Most Overlooked Skis of the 2015/2016 Season

[Josh Matta]

Fanboys don't help either! Just look at the car world. Plenty of guys out there that say if it isn't a pure M car, it isn't a real BMW. As I recall, the 2002 was no M car, it was just a fun 2x2 coupe that was a riot on back roads. Nowadays, if you aren't packing 425hp in an $80k M4, you are just a poser...someone please make a real case that the M228i track package isn't 90% as much fun for 1/2 the price. Or that the new Miata isn't more fun to drive than both of those cars, but because it is inexpensive and doesn't do 0-60 sub 4 seconds, it isn't a "real" sports car.

I suppose the ski world suffers from the same fanboy-ish silliness. Too many identities wrapped up with being seen on a certain ski, in a certain car, instead of just being on what truly makes the person happy, not worrying about what others think.

its like everyone saying that that the Toyato 86 is nt that good because its only has 205 hp engine.

If I had enough money I d be a car collected, but I do not so I collect skis.

 

[Philpug]

its like everyone saying that that the Toyato 86 is nt that good because its only has 205 hp engine.

If I had enough money I d be a car collected, but I do not so I collect skis.

Knowing what you used to Solo2..just out of curiocity what would you have in yor garage?

 

[tromano]

I demoed the monster 88 back in 2006. The biggest mistake I ever made in ski buying was getting a pair of metrons instead of that ski. The wife did get a pair tho. She is still riding them.

 

[dawgcatching]

scott what's your inventory Monsters? @dawgcatching

i still think that monster 88, in the 177 is a fantastic ski. I read the post above quoting the ski-rags testers comments which reminded me of the comments about the Kastle FX series. The monster is a great ski, fun nimble. It does benefit (imho) from moving the binding slightly forward. this makes the ski much more fun and responsive.


BTW- yes, I still love my Kastle FX85.

I have 170/177 in the Monster 88; 170/177 in the Monster 98, and 177 in the Monster 83. All at $399. I know there is someone out there who can use one of the best all-around skis on the market for under $400. It's so weird: over the weekend, I sold 3 pair of Stocklis for full retail, and as much as I love the SR88 and SR95, it is tough to justify that the SR95 is worth 3x the price. The Monster 88 is such a balanced, fun ski. As we talked about earlier, there are good skis, there are well-known good skis, and there are well-marketed skis. Anything not a race ski from Head falls into that first category.

 

[blikkem]

Hi, I know this is an older discussion but it's relevant to me at the moment. I am wondering what a good length for me is in the 2016-17 Monster 83's would be? Someone said their experience with them felt heavy, most have a great time on it but not much about poster's weight and height. I'd like to avoid the heavy experience. I ski in New England and want this for a frontside, occassional skied out trees, icy, lead mash potatoes conditions so I can stay out there while most people are giving up for the day. This will compliment my Motive 95's (thanks to all of Dawgcatching's great reviews that turned me on to it). I'm 5'8, 180-185 lbs, not super athletic, advanced intermediate (good technical) skiier. I ski the 95's in 180 length and they feel great to me, should I get the 170 or the 177 in the Monster 83's. I like that they bust crud and go fast, I'm hoping I can get the ease (forgiveness?) and fun out of it as well.

Oh and I keep ski's for a while, I like the consistency and predictability.

Thanks.

 

[Philpug]

Hi, I know this is an older discussion but it's relevant to me at the moment. I am wondering what a good length for me is in the 2016-17 Monster 83's would be? Someone said their experience with them felt heavy, most have a great time on it but not much about poster's weight and height. I'd like to avoid the heavy experience. I ski in New England and want this for a frontside, occassional skied out trees, icy, lead mash potatoes conditions so I can stay out there while most people are giving up for the day. This will compliment my Motive 95's (thanks to all of Dawgcatching's great reviews that turned me on to it). I'm 5'8, 180-185 lbs, not super athletic, advanced intermediate (good technical) skiier. I ski the 95's in 180 length and they feel great to me, should I get the 170 or the 177 in the Monster 83's. I like that they bust crud and go fast, I'm hoping I can get the ease (forgiveness?) and fun out of it as well.

Thanks.

Welcome to the site. As a complement for your 95's, I would say the the 170 but the 177 wouldn't be bad either if that ends up to be the only option. I really don't think they are unusually heavy in weight at all, but have a solid feel on snow. You can go on the lighter end with a binding and stay in the Head family with the Attack 13 binding too.

 

[Ken_R]

Hi, I know this is an older discussion but it's relevant to me at the moment. I am wondering what a good length for me is in the 2016-17 Monster 83's would be? Someone said their experience with them felt heavy, most have a great time on it but not much about poster's weight and height. I'd like to avoid the heavy experience. I ski in New England and want this for a frontside, occassional skied out trees, icy, lead mash potatoes conditions so I can stay out there while most people are giving up for the day. This will compliment my Motive 95's (thanks to all of Dawgcatching's great reviews that turned me on to it). I'm 5'8, 180-185 lbs, not super athletic, advanced intermediate (good technical) skiier. I ski the 95's in 180 length and they feel great to me, should I get the 170 or the 177 in the Monster 83's. I like that they bust crud and go fast, I'm hoping I can get the ease (forgiveness?) and fun out of it as well.

Oh and I keep ski's for a while, I like the consistency and predictability.

Thanks.

I own the Monster 88's in 184cm. I am 6-2 185 lb. You should be good with the 177's. I have not been on the 83's but heard they are great skis. Similar to the 88's (same construction) but a tad more hard snow oriented. IMHO you dont want too light of a ski for resort skiing since the snow gets chewed up quickly and you want a good solid ski to deal with the chop. The Monster series are really well built and smooth. They are not light weight skis but do not feel heavy or cumbersome when skiing. Solid skis.

 

[markojp]

177.

 

[GregK]

If you're looking for Monster 83 skis, I know Asogear.com has them for $369.99 with free shipping and they include the fantastic Tyrolia Attack 13 bindings in that price. Think they only have the 170cm or 177cm in the M83 and 177cm is the length I'd recommend for you.

 

[blikkem]

I feel very welcome!

Thanks Phil, Ken, Mark(o?). 177 for the stability, I'm trying to improve my skills in trees the past two years (taking any chance I get when we have enough snow, (I'm still playing in lower angle tree runs) you think the 177 would hinder that? Maybe I can have it all in the 177 stability and maneuverability with my short legs? Does it make a difference to your suggestions that I have short legs? I never knew if that made a difference in deciding ski length.

Gregk, I saw those from Asogear, great price! Good looking out.

I'm right in between sizes, I think the top of my head is almost equidistant between the 170's and 177's maybe that's why both will work (shrug). Just like my boots, my feet measure out to be 26.98. I've read somewhere (it's all a big blur at this point, all the reading I've done) guys 190 lb's skiing and liking 170.

Season is over in NY, can't really demo now. I've been poking around online, dreaming but at the prices right now this has become fairly serious.

I did most of my learning (from late beginner to advance intermediate) in Dynastar Legend 85's at 172. They have a tiny bit of early rise in front and similar tail as the Motives. Actually the binding on the Motive 95, 180's match up exactly to the Legends at 172 (both mounted on the line) when standing next to each other because of the difference in the tips.

 

[Ken_R]

I feel very welcome!

Thanks Phil, Ken, Mark(o?). 177 for the stability, I'm trying to improve my skills in trees the past two years (taking any chance I get when we have enough snow, (I'm still playing in lower angle tree runs) you think the 177 would hinder that? Maybe I can have it all in the 177 stability and maneuverability with my short legs? Does it make a difference to your suggestions that I have short legs? I never knew if that made a difference in deciding ski length.

IMHO the short legs might be a bit of a hindrance in tipping over really wide skis at high edge angles. At your weight float (when looking into powder skis) and stability / strength are considerations. So I would no question go with the 177 in an all mountain ski. If it were a piste (race) ski then it would be a whole nother discussion.

 

[blikkem]

IMHO the short legs might be a bit of a hindrance in tipping over really wide skis at high edge angles. At your weight float (when looking into powder skis) and stability / strength are considerations. So I would no question go with the 177 in an all mountain ski. If it were a piste (race) ski then it would be a whole nother discussion.

Hey Ken,
Hm, makes sense. So powder ski's on the narrower side might be easier for me. Or I'll develop some unorthodox way for skiing powder at a high angle like the side arm baseball pitchers. I'll keep that in mind for when the time comes, I'm not much of a powder skier at the moment.
Have you had your 88's out in anything icy or heavy oatmeal? What conditions do you use your Monsters in normally?

Normally I would say 177 too, but even one as strong and stiff as these skis? I go back and forth because I have it stuck in my head the word stiff associated with these ski's and subconsciously want 170's just to be safe (shut up, voices in my head, shut up!!!). If I manage to stay playful in the 177s and not let it manage me, I'd be very happy. Maybe I'm underestimating how much I weigh. Phil seems to lean slightly towards 170, Dawgcatching.com says, "Ski it around or under head height." Logic and majority says 177. Maybe a better question is if they ski short or long, with it's longer effective edge. This is the problem not being able to demo them. Sigh.

 

[Ken_R]

Hey Ken,
Hm, makes sense. So powder ski's on the narrower side might be easier for me. Or I'll develop some unorthodox way for skiing powder at a high angle like the side arm baseball pitchers. I'll keep that in mind for when the time comes, I'm not much of a powder skier at the moment.
Have you had your 88's out in anything icy or heavy oatmeal? What conditions do you use your Monsters in normally?

Normally I would say 177 too, but even one as strong and stiff as these skis? I go back and forth because I have it stuck in my head the word stiff associated with these ski's and subconsciously want 170's just to be safe (shut up, voices in my head, shut up!!!). If I manage to stay playful in the 177s and not let it manage me, I'd be very happy. Maybe I'm underestimating how much I weigh. Phil seems to lean slightly towards 170, Dawgcatching.com says, "Ski it around or under head height." Logic and majority says 177. Maybe a better question is if they ski short or long, with it's longer effective edge. This is the problem not being able to demo them. Sigh.

No, in soft snow it is different since the surface is much softer and easier on you and easier to penetrate obviously. For powder you want width and length according to your weight and abilities and of course preference (you want to be more on top of the snow or more in the snow) and the conditions / terrain. I generally have preferred skis with less sidecut for powder, mine are 27m radius!

I got the Monsters for Resort Skiing in Colorado between storms. I ski all over the mountain mostly advanced and expert terrain but enjoy blue groomers and bumps. So I will use the Monsters whenever it has not snowed for 2 days. Typically it is chopped up and skied out groomers and shallow chopped up powder over a firm base or even firm bumps under. I have not gotten the Monsters in any deep snow (4"+) at all. If the report says 2-3" fresh or more I grab my Moments since they just crush everything and are super fun with any soft snow. The cool thing about the Monsters is how they smooth out the conditions so they are super comfortable to ski all day for me.

 

[markojp]

They'll ski absolutely fine in new snow. Beyond 8-10", wider skis just give different (and very fun!) tactical options.

 

[blikkem]

Yes, from what I've read and understand all the big pow ski's have very long radius's and people skiing 180's minimum it seems. No carving, all float. I think of deep powder like water, staying on top is important to having a great time.

Monsters 83, is that why some like the 170's (similar weight) over the 177's because of the much firmer east coast conditions compared to the Colorado lack of snow days (sounds like a good day in the east)? My trips to Whistler amd Utah made me realize how much softer conditions are on average then back home in the east.

This is the post I read that keeps me guessing whenever I want to settle on the 177's, along with Phil and Dawg's website suggestions; "I have a pair of 15/16 Monster 88's in 170cm and I weigh 170lbs. I had them mounted 1cm forward because that is the way I like all of my carving skis except my SL skis. I love these skis on firm and corn snow, which is what I got them for. I had a tough time deciding which size to get and had decided to get the 177cm size but a couple of guys that weighs 190lbs said they prefer that ski in 170cm. They convinced me to get 170's. After I bought them but before I tried them I realized that the turn radius of the 170's is 16M (vs 17.4m for the 177cm) and that made me nervous but once I skied them I was glad I got 170's and that I mounted them 1cm forward. I like the option to carve fall line on black groomers and these skis are great for that and any turn radius that I like to make."
Mounting it forward makes them ski even shorter, right? Sorry I keep dragging everyone in my back and forth analysis paralysis. I will purchase soon I promises!

 

[Started at 53]

Convince me

I am a beginner, 6 days total, but expect to ski 18-20 next year (already have 10 days booked for December) and I am figuring that with those numbers it is better to buy skis then rent. I am 6'3" and 190 lbs. Currently ONLY a Green run skier but hope to comfortably venture onto the Blue runs by the end of this coming season.

My thinking is skiing is expensive enough, so why not save money on buying skis.

I am looking at the Atomic Nomad Smoke Ti @171 with XTO 12 bindings. I think these should suit me for a couple of years and at under $300 it is a good deal. The bindings as not installed, so IF I bought these skis, are these bindings ok, or should I opt for a better binding option? When transitioning from one ski to another (selling/buying) do you keep the bindings?

Thoughts on this idea? Should I pull the trigger?

 

[Ken_R]

Convince me

I am a beginner, 6 days total, but expect to ski 18-20 next year (already have 10 days booked for December) and I am figuring that with those numbers it is better to buy skis then rent. I am 6'3" and 190 lbs. Currently ONLY a Green run skier but hope to comfortably venture onto the Blue runs by the end of this coming season.

My thinking is skiing is expensive enough, so why not save money on buying skis.

I am looking at the Atomic Nomad Smoke Ti @171 with XTO 12 bindings. I think these should suit me for a couple of years and at under $300 it is a good deal. The bindings as not installed, so IF I bought these skis, are these bindings ok, or should I opt for a better binding option? When transitioning from one ski to another (selling/buying) do you keep the bindings?

Thoughts on this idea? Should I pull the trigger?

Buy boots not skis. Go to a boot fitter he/she will point you in the right direction so you buy what is right for you.

 

[Started at 53]

Buy boots not skis. Go to a boot fitter he/she will point you in the right direction so you buy what is right for you.

Ken
I have already made plans to buy a boot from a top fitter in Park City on my trip in December. Way ahead on that one

 

[blikkem]

Convince me

I am a beginner, 6 days total, but expect to ski 18-20 next year (already have 10 days booked for December) and I am figuring that with those numbers it is better to buy skis then rent. I am 6'3" and 190 lbs. Currently ONLY a Green run skier but hope to comfortably venture onto the Blue runs by the end of this coming season.

My thinking is skiing is expensive enough, so why not save money on buying skis.

I am looking at the Atomic Nomad Smoke Ti @171 with XTO 12 bindings. I think these should suit me for a couple of years and at under $300 it is a good deal. The bindings as not installed, so IF I bought these skis, are these bindings ok, or should I opt for a better binding option? When transitioning from one ski to another (selling/buying) do you keep the bindings?

Thoughts on this idea? Should I pull the trigger?

Hey Jay,
I agree with Ken.
For me, I never spent much on ski's until I started doing blue trails comfortably. I don't know if everyone should do this but I went through 2 different ski's I got cheap from craigslist on the shorter side. The most important thing to me was that their base was in good condition. I didn't know what type of skiier I would become. I didn't think I was good enough to tell the difference between a ski that was good or bad for me. Until I could figure it out I just worked on basic technique on anything forgiving and short. I feel I learned faster that way rather then dealing with equipment beyond my skill level at the same time.

 

[Ken_R]

Ken
I have already made plans to buy a boot from a top fitter in Park City on my trip in December. Way ahead on that one

I did not buy skis until recently and have been skiing for a bunch of years. It took me a while to find out what characteristics I liked in a ski. I demoed a bunch and just concentrated on getting better every day. If you are starting out then you want a ski you can comfortable learn in.

The best bet is to talk to a retailer like @SkiEssentials and @dawgcatching and buy a used pair from them to get started if you must have some boards right away.

It is nice to have your own skis no question. They will be in much better shape than what you rent and imho offer better and more consistent performance on the hill.