EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Thinking about some new skis - Monsters?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking about some new skis - Monsters?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
I was a skinny-skier until five years ago, when late in the season I decided to get some new gear. I looked over the various reviews and ended up with a pair of Atomic B9:18's. It took me a while to get used to skiing them, the style is completely different. But once I did, the results were astonishing... I went from a 6 to a 8 in a two-day period at Lake Louise. Once I got on top of them I really started seeing why everyone loves them so much: they hold an edge like glue, even on ice, and just LAUNCH you out of the bottom of turns. I just LOVE THESE SKIS.

But here's the problem: after heading out west a few times I just don't ski the east any more. And out west, in real snow, these things sink like a stone. Even in light crud they are a handful, getting pulled to the sides with every little bump. I ski with strong skiers and boarders who drive off-piste every run, and I just can't keep up, even when I pretty much stand on the rear tips.

So I'm reading the reviews again. I started looking at Freeride skis (is it really nessesary to change the name of everything every few years? what exactly was wrong with "all mountain"?) so I'd have a little more float on the powder. I also want to do a major step up in size - I was talked into a pair of 160s (which I think are about 163 cm in reality) and I have a feeling these are way too small - I'm 5'8" and weight about 180.

So I quickly came across numerous very positive reviews about the Head Monster iX78 and 77. I was looking for something with a nice short turn radius to match the C9s, but I wasn't sure just what the C9's had. I guessed it would be quite small, so the Monster's 17 m seemed long. But then I looked at the C9's this morning, and found much to my surprise that it's a whopping 24 m! I don't ski them like that, I ski little tight turns on the fall line, and these skis felt like SL's to me.

So now I'm confused. The Monsters have a radius around 17, MUCH smaller than what I was on before. What exactly is this going to feel like? Will I be all over the place, spinning in too tight? Or will I just do the same turns, but with less effort? Or is it just going to be "different"? With that short a radius, is the Monster going to feel twitchy in comparison to the C9? What about on bumps, does the radius even make a difference there?

And what size should I be looking at? I was considering moving up one step to 170, but one of the people I ski with out west is a 5'6" girl that's light as a feather, and she's on 175 freerides. Do I want to go that long, or longer, like the iX78 177's? If I step up 20 cm in length but move to a ski with a shorter radius, what sort of change in feeling should I expect?

Thanks for ANY advice you might have.

Maury
post #2 of 11
Maury:

First of all, welcome to Epic!

You are right, 163cm skis are way to small for you at 200 lbs. I would think that 170 is about as short as you should ever go. The Monster 77's and 78's are great skis, but if you are wanting an off piste ski you need to go wider. Maybe the Monster 82 or 88, or the Head Mojo 90? I would also go to a mid to high 170cm length.

Where are you skiing and what type of conditions are the most common there?

Mike
post #3 of 11
first dont caught in measurement game. sometime a ski can ski really differently that what its measurement imply. I dont think many people would describe the IM82 or IM88 as overly turny.

second you have good starting idea of what you want. The head monster series ski really powerful, damp and have pretty good edge grip on groomers. In fact in some snowly locals a IM88 might be somebodies 'groomer' ski. The heads ski great off trail nearly all the time.

IMO I have been most impressed with the IM82. I skied it last year and was impressed by how easy it was to ski. In the 183cm it was short enough I could get some unstabilty but at 90 percent speed for me its skied really well. Its would be a great everyday ski nearly anywhere in the world to ski.

So thats my top recommendation is the 183cm IM82, I know it seems to long. but longer skis are easier to ski on. you female friend has it right and if I had to guess is amoung the best skiers you ski with.

Next the Im88 is a great choice but your kinda of caught between sizes on that with the 175 being a little short and the 186 being a little long. Maybe after you get use to the wider longer ski in the Im82 you can buy some Mojo 94.
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
I'm not so worried about absolute length as turning performance. I assume one of the reasons I find the C9's so turny is because they're short. If I go up 15 cm will I lose that?

What would you say the difference between the 77's and 82's is?
post #5 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post
I'm not so worried about absolute length as turning performance. I assume one of the reasons I find the C9's so turny is because they're short. If I go up 15 cm will I lose that?

What would you say the difference between the 77's and 82's is?
1. Somewhat, yes. You will lose some quickness when pivoting the skis, but you shouldn't pivot the skis...

2. Almost everything. The iM77 is a cap ski, the iM82 is a vertical sidewall ski. The dimensions are different. they 'feel' different, the 82 is more supple on the snow with more edge grip, the iM77 feels a little stiffer and a little planky-er. If your goal is to save more money by buying an older ski, look for a Mojo 90, it's been in the Head line for 5 years or so, it was dropped out this season and replaced by the Mojo 94 (possibly the best choice for you).
post #6 of 11
i upgraded from atomic c9s to a similar midfat ski a few years ago. Any of the heads you are looking at will be so much more stable in just about every condition except super smooth groomers. So for the type of skiing you describe, you'll be able to actually focus on turning, rather than hauling your skis up out of the snow and correcting every twitch they make. Relaxing and focusing on turning makes doing everything easier. So I think they'll just be 'different', but more like 'better' for the skiing you describe.
post #7 of 11
I have skied a bunch of the Monsters, owned an iM77 @ 177cm (now for sale in gear swap) and currently ski the iM82 @ 183cm. They are great skis. Bush described the 82 pretty well; this is about the best "all-mountain" ski I have used in the last few years. I had the 82s out on hardpack last Sunday -- I purposely tried them instead of my carvers just to see how the would do -- and they did fine for the most part. In powder and crud, they are great. I still have narrower and wider skis for extreme conditions, but would choose the 82 as a great general purpose ski. Easy choice when you want to be able to do it all or don't know what conditions are in store.

The older iM77 is a bit carvier and racier feeling than the iM82, but still comes close to being an all-mountain ski. I would say the 77s are a little heavier and more solid than the 82 on piste. BTW, the construction of the 77 changed; it had sandwich construction at the beginning, but for the last year (2007) it had a metal jacket cap construction. Perhaps related, I felt that was the best year for the iM77.

Other great skis would be the Dynastar Legend 8000, Head iM78, and even the Fischer Watea 84 if you were looking for a bias towards soft snow performance. The Wateas would rule in powder.
post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 
Thank you everyone for the opinions! I'm going to try a demo of the 77s and/or 82s next weekend.
post #9 of 11
I just bought the im77 imonsters in 170 , these are great ski's , they handle powder wonderfully , i ski colorado so i know .. 20 inches of pow beaver creek no problem .. would not go any wider .. 77 mm is plenty .. recently skied the volkl bridge 92 mm waist in pow in steamboat no comparison im77 way better , can handle groomed , powder , moguls no problem ... i am expert skier ..
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dglassm View Post
I just bought the im77 imonsters in 170 , these are great ski's , they handle powder wonderfully , i ski colorado so i know .. 20 inches of pow beaver creek no problem .. would not go any wider .. 77 mm is plenty .. recently skied the volkl bridge 92 mm waist in pow in steamboat no comparison im77 way better , can handle groomed , powder , moguls no problem ... i am expert skier ..
im77 better in powder? I think a stupid thing called physics would beg to differ with you.
post #11 of 11
I have the iM77 and they are great skis, but my wider skis kill in powder. Not even a comparison. The iM77 make a great everyday ski here in the east, but I go much wider when traveling west.
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 › Thinking about some new skis - Monsters?