Comparison Review 88-90mm Narrow All Mountain Skis

[silverback]

I think 2015 was the last year before they changed things a bit. (2015 was the same as 2014 , but different graphics.) I had demo'd those at the 2015 gathering in JH and liked them. A couple years later I ended up buying a pair of the 2016 model on deep sale and never quite bonded. They did not have the grip or the solid initiation.

Are you talking Head Monster 83 or Kastle MX83?

 

[Tony S]

Are you talking Head Monster 83 or Kastle MX83?

MX 83

 

[silverback]

I think 2015 was the last year before they changed things a bit. (2015 was the same as 2014 , but different graphics.) I had demo'd those at the 2015 gathering in JH and liked them. A couple years later I ended up buying a pair of the 2016 model on deep sale and never quite bonded. They did not have the grip or the solid initiation.

Other than top sheet graphics, I don’t think the MX83 changed from when it came out in 2012 to when it was replaced by the mx84 in 2017. Maybe the tune or the bindings?

 

[Tony S]

Other than top sheet graphics, I don’t think the MX83 changed from when it came out in 2012 to when it was replaced by the mx84 in 2017. Maybe the tune or the bindings?

View attachment 193357

Yup, it was the change to MX84 that I was talking about. Forgot that they changed the digit.

 

[markojp]

Sadly, all my favorite 88's are no more and likely never to have similar replacements. The market for 88's like Augment and Monsters is about .007 percent of the market.

 

[silverback]

I keep thinking the early to mid 2010’s were the pinnacle years for ski designs I like. I probably just haven’t skied enough new ones.

 

[1chris5]

Thanks for the review. What year Head Monster 88? Was it 2020 88ti?

 

[1chris5]

This is interesting to me. I bought a new pair of 180cm mx88s last summer and got cold feet before mounting and sold them on. Maybe I dodged a bullet.

I owned a pair of 2016 177 monster 83s and put just under 50 days on them. Then I bought a pair of 2014 173cm mx83s and found that they performed VERY similarly. The Kastles has a touch more top end and are happy with a wider range of turn shapes so they stayed and I gave the m83s to a friend who really lacks the skills to ski them.

The 177 Monster 83s were great skis. I never got a chance to ski the rest of the Monster lineup (88,98,108).

Looks like I should keep my eye out for some Augments to try. They spring up my alley.

I ski my 2016 monster 83s once or twice a week. They constantly amaze me.

 

[DocGKR]

Tis the time of the year for hard crusty mornings, softening to lovely mid-day corn, then big soft slushy bumps in the afternoon. For me, the skis that are doing the best throughout the day here are 86-90mm width--my 177 Monster 88's and 182 Salomon Stance 90's are proving to be amazing!

Head REALLY screwed up getting rid of the 177 Monster 88--such a great ski! Great grip on the hard morning surface, stable at high speeds, quick in the bumps. The 177 Monster 88 is better in every way than the Kore 87. Note that the 184 Monster 88 is more ponderous and one dimensional compared to the stellar 177.

Likewise, the Stance 90 is just ripping it for me this Spring--good carving, nice float, reasonably solid at speed, good in moguls. I should note that some friends who are lighter weight relate that the shorter Stance 90's act a bit like wet noodles, fortunately the 182 appears to be much more burly and capable.

Also, the wider 96-100mm skis are fine in the afternoon, but do not have the turning chops and grip to carve well on the hard morning crust compared to their 86-90mm cousins. For example, the 182 Stance 96 is OK, but does not have the edge grip of the Stance 90, nor is it as quick and nimble in the afternoon bumps.

 

[Tony S]

For me, the skis that are doing the best throughout the day here are 86-90mm width

+1

. I should note that some friends who are lighter weight relate that the shorter Stance 90's act a bit like wet noodles,

That is really a thing. (Not always wet noodles; just different lengths not being scaled correctly.) It's a pain for us smaller people because 9 times out of 10 ski reviews are done on standard American Big Guy lengths.

 

[DocGKR]

Yup. With both recreational and race skis, I've definitely experienced significant differences in performance from different length skis of the same model. That is why it is so important to discuss the length when reviewing skis.

 

[Hankj]

Yup. With both recreational and race skis, I've definitely experienced significant differences in performance from different length skis of the same model. That is why it is so important to discuss the length when reviewing skis.

I'm a bit of a neophyte, but lately have been noticing the same issue buying skis for my wife and girls. Often the shortest size or two of a ski is MUCH softer than the middle lengths, out of proportion to the way the rest of the line up softens and stiffens. It seem like some manufacturers build for a lower ability level in the shortest size or two of a given model.

 

[James]

Likewise, the Stance 90 is just ripping it for me this Spring--good carving, nice float, reasonably solid at speed, good in moguls. I should note that some friends who are lighter weight relate that the shorter Stance 90's act a bit like wet noodles, fortunately the 182 appears to be much more burly and capable.

The 176 isn’t a wet noodle, but probably has a weight limit of 180lbs for steep or aggressive skiing. It’s mostly the front. Mid to tail is still a hoot at way over that weight.

 

[cantunamunch]

The 176 isn’t a wet noodle, but probably has a weight limit of 180lbs for steep or aggressive skiing. It’s mostly the front. Mid to tail is still a hoot at way over that weight.

Worth mounting back from line?

 

[James]

Worth mounting back from line?

It’s possible that would help.
There’s a lot of subtlety in that ski. It’s annoying that shops don’t know when there’s major differences between sizes.
Also, would be nice to be able to get different lengths in different builds. But this will never happen.

 

[jd4326]

Tis the time of the year for hard crusty mornings, softening to lovely mid-day corn, then big soft slushy bumps in the afternoon. For me, the skis that are doing the best throughout the day here are 86-90mm width--my 177 Monster 88's and 182 Salomon Stance 90's are proving to be amazing!

Head REALLY screwed up getting rid of the 177 Monster 88--such a great ski! Great grip on the hard morning surface, stable at high speeds, quick in the bumps. The 177 Monster 88 is better in every way than the Kore 87. Note that the 184 Monster 88 is more ponderous and one dimensional compared to the stellar 177.

Likewise, the Stance 90 is just ripping it for me this Spring--good carving, nice float, reasonably solid at speed, good in moguls. I should note that some friends who are lighter weight relate that the shorter Stance 90's act a bit like wet noodles, fortunately the 182 appears to be much more burly and capable.

Also, the wider 96-100mm skis are fine in the afternoon, but do not have the turning chops and grip to carve well on the hard morning crust compared to their 86-90mm cousins. For example, the 182 Stance 96 is OK, but does not have the edge grip of the Stance 90, nor is it as quick and nimble in the afternoon bumps.

Agree that the Stance 90 is great in these conditions. Underrated ski in this category and a pleasant surprise for me this season. I spent a lot of time on it, mainly on softer days, but it also does well (for an all mountain ski) on hardpack. I love it for carving, charging, bumps, side hits, a bit of fresh snow or left over crud (east coast standards) and spring skiing. I have it in the 188 and find it has more edge grip than my Kendo 184. Fun & versatile ski!

 

[Tony S]

The 176 isn’t a wet noodle, but probably has a weight limit of 180lbs for steep or aggressive skiing. It’s mostly the front. Mid to tail is still a hoot at way over that weight.

Maybe that's my next ski. All Mountain GS at my size. How much will you pay me to take it off your hands?

 

[James]

Maybe that's my next ski. All Mountain GS at my size. How much will you pay me to take it off your hands?

You give me $500, I’ll pay you $250

 

[James]

Maybe that's my next ski. All Mountain GS at my size.

I don’t think the Stance 88. Too much sidecut/too soft for how you ski. Me thinks the Peak 88 would work. Or uh… Kendo??

 

[Jjmd]

i spent my last few days this spring at Cannon on some MX 89s in a 180 that I normally don’t ski much. Too much competition from the narrower race and high end carvers in the quiver. I forgot what a good ski it is in multiple conditions. Everything from ice to thaw to mank to bumps worked well, although the bumps were pretty infrequent. The ski felt narrower than 89 when pushed, in a good way, and had enough mass to plow through the junk. Anyone else been on this ski?