realskiers

Skis and Gear Discussion => Member Ski Reviews => Reviews older than Past 2 Season => Topic started by: Ron on April 17, 2006, 08:56:40 am


Title: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on April 17, 2006, 08:56:40 am
I am reposting this from memory.

SKI: IM72 w/LD12's set +15  170's
Skier, level 8/9?
AGE:42
Weight: 175
height 6

Conditions: East coast, mixed.? Loose granular, snow cone to hardpack to fresh blown. Some pockets of 6-8" snow cone.

GENERAL COMMENTS: the 72 is a very versatile performer that will permit a wide range of abilities to ski on it. The 72 performs best with modern edge-to-edge skiing but will skid. This is a great ski for anything but real icy hardpack or deep powder. I would say that it's best for intermediates or advanced skiers serious about technique. It's a great ski to hone technique on. It's also a lot of fun so misconstrue my meaning, its not only a great learning tool, it's a very versatile, easy to ski near one quiver ski. It skis much thinner than it is and is light and quick.

Hardpack: The 72 is at home on moderate hardpack. It's not a SuperShape or a RACE ski. It can handle boilerplate but gets tentative on real ice. Here's where the ski is just too soft and doesn't really bite well.

Loose or groomed: The 72 loves it! performs very well. The 72 comes alive when the snow starts to get a bit softer. It is really a easy carver and is easy to control the edging. Short turns were a pleasure and it was particularly responsive to simply letting the ski roll edge2edge and hooking up. A good aggressive stance worked best.

Piled up loose crap: The 72 handled this just fine.? A bit soft to me but it handled the piles with ease. Stable and fun, easy to navigate.? One added bonus was that since it was so nimble, it was easy to make some short turns between the bumps.

Moguls, I can't ski them!

Summary- if you are going to ski on groomed to some loose and crud, and you are not a true expert the 72 is a real candidate. Fun, easy and forgiving. Quick, lite and a great carver. If you are hesitant about wide skis but want a bit more float and stability you would be hard-pressed to find a better ski.

Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Barrettscv on April 17, 2006, 10:43:58 am
Nice review Ron! Yeah, I dont ski moguls either unless they are less than a foot high or as soft as clouds.

Cheers,

Michael
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on April 17, 2006, 11:05:26 am
Thanks, if they are soft and spread out I'm OK but I am savng my knees!  Now Gary is another story.....
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: wlennox on April 23, 2006, 08:54:38 pm
I love these skis!? I have never felt more in control of my skis in any/all conditions.? For the first time, I've experienced the wow factor of shaped skis.?

I was very disappointed with my first pair of shaped skis (Atomic 9.18 beta carv) that I purchased a few years ago (without doing enough research).

So, this time, I spent some time with the realskiers website.? I narrowed down my choices to this ski, the Vokl Unlimited AC3, and a few other all mountain skis.? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to demo any of them before my annual trip to Utah; so, I had to base my decision solely on the reviews posted (and, of course, price).?

From what I could find in New Jersey, the Elan Magfire 10 was closest in price (and the Vokl was $200 more), but I purchased the 72s based on the review.?

Over the 3 days I was in Utah, we had a very diverse set of conditions: packed powder, icy hardpack, loose granular, and 8" of powder.? ?These skis handled it all flawlessly.? My favorite place to ski is in the trees, and I was very impressed with the way these skis responded.?

Next year I'll be back when I look for new boots.? Thanks for all the help!

Bill
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: stwildcat on May 03, 2006, 02:42:23 pm
What is your impression on the railflex binding system in conjunction with the iM72's? Do they work well together? I heard a rumor about them being flimsy, is this true?
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on May 04, 2006, 07:23:40 am
Flimsy? no. The ski is not a race ski it's not overly stiff so if someone was expecting a ride like a SS or a 1200, that's not what the ski is designed for.
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: stwildcat on May 04, 2006, 08:02:01 am
My bad...I should have been a little clearer in my concern. When I said flimsy I meant in ref to the bindings not the ski. I guess the better question would have been, how is the build quality of the railflex binding system? Are they sturdy or is a 200 pounder going to be a problem with them?
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on May 04, 2006, 12:47:39 pm
well if you are overly concerned, then get the HD14's.  That is a rock solid, sturdy binding. Most of us use the LD12's which I have never had a problem with.  what do you have your DIN set at?
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: stwildcat on May 04, 2006, 03:24:08 pm
I haven't gotten the skis tuned yet and I won't be able to ride them until august when I go to Chile. I've never been to Chile so I'm not sure if this is even the ski to take for that and may need to get a second ski for the deeper stuff that I am assuming I run into more down in Chile. What would be a good din setting for a guy that is 200lbs even and is a high 7?
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: stekan on May 05, 2006, 01:57:11 am
I'm 6'7", 200lbs on 177cm i.M72. Great ski.

DIN 8 is good for me for more than 20 years.
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on May 05, 2006, 10:01:56 am
wildcat, you need to discuss with the technician. Typically, a level 7 would be around 7-8 but that depends on the type of skier you are and what you will be skiing.
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: stwildcat on May 05, 2006, 10:59:03 am
Has anyone skied the iM72's in moguls? How do they behave? Quick and snappy? or Smooth and silky? How do they compare to the Dynastar Legend 8000's? Can I put a pair of railflex bindings on the 8000's? Is that even a good idea? It sounds like it would be from what I am hearing on this thread.

How does the height of the binding affect things? Do you have a trade off in performance with the railflex compared to a flat?
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: lannq on December 05, 2006, 04:57:07 pm
Hi, I'm Gary from Florida. Regarding din settings. My concern is that my din setting at 6 is to low for me. I'm 6,2 170lbs. I'm 50 ,and ski a hard fast modern diagnal technique. So I just go the i 72's , 170cm ,and I;m afraid the bindings will realease just because I'm skiing at 45mph on some rough surface. I'd freak out if a ski came off. Just sit down on my side guess??  So, anyway can I tighten my din settings on these rail..-II?  new,2005's.     I ski Summit county.  Thanks ; Gary     P.S. Looking for a place to stay for a month in Feb.-March. 
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: jim-ratliff on December 05, 2006, 08:14:40 pm

lannq:

I'm 5'11" and 200 lbs and ski with a DIN of 6-6.5 and haven't had a binding pre-release in several years.  I think newer "systems" are a lot better than older bindings flat-mounted.  For example, that last prelease was skiing pretty fast over frozen cat tracks and the ski just started vibrating enough that the boot came out on one of the reverse camber vibrations.  In fact, I'm not sure that the binding even released, but because the distance between toe and heel changed as the ski flexed and counter flexed, it just allowed the boot to come out.

There is plenty of research described on the Vermont Skier Safety web site that says that increasing DIN setting has little to do with what is commonly called a pre-release.  There is always anecdotal advice of opposing views.  Also a LOT of good information about how to fall so that you don't tear ACL's (this was taught to all Ski Patrol members 6-7 years ago).  There are also plenty of web posts about people being able to twist out of bindings with much higher DIN settings (12-14) while just standing still.  I don't see much difference between 6 and 8 if you decide to bump it up (but I'm not an expert and that's a personal opinion and you won't be able to get any money out of me even if you win your lawsuit   ;D ). 

Technique may have a lot to do with it as well.  I don't know what "modern diagonal technique" is, but if you are balanced and riding the skis and not having to horse them around like in the old days, then not only is the load on the knees a lot less but the twisting load on the binding is a lot less as well.

What I decided to do was live with the DIN of 6 recommended by the charts until I had a problem, then I was going to use the Vermont skier safety site to analyze why it released (to see if increasing the DIN would help).  I haven't needed to do that.

Note, however, that a lot of the above is assuming that your iM72's came with the Railflex system, because that system is one that maintains a constant distance (and therefore pressure) between the heel and toe no matter how flexed or reverse flexed the ski is.  Like I said, a lot of the old "pre-releases" were actually because the ski reverse flexed (due to vibration or rebound) and the distance between the toe and the heel increased enough that the boot was no longer clamped in.  Binding may have still been locked down, but the boot wasn't there anymore.
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: jim-ratliff on December 05, 2006, 08:16:21 pm
Hi, I'm Gary from Florida. Regarding din settings. My concern is that my din setting at 6 is to low for me. I'm 6,2 170lbs. I'm 50 ,and ski a hard fast modern diagnal technique. So I just go the i 72's , 170cm ,and I;m afraid the bindings will realease just because I'm skiing at 45mph on some rough surface. I'd freak out if a ski came off. Just sit down on my side guess??? So, anyway can I tighten my din settings on these rail..-II?? new,2005's.? ? ?I ski Summit county.? Thanks ; Gary? ? ?P.S. Looking for a place to stay for a month in Feb.-March.?

If you change the DIN, then you also need to double check forward pressure (or have a shop do it).
Title: Re: HEAD 72 Review
Post by: Ron on December 08, 2006, 10:54:56 am
hence, discuss with a tech. If you are not totally familiar with working on binding, then DON"T, go and spend $20 and get them adjusted professionally. They are WAY too important to guess with.