or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Advice needed! -- Head IM 72 vs IM 77
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advice needed! -- Head IM 72 vs IM 77

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
I'm having a hard time deciding on which one to buy, a 2006 Head 2006 Monster I.M 72 Skis 156cm, or Head 2006 Monster I.M 77 Skis 156cm. Please help!!!

I'm 39, male, athletic, 5'5", 157 lb. I can handle single diamond (easy black), but find double diamond still challenging, so am I an upper intermediate or lower advanced? I want to work on improving my skills while having fun on the snow. I like to ski on powder as much as on groomed trails, and enjoy some off-trail adventures too. Like to do something in the park, but maybe too old for those tricks and jumps.

I guess a pair of good all-mountain skis is what I need. So I searched on net, and a website caught my attention. It has 2006 IM 72 for $219 without binding, and IM 77 for only $10 extra. Is this a good buy? and which one suits better for me? I'm inclined to go with IM 77, because it is fatter and will do better on powder, but afraid that it might be too stiffer and heavier for me, and may not have that much fun on groomed trails and moguls. Can somebody kindly give me some advice? Are they of same quality? Many people on this forum said IM72 is great, but I'm wondering how IM 77 might be compared with it.

Or if you can advise me of some other better models in the same price range, I'd highly appreciate it!

Also regarding bindings, the salesperson on that website told me that they have the cheapest one (SL100 silver) for only $59, and should be ok with me, as more expensive ones won't do me any better considering my skill level. Is this true? Should I settle with the cheapest one or go with a more expensive one?

Your input is highly appreciated!


John Wu
post #2 of 11

I love my Monster IM 72s - in a 170

I am a 5-10 155 lb 51 year old male skier trapped in the mid-atlantic region (Virginia) for now. Every other year we go to Tahoe near Christmas, and last year on our return trip the airline lost my skis. I found a good deal online on the Head IM-72 (in a 170), put some Tyrolia SLD-11 bindings on them and ... wow. My first day on them at Wintergreen (the closest ski area to me - not impressive by western or northeast standards, but the "Highlands" expert area has a high-speed six pack and 1000 vertical, so you can really run some laps) was an absolute blast. Fast, quick, stable, I loved them (and I hit 40,000 vertical!). Subsequent trips to Timberline (WV) last year and Sunday River (this year - including one true 12 inch powder day) confirmed my impression - these are great skis.

Two comments about your choice.

First, I would guess that 156 is a bit short for you, as you and I weigh about the same. I have no problem with my 170s in tight spots, steeps, or trees at all, and at 170 you can really cruise with them. If you are really nervous about the length, I guess 163 would be OK, but I wouldn't go to 156 if I were you.

Second, if you ski where there is a lot of powder, wider is better. On the other hand, if you get the IM-72, it gives you a logical hole in your quiver which will need filling, something in the 84-88 waist width range! This is exactly my plan for next years Tahoe trip - can you say IM-88?
post #3 of 11
I would say go for the 72, but also agree 156 is too short.
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
daphysicsprof and Ghost,

Thank you very much for your help and valuable input! Looks like I need to get a longer one... But I'm only 5'5" (about 165cm). daphysicsprof, though we are about the same weight, but I'm much shorter than you, also I haven't skied that much as you, and I think you are of higher level than me, do you still think I can handle 163cm?

I checked that website again. They do have IM77 in 163cm, but unfortunately not for IM72. I'm wondering if IM 72 is much better than IM 77, or they are about the same?

Also can somebody comment on my question about bindings?

Thank you very much! This is best ski forum that I've found, and I'm so glad that people on this forum is so generous to give advises and helps. I highly appreciate all the helps!

post #5 of 11
The i.M series is not a park ski. With that said, where are you from? If you're skiing the west, 77 - no question. If you're on icy hardpack most the time - 72.

156? Seriously??
post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 
I will probably ski in park sometimes, but mostly I enjoy trails (groomed and power, too).

Two winters ago I was in Sacramento, CA so bought a seaon ticket for a resort (Sierra) at Lake Tahoe, and it was such a wonderful season for me! Now I moved back to TX, and next month I will go to Colorado to ski. In the future years I'd like to check out Park City, back to Tahoe, more Colorado. I met a person at Tahoe who told me that east is no good, so I probably will not go there....

Seems like 77 is a good pick. Anybody disagree??

post #7 of 11
Your weight has more to do with it than your height. I don't think the '77 is all that bad, just that the 72 would be better in moguls. The 77 would be better off piste, while the 72 would be better at speed on groomers.

Other skis? Lot's. RX8s, Progressors, Supershapes (of various sorts), ...the list is pretty extensive. If you are looking for bargains though, you should subscribe to realskiers.com and look up what you find on sale.
post #8 of 11
I wouldn't even bother with the 72; the 77 (or this year's 78) is versatile and still very good on hardpack and in bumps. The 77 happens to have a pretty short turn radius compared to most mid-fats, so it is very maneuverable. I'd go nose to head height in length. I am 6'1" 195lb and have the 177cm iM77; great ski.

BTW, there is some spectacular skiing in the east if you know where to go and what to look for. If the dude in Tahoe wrote off the whole east coast, then he probably didn't know what he was talking about.
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 
Thanks a lot for all the advices! You folks are great! Thanks for helping me making my decision. I think I'll go with IM77, 163cm. With $59 SL 100 Silver binding, and the shipping cost, it will cost me close to $300, which is half off the original price, so I believe it's a good price. Many people talked about realskiers.com, but I don't know how how much savings I can gain from it, and I don't know if I'll have time to find a good bargain for me or not. Can anybody with experience on realskiers.com give me some pointers?

Regarding east coast ski resorts in east coast, I believe there's gotta to be some good ones. I'll want to check them out later...

post #10 of 11
Glad you decided on the IM77, that is my recommendation. I've skied/owned both the 72 and 77 and thought the 77 was much more stable, stiffer flex and delivered on the "all-mountain" tagline that the 72 was supposed to be. Good luck!
post #11 of 11
Thread Starter 

Thank you very much for your feedback. It's always good to see people concurring my decision
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 › Advice needed! -- Head IM 72 vs IM 77