Ask a new question about this model (will popup in separate window.)
ARE THE BINDINGS INSTALLED
-DAVID January 23, 2010 11:36AM Yes we install bindings when you purchase them, there will be a mounting for after checkout for information we need.
-Rich (L9 owner) January 24, 2010 8:39AM Enter follow up to this question
I am former ski instructor PSIA and CSIA 5'10 190ish , ski the east in all its glory hard and fast. Like it steep and cruddy and everything in between. Considering this in 170 or the Fisher RX Big Heat. Not into racing skiis Ilke a solid all mountain approach.
-TC January 11, 2010 7:40AM I think that this ski is a great east coast ski, It has a pretty versatile waist width at 77mm it will handle groomers and rip through the glades! You could go with the RX big heats but they are a lot heaver and are not as maneuverable as the Im 77. I think you are really going to love this ski!
-Dan (L9 Employee) January 11, 2010 8:08AM Enter follow up to this question
As an expert skier who skis steeps, trees, bumps, and also likes aggressive carved turns, is the 177 cm good for me at 69" and 165lb. Right now I am on a 187 Solomon XScream Series.
-Tim January 07, 2010 10:43AM If you are used to the longer length, then I say go for it. But keep in mind, it is going to be wider than the Xscream, so the width may make up for the shorter length. This ski definitely compares to the Xscream for sure though. It is a fairly stiff all mtn ski that will do pretty well in almost any snow conditions at any speed you want to take it! And it will do especially well off trail in your trees and bumps!
-Dan (L9 Employee) January 07, 2010 2:37PM Enter follow up to this question
I am 5'7" and 185 lbs. an expert with 50 years of skiing what length in the i.M/77 would be appropriate for me?
-Mike December 21, 2009 8:14AM Either the 163cm or 170cm would be great. You will get extra stability and better 'float' in soft snow with the 170cm length, and the 163 will give you increased maneuverability.
-Jon (L9 manager) December 21, 2009 8:25AM Enter follow up to this question
Can I mount a Marker duke on this ski? Can I remove the binding "rail" and create a flat deck ski?
-Bob December 13, 2009 4:09PM Well, we can remove the SP plate for you and plug the holes.. that wouldnt affect the ski in anyway.. however you would have to avoid the holes when remounting your dukes.. this may be no issue, but it also may make you have to move the bindings a cm or two forward or back from ideal. I'm not a fan, but if its saves you a few hundred it's obviously worth it as it will most likely be no issue.
-Rich (L9 owner) December 13, 2009 9:20PM Enter follow up to this question
the price in this add is with the bindings included, Correct?
-Ben Barter December 11, 2009 9:41AM This ski comes with the SP 100 bindings at no additional cost to you. There are other bindings available (upgrades) for just a little bit more.
-Jon (L9 manager) December 11, 2009 10:13AM Enter follow up to this question
5'10" 155 lbs, getting back into skiing after a couple years off. I've always been a speed guy, skiing mostly groomed stuff but by no means shy to drift off into powder when it's there (I'm east coast, so it's rarely - or never - there). I'd like something up to my ability on groomed and chopped stuff, but that I can really learn decent powder skiing on.
I'm about to, and will plenty in the future, head West for a trip, so I want something that can handle both on and off piste, but that I'll be able to control if I need to slow down a bit when working a touch above my ability level.
Do you think I should go with this or maybe the Monster 75 (I think you have 163 and 170 cm there)? Or any other suggestions would be awesome.
-zach November 30, 2009 1:28PM I think that you should go with a 163 cm length and that this Monster 77 would be an awesome ski for you. Its going to be super solid at high speeds on groomers and awesome in the trees/powder as well. The monster 75 is similar, not as wide and a little more lightweight. From what it looks like the Monster 75 is the route to take.
-Dan (L9 Employee) November 30, 2009 1:42PM Enter follow up to this question
Hey, I'm 5'5" 140lbs going on 46 yrs old, ex-racer from the East and now living in Vancouver BC. I like to ski groomed fast but am hankering to go in the woods and think this will be a good 'one' ski for all my needs. My question is, is this too much ski for me and if not, should I get 163cm or 156cm? Oh yeah one more, how much do they weigh? Cheers from Canada.
-clint November 17, 2009 11:48PM For an ex-racer, this is not too much ski. They are pretty stiff, and pretty heavy (sorry no exact numbers for ya, but they are heavier than average). The 156 and 163 will perform pretty similarly, so its a wash in my opinion and you should go with whichever you feel will be more comfortable for you (im thinking 156cm is enough of this ski to be able to rip).
This is a good ski for all your needs especially if you really rip up groomed trails. A ski with a wider footprint would be needed if you spend most of your time in powder, but if most of your time is groomers and trees, this one will be fine just fine.
-Chris (L9 employee) November 18, 2009 8:01PM Thanks for the help. I see it comes with a non rail-flex binding. Is the binding upgrade warranted for someone of my slight stature? Should I just go with the pink Wild Thang and put railflwx on them to save a few bucks? Cheers from Van.
-jay November 19, 2009 1:21PM The railflex upgrade is more for performance than anything else. We put the railflex track on that ski with ease. If you are ready to ski on the pink wild thang, id say go for it. These skis are the same and the wild thang already comes with the railflex plate pre-installed!
-Chuck (L9 Employee) November 20, 2009 10:34AM Enter follow up to this question
I'm a big fella, 6'3 - 260lbs. Expert skier, skiing for over 30 years. MN resident, so most of my time spent on hard pack, ice, cordoroy. Based on the info I've read, these look right up my alley. Thoughts? Also - do you recommend a binding upgrade?
-Dave D November 16, 2009 5:56PM Yes these are a great ski for any conditions and the 181cm size is good for you. The 77 is really designed to do a little of everything, so if you only are skiing on hardpacked eastern groomers the Drive 11 may be better as it is a bit narrower. But if you do ski the powder when you get it (even if rarely) stick with the 77s. You probably need a din higher than 10 so should at least move up to the SP 120. But being an expert you would notice the improved performance of a railflex.. the RFD 12s are good enough, but if you wanted to spoil yourself the two railflex 14 orange's (100015) and (110210) look so good with this ski (and are top of the line) that youll say wow.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 16, 2009 9:58PM Enter follow up to this question
I'm a 6'1 210lb skier on the east coast but I take a trip west every year. I am an advanced skier that skis relatively fast and most all conditions (groomer, powder, crud, eastern ice, etc.) I can not decide between the monster 77 or 72, will I notice a huge difference in the powder between the two skis? The Rossignol Rebels that I ski just do not respond well to the lighter snow.
-jared November 16, 2009 7:43AM You wouldnt notice a huge difference in "powder" skiing between the two because neither is phenomenal at powder (you can power your way through it though). The 77 is obviously a little better at powder because if its wider waist, but I think the biggest difference is that the 77 will be significant better at chopped-up powder. The type of pow that maybe was fresh 3 hours ago but now is real tracked out and bumpy, the 77 will cruise through that type of stuff no problem. For a huge western ski dump (we are talking waist deep) you may went to demo a super wide (100mm++) ski for the day.
-Chris (L9 employee) November 16, 2009 9:13AM I do want something that could handle the groomers too. What about the mojo 90s, would they be too long at 186cm.
- November 16, 2009 9:52AM It might be a little long..if you were going to with that ski I would get it in the shorter 166cm length. The Liberty Hazmat in a 171 may be a great option as well.
-Dan (L9 Employee) November 16, 2009 11:16AM The mojo 90 is softer and twin tipped so it is still managable in longer lengths. It is a decent groomed run ski but on hard pack and ice wider skis are hard to grip unless you have a solid technique.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 16, 2009 11:21AM Enter follow up to this question
I'm considering these or the Head iM 72 170 skis you have here. I'm an advanced east coast skier that is about 50/50 on/off piste. Both skis seem great and I'm having trouble deciding. Can you help me out?
-Evan November 15, 2009 9:02PM You know Evan, given the two, I really think the im77 is a more versatile ski because of its wider waist. They are both good carvers on groomed/crud, but the 77 will do more for you off-piste than the im72.
-Chris (L9 employee) November 16, 2009 9:09AM The skis perform so close to each other, so it really boils down to waist width. I really like floating in powder, and I've found that most people really enjoy skiing powder, and going with the wider ski (monster 77) would make that a little easier. So for you, I'm suggesting the Monster 77. If you were spending more like 75% of your time on the groomed runs, then I'd go with the Monster 72.
-Jon (L9 manager) November 16, 2009 9:18AM Thanks for the answer. I'm going to go with the 77's. It seems like the bindings that come with these are not the greatest. What would you recommend for a 6'0", 210 lbs, agressive skier?
-Evan November 16, 2009 10:18AM Any of the RFD 12 or 14s would be good. 100015 and 110210 are the top end and are the best match visually.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 16, 2009 11:14AM I would recommend the RFD 11 or 12..both are going to be solid bindings for you.
-Dan (L9 Employee) November 16, 2009 11:14AM Enter follow up to this question
Hi, I am an intermediate skier looking for an all mountain ski that can preform well in powder and in the trees as well as on groomers. I am 5`9", 190 lbs, and am unsure which model would be best, what do you reccomend?
-bailey November 13, 2009 12:00PM If you are mainly on groomed trail id suggest the Monster 75. If you are off trail a good bit of time something like the Liberty Larose is excellent. But my favorite of all is the Mojo 90 An intermediate spending a lot of time off trail usually is better of with a softer ski than the monster 77.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 15, 2009 3:34PM Enter follow up to this question
Last year I purchased the Monster77 w/railflex love them. The faster you ski the better they respond. The powder isn’t any different. Set oven to HI. The boarders aren’t keeping up. To ski them slow in any condition becomes disastrous. What’s the alternative ski to slow down, have fun in the powder with lazy friends, smell the tree sap and enjoy the view? Tony 6’3, 240lbs.
-Tony November 02, 2009 1:01PM Mojo 90 is a very easy call here. For you 186cm should be good. You could just have us install a railflex plate and move your bindings over, if you want the perfect binding for the Mojo though add a Mojo 12.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 02, 2009 7:22PM Enter follow up to this question
How does the weight compare to the Monster iM 75? Also, I am an intermediate to lower advanced skier who just moved to Colorado, so will be getting in a lot of days this year... do you think this ski will be difficult for me until I get to be a true advanced skier?
-Kevin October 25, 2009 10:10PM This ski is basically the same as the im 75 but a little fatter all the way around making it a more all mountain ski. If you get this ski too big (say above your nose) then you probably will struggle a little but until you are a true advanced skier, but if you size appropriately you should be ok though they probably will be heavier than your old skis.
-Rich (L9 owner) October 25, 2009 11:10PM Enter follow up to this question
| 
Levelninesports.com
