Hello,
I am 160 pounds, 5'11 and my Atomic C9's, length 170 (105/64/97) float just fine in knee deep pow.?
Thinking of moving to Head Monster im72, length 170 (117/72/102) and thought this would be more than enough float for the Rockies but the ski shop sales people look at me like I am from the jurrasic era - what do you think?
Brendan
I think you may be an intelligent person who is willing to think for himself rather than listening to what the ski-shop/ski manufacturer nannies tell us to think. However, you didn't tell us what you were wanting the ski to do. Is this a one ski replacement for the C9, or a trips west ski to replace the C9? How do you ski and how do you like the C9's? Ron is right about energy and pop of the iM72, but Ron would want a higher end ski than the C9, so the iM72 may still be a great fit for you. Where are you in your skills (and where are you wanting to improve). Peter and Harald Harb and others say that mid-fats (whatever the current definition might be 75+ mm) actually make it harder (maybe much harder) to develop good carving technique. The narrower the waist on a ski, the easier it is to tip. The more sidecut a ski has, the more easily it will turn when tipped, but the more twitchy it might feel if you try to ski it flat.
In summary, the iM72 sounds like a reasonable choice given our limited knowledge of you.
PS. And, as always, given the choice between spending money on skis or boots, spend it on boots.
Jim
Home
Login
Register