Mr.?? radcliff (I'm not very used to such titles)
Ron, I agree with you, even though I have never skied the iM82.? I can't remember whether you demoed the iM77 or not.? The iM77 (at least the chip version) is very damp and I that's what I hear when Dawg talks about it as a little like a bull-dozer.? I can understand how a more lively ski (iM82) might feel quicker when the waist widths of the two are that close together (but I still remember the first time I skied the iM77 how surprised I was at how lively and quick they felt, especially compared to some 70mm waist K2 Axis X's I had been skiing).
To copy some of Dawg's review, "A bit less stable than the 172 iM82 (exactly what you would expect) but still isn't going to be outskied, even by aggressive experts. Heavier feel underfoot,
similar quickness."? My bolding, but Scott certainly isn't claiming the 77 is a lot quicker (or any quicker) than the 82.? The other attraction to me was that "You can relax on the iM77 much more and be lazy if you prefer".? What you say about the 82 is consistent with the SuperShape and Head's laminate construction high-end skis.? They can be skied slow, but they can't be skied lazy.
But the real purpose behind the post is because it is all from one person that describes himself pretty well and does a good job of describing each ski from his point of view.? What Hoontasan needs to consider is which of those target skiers best describes him and how/where he wants to ski.
Home
Login
Register