2016 Head Skis

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby jbotti » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:31 pm

I have never skied the Venturi. Diana has told me that it is extremely user friendly which she primarily uses in pow. My guess is the monster is somewhat more stout. Probably a much better ski on hard/groomed snow and carving railed arcs.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby zuschauer » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:16 am

The Venturi has no metal and more rocker and is 95mm wide vs 88 mm wide for the Monster… great ski,… but quite different than the Monster… The Venturi is easy to bend and user friendly as Diana has mentioned, but wide and soft…. much more condition specific

….. and there is also a full line of the Monsters…. 83, 88, 98, 108 with similar make up… I personally found the 98 a little large (wide) for my tastes, the 88 as John described as a very balanced and good ski but didn't get enough time with the 83…. and it felt as if it had a little less sidecut vs. the 88 (could have been the tune) (I tried the 88 in both Co. and back east… so I feel confident i my impression of it


If I was going for a wider western soft snow ski, I would probably favor the Venturi over the Monster 98, but for an all mt ski, the new Monster88 is a good as anything I've tried recently.

There are better/narrower skis for PMTS…. we have discussed them ad infintum on this forum…..but for those of us who like this size of ski for off piste work and for travels to the west from the east or for many as a western daily driver….. check this one out! I will look at the 83 more ASAP as well.
User avatar
zuschauer
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby zuschauer » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:19 am

Oh, Max, in answer to your question…. the Monsters have both Titanal and Graphene… with the grapheme replacing some of the metal used in previous iterations and making the ski lighter and less stiff
User avatar
zuschauer
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby SquawHarber » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:24 am

Hi guys,

This new monster 88 looks like a perfect candidate to replace my Atomic Crimson Ti, which has a blown sidewall.
My question is on the flex: I had the old Monster 78, and like many skis in this range, I find there can be a big difference between the 170 to 177 lengths.
Many of the 177/178's are too stiff for me, yet I like that length for better stability in off-piste/crud skiing, which we inevitably have in Tahoe where I ski.
I also, as PMTS recommends, like to be able to bend the ski, so my preferences match up nicely with what PMTS recommends. The Crimson in a 178 had a great combination of easy flex, nice carving, and quickness. I'll miss it. It was perhaps a little light and got bounced around.
I'm 5'9 and 170 lbs. Oh, I had the monster 78 in a 171, loved it, did find the 178 a bit stiff at that time.
So, can you confirm if the 178 Monster 88 is on the "easy" side of the flex pattern? That seems to be what you've indicated, but I thought I'd ask it explicitly.
SquawHarber
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby jbotti » Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:11 pm

I would say by memory that the Monster 88 is a little less stiff than the IM 78. I say by memory because I did not ski them side by side. I still own my IM 78 177's but they have seen much better days and they have little camber left (shot). The Monster 88 had much more of the feel of the Head RNR (a softer feeling ski) although slightly stiffer, again from memory because I did not ski them side by side (actually now that I am thinking about it I dd ski them side by side (RNR and Monster 88). I am 6 3" 185 but I personally think skill level/technique has more to do with ski size generally than does height and weight (which do have bearing of course). For me, I would not go any shorter than the 177 which feels perfect to me in the Monster 88.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby SquawHarber » Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:41 pm

Thanks Jbotti. Of course getting stuck on next year's model means I'll miss the spring closeout prices on this year's crop, but it just sounds like a great melding of traits I like, stability, but some lightness and versatility. And who can resist a new space age material?
SquawHarber
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby jbotti » Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:51 pm

I have way more pairs of skis that I can use or should own. The last thing I need is a Monster 88 as I have the Peak 84 and the RNR and the 88 would be massive overlap. Having said that, this ski started calling to me in the first arc I made on them. Its a really nice ski.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby krazzy legs » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:47 am

What ski is Harold thinking of using to replace the Mya7 ? The joy line that replaces the Mya line narrowest ski is 74mm under foot :(
krazzy legs
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby jbotti » Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:10 am

Harald and Diana are both skiing the Head WC Rebels ISL (non RD) with Harald on the 170 and Diana on the 165. Diana uses the SS Speed in the 170 length as her all mountain ski. If you are looking for a thin waisted ski, these are your two best choices from Head.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby SquawHarber » Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:38 pm

jbotti wrote:I have way more pairs of skis that I can use or should own. The last thing I need is a Monster 88 as I have the Peak 84 and the RNR and the 88 would be massive overlap. Having said that, this ski started calling to me in the first arc I made on them. Its a really nice ski.


Thank you for the feedback. I am seeing some great deals on the rev 85 out there. It is very tempting to pull the trigger on one. I hesitate a bit because I had demoed the 170 on groomers at Winter Park, but didn't get a chance to try the 177, and for where I ski, I would definitely want the longer length.
Is the feeling that the new monsters are quite a bit better and I should probably wait? Always a tough call between having to demo new skis and so on, versus just having them at the beginning of the season.
If you don't mind, what is the consensus on the 85 at this point and has The 177 felt too long for some of the relatively smaller skiers like me, at 5'9" about 170 pounds?
Thank you, I realize I'm being a bit repetitive here and grasping a bit at straws, but new ski decisions are always tough. Thanks again.
SquawHarber
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby Mac » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:13 pm

The Rev 85 tends to ski a little short, IMO. My feeling is the early tip rise is a little more noticeable than in some other models. At your size, the 170 would seem like a fit, unless you are using it as a crud buster, where as the additional length of the 177 might be appreciated. I've also had a chance to ski next year's Monster 88. Not much to dislike there. Nice flex, fairly strong while still being easy to manage, and quite precise. However, you should be able to find a smoking deal on a Rev 85 right now, as it is the end of the season, and the Rev's are being fazed out. No such luck with the new Monsters. I don't think they have hit the stores yet, and when they do, you are going to pay full boat for them. Just something to think about.
Mac
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:47 pm

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby Max_501 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:38 pm

The early tip rise in the Rev series is what I call marketing rocker. Not enough to make the ski feel short in typical off piste conditions. For the size, either could be a better fit - depending on current skill level and intended use. I didn't like the Rev 85 as much as the Peak 84 but its not bad for an all mountain ski, especially when its off piste.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby SquawHarber » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:41 pm

Thanks for responses everyone.
Well, I think I need to try these, good deals or not be damned. So it's demo time next season.
I've looked over the forums and such, but any other mid-fats in the 80-90mm stand out for my specs?
SquawHarber
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby jbotti » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:46 pm

In the deal category,it would be very tough to beat the deals than can still be had on the Peak 84's. This is a better ski than any of the Revs. My guess is that the 170 length would be fine for you. There are still some new pairs around at giveaway prices.

The new monster 88 and 83 may be on par with the Peak 84. I doubt they are better.

Btw, still a lot of Peak 90s around also at giveaway prices. I have never skied it but Max has and thinks it's a very nice ski.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: 2016 Head Skis

Postby SquawHarber » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:29 pm

Thank You Jbotti.
A quick search didn't reveal any peak 84s for sale, that I could find. Quite honestly, for a ski that old it would have to be an almost unbelievable deal for me to want to go forward.
Thanks again.
SquawHarber
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests