New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IM77/78 or Legend 8K?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
So I'm on the hunt for a mid-fat to use in the East. I've narrowed it down to the Dynastar Legend 8000 or the Head IM77 or 78. Both are great skis and can be had for a very good price right now. I don't think I can go wrong with either, but I'd like to hear opinions.

I'm currently on Fischers, and love the lively feel. I realize that the Head will be much damper than the 8K, but it should also ski icy conditions better, and we get a lot of "eastern hardpack" around here in the mid-Atlantic.

Also what about sizing? Good deals on the 8K in all sizes, but I've only seen the IM77 in 181cm. Is that too long?

I'm 6' and 195-200 when suited up to ski. High level 7ish.

Thanks for the help,
Mike
post #2 of 24
The Im77 seems a bit long for you although the Head may be the slightly better hardpack ski. I believe the iM78 to be a step up in both performance and versatility over the iM77.
As for the Legend 8000, it is just a terrific all around ski- doesn't excell in any particular area but does everything well. It is one of those go to skis which you use when you aren't sure what the conditions will be. 172 length seems about right although you would likely do OK on a 178.
post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes View Post
172 length seems about right although you would likely do OK on a 178.
I am 5'11" 190 pounds and currently ski the 8000 at 178. I love this ski. Like you said it may not excel at anything specific but does everything well. I demoed the 172 before I bought and I am happier on the 178. Its a great ski.
post #4 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by browncow04 View Post
I am 5'11" 190 pounds and currently ski the 8000 at 178. I love this ski. Like you said it may not excel at anything specific but does everything well. I demoed the 172 before I bought and I am happier on the 178. Its a great ski.
I was also thinking 178 for the 8K.

Anyone have any experience on the 181 IM77? I've heard the sweet spot is pretty big on this ski and am thinking that 181 would be manageable.

Mike
post #5 of 24
Quote:
I don't think I can go wrong with either, but I'd like to hear opinions.
Failing any non-subjective basis to make the decision, there's always this approach :

post #6 of 24
I was at Squaw with a customer (he of moderate ability), two weeks ago, and he rented some M77's. All he could do was complain about them being unresponsive, and was going to just go in early.

I gave him my 8k's (second pair with Fluid bindings so I could adjust on the fly), and he was very happy for the rest of the day. I didn't find the M77's that bad, but rather flaccid and dull compared to the lively 8k's.

I also use my 8k's as my least coast skis, and find them to work OK on ice.

BTW, I like my 8k's flat instead of with the Fluid system, but the Fluids are easier to travel with (take the bindings off and put in your backpack). Consider this when deciding on what you'll buy.
post #7 of 24
They are all excellent choices. I got the iM77 last year (177cm, I am 6'1" 195lb) and it's a very nice ski. At the time, it was a bit turnier than the Legend 8K, but the 07/08 8K added more sidecut and that would have erased my main gripe. The 177cm iM77 is just about right for me, and I have never felt the need to go longer. But, the 181cm is only marginally longer (1.5"), and I am sure it would also be fine.

I honestly wouldn't mind adding an 8K to my quiver, or an iM78 for that matter. They are both great skis. I just have way too much overlap in that range right now. On the 8K, I would probably go 178cm, but wouldn't rule out the 184cm -- it would be more versatile in softer snow.

Edit: snofun3, it took me a while to like the iM77's smooth/damp Head feel, as they lack the pop I am used to in my other skis. But once I got used to them, I found the 77 had a very smooth strong energy through the whole turn, and it made the ski transparent underfoot. Gone was the distinct tip, mid, and tail feel I get out of many other skis. I prefer the Heads for most skiing now, they are just more relaxing but still have plenty of energy. It's a lot more subtle.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Failing any non-subjective basis to make the decision, there's always this approach :

Nice approach but it needs to be bigger to fit more skis on it!
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes View Post
Nice approach but it needs to be bigger to fit more skis on it!
By my count, you have 102 'target areas' to customize (if you also count the spaces between the numbers).

I do think that for any ski, there'll be a certain level of adaptation that'll be manageable if you are in the ballpark. At 175 lbs, on Legend 178cms, skiing trees in powder is just right for me, longer could work. In firm bumps, they are a little long. Last week skiing 'dense' powder, the tips did dive, but doable and tons of fun. The crud was no problem.

post #10 of 24
Mike:

I am about same size and am an Eastern guy as well. I currently ski a 2006 Volkl Allstar. I'm sorta looking for a mid-fat as well, however keep coming to the (Financial) conlusion that I don't really need them because here at home, my Volkls are great for the 95% of the conditions I see.

Did you demo either of the skis before you narrowed down your choices ?

I managed to demo a pair of IM78's in 178 length at Whistler for about three hours last month in a bit of powder but mostly crud on groomers. As I've not skied anything wider than 70mm underfoot, I was surprised at how nice they felt (In a Cadillac sort of way). Then I put on my old Allstars and well lets just say, I'll be sticking with them. No knock intended, just my personal preference...and yes folks I realize its a completely different ski.

I strongly suggest that unless you have money to burn, be patient and make an informed decision based on demoing the skis before you buy them.

RMP

Sierra Jim or Dawg will likely able to provide better advise as needed.
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Failing any non-subjective basis to make the decision, there's always this approach :


Very nice!

Do I buy both if I hit the Bullseye?
post #12 of 24
I just picked up a pair of Nordica Hot Rod Nitrous's from Sierra Jim. I went with a 178 and I'm happy with the length. I'm 5'10", 175lbs and a type III skier.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
Very nice!

Do I buy both if I hit the Bullseye?
No, you then have to throw again and we'll have to make a new Ski Selector for the next slot to fill, since you just won a bonus. ......maybe we need a rules committee for this? :

(Note: this is a downloadable PDF, BTW)
post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 
bump
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 
Pulled the trigger and ordered the 2007 181cm IM77. Couldn't resist the deal ($220 shipped from SkiUniverse) and think the Head will be better in the eastern ice than the 8K. If they do end up being too long I'll sell them off to one of you bigger guys!

Of course now I have to wait till next winter to ski them.

Thanks for all of the help.

Mike
post #16 of 24
Enjoy them and 'Don't look back' . .......and there's snow here through June. Time to rationalize a road trip to test drive your purchase. :

Need a Trip Planner Dart Board? :


post #17 of 24
That is a great deal. I don't think the 181cm will be too long at all, based on my experience with the 177cm. There is such a marginal difference between those lengths (in fact, Head went to bigger 6cm increments on the iM78).

BTW, the standard RF brakes will just barely fit on the iM77. If you try them by hand, they will seem to hang up on the edges, but when pressing the ski up/down on the snow or on a flat surface, the brakes pivot up and stow just fine. It should take minor tweaks if anything.
post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Enjoy them and 'Don't look back' . .......and there's snow here through June. Time to rationalize a road trip to test drive your purchase. :

Need a Trip Planner Dart Board? :



You have way too much time on your hands, get back to work

I'd love to make a trip as I actually have two brand new pairs to test now, the IM77's and Watea 94's! Unfortunately it's not in the cards and I'll have to wait.

I've been looking at the Watea's for the past 2 weeks and it's killing me. I guess I have to put them away and stop torturing myself.

Mike
post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
That is a great deal. I don't think the 181cm will be too long at all, based on my experience with the 177cm. There is such a marginal difference between those lengths (in fact, Head went to bigger 6cm increments on the iM78).

BTW, the standard RF brakes will just barely fit on the iM77. If you try them by hand, they will seem to hang up on the edges, but when pressing the ski up/down on the snow or on a flat surface, the brakes pivot up and stow just fine. It should take minor tweaks if anything.

Thanks 219, I appreciate your help! I'm a bit worried about the length but not too much. I really want a bigger turning ski to contrast with the RX8's so I think the 77 will fit the bill and handle the ice around here well.

Not worried about the brakes fitting the 77's as I had already bent them to fit my old PE's. I am probably going to have to get a set of wide brakes for the Watea 94's though, or do you think I can bend them out to fit those also. I actually have 2 sets of RF bindings so I can use one for the wide skis and the other for the RX8's and 77's if need be.

Mike

Mike
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
You have way too much time on your hands, get back to worke
Is called procrastination. : (FWLIW, This was in the library and these easy graphic are easy to produce or tweak & upload quickly.0

These late season purchases are one reason why people are jonesing to ski poor conditions in October & November versus late season in excellent conditions on bluebird days.
post #21 of 24
Mike,

In my experience, even the wide brakes need a little bending on the Watea 94s, at least with the flat LD-12. For the flat binding, the wide brake is spec'd at 93mm. The RailFlex LD-12 wide (same brake arms) is quoted at 95mm, but I believe that's because the brake sits a bit higher off the ski (due to the RF plate height) and effectively gains 2 more mm width. Anyway, the standard wide brakes needed to be bent open a fair bit (by dawg's shop) to clear the sidewall, and then I bowed the tips back in so they wouldn't stick out when I was skiing. The Wateas have a lot of sidecut, and they start widening quite a bit in the brake region -- they're already over 100mm in that area for my boot size.

So this would be a case where I wouldn't even try using the narrow brake! If you can't find any RF wide brakes, let me know -- I think I have a pair in a box somewhere that I probably won't use.

Craig
post #22 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Mike,

In my experience, even the wide brakes need a little bending on the Watea 94s, at least with the flat LD-12. For the flat binding, the wide brake is spec'd at 93mm. The RailFlex LD-12 wide (same brake arms) is quoted at 95mm, but I believe that's because the brake sits a bit higher off the ski (due to the RF plate height) and effectively gains 2 more mm width. Anyway, the standard wide brakes needed to be bent open a fair bit (by dawg's shop) to clear the sidewall, and then I bowed the tips back in so they wouldn't stick out when I was skiing. The Wateas have a lot of sidecut, and they start widening quite a bit in the brake region -- they're already over 100mm in that area for my boot size.

So this would be a case where I wouldn't even try using the narrow brake! If you can't find any RF wide brakes, let me know -- I think I have a pair in a box somewhere that I probably won't use.

Craig
Thanks for the advice. Let me know if you do want to get rid of the wide brakes, but I know I can get some for $30ish from LevelNine for the LD12 Railflexes that I have if you want to hold onto them.

I'll be mounting the Watea's up with a Railflex plate so that I can play around with the binding position. I may go to a fixed binding if I can find a sweet spot or may just leave the RF on there. It's nice to be able to get the bindings off for travel and to be able to swap skis with friends.

Mike
post #23 of 24
you like how fishers feel why not go for the Fisher Cold Heat then..
post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 
BWinPA, I did consider the Cold Heat, but prices held me back a bit. I think the IM77s will fit the bill nicely for out here and will be a good groomer ski out west.

Thanks,
Mike
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion