or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are Head Monster 72's Still Good Skis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are Head Monster 72's Still Good Skis?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

I'm looking to purchase a pair of skis, and they have some Head Monster 72's at Levelnine for a good price.  I'm trying to decide if they would be the right ski for me.  I ski almost 100% in NC and WV.   I'm 6'0" and 180 lb, and like to ski mostly high blues and blacks, though I've never tried double blacks.  Do you think these skis are right for me?  Are 177's too long?

 

Thanks,

CJ

post #2 of 15

The iM72s are still good skis, and 177cm would be a good length for you in that ski (just about perfect actually).  It would make a great mid-Atlantic ski (I have skied the iM77, iM78, and iM82 locally).

 

At this point, I probably wouldn't pay more than about $200 for the skis alone, or $300 if they came with RailFlex bindings.  You can get into a pair of 2008 iM78s for not much more than that.


Edited by skier219 - Sat, 31 Jan 09 21:07:08 GMT
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJO View Post

I'm looking to purchase a pair of skis, and they have some Head Monster 72's at Levelnine for a good price.  I'm trying to decide if they would be the right ski for me.  I ski almost 100% in NC and WV.   I'm 6'0" and 180 lb, and like to ski mostly high blues and blacks, though I've never tried double blacks.  Do you think these skis are right for me?  Are 177's too long?

 

Thanks,

CJ


 

Its a good, but not great, choice. The ski is reliable with moderately good edgegrip on firm snow and can be used on East-Coast soft snow days. It has a speed limit that faster skiers will notice. The 178cm is a good length, based on your description.

 

The Monster 78 in a 177cm is a better choice, as is the Dynastar Contact 10 (from 2008/2009) in a 172cm.

 

Michael

post #4 of 15

Personally, it's one of my favorite skis of all time, for what I call "laid back skiing."  If you're trying to scream down the mountain at 60 mph, this is not the ski for you.  But if you enjoy moderately fast speeds, this ski gives you an excellent feel for carving.  One of the best things about it is its maneuverability.  It performs very well in bumps and tight trees.  It is my favorite skis for tight bumps.

 

177 sounds good for you.

post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all of the feedback.  As far as the price goes, skier219 hit it right on the head- $200 for the skis + $99 for DIN 14 railflex bindings.  As far as speed goes, I like going fast, but there's not too much room around here to do so.  

 

I'd love to get the 78's, but they are $550 more (skier219- you know where I could get them for less?)!  The other choice would be the 77's for an additional $80.

 

Thanks again,

CJ

post #6 of 15

I would go for the iM77s if they are the black ones from 2007  -- for an extra $80, it's worth it (I just sold a nearly new pair for $325 with RailFlex LD12 bindings). 

 

2008 iM78s have been on Tramdock for $235-240, so keep an eye out for them if you have time.  But honestly, I think the black iM77 was a better all-mountain ski than the iM78 in the 177cm length.  I preferred the way the iM77s skied overall.  The 78s are only better for hardpack groomer zooming.

post #7 of 15

I've tried the 72 and the 78.  Honestly, I liked the 72 better.  To each his own, i guess. 

 

For the midwest, though, you don't need such a wide ski, since you probably won't see much powder.

post #8 of 15

I'm a bit smaller than CJO (5'10 160 #, level 8/9) and I have skied iM72's for the last 3 years - I ski them short (163) and I love them.  I find them nimble and fun, good on groomers, trees, steeps and bumps we have here in Taos, especially on packed snow.  I am not a speed demon, but I've never had any problems making them go as fast as I want them too.  Unsurprisingly with a ski this narrow (and short) They are not as floaty as I would like on powder days, but I am looking to add a wider ski to the quiver for the 20% of the time I ski pow and keep the iM72's for the other 80%.

 

Your call obviously, But I'd say go for it.

post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaosMath View Post

I'm a bit smaller than CJO (5'10 160 #, level 8/9) and I have skied iM72's for the last 3 years - I ski them short (163) and I love them.  I find them nimble and fun, good on groomers, trees, steeps and bumps we have here in Taos, especially on packed snow.  I am not a speed demon, but I've never had any problems making them go as fast as I want them too.  Unsurprisingly with a ski this narrow (and short) They are not as floaty as I would like on powder days, but I am looking to add a wider ski to the quiver for the 20% of the time I ski pow and keep the iM72's for the other 80%.

 

Your call obviously, But I'd say go for it.

 

I am 5'10" 145, also have the 163 and I agree 100%,


Edited by mrzinwin - Mon, 02 Feb 09 06:14:36 GMT


Edited by mrzinwin - Mon, 02 Feb 09 06:15:11 GMT
post #10 of 15
I'm smaller than all of you  (5'3", 126#) and I have the 2006 iM72 @156cm.
I can get a good deal on a 2006 iM77 Chip (same length)

Can you please suggest what difference can I expect between those skis, if any?
I'm a a low-intermediate skier, skiing recreationally in South Ontario (groomed) about 8 half-days/season.  Not trying (or able) to break records, just having fun.

Thank you,
Alex.
post #11 of 15
 alexo, the iM77 is a wonderful ski.  Very smooth with nice athletic turns.
post #12 of 15
Hi Skier219,
Thank you for your reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 alexo, the iM77 is a wonderful ski.  Very smooth with nice athletic turns.

My question is: what would be the difference between it and the iM72, particularly in my case.
Can you give me some details, e.g., is it more or less stable? is it more or less forgiving? etc.

Thank you!
post #13 of 15
 I think the 77 is a bit more versatile, and it has a wider sweet spot in my opinion.  I remember thinking the 72 was an OK ski, but the 77 really wowed me with its smooth, capable performance, and it still turns pretty tightly.
post #14 of 15
If you're a light skier and only skiing groomed, I would go with the 72.  You don't need such a wide ski if you're not going into the deeper stuff.  For a lighter skier, the 72 is great.  For heavier skiers, it's a little too soft.
post #15 of 15
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!

I'll probably follow mrzinwin's advice (at least for now) since it's the only one that addresses my, er..., geometry
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 › Are Head Monster 72's Still Good Skis?