best off with a flat mount.
Why do you think they are best off with a flat mount?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Lift is overated for edging. It helps, but not that much, even on a fat ski. Lift's biggest advantage is reducing boot out on narrower skis. Most midfat and fat skis will carve pretty well with or without lift, the difference is only maginal - and it DOES detract from the ablity to slide the ski signifigantly more than it helps them carve.
The biggest advantage of lift is not to prevent bootout. It is an advantage, but not even close to the biggest - especially when talking about fat skis. Using a longer lever lets you roll onto edge much more easily, not to mention it eliminates the disconnect with the edge that you usually feel when skiing a fat ski (consider the angle if you draw a straight line from the edge to the upper edge of your binding where your boot sole sits, both with and without lift). To be clear, I'm not advocating any lifts over the standard height, as those get pretty dangerous.

Even if you aren't cleanly carving a ski, don't you still want to be able to put it on edge easily? If not then I guess it doesn't matter, but my personal preference is to be able to be on the edge of the ski as much as possible, versus riding/sliding a flat ski. Sure you can still get a non-lifted fat ski on edge (not that hard) but the lift makes putting a fat ski on edge much easier.

Later

GREG
post #15 of 29
I think the i.m88 is fine without a plate. Make sure you have a true 2 degree side edge bevel and if you want more lift put an 8mm of riser on your boot. also allow you to change the boheel & toe plates on your boot when worn out.

I ahve a pair of old Atomic 10.50 Betarace boots with the 58MM toe & heel lugs and love the way they ski.


Both my solly X2 and my Rd 96 have 8mm and 5mm lift on the boot respectively.

Put that on top of a race plate on your race skis and really makes you look tall & slim in the lift line.
post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Why do you think they are best off with a flat mount?



The biggest advantage of lift is not to prevent bootout. It is an advantage, but not even close to the biggest - especially when talking about fat skis. Using a longer lever lets you roll onto edge much more easily, not to mention it eliminates the disconnect with the edge that you usually feel when skiing a fat ski (consider the angle if you draw a straight line from the edge to the upper edge of your binding where your boot sole sits, both with and without lift). To be clear, I'm not advocating any lifts over the standard height, as those get pretty dangerous.

Even if you aren't cleanly carving a ski, don't you still want to be able to put it on edge easily? If not then I guess it doesn't matter, but my personal preference is to be able to be on the edge of the ski as much as possible, versus riding/sliding a flat ski. Sure you can still get a non-lifted fat ski on edge (not that hard) but the lift makes putting a fat ski on edge much easier.

Later

GREG
Greg, you might THINK that, but you have certainly not tried out enough combinations to actually prove it. I've been playing around with lift and ramp angle since 1995, so I think I may know a thing or two about it.

What I said is true: lift does make it easier edge the ski, but even on a fat ski, it makes a very minor minor and marginal improvement. What you lose is not worth what you gain.

I've tried the following binding setups on the following skis:

'05/'06 186 im88
- Look P18
- Look ZR18

'06/'07 186 im88
- Salomon S916, lifted
- Salomon 997 11-17, 3mm toe lift (similar ramp to S916).

Going between the S916 and 997 yielded very little loss the ability to edge the ski and carve it. I also had no problems edging with the looks. Yes, the S916's DID edge a bit better abnd plowed through stuff a bit better. However, the s916's made the ski harder to ski in bumps, trees, and wacky snow conditions, along with being slower edge to edge.

I've also tried many bindings on this other ski (among MANY others):

201 Stockli Asteriod
- Fritchi Freerides, stock
- Fritchi Freerides, toe lift removed
- S916, lifted
- 997, with 3mm toe lift
- S916, flat
- 957 11-17

I like the 957's the best on them, because they are very low, and have a good bit of ramp angle. The ramp makes it easier to stay forward and work a ski that large. The lack of lift also makes it noticeably quicker edge to edge. On a ski with a 35m radius such as the asteroid, it becomes very important to be able to exit one carve and enter a new one fast, achiving at a high edge angle as quickly as possible to bend the ski.
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Greg, you might THINK that, but you have certainly not tried out enough combinations to actually prove it. I've been playing around with lift and ramp angle since 1995, so I think I may know a thing or two about it.

What I said is true: lift does make it easier edge the ski, but even on a fat ski, it makes a very minor minor and marginal improvement. What you lose is not worth what you gain.
You still didn't tell me why though. ...But I'm pleased to see that you have tried many of these combinations on various skis... I don't really need to prove what I just told you because Ron LeMaster and a few other ski authors have done that for me already. But... as I said, if your interest is not necessarily in skiing on an edged ski, then I agree that what you lose is not that significant because tipping the ski is not your primary concern or goal. It is rare for me to be on a flat ski and turning, so you can understand where I am coming from.

Anyhow, back to the original point of the thread - put the lift on the SS Pro and leave the IM88 flat.

Later

GREG
post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
You still didn't tell me why though. ...But I'm pleased to see that you have tried many of these combinations on various skis... I don't really need to prove what I just told you because Ron LeMaster and a few other ski authors have done that for me already. But... as I said, if your interest is not necessarily in skiing on an edged ski, then I agree that what you lose is not that significant because tipping the ski is not your primary concern or goal. It is rare for me to be on a flat ski and turning, so you can understand where I am coming from.

Anyhow, back to the original point of the thread - put the lift on the SS Pro and leave the IM88 flat.

Later

GREG
Greg - yes, the point is to be able to pivot and slide the ski in soft snow. In bumps and trees, and especially powder trees it is VERY important. Yes, you are edging the ski, but not carving it.

The other VERY important point of this is that it lets you transition into a carve much easier on a non-lifted ski. Going from a sliding turn to a carved turn, and back, is also much easier. You are also much less "locked into" a carved turn, the feeling you get with lift. Overall, when using less lift, this actually means that you can CARVE MORE in very technical situations, because it's less of a transition and commitment to get into a carve.....

As far as ski authors go....I am not disagreeing that lift is better for locking into a carved turn. It is. But they need to look beyond that.
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post
I think a lift on the that ski will take away the feel you want when in fresh snow conditions.
My gotamas have lifters on them and to be honest I have allways felt it way easier to ski powder than on trail.
post #20 of 29
I'm with Heluva Skier on this:

First: I don't see where anyone has said what's wrong with lift, at least in a "normal," moderate amount (we're not talking stilts here).

On the other hand: In unpacked snow, I don't think lift is an advantage either. It's just not much of an issue either way (again, so long as we're not going crazy high).

Note that, so far as I can tell (which may not be that far), people with AT set-ups have as much or more lift than racers. According to a review I just read, the Marker Duke binding has 40 mm of lift under the heel, which has got to put the total stack height in the 55-60 mm range. Obviously, the reason isn't a desire for height, but the hinges and stuff you've got to cram in between the boot and the ski. But it's not like anyone's having problems with the height either.

As for the advantages of lift on packed snow, I'm with HeluvaSkier also. It's not just avoiding boot-out. I'll go with actual science + the experience of hundreds or thousands vs. the experience and impressions of one.
post #21 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post
I'm with Heluva Skier on this:

First: I don't see where anyone has said what's wrong with lift, at least in a "normal," moderate amount (we're not talking stilts here).

On the other hand: In unpacked snow, I don't think lift is an advantage either. It's just not much of an issue either way (again, so long as we're not going crazy high).

Note that, so far as I can tell (which may not be that far), people with AT set-ups have as much or more lift than racers. According to a review I just read, the Marker Duke binding has 40 mm of lift under the heel, which has got to put the total stack height in the 55-60 mm range. Obviously, the reason isn't a desire for height, but the hinges and stuff you've got to cram in between the boot and the ski. But it's not like anyone's having problems with the height either.

As for the advantages of lift on packed snow, I'm with HeluvaSkier also. It's not just avoiding boot-out. I'll go with actual science + the experience of hundreds or thousands vs. the experience and impressions of one.
ROFL. I'm an ME and certainly understand the physics behind lift.

You also make it sound like people don't ski flat mounted bindings. Again, ROFL. 90%+ people skiing fat skis or freestyle are on flat mounted bindings.

AT is a whole different ball game, people skining make a trade off between MANY different factors. And guess what??? The best AT bindings on the market, DYNAFIT, are virtually flat with no lift!!!!!!!!
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
ROFL. I'm an ME and certainly understand the physics behind lift.

You also make it sound like people don't ski flat mounted bindings. Again, ROFL. 90%+ people skiing fat skis or freestyle are on flat mounted bindings.
You are spending altogether too much time on the floor.

I never said anything about whether or not people ski with or without lift. I agree that many people do mount fat skis without any lift. There is no possible way I could estimate the percentage, but it may well be a majority. It's not really relevant to anything I said, except that your eagerness to cite a specific percentage that you can't possibly have the evidence to support casts doubt on your assertions generally.

Here are the points, in a form more appropriate to those who don't read English in paragraphs on a regular basis:

1 - There doesn't seem to be any harm in having reasonable lift when using skis in unpacked snow.
a - In support: AT bindings typically have a lot of lift.

2 - There doesn't seem to be any benefit to having lift when using skis in unpacked snow either.

3 - The primary advantage of having lift in packed snow is something other than avoiding boot-out.

Quote:
AT is a whole different ball game, people skining make a trade off between MANY different factors. And guess what??? The best AT bindings on the market, DYNAFIT, are virtually flat with no lift!!!!!!!!
Again, there's the eagerness to make unsupported assertions: Many people like Dynafits; many people like something else: it is simply not a factual statement that Dynafits are "the best AT bindings on the market," nor does the use of eight! exclamation marks make it more convincing.

There's a lot of marketing material, reviews, etc. on various AT bindings out there, in which people point out the goods, the bads and the compromises of various bindings. I think you'll find that most of them identify the three major advantages of Dynafits as: "weight, weight and weight."

Most of the rest of discussion of bindings seems to run off into topics like rigidity, durability, ease of use, compatability with boots, ramp angle, particular features, etc. I'm sure if you spend enough time looking, you'll find someone mentioning standheight, but it's way down on the list of considerations, if it's even there at all. The standheight of the Dynafit is just a side-effect of a design intended to reduce weight.

In ordinary unpacked snow skiing, within ordinary ranges, it seem that people just don't care about standheight very much, if at all.
post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post
You are spending altogether too much time on the floor.

I never said anything about whether or not people ski with or without lift. I agree that many people do mount fat skis without any lift. There is no possible way I could estimate the percentage, but it may well be a majority. It's not really relevant to anything I said, except that your eagerness to cite a specific percentage that you can't possibly have the evidence to support casts doubt on your assertions generally.

Here are the points, in a form more appropriate to those who don't read English in paragraphs on a regular basis:

1 - There doesn't seem to be any harm in having reasonable lift when using skis in unpacked snow.
a - In support: AT bindings typically have a lot of lift.

2 - There doesn't seem to be any benefit to having lift when using skis in unpacked snow either.

3 - The primary advantage of having lift in packed snow is something other than avoiding boot-out.


Again, there's the eagerness to make unsupported assertions: Many people like Dynafits; many people like something else: it is simply not a factual statement that Dynafits are "the best AT bindings on the market," nor does the use of eight! exclamation marks make it more convincing.

There's a lot of marketing material, reviews, etc. on various AT bindings out there, in which people point out the goods, the bads and the compromises of various bindings. I think you'll find that most of them identify the three major advantages of Dynafits as: "weight, weight and weight."

Most of the rest of discussion of bindings seems to run off into topics like rigidity, durability, ease of use, compatability with boots, ramp angle, particular features, etc. I'm sure if you spend enough time looking, you'll find someone mentioning standheight, but it's way down on the list of considerations, if it's even there at all. The standheight of the Dynafit is just a side-effect of a design intended to reduce weight.

In ordinary unpacked snow skiing, within ordinary ranges, it seem that people just don't care about standheight very much, if at all.
Christ dude.....what a load of BS. Your whole post. :
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Christ dude.....what a load of BS. Your whole post. :
Sorry, HS, but you're flat wrong on this one. Sjjohnston is absolutely right in everything he wrote.

As someone who has owned and skied Dynafit, Silvretta, Fritschi, and Naxo bindings, I'm in total agreement with sjjohnston. Dynafit bindings are loved because of their weight - emphatically NOT because of anything to do with being mounted flat.

Stand height (within reason) doesn't hurt a darned thing in soft snow and helps in hard snow.

Simple as that.
post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Sorry, HS, but you're flat wrong on this one. Sjjohnston is absolutely right in everything he wrote.

As someone who has owned and skied Dynafit, Silvretta, Fritschi, and Naxo bindings, I'm in total agreement with sjjohnston. Dynafit bindings are loved because of their weight - emphatically NOT because of anything to do with being mounted flat.

Stand height (within reason) doesn't hurt a darned thing in soft snow and helps in hard snow.

Simple as that.
WRONG!!!!
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
WRONG!!!!
Hmmmm...

Questions raised by your response:

Does the fact that you only used four exclamation points mean that you're only half as certain of this statement as you were of the one to sjjohnston where you used eight exclamation points?

Alternatively, does the huge bold text indicate that you're *more* certain?

Do you shout as much in real-life conversations?

Have you ever in your life skied on a pair of AT bindings?
post #27 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Hmmmm...

Questions raised by your response:

Does the fact that you only used four exclamation points mean that you're only half as certain of this statement as you were of the one to sjjohnston where you used eight exclamation points?

Alternatively, does the huge bold text indicate that you're *more* certain?

Do you shout as much in real-life conversations?

Have you ever in your life skied on a pair of AT bindings?
Bob, yes I owned a pair of Fritchi Freerides and they SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very certain of that. Would not want them anywhere near a pair of real powder skis.
post #28 of 29
Thread Starter 
post #29 of 29

iM88 and lift

Just to add another data point - and this is entirely personal opinion - after owning many pairs of skis of various underfoot widths between 63mm and 90mm and with various amounts of lift I have come to the conclusion that for me lift offers more downside than benefit and I prefer and have no problem using a ski within that range of widths with little or no added lift. Yes I know that is a ridiculously long sentence....

I have read and understand all the science, however the empirical evidence is what counts for me and I've found I can perform and enjoy all the carving, powder/crud skiing, whatever, that I need to do, with no added lift. And it feels good :-)

Why is this relevant to this thread? - one pair of those skis is Head iM88 with Mojo15's, mounted flat. Gets on edge and carves the hardpack just fine, better than most of my other skis in fact.

grum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion