or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › im monster m78 ....171 vs 165...need some suggestions for sizing please
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

im monster m78 ....171 vs 165...need some suggestions for sizing please

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

as per size need some imput please:

i'm 5'6", male , aged 48 180lb but aiming for 165 in 1.5 mo... and an aspiriing intermediate.

...I got out 30x last yr (to ski blues/easier blacks) and will get out 35-40x this yr so hope to ramp up my skill set even more esp in off piste/ungroomed...am also doing alot of ski conditioning, too.  

 

I've been offfered an almost new pair of head im monster 78 in a 171 length...(skied 20x, going for $250)

but have been drilled so I'd be paying to have them redrilled for my boot size..(expensive? , so might negotiate a cheaper rate

 

...i have watea 84 in 167 length (might sell since they're close in size to just bought mythic riders (slightly used) in 172 length (haven't skied yet).......have been told about monster m78 that for this sort of 78 waisted ski (used mostly for local hill, groomers) it's better to go shorter (but haven't found one in that smaller size)...I had older monster im77 in 163 and they were fine but a bit too stiff and was told (and have read) that these newer im78 are more compliant and userfriendly, mid stiff.

 

watea 84 and mythic rider to be whistler all day ski

thinking monster m78 (or even nordica nitrous to be cypress ski or when things get packed down at whistler)

 

thoughts?

 

from ad: "I have Head Monster im 78 skis for sale. They come with Rossi bindings set for a 318 mm sole length. The skis are in great shape with less than 20 days on them ."""'


Edited by canali - 11/17/10 at 9:21am
post #2 of 18

If you already have a Watea and MR, why get the IM78?

 

IMO, if you are an aspiring intermediate, all of the above skis, with the exception of the Watea, are probably holding you back as they are either too stiff or have too much horsepower for the kinds of skiing you would be doing at this stage.

 

I have the older IM77. I have also been on the Peak 78 and although it's not as stiff as the 77, it's not what I would classify as soft. It is quicker than the 77 but not a whole lot more forgiving. 

post #3 of 18

What's your bootsize?  you might not need them redrilled.  Most bindings can adjust +/- 1.5cm at least.  At 318mm sole, it sounds like it was for a size 27 boot which is pretty average.  You should be able to fit a size 26 or 28 boot in there after making a simple adjustment with a screwdriver.  Based on your height/weight, my guess is you are one of those boot sizes.

 

Otherwise, most shops charge about $20-$30 for a remount.

 

I wouldn't call skied 20X almost new.  That's a decent amount of days on them, and depending on how well taken care of they are..can either be in pretty good shape or really bad shape.  It would be best to see the skis or at least get detailed pictures of them.

 

$250 for used skis in good shape + bindings is a fair price but not a ridiculous deal.  Here are how much I paid for some of my skis w/bindings in the past for price comparison

 

Head XRC 1200 w/LD12 binds brand new 2yr old model - $280

Head iM72 w/RFD11 binds brand new 2 yr old model - $230

Dynastar TroubleMaker w/Salomon 10 binds 1 yr old model brand new - $280

Dynastar Sultan 85 lightly used 1 yr old model (skied 3 times probably) w/brand new RFD14 binds - $365

Fischer WC RC w/FF14 binds brand new 1 yr old model - $425

Salomon equipe v3 lab SL w/914 binds brand new 3 yr old model - $320

 

post #4 of 18

Interesting to find a discussion of the skis that I am selling.  Yes these are my skis we are talking about.  Some history:  got back into skiing two years ago after an 8 year hiatus.  I live just a short drive from Whistler, so that's where I ski.  Bought the Monsters a and absolutely loved them.  Mostly I was skiing groomers at first with little off piste skiing. I am 165 lbs and I certainly wouldn't get those skis any shorter.

 

Eventually I started wondering of the beaten trail and found that the skis had a surprising amount of float due to the large shovel.  However, once I started to venture to the steeper ground with deeper chopped up powder and older snow I found the skis were hooky, mostly I think because of the shortish length and the aggressive side cut.  Bought myself a pair of 178 cm Mythic Riders that became my everyday skis.  They don't do groomers as well as the Monsters but suit my skiing terrain better.

 

So, canali, I wouldn't get 165 cm length Monsters if I were you and at the risk of losing a sale here, I would take those Mythics for a ride first before buying yet another pair.  They are not groomer skis, but do groomers fine once you get used to them, but for any soft snow skiing and steeps with soft snow they are great skiis.  For deep powder they are not well suited.  They are a bit stiff for that (and not wide enough) and want to dive into the snow a bit too much.

post #5 of 18

Don't agree with Mojo Man about which skis will hold you back; iM78's have a remarkable envelope. 171's would be entirely suitable for you and will grow with you. The most forgiving of the Monsters (I've owned or skied all of them), not as planky as the 77's, which I've also owned, but capable of satisfying an expert if you ski them hard. Especially good in crud and bumps. Dawgcatching has some nice reviews of them; do a search. OTOH, a decent deal only if they're in good shape, but 20 days can do a lot to a ski. Do you have a picture?

 

MM's right on about the MR's however; they'll be like planks for you. Keep 'em for when you're better and going fast in chop and wet pow. 

 

The Wateas confuse me. You don't specify which ones. 78? 84? But either overlaps significantly with the projected iM78's, somewhat with the MR's. They also feel very different than either the Heads or the Dynastars; most folks prefer to replicate a certain feel. So do you plan to sell them? If not, then why are you getting the iM78's? 

 

Put another way, what's your rationale for each of these skis? 

 

Oh yeah, and if you plan to lose 15 lbs in 45 days, you'll probably be too messed up crazy to ski. Or in a hospital. Shoot for a steady 1 lb per week - that's roughly 3500 calories - so only means reducing your daily intake/increasing output by 500 Kcals, which is doable. Besides which, if you lose too much too fast, your body will just fight to put it back on immediately. And it'll win...

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 

Forester: hey small world!...and heck we can never have too many skis in our quiver....i was/am also considering the nordica nitrous...so if still available will get back to you..what year might I add?

 

Beyond: duh on my part: the wateas are 84 (2008 model, bought used at end of last season but was told that wooden skis ''last forever'' so not to worry...only skied once on them, but big diff compared to m77...just put them in shop asking for a very sharp edge (I LOVE that surgical carving hooked in feel on skis vs skidding) cheers

post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 


sorry, disagree, beyond:

losing :1.5-2.5 lb per wk is doable esp given my workout routine (and watching my eating patterns)...Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

Oh yeah, and if you plan to lose 15 lbs in 45 days, you'll probably be too messed up crazy to ski. Or in a hospital. Shoot for a steady 1 lb per week - that's roughly 3500 calories - so only means reducing your daily intake/increasing output by 500 Kcals, which is doable. Besides which, if you lose too much too fast, your body will just fight to put it back on immediately. And it'll win...

post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post


sorry, disagree, beyond:

losing :1.5-2.5 lb per wk is doable esp given my workout routine (and watching my eating patterns)...Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

Oh yeah, and if you plan to lose 15 lbs in 45 days, you'll probably be too messed up crazy to ski. Or in a hospital. Shoot for a steady 1 lb per week - that's roughly 3500 calories - so only means reducing your daily intake/increasing output by 500 Kcals, which is doable. Besides which, if you lose too much too fast, your body will just fight to put it back on immediately. And it'll win...


 


Yep, didn't say it wasn't possible, said that it would leave you in a bad place physiologically. Don't have the time to cite lit (you could try a Medline search), but keep in mind that: 1) You cannot lose fat without losing muscle along with it. At best, with a serious (as in world class elite athlete) exercise program you'll keep your muscle loss to 10-15% or so of the total weight loss. Simple dieting tends to produce about 40% of loss from muscle. Studies from now  back to the 1940's demonstrate this.

 

2)  A loss of 2.5 lbs a week is 1,250 calories a day. That's beyond what they tried on volunteer students they starved at the University of Minnesota during World War 2 to see what was going on in the concentration camps. So let's factor in exercise: An hour of 4.5-5 mph jogging burns 600-700 calories. So if you eat 500 calories less per day, and add a full hour of exercise to your normal routine, every day, you'll be (max) at 1200 calories. All good. Except that you have to pull this off every single day for 6 weeks, no days off for injuries, colds, or an extra beer with buddies. And through the entire stretch, your body will be asking you for more calories than usual, not less. When you don't give it, at that level of caloric imbalance, you'll get fatigued really easily, want to sleep more than usual, become distracted, lose significant amounts of physiological work capacity, tomahawk your immune response, and spend most of your waking hours thinking about how not to eat. You could always try some Pro-Ana sites online to get advice about how to starve yourself efficiently; bulimorexics nowadays are experts at midnight runs when they can't stop wanting to eat, followed by lots of warm water. 

 

Then, there's the payoff for all this: 3) numerous studies again dating back 40 years or more show that the more rapidly you lose weight, the more rapidly you put it back on. Weight Watchers, for instance, runs about a 95% recidivism rate after 5 years. And the yo-yo effect will mess with your lipid metabolism to boot. 

 

So absolutely, I'm sure you can do it. Lots of people do. It's just not a scientifically supportable way to lose weight and keep it off. YMMV...

 

Meanwhile, why are you wanting to get those iM78's when you have Wateas? wink.gif

post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 

RE: Beyond asked: ''why are you wanting to get those iM78's when you have Wateas? "...

 

well, my friend needs a pair, so I might unload them to him (if he doesn't find anything else)

 

...otherwise, maybe best to keep them as  my 'groomer' day ski

 despite them not being really for groomers ...but then again i"m here on the west coast (vancouver) where I ski in cypress and at whistler primarily so no need for a true hardpack ski, (though it does come in handy at times and makes edging on groomers all that more appealing)....plus more toys...

post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post

...otherwise, maybe best to keep them as  my 'groomer' day ski

 despite them not being really for groomers ...but then again i"m here on the west coast (vancouver) where I ski in cypress and at whistler primarily so no need for a true hardpack ski, (though it does come in handy at times and makes edging on groomers all that more appealing)....plus more toys...


Cypress is hard as much as soft with all the temperature fluctuations! Ditto Whistler so a groomer ski is an important ski in a PNW quiver IMHO. I'm 180lb and had the 178 im78, really great ski but it was only my second year of skiing and it was probably too long in retrospect (Also saw these on CL and considered them smile.gif). Had a full season on them but sold them on, now ski on a 178 watea 94 (I love this ski) as my everyday ski and a 172 contact ltd (11) as my carving ski although the watea is fully capably of laying trenches so I rarely take the contacts out. IF you get down to 165lb ( I'm with beyond on this one though) then the watea 84 will be perfect for you both on and off piste. Saying that, if you can't contain your inner gear whore (I empathize!) and do get the im78 (171 will be the most versatile length) you won't be disappointed.

 

 

 

 

post #11 of 18

The iM78 in 165cm has a turning radius on edge like a slalom ski (13m), and you need to make sure you want a ski that turny. I have them and they and they are fun, but very turny like a slalom ski (just with a bit less precision and some more forgiveness). Here's some video of them:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Weg--k85c8 

 

post #12 of 18

Canali, from your avatar it is not possible to tell if you are a woman. I think so. In that case, do people here know that already and are they considering that in their recommendations? probably, but it never hurts to be overly clear. or maybe I'm the only one not clear on it, seems to affect ski choice somewhat.

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 

 i'm a pitcher...not a catcher!

post #14 of 18

YUP YUP ski choice affected by sex for sure!

Head Johny94 is Black

Head Sweet one is Pink or white

 

Same ski different color so yup yup Would make a big differance I hear ya.

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post

 i'm a pitcher...not a catcher!



got it, my goof. so, guy colors and stiff flex (pun intended.)

post #16 of 18

Too much over lap.  You've got that range covered. Forget the Peak 78.

 

Now for something completely different.  Get a citizen's gs race ski for the hard snow days, or just for fun.

post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 



or if i DO sell my 84 wateas then I'll only have the Mythic Riders (90mm underneath) , so wouldn't have something for more onpiste/groomers/hardpacked days..., then I might go for the head 78....or nordica nitrous 78...or volkl ac30 unlimited  w 80mm underfoot...something versatile and midstiff for a 2 ski quiver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Too much over lap.  You've got that range covered. Forget the Peak 78.

 

Now for something completely different.  Get a citizen's gs race ski for the hard snow days, or just for fun.

post #18 of 18

There is nothing as much fun as a race ski on hardpack.  If you can't have more fun on a gs race ski, then it's time for the Mythic riders.

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 › im monster m78 ....171 vs 165...need some suggestions for sizing please