Head IM88

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Head IM88

Postby Max » Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:46 pm

For PMTS style skiing do we want a plate for a wide ski like the IM88? If so, what are you guys putting on your wide boards?
Max
 

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:53 am

I am intrigues by this particular ski as well. It is said to be a "bomb" of a ski, but then I cannot find anyone to answer specific questions about it. Realskiers.com says it is the ski of the year. According to Skiing it is a ski that requires all power and no finesse. What length? Big Mountain skis usually are chosen long, but should one choose this one short to ski better the groomed runs? I wish Harald or anybody who have really skied this particular model could share some comments and/or suggestions.
Guest
 

Best wide ski yet

Postby Harald » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:15 pm

Although shaped skis have made skiing easier for many skiers, there are still improvements to current products every season. The iM 88 Head Monster is such a ski; it is great and versatile. I never skied a ski with 88mm or wider width under foot that carves on ice.

It will get tiring after a half day on ice or in crowed conditions that we find here in Colorado early in the season. The iM88 holds well on hard snow and if you are skiing the upper mountain and want to get to the bottom (on the crowed icy slopes) you won?t be scared or embarrassed. It is still 88mm underfoot and there is no getting around that fact. You will never get it up to the angles of a narrower foot print ski, unless you are in soft snow or at very high speed. I ski it in 174cm with a MOJO binding, it comes with a lift.

The new Super Shape is the great compliment to that ski for crowded groomers or ice and hard bumps. The Super Shape is no old school slalom ski in powder either; it will float, and cut great turns in snow up to a foot deep or more, just in case it?s the only pair you brought on a powder day. .
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Max » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:16 am

How does the SuperShape compare to the iSL Chip (I've got a 160cm 04/05 model).

Harald, thanks for taking the time to answer our continuous stream of questions!
Max
 

There has never been a ski like this!

Postby Harald » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:29 pm

I like the iSL Chip, it was my ski the last two seasons, we sell it and I think it fills an important nitch for the transition skier. It also lasts forever. It is an excellent ski for the skier who can hold on ice, wants to ski bumps, but may not want a race design product to man handle every day. It is very forgiving, yet it holds up under tough conditions.

I am a Super Supporter of the Super Shape. It is a race ski with an all mountain carving side cut.

I don?t know how Head does it, but they come up with the darndest skis, skis that none of the other companies have. I ski the Super Shape in everything. I skied it in forty centimeters of powder last May in Hintertux, Austria, I skied icy bumps in Fernie, BC and Loveland (with SCSA), and I skied slalom at Mt Hood on hard ice.

Did the ski ever let me down, No? Did I ever think to myself, man I could use my World Cup SL, RD skis right now, No!

I love that ski. I will be skiing it all season unless I go to Wiegele?s Heli Ski or we get a real Rocky Mt. Dump. That?s when the iM**88s** comes out.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Max » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:44 pm

Harald, I'm guessing you ski the SuperShape in a 170cm?

I'd probably ski it in a 160cm, sounds like a great ski, I'll have to see if I can find a demo for it this season.
Max
 

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:08 am

Harald, this is Maurizio. You know my skiing and my size. What ski lenght would you get for an i.M 88 and/or for a Supershape? I always wanted a "big boy" like the i.M88, but when it was i.M85 it was always described as a true expert skier ski. I believe that an i.M 88 for me would be likely 186cm.. That's a long ski to have, but 175cm seems to negate the purpose this ski was built for. My i.M75 is 177cm after all. Thx. Need to get in shape for Big Sky Camp. If I cannot be the best skier, at least I will have the biggest skis :lol:

How is the i.M88 in bumps? Really make one sorry to even try?

What do you think about the new i.M 72 RF2 ?

Thx.
Guest
 

so many skis so little time

Postby Harald » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:06 am

Hello Maurizio, I ski the iM88 in 174cm, it is a big ski. The only place I would ski the 184cm would be on a Big Mountain at high speed. I don?t think the 184cm would be very good in the bumps. I have skied in bumps with 174cm. As long as the bumps are soft, the ski is still good.

I suggest in the Super Shape the size 165cm for you.

I like the iM172 very much, we always loved the iC160, the iM72 is a super charged iC160. This is a very strong ski, it has attitude, grip, aggressive edging ability, Peter rates it as the best intermediate width all mountain ski. I agree.

We sell it all the way down to 156cm. We also have demos for all these skis; if you are in the area we?d be glad to set you up.


We also have the less aggressive alternative to the iM72, the 800. This ski does many things well and it holds very well on ice. It is a very forgiving bump ski. It is a great ski for someone who doesn?t want to perfect every turn, you can get away with a fault pas here and there without having to pull off a Bode recovery.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Max_501 » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:42 am

I'm 40, 165lbs, 5'11''. I'm not sure how to rate my skiing...I ski the whole moutain and Jay says I'd do well in one of the all mountain camps.

Wondering if I should go for the 164 or 175 IM88?
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

iM 72

Postby onyxjl » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:46 pm

Harald,

Given that you like the iM 72 so much, where does the iM 77 Chip fit into the Head ski lineup to you? To me it seems like the iM 72 would be the choice for all but the deepest days, where you go to a much fatter ski like the iM 88.

I'm having trouble seeing the occasion when a skier would want to pick the 77 over the 88. Maybe if you really needed one ski to do as much as possible, but for a skier willing to purchase both or simply demo on the really deep days, it seems like the 72 is a better fit.

So far I am really excited about demoing both the 72 and 88, and given that I live in the midwest, for the 10-12 days a year I get out west I need to be reasonably lucky to encounter the really deep stuff. If the 72 can hack it in the boot top chop then it sounds like the ski for me.
onyxjl
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:06 am

Postby Max_501 » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:09 pm

The IM77 is a great one quiver ski. As you pointed out if you want more than one ski then you might skip it (although, maybe not). I demo'd it and found it to be a terrific ride both on and off the groomed (I skied it in some heavy crud and found it to be rock solid), but I didn't buy it. I went for the Atomic Metron B5 instead because I prefer the tighter SL radius of the B5. I have a few pairs of skis and I almost always grab the B5 because it does everything so well. The IM77 is much like the B5 in that regard.

I'm thinking of adding the IM88 because I want more float on deep days. I just have to figure out if I need the 164 or the 175.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Postby hozel » Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:45 am

I'll echo Max's sentiments on the IM 77's. I took these to Portillo last month with the Ski Doc and found them extremely versatile in the mixed conditions we found. I'm sure that the IM 72's would be superior for any bump skiing you might be interested in doing, but I found the 77's worked fine in the shallower powder and crud. These will probably be my choice for days when the conditions are uncertain.
hozel
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:48 pm

Postby dewdman42 » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:18 pm

Excellent info. After trying out the iM77, I am leaning towards the idea of a two ski quiver. Something fat and something less fat than the iM77. Maybe the 72 or the supercarver..gotta try them. Just wondering what HH and others would suggest for my thin-snow skiis..all western skiing.. the 72 or the SuperCarve and why. Guess I'll have to try em both out. I tend to prefer a bit longer turn radius ski...I can always get them to turn more. but if the turn radius is too small i find it difficult to make the longer smooth turns. I am used to Xscreams that have 20m turn radius. but they are super soft and easy to turn more if I want.

thoughts?
dewdman42
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Postby jbotti » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:59 am

I have found the opposite to be true for me. I find that on my I.SL chips, if I want to make GS turns it is not an issue, but on 20 meter turn radius skis, it is a ton of work to make carved short radius turns. I also find that those longer turn radius skis encourage one to ski a particular way (wider turns and busting through things rather than turning around them).

I think the perfect two ski quiver is a powder ski paired with a ski with a turn radius below 15. Personally I love slalom skis, and there are no better skis to work on high C, high G carving than slalom skis.
If you want a more versatile ski, the RX 8's appear to fit into that category, and they still are reasonably thin in the waist (66mm) but the turn radius in a 170cm ski is still only 14 meters or so.

For slalom radius skis, obviously Head makes two great skis, the I.SL chips and the Super Shapes. Plenty has been said about both so I won't make redundant commentary.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Postby dewdman42 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:03 pm

jbotti, how do you rate the iM72 compared to those two skis?
dewdman42
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Next

Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests