2016 Head Skis

[Max_501]

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.

It's as good as, if not better than, any of the current models.

[jbotti]

Generally speaking, for PMTS, older is better. We still don't have the ideal replacement for the original SS, a ski that worked for true experts as well as advancing intermediate skiers. We still don't have the ideal replacement for the TT 80s which suited a wide range of abilities and was great off piste. Many still lament the passing of the IM 78 which for years was considered the best all mountain ski ever made (in the PMTS community). I will say that I think the Peak 84 may be a better ski but the IM 78 was great.

So Squawharber is you saw a brand new pair of TT80s or SSs or IM 78's for sale would you skip buying them because they are old?

If I could find 2-3 pairs of TT80 176's I would buy them all instantly its such a great ski.

We are not trying to sell you anything, but the Peak 84 is a great ski. Maybe the Monster 83 is comparable but no one knows because they have had so few for demo. The 88 is wonderful but different. More like the RNR (but thinner) than like the Peak 84 which is one of the great all mountain carvers ever made.

[SquawHarber]

Thanks guys! I know everyone's intentions are good, and happy to pick up a Peak84 if I can find one at a great price.
The one's referred to at [admin edit - shop name removed] are 177's, but come with a system binding. I like to shim my bindings to a very precise ramp angle, so I need a flat ski to work with. It's never easy!
Love the input, take care.

[theorist]

I was curious if the Peak 84 might be a good ski for me. I'm looking for a wider ski for variable snow that is more SL-like than GS-like. I have the 180 cm RnR, and while they're great for making GS turns through crud, and surprisingly good on groomers for their width,I find they're not as quick as I'd like when I'm in tight spaces in deep snow, say a narrow, powder-filled chute (based on a brief try, under such conditions I think I'd feel more comfortable on a 170 X-Shape STX). Is the Peak 84 noticeably quicker than the RnR? And how do their stiffnesses compare?

Part of the problem may be that I'm between sizes on the RnR; I found the 173 was definitely too short, but the 180 feels borderline long when I'm in tight spaces -- though not for wide-open GS turns. How would the 177 Peak 84 compare in length-feel to the 180 RnR? I'm 5'7", 150 lbs. [Other data: I find the 170 cm length feels perfect in the Mya 7, iSS KERS, TT80, and X-Shape STX; in the Rev 85, the 170 felt way too short; the 177 felt about right.]

[jbotti]

The Peak 84 is both stiffer and quicker than the RNR. The TR on the 177 is 16.2 (I believe) and it will arc pretty tight turns but I would not call them slalom turns.

[Max_501]

I have the 180 cm RnR, and while they're great for making GS turns through crud, and surprisingly good on groomers for their width,I find they're not as quick as I'd like when I'm in tight spaces in deep snow, say a narrow, powder-filled chute (based on a brief try, under such conditions I think I'd feel more comfortable on a 170 X-Shape STX). Is the Peak 84 noticeably quicker than the RnR? And how do their stiffnesses compare?

That sounds more like a technique issue. In deep snow at slower speeds the wider ski will be quicker because it doesn't sink as much.

While the Peak 84 is a great ski I wouldn't choose it over the RnR for deeper snow ski because its fairly stiff.

[theorist]

While the Peak 84 is a great ski I wouldn't choose it over the RnR for deeper snow ski because its fairly stiff.

Thanks Max. Under what conditions (other than,say, flat snow) would the Peak 84 have an advantage over the RnR?

That sounds more like a technique issue. In deep snow at slower speeds the wider ski will be quicker because it doesn't sink as much.

The quickest ski I ever had in deep snow was a 62 mm 160 cm soft slalom, because it flexed and turned so quickly, even though all this took place under the snow. Does this suggest/indicate improper technique? I'm thinking if it worked for me because it was short enough that I could just push the ski around and point it in whatever direction I wished the answer would be yes, but if it worked because I was able to quickly and easily bend it into an arc under the snow the answer would be no.

[Max_501]

The quickest ski I ever had in deep snow was a 62 mm 160 cm soft slalom, because it flexed and turned so quickly, even though all this took place under the snow.

Given that the goal when skiing steeps is usually making very quick short turns (for speed control) it sounds like you already found your perfect ski for steep and deep conditions!

[SquawHarber]

Hey guys,

Little update, and I'm coming to the Head/PMTS experts for one last bit of advice if you're still paying attention. I'm seriously considering just pulling the trigger on the Rev 85 in the 170 length . I demoed the 170 on groomers at Winter Park a few years back and loved them, but never got them in varied conditions or bumps (which I love btw).
It's a little on the short side, I'm 5'9 and 170 lbs, by any measure an expert skier, but I had the Monster 78 in the 171 and it was great, but I did feel "out gunned" in crud or variable conditions.
In a perfect world, I'd demo the 2 lengths back to back, but that's hard to do. I'm leaning towards the shorter ski as I just don't know what the 177 is like in terms of stiffness. Some skis I demoed in this class (Kastle MX 88 and the Salomon Enduro 850) get too stiff as the length goes up.
My thinking is this will be my quick hard snow carvy ski, and I can bump up to my other longer wider skis when conditions dictate. It will be a tradeoff, in that I'll loose off-piste stability in unstable snow, but I think I'd enjoy the quickness on the groomers and in bumps (the face of Kt-22 or Headwall for example when skied out).

So here's the question: sound like a good plan, or can anyone say with confidence that the 177 is easy to ski and NOT too stiff? It does have some tip rocker in it which usually contributes to a ski feeling shorter and quicker, yet having length when you want it (powder, crud). The ski I'm replacing, my atomic Crimson ti's in a 178, were very easy to ski all over, and carved great, which is why I picked them. Alas, they don't exist any more, not interested in the current iteration. If I could have all the positives of the longer length and no negatives, I'd think it would be the more versatile choice, but will it be as fun and quick as I remember the 170 being?
Thoughts appreciated, back to the Warriors game!

[dan.boisvert]

If you're "by any measure an expert skier", go for the 177. I'm smaller than you and not an expert skier, and a 171 would be too short for me in a ski that wide. If you want to make short turns on a carving ski, get an i.SL in a 165 or something.

[Mac]

Sounds to me like you've answered your own question. If this is going to be your quick hard snow carving ski, and you've already had the benefit of a demo and liked the 170, why would you go with anything else? If you're 5'9" you are approx. 175 cm, which puts the 170 right where you want to be in a carving ski, which by today's standards is what the Rev 85 is classified as, although fairly wide by PMTS standards. You would be able to scream on the 177, but it's going to be sluggish in bumps. And at your height and weight, the 170 is going to be plenty stable at resort legal speeds. And why would you want to make more work for yourself, especially in bumps, which you say you love? If you're looking for a powder/off piste ski, than head height is the way to go, but for what you want, I'd say error on the conservative side. I've skied the Rev 85 in a 177, but I'm 40 lbs heavier than you. But I didn't feel like I needed anything longer. And don't worry about feeling out gunned on the 171 Monster 78. I spent some time last weekend skiing on my 177 Monster 78's back to back against some of the new skis in some heavy, wet crud, and I felt pretty out gunned myself. The older Monster 78 was a pretty well regarded all mountain ski back in it's day, but compared to the new stuff that's available today, it's really no contest. But this is only my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert at anything. Take it FWIW.

[Max_501]

175 cm, which puts the 170 right where you want to be in a carving ski, which by today's standards is what the Rev 85 is classified as, although fairly wide by PMTS standards.

Let's be clear, by today's PMTS standards the Rev 85 is mainly an off piste ski, regardless of length.

...but it's going to be sluggish in bumps.

Are you suggesting the 170 will be nimble in bumps?

But I didn't feel like I needed anything longer.

Irrelevant unless the two of you are at the same skill level.

[SquawHarber]

thanks for the feedback. I think I've beat this to death, I drive myself crazy with ski choices, and the reality is there's always a compromise.
Also going through a bout of "ski withdrawalitis" so hard to stop thinking about skis and gear.
If I pull the trigger on something, I'll let you know. Enjoy the spring!

[Mac]

I agree, by PMTS standards, The Rev 85 is getting into off piste territory, I think I made note of that in a round about way. I've heard it mentioned on the forum here that anything over 80mm is getting into off piste territory, but I don't know where the exact cut off line is considered to be.
Am I suggesting the 170 is going to be nimble in bumps? I'm suggesting that it's going to be more nimble than the 177.
Irrelevant? Absolutely. As is the case with just about any opinion that you're going to get when you ask for opinions on skis. Unless you have someone that's your size and ability to rely on for feedback. And how often does that happen? And even then, sometimes it just comes down to personal preference. That's why I liked it when Harald put up a listing of his preferred skis a few years back. That kind of gave everyone a good base line starting point. I think that was a good thing. Too bad he doesn't have time to do that more often.

[krazzy legs]

Mac, do you have a link to Harolds preferred skis from a few years back. Thanks