Monster 88Ti vs. 83Ti

[Jully]

Apologies if I missed a thread detailing this, but I'm looking for some insight into the differences (primarily in stiffness/flex) between the Monster 88 and 83 Ti. I demoed the 2018-2019 88 on eastern hardpack and a few sad natural trails at Sunday River in November 2018 and loved it. Specifically, I loved how stable and responsive it felt on groomers with decent versatility in trees and bumps.

It is the exact ski I would want for a day of 70-80% eastern hardpack groomers with a few runs in bumps or woods. I'm an ex racer and very little makes me happy on a groomer these days unless it is a pretty heavy duty race inspired ski, so I was shocked at how much I liked it.

I've basically been meaning to buy this ski since that day, and with the monster disappearing, I figure now is the time. However, the 83Ti is more available online than the 88. I also have the Kastle FX94 that I ride as my go to all mountain ski. I don't love it on groomers compared to the 88. If the 83 is just as fun on groomers as the 88, then I figure it could be a win-win with the 83 giving me a bit more differentiation from the FX94 and easier/cheaper to buy. As I write this thread though, I get the feeling I'm dreaming and should just shut up and buy the 88.

Can anyone who has ridden both comment on the differences? How upset will I be with the 83Ti if I loved the strength and stability of the 88?

 

[jmeb]

Unlike many ski lines, the 83ti is not a whimpier version than the 88ti just because it's narrower.

I only demo'd the 88 (owned the 83.) The 83 is a serious front side ski and admirable in the bumps. The 88 was certainly more versatile off-piste in 3d snow. But if you have a FX94 for that, and no truly frontside ski -- I think the 83 makes a lot of sense.

I believe there is review of the 83ti if you search around these forums by a very good skier.

 

[Jully]

That is exactly the info I was looking for! Thank-you. I read a review by Ron but couldn't find any other reviews of the revamped 83 (because they softened the whole line before the 2018-2019 season IIRC).

 

[jmeb]

Oh -- good point. For reference, my experiences were both on the pre-soften Monsters.

 

[Kyle]

I have skied them both at Sun Valley's demo days and they are very similar in feel--so much so that I would just go on price and availability. My only issue is that I skied different lengths in the skis so perhaps it is not a fair comparison and it was only 6,800 vertical on each. Both are terrific skis. I don't own either and certainly have no need for them in my quiver but would be very tempted if the price were right.

 

[markojp]

Only issue is length... the current 83 is only made up to 177. If you need a 184, then 88 is the only option. Truly great skis though. It guts me they're dropping them.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

From the 18/19 vintage I have both 83 & 88 (don't ask), given what you already have I would suggest the 83 if you don't need the 184 length. Great skis, sad to see them go,. Buy them whilst you can.

 

[Jully]

I think I am leaning the 83. Thank-you to all!

 

[ski otter 2]

Ditto on what was said about 83 preference: I've demoed them both back to back several times over the past few years, and each time loved both but preferred the 83, very noticeably nicer, to me.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

Also,
this guy is great and he's skiing the 83
maybe Head should have just marketed the ski using this, then we might have had it for a few more years, sigh..

 

[markojp]

Rant coming. Sadly, no one buys much of any 80-90 skis at MAP. The market wants 100-105's. Most of the market doesn't have the skillset to make either the Monster 83 or 88 (or any other company's 80-90's) ski as designed. We couldn't sell any 88's from any maker this season. This segment of the market won't survive especially after the fallout from this season. It's ridiculous. Gett'em when and where you can.

 

[Paul Lutes]

Interesting; I'm guilty of what you're underscoring but in the opposite direction (<<80). My strategy is to narrowly (get it? narrow!!) focus on the primary surface I'm skiing on (actually, I actively seek it out) and would assume that most people would do the same, but as has already been often discussed, marketing seems to have created such an artificially skewed demand towards what people want to ski vs reality ....
But still, if one truly wants a single ski that is relatively condition flexible that 80-90 range seems like the obvious slot (with appropriate design features of course).

 

[markojp]

We had a great stock of even narrower skis... even harder to sell, even on sale. Only exception was the Blizzy HRC... they started to sell at 40% off.

 

[Superbman]

Rant coming. Sadly, no one buys much of any 80-90 skis at MAP. The market wants 100-105's. Most of the market doesn't have the skillset to make either the Monster 83 or 88 (or any other company's 80-90's) ski as designed. We couldn't sell any 88's from any maker this season. This segment of the market won't survive especially after the fallout from this season. It's ridiculous. Gett'em when and where you can.

I did a great week long trip to Banff in late feb/ early march. We had great conditions, some new snow, great wind buff, and no one in our crew was on a ski wider than 77mm (the widest), and we spent most of our time in moguls and steeps off the back side of Lake :Louise (whitehorn/ paradise) and multiple laps in delirium dive at Sunshine... None of us wanted anything wider (or less technically competent) than the skis on our feet. It reiterated, for me, how great the well-built, technically focused skis under 88mm can be for all mountain skiing. Short of deep maritime crud (like at Crystal Mountain on certain days) in demanding terrain/ and of course, deeper pow days, I'm not interested in 100+ skis anymore. Or 90+. I had a Rustler 9 with me as well on the Canada trip-never touched it. Now, the most versatile mid to low 80's ski--that's something to think about.

I must admit that deals on a monster 83ti (a ski I almost bought last season when I pulled the trigger on the Liberty V82 nistead) or hunting down a salomon S/Force Bold piques my quarantined interests greatly.

 

[markojp]

I did a great week long trip to Banff in late feb/ early march. We had great conditions, some new snow, great wind buff, and no one in our crew was on a ski wider than 77mm (the widest), and we spent most of our time in moguls and steeps off the back side of Lake :Louise (whitehorn/ paradise) and multiple laps in delirium dive at Sunshine... None of us wanted anything wider (or less technically competent) than the skis on our feet. It reiterated, for me, how great the well-built, technically focused skis under 88mm can be for all mountain skiing. Short of deep maritime crud (like at Crystal Mountain on certain days) in demanding terrain/ and of course, deeper pow days, I'm not interested in 100+ skis anymore. Or 90+. I had a Rustler 9 with me as well on the Canada trip-never touched it. Now, the most versatile mid to low 80's ski--that's something to think about.

I must admit that deals on a monster 83ti (a ski I almost bought last season when I pulled the trigger on the Liberty V82 nistead) or hunting down a salomon S/Force Bold piques my quarantined interests greatly.

... and what percentage of people on the hill were on sub 90 skis? 5%? Maybe?

 

[Kyle]

d what percentage of people on the hill were on sub 90 skis? 5%? Maybe?

I'll bet that number might be even lower if you removed crappy rental skis from the equation.

 

[ski otter 2]

The sticking point, at least here in Colo., is that most want a one ski quiver. If they did buy even two currently top skis, then an 88 or 90 - or even a narrower ski (tops to me), depending on what their second ski is - would be in there (say, the Enforcer 88, Monster /88/83, Brahma 90). But for one ski, out West, then it's ~99 to 10X, to me understandably. The 99, and some 10X skis, will charge Western groomers and bumps, and lots of soft up to a certain depth. And do all of this well and easily, at slower speeds too.

Yes, I can ski an 88/90 ski well in 4-8 inches of powder. But to me, it is kind of a waste of that powder.

Also, some really expert skiers are on 105s or so (say, the SR 105, or the K2 Pinnacle 105, for starters), and they do wonders on just those skis. That's not me, but I can see it.

 

[KingGrump]

I'll bet that number might be even lower if you removed crappy rental skis from the equation.

I don't believe the existence of the rental fleets ever enter the mind of most here when it come to ski discussion.

 

[Tony S]

Rant coming. Sadly, no one buys much of any 80-90 skis at MAP. The market wants 100-105's. Most of the market doesn't have the skillset to make either the Monster 83 or 88 (or any other company's 80-90's) ski as designed. We couldn't sell any 88's from any maker this season. This segment of the market won't survive especially after the fallout from this season. It's ridiculous. Gett'em when and where you can.

It would be interesting to hear from eastern shop folks. Seems like I see a lot of 80-90 skis here.

 

[ski otter 2]

P.S. What 88 to, say, 93 skis would you really like as well as a fatter ski in up to 8" of powder? (There may be lots and I'm just not bringing them to mind, dunno.) The only two (or three) I can think of off hand for me personally would be maybe the old Blizzard Brahma 90, Black Crows Orb 90/184, Head Kore 93 (though at deeper than 6" I'd probably rather be on the Kore 105), and in narrower, maybe an FIS 165 slalom ski, at least on steeps.