Head Monster 108

**Self Jupiter** · 04-30-2018, 10:34 AM

Fuck you guys’s making me want to try this ski

**Banh Mi** · 04-30-2018, 11:23 AM

I dont think HEAD makes any beefy wide skis any more..

What is this world coming to?

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**tuco** · 04-30-2018, 11:32 AM

That's why I had to whoard proper. 4 pairs as of now.

**Self Jupiter** · 04-30-2018, 12:11 PM

Don’t you guys know? 106 is the new 125.

**mr_pretzel** · 04-30-2018, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Self Jupiter

There’s a set of 184 108s on GS, get some!

He’s keeping them

**tuco** · 04-30-2018, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Self Jupiter

Don’t you guys know? 106 is the new 125.

Yeah........no

**mr_pretzel** · 05-04-2018, 05:46 PM

Tried some 184 108s today, again a really fun ski from head.

I agree that it might have a one dimensional turn turn shape, but it’s the perfect shape for going really fast and plowing through anything.
The conditions today were super bumpy slush, but they just plow through everything. Definitely a ski on the ground type of ski, dont be light on your feet, stay the course.

Played a bit with the mount, and as dumb as it seems I really liked +0.5. It felt very balanced, +1 felt good too, but made the ski much easier. The line also felt very good.

Such a bummer that head discontinued the monster line. They rip and feel so different than most of what is out there right now.

I still really want to get on the old m103/supermojo/richie in the 183/193

Click image for larger version.

Name: EAA81100-2931-44DB-88A8-63F7C1234152.jpg
Views: 115
Size: 442.1 KB
ID: 234787

**Island Bay** · 08-05-2018, 11:26 PM

I’ve been so stupidly happy the last 5 days on my Monster 98s and Dynastar Pro Riders, that I’m now daydreaming of finding a pair of 184 108s.
Are there still some banging about new or 2nd hand?

**altacoup** · 08-06-2018, 07:18 AM

I have a pair of used 184 108, very good shape. 2 mounts; 1 for peak 18 +2 of line 305 bsl and second mount on line tyrolia touring binding unsure bsl. Should be room to mount. Pm me if interested.

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

**Island Bay** · 08-06-2018, 10:50 PM

Will do, mate!

**Bandit Man** · 09-12-2018, 09:40 AM

Any comparisons of the Monster 108 to the newer Cochise? These are showing up cheap (and new) all over so trying to manage the temptation to buying more skis. Specifically looking at the 184 108. Thanks!

**Self Jupiter** · 09-12-2018, 09:55 AM

I’ve only tried the Cochise I sold you, first gen 185 and the 184 Monster 108 which I also sold.

I felt they were more similar than different- the Cochise was more ski than I expected it to be. Cochise more slarvy, Monster is a fat race ski that is really easy to de-camber and thus is a little friendlier than the burly chargers of old. Monsters are crazy heavy, more stable and carve better. Stiff as fuck. The Cochise took a little while for me to figure out how to get them to return energy out of turns but I figured it out and liked it.

I ended up selling both because personally i prefer more playful shapes in longer lengths and stiffer/damper layups to those types of skis for the conditions I break out a 108-112 ski. I have some narrower more traditional skis I kept instead, for when I feel like really driving the shovels / carving.

**Bandit Man** · 09-13-2018, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Self Jupiter

I’ve only tried the Cochise I sold you, first gen 185 and the 184 Monster 108 which I also sold.

I felt they were more similar than different- the Cochise was more ski than I expected it to be. Cochise more slarvy, Monster is a fat race ski that is really easy to de-camber and thus is a little friendlier than the burly chargers of old. Monsters are crazy heavy, more stable and carve better. Stiff as fuck. The Cochise took a little while for me to figure out how to get them to return energy out of turns but I figured it out and liked it.

I ended up selling both because personally i prefer more playful shapes in longer lengths and stiffer/damper layups to those types of skis for the conditions I break out a 108-112 ski. I have some narrower more traditional skis I kept instead, for when I feel like really driving the shovels / carving.

I appreciate the response. I love the looseness of the OG Cochise most of the time. They are a little "numb" on groomers and firmer snow, but hold an edge well and are stable enough for me. I also have narrower skis for firmer/groomer days, so in all honestly, I am probably already set. I am still and trying to find something that has the blend of some of the looseness of the OG Cochise with a tad better firm snow handling. Sounds like the M108 might give up too much of the looseness and have a lot more of the firm snow/race ski traits?

**Banh Mi** · 09-13-2018, 10:24 AM

M108 is easier to ski than it looks, but definitely not “loose”.

OG cochise was much looser, much easier to ski, but still really stable.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Banh Mi** · 10-02-2018, 10:03 PM

I love these skis

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**east bear fr** · 10-03-2018, 02:36 AM

Me too! Sooo much!!!

**tuco** · 10-03-2018, 05:04 AM

Last time I was in one of my local shops, they still had a set of 184's @ $299.

**Banh Mi** · 10-03-2018, 09:02 AM

Attachment 249403

Attachment 249404

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**muted** · 10-03-2018, 09:26 AM

I was on the 191 m103s for many seasons, I loved them but I certainly don't miss them with the advances in ski tech where you can a super-stable but much more playful ski. And that weighs pounds less. You guys pining for them I think are a bit romantic more than realistic. They had their place back in the day for sure though. Most of the Head pros back in the day would ski the 183s (or whatever they were, 181?) day-to-day and would bring out the 191 for filming or big days only, they were a bit much.

I haven't been Heads for 10 years maybe, but if people say the 108 is an easier modern day version of the m103s, I'm intrigued.

**Banh Mi** · 10-03-2018, 09:45 AM

The Monster 108s are easy to ski because of the weight distribution within the ski. They put a lot of the mass in the center of the ski, and the graphene in the tips and tails to reduce swing weight. They did a great job designing these skis. Heavy AF to bust through anything and instill confidence, but the swingweight wont kill you after a half day.

The turn initiation from that big fat tip is simple too. Just lean it over a little and it carves for you. That, and the camber on them is super easy to depress, making them more forgiving then they seem.

They are a little one dimensional, but I love them.

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

**east bear fr** · 10-03-2018, 09:46 AM

Really really easier, yes. Softer, way shorter radius (27m vs 43m !!!), a lot more forgiving.
But still damp and stable. Very predictable and confidence inspiring.

**Banh Mi** · 10-03-2018, 09:51 AM

Honestly the 27.6m radius seems a bit high even. They can make long turns no problem, but they prefer medium turns when not charging super hard. I like sidecut on a ski like this, they are so easy to carve.

Thats the sweet thing with these skis. You dont have to go mach looney to turn or smear these things.

My pairs are the stiffest skis I own by far. I cant even imagine how planky the M103s were. I dont know if I’d want a longer radius on a ski like this tho. Thats why I skipped the Dynastar Pro Riders.

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

**Banh Mi** · 10-03-2018, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by tuco

Last time I was in one of my local shops, they still had a set of 184's @ $299.

I much prefer the 191 over the 184 at 190-220lbs. 184 seems like for 180lbs. 177 probably best for charging 160lbers. I guess you can go short on these skis, but I skied the 184 98 quite a bit and the length felt a little off for me.

Some of the reviews make them out to be “unskiable” but I find them very easy to ski and very easy to stay on top of. You definitely have to stay on top of them, but then they obey all your commands and dont feel all that locked in. The large sweet spot makes it easy. I got along with them within seconds, no adjustment time. Click.Click.Boom

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

**El Chupacabra** · 10-03-2018, 10:12 AM

The old m103 had a very long running length for its size. Low tip and flat tail, and they weighed a ridiculous amount. I had the 183s briefly, and they were less useful than pretty much any other large/stiff ski of the era. They didn't float. Basically they seemed like Head took the construction (and resulting weight) of a GS ski and made it wide.

Old Legend Pro was a much more useful ski but could still charge. Explosiv could do anything and was snappy and responsive. Really old Pow Plus or Axiom floated better, and went through crud pretty well. Even the original Squad was more versatile.

**Banh Mi** · 10-03-2018, 10:18 AM

Maybe a big reason for me liking these new ones so much, is because I missed out on all the 1999-2010 skis. This is the closest I can get to that traditional-style ski, and while I’m young I can still enjoy a ski like this.

They do feel somewhat modern though. They are easier for me to turn than 191 Wrens were, about the same turn initiation force needed as a Bibby Pro. Pretty simple at medium speeds and up.

They are pretty much full camber. Maybe 10% rocker, but that seems to makes a big difference on how easy going they are. The 2018 Monsters added even a little more rocker.

I dont really like the 2018 versions tho at first glance. I have had the oppertunity to buy 2018 191s, but Head seemingly changed the construction, and they dont feel as durable in hand for some reason. Haven’t actually skied them tho, so who knows.

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums