or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Any reason NOT to buy Head im78's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any reason NOT to buy Head im78's?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone,

Think I'm going to pull the trigger on a new midfat. The Head's seem like a no-brainer, but I don't buy skis that often so it's a big decision for me. So any feedback would be appreciated.

I'm 5'9, 168 lbs, advanced/expert skiier who skis all over the mountain at fairly high speeds.
These would be my "hasn't snowed in a few days or more" ski, ready for groomers, bumps, bowls, crud and ice, and everything else the mountain has to throw at them.
Looking at 171 length. Probably will put a Vist Soft Air plate on them, as it's sitting in the garrage.
My only concern is should I look at the 88 or Dynastar MR instead? Other skis are Gotama and old Pocket Rockets. So I'm thinking the narrower ski adds variety to the quiver and I would like one ski that feels something like a quick carver, but can still handle the whole mountain. Previously I had K2 Crossfires which could not! At least not very well.
I had narrowed it down to the Head or the Dynastar 8000, after considering the Fischer Wateas, Atomic Blackeye, etc. Thanks!
post #2 of 12
I'd say you want the 88, but I am not qualified to say.
post #3 of 12
I think with your current quiver, a 78mm ski would be a great addition. I have not tried the im78, but do have the 88's and love them. If the 78's are similar, they should work great for what you intend them for.
My typical "hasn't snowed in a few days or more" ski is the 88, even though I have some Fischer RC Worldcups that rip on the groomers.
post #4 of 12

Your nic, and your statement that you 'ski all over the mountain at fairly high speeds' pinpoints what the IM 78's perform.

I tried out a pair at Taos a couple months ago and they were awesome. They are damp and FAST. When I say fast, I mean they are so quiet and smooth that I went way faster than usual, everywhere I went with them.

The only ski that ski's like them, in my opinion, are Stockli Stormrider XL's, which I really like also.

I was on the Sugar Bowl Race Team as a kid, and skied Squaw alot until moving to Texas. The IM 78's would be my number 1 or 2 pick if I skied Squaw regularly.

The best way to find out if they are right for you is demo all that interest you. Try a few pair each day on the same runs. I bet you will like them. Consider slightly longer than 171, since you like to fly.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. Snowfan, I really like Sugarbowl, but haven't got there much the last 2 years because we've been renting a condo in Tahoe City.
The length is an interesting question. Most people are recommending the 171/172 lenght in these and they dyastars over the 177's for my height/weight. I know that length is a big issue. Unfortunately I won't be able to demo these as I just got an injury, but I want to pull the trigger at spring prices.
post #6 of 12
For what you describe, either the iM78 or iM82. The 8K and Mythic are also fine choices, but less turny than the Heads. For length, the narrower skis can be nose to eyeball height, but I would go head height on the wider skis.
post #7 of 12
The 78 is one of the very best do-it-all skis out there. I would give it a strong recommendation. I skied it at 171cm last year (I am your height) but would go 177cm if I was buying a pair. I liked the nimbleness and ease of the 171, but there was a speed limit. However, the 177 is still relatively easy to ski, but has no reasonable speed limit. It is a superb crud-busting too as well as a good no-new snow ski. I am not as high on the Legend 8000: more of a mid-speed ski, and I found the top end in around 3 turns. Great for the less aggressive skier.

Other skis I personally like as a tool for this job: Fischer Cold Heat, Salomon Fury, '09 Elan 82ti, 09' Blizzard 8.1 and 8.7. Choosing between these 6 skis would basically be a coin toss (or come down to best price) for myself.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks a lot Dawg. I know you know these skis well and I value your opinion. I was looking at them today and the difference between the 171 and 177 seemed very small with the skis side by side.
I was worried the 177's might be hard to manage, and you've put me at ease on this. A little more stability at speed and in crud sounds like a good thing to me.
I think I'm gonna pull the trigger. Feedback will have to wait until next season, as I got to get over a broken wrist.
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi Dawg,

Sorry to beat this to death, but I knew I had read something about this before, and after searching the forums for awhile I came up with your reviews of the 2 lengths. I'll paste it in for everyone to read. I wish I could ski all the skis you get to! I reaaly appreciate your feedback on making this decision.

Now that you lean to the longer length, was this largely a question of getting used to the 177? In your review of the 2 lengths, you said of the 177:
"What this ski didn’t do was go slow, or make tight turns. It carved medium to large, fast arcs, and blasted through crud. The 171 is much better as a groomer and bump ski, the 177 more suitable for fast crud skiing, and especially would be suitable if you like the iM82 but Head doesn’t make your size (172 and 183cm is just too big of a jump: they need another size in there, like a 178cm). I loved this ski, but felt the 171cm to be much more versatile, and the 177cm to be a high-speed GS ripper."

It seems you've changed your mind on the versatility part, in a sense, in that the high speed stability is trumping the quicker turning. Am a I getting this right? So finally, on a slope like the West Face of KT, with some big bumps and some loose snow, which would you prefer?
post #10 of 12
I have 7 pairs of Head Monster and Wild Thang to send back due to delamination..........
post #11 of 12
I just upgraded to new skis myself (not the Heads though) and went with a 178. While these days, a 177/8 may seem like a long ski, it doesn't feel like a long ski. I'm about the same height, weight and skiing ability that you are and I have no problem with a 178. I've got about 2 days of northeast spring crud skiing on them, but so far, so good. I'm very happy with the length.
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks everyone for your input. it has become clear to me (not really a big surprise) that the only way to know the right ski, the right length is of course to try them.
so i'm going to calm down and wait for next season and do it right and demo the skis. i'll have a good list and knowledge base going in.
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 › Any reason NOT to buy Head im78's?