Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 234
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,086
    Lars skied 183, so does Chuck. It might be the best comp ski ever made for firm conditions stable enough to ski super hard yet short enough to get into tight spots and bump up line score. Mount them significantly forward of line and you can turn them super fast yet they still remain super stable.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,086
    Speaking of mount points. I haven't mounted my 108 yet but I was thinking of mounting mine +2. Anyone gone forward on their mount? I've always found Heads mounting points to be a little too far back.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    "I blew the sidewall out on my DP Pro +s from the same vintage- also stiff as fuck, also bottom feeders. My uneducated unsubstantiated bs opinion on the matter is these skis were all too stiff to last all that long - break, not bend - howís that for engineering know how?"

    Did the same thing to 3 pair of Stockli and 2 m103. Problem has less to do with stiff flex and more with construction. They basically took race construction and made them wider. Stockli had ceramic sidewalls that were very fragile. As cool as race room construction sounds it's actually not very good at all when skiing through rocks. Other similar skis had the same problem. Race room construction grips hard snow great but isn't durable.

    "You still slayin those C&D's I sold you? Those were badass skis!"

    Still break them out every so often, coolest topsheet ever. When the snow is heavy they're my go to. But I ski 4frnt renegades on most pow days. Complete opposite construction of skis mentioned in this tread. I've gone 20 ft to rock on those with out even a core shot, where as I've broken stockli and old heads with minimal rock impact. For durability ON3P cannot be beat. Praxis comes close but not the same.
    That makes sense. When those skis broke, it was more sidewall explosion and fracturing than de-lam. Bases also seemed pretty soft - I revealed a lot of colors on the underside of those skis. Pretty crazy considering those Stocklis were $1400 MSRP, 10 years ago. . And I certainly wasnít trying to refute Tuco, Iím just riffin

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    Speaking of mount points. I haven't mounted my 108 yet but I was thinking of mounting mine +2. Anyone gone forward on their mount? I've always found Heads mounting points to be a little too far back.
    I mounted both my 184s and 191s on the line, and thoroughly enjoy them there.

    I got in more time on the 98s today, they are really starting to shine. Very easy to ski now that I have a week of skiing under my belt..the first two days on them I donít think I quite had my legs underneath me.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,664

    Head Monster 108

    FWIW, if I ever get some time and the right conditions I can do some back2backs between my 183 103s and 184 108s.

    1) I donít recall there being much of a difference in stiffness when I handflexed them last, but I could be mistaken.

    2) The 103s were literally built by stapling two GS cores together, so there might be some torsional rigidity issues there (thats why they had so many delam issues?).

    3) The 103s are much much much straighter.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 11-26-2017 at 08:27 AM.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,989
    Sidewalls on 1st gen 103's was a known problem, The sidewalls were too brittle. Just like sgs said, some sort of ceramic.They crack, water intrudes and its all over with. Wouldn't doubt if I have a punky core on my 193's. I noticed mine a little to late for warranty and it always kinda pissed me off.
    I'd sworn off Head skis until a deal at L9 came up on Boneshakers that I couldn't pass up. It's become my favorite ski and brought Head back into my radar.
    I didn't buy the 108 because I wanted another 103. I expect much more from these, from a versatility perspective.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    Sidewalls on 1st gen 103's was a known problem, The sidewalls were too brittle. Just like sgs said, some sort of ceramic.They crack, water intrudes and its all over with. Wouldn't doubt if I have a punky core on my 193's. I noticed mine a little to late for warranty and it always kinda pissed me off.
    I'd sworn off Head skis until a deal at L9 came up on Boneshakers that I couldn't pass up. It's become my favorite ski and brought Head back into my radar.
    I didn't buy the 108 because I wanted another 103. I expect much more from these, from a versatility perspective.
    They still arent great in powder.. Submarines.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    They still arent great in powder.. Submarines.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    luckily, I have powder skis covered 15-20 times over

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    They still arent great in powder.. Submarines.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Unless you are going 50mph
    Otherwise total submarine
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    luckily, I have powder skis covered 15-20 times over
    They do everything else soooo good!

    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Unless you are going 50mph
    Otherwise total submarine
    True.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    I got on the 191 108s today for the first time of the season. Conditions varied from 3Ē soft windblown type snow, to soft chop bumps on top of ice. Early season off-piste basically.

    They are extraordinary skis. Top 3 on my favorite list. They prefer fast, medium sized carves/slarves, but wont kill you if you slow it down and turn a little quicker. Works for soft or hard snow, just donít try and get surfy/jibby.

    Barely any harder to ski than 191 Wrens or Katanas. Monsters are easy to de-camber, so it feels like they have a little more rocker than they actually have on paper.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,086
    Got a few days on my 184 108 monsters. Mounted them +2. Great ski. Craves hard pack like a beast and is very maneuverable in tight spots. Feel is very similar to old monsters but they do carve much easier. Not a great soft snow ski, but a great firm/variable ski. And I'm sure they will destroy chop, although I think I will still prefer 194 4frnt devestator for afternoon chop.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,666

    Head Monster 108

    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    Got a few days on my 184 108 monsters. Mounted them +2. Great ski. Craves hard pack like a beast and is very maneuverable in tight spots. Feel is very similar to old monsters but they do carve much easier. Not a great soft snow ski, but a great firm/variable ski. And I'm sure they will destroy chop, although I think I will still prefer 194 4frnt devestator for afternoon chop.
    You have nice taste in skis.
    Last edited by Self Jupiter; 12-09-2017 at 04:52 PM.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    I have put 6 days on the 184 98s so far this season, and they are awesome for low tide.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    Found a deal on some 184 98s, stoked!.

    Anyone besides Avigreene mounting these on the line? Don't remember where my demo pair was mounted, but it was perfect.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,666
    Iím on the line with my 184 108s, they felt fine there. They definitely like to turn- I agree with Aever, they like medium sized turns at Mach speed but can make long turns with ease and shorter turns with a fair bit of input and/or pitch. Theyíre really not all that difficult to ski, at least for me at 200 lb on the 184. Iím gonna review them here once I get more runs on them, right now I belong in gimp central

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    The 191s arent that difficult to ski either. Itís quite surprising, the 27.6m radius, weight and flex initially made me think they would be super locked in. Get them up to 25mph, and they will basically do whatever you want, no hesitation. I have no problems ripping bumps with them, but tighter trees are not their strong suit.

    They will make tighter turns than 191 wrens if you ask them to. They donít float as well as the wrens though..


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    I have some 186 Wrens (the old ones), and they are one of the easiest turning skis I've ever owned. Significantly easier than 187 Bonafides and way easier than something like my old Elan 888s.

    The trend in skis is easier every year IMO. I wonder if the tide will turn back at some point?

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    ne pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada29er View Post
    Found a deal on some 184 98s, stoked!.

    Anyone besides Avigreene mounting these on the line? Don't remember where my demo pair was mounted, but it was perfect.
    head mentioned the line should be +1 from the line on the ski...16/17 year (the one that has a little more yellow color in the tip and tail)

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    Got the 17/18s, gonna mount on the line.

    I hope the 98s are as much fun as the 108s. It's looking like a low tide year after all.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,086
    Got some more time on my 184 108s. Previously I'd said I think I would still prefer 194 4frnt devestator for skiing fast through crud. I take it back. These babies are so easy to ski fast through crud it's ridiculous. Smooth everything out, just point and shoot. Awesome ski.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,666

    Head Monster 108

    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    Got some more time on my 184 108s. Previously I'd said I think I would still prefer 194 4frnt devestator for skiing fast through crud. I take it back. These babies are so easy to ski fast through crud it's ridiculous. Smooth everything out, just point and shoot. Awesome ski.
    Curious if youíre going to keep both skis? Which do you think skis Ďeasier?í I guess they are totally different styles.. I would think the Dev is a little more versatile, even more heavy but gives up points on the firm. I think the 184 Monster is pretty easy to turn, but super damp/ predictable, thatís what makes it so interesting.

    I currently hold both, but I havenít tried my 194 Devs yet, been having too much fun with a set of 193 Praxis MVPs I got here, hitting lots of rox. Have tons of days on 184 Dev which I sold off, which seems like a completely different ski from the 194.

    Personally, I donít plan on selling any of them right now, I seem to have convinced myself they each have their purpose.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,086
    My 194 devestators are rock skis, so definitely keeping them as they have zero resale value. 194 devestator is a totally different ski than the 184. I really like the 184 for days where I just want to ski easy, super versatile, easy yet fun to ski. Too bad I broke mine. 194 requires much more attention. As a note I mounted both devestators -2 from recommended and like both there versus +2 on monsters, which I also like. And I would agree that each has their purpose.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    My 194 devestators are rock skis, so definitely keeping them as they have zero resale value. 194 devestator is a totally different ski than the 184. I really like the 184 for days where I just want to ski easy, super versatile, easy yet fun to ski. Too bad I broke mine. 194 requires much more attention. As a note I mounted both devestators -2 from recommended and like both there versus +2 on monsters, which I also like. And I would agree that each has their purpose.
    Thanks SG. Agreed on the 184... Iíll probably end up with that ski again, great ski for a smaller guy and/or mellower ski for a bigger guy that is still fun. I had that mounted -1, 194s are -1 but unused. I have the monsters on the line, I adjust my ski style accordingly but those are the types of skis I really progressed using, so falling back to that style feels natural.

    I assume the 194 Dev is quite better in powder, as I would say the 184 dev is until you hit Mach looney, which is easier to do on the Monster, the 184 dev equires attention at those speeds.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106
    Looks like the Monster 98s and 108s are not coming back next year..


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •