Hello All,
Yesterday I posted some early impressions from my first day on my new SS Speeds, and Perry showed some interest in a more detailed review.? It seems he has a medical condition called MOTB, and needs a tonic to offset its effects.? So here it is....
(BTW, I will update this as I get more time on the new boards)
Basic specs:?
- 2008/09 model;
- length 170;
- radius 15.0 @ 170;
- sidecut 116/68/100 (wider than earlier models);
- lateral flex medium (softer than the Magnum, about the same as the regular Supershape);
- torsional flex stiff (same as the regular SS, as far as I can remember);
- same construction as the regular SS and Magnum -- sandwich layup, sidewall, dimpled topsheet, Liquidmetal, new FF14 Pro binding, new +13 carve plate (the plate and binding are changed from previous years -- the plate appears wider; the binding no longer has the tension springs and engagement screw in the center).
Setup notes:
- the tips and tails were detuned
- I had the shop mount the binding forward of the factory position, which ended up being just about a 1/3 cm back from the BOF-CRS position (its the way the holes in plate lined up -- the marks were either going to be forward of the BOF-CRS position, or just behind it -- I chose the latter)
My specs:
- 6'2", 220 lbs
- intermediate skier, 3rd year on skis, and learning fast
- outgrew my 05/06 Head iM70s in 1-1/2 seasons
- days on snow 25-30 per season
- prefer med. to long turns, groomed runs, no bumps (yet), all blues, single blacks
- ski in the east, mostly -- Ontario, Quebec, NY -- with two trips west each year -- Utah, Canadian Rockies
So, this is from the perspective of an intermediate skier, definitely lacking the experience of most others here.? Keep that in mind as you read through this.
Last year I demoed some Dynastar Contact Ltd. and Stockli Laser Cross Pro -- liked the Stockli for their stability, edge grip, and immunity to crud and chopped up snow (this was my main reason for replacing the iM70s - they really got tossed in the crud), but disliked their sluggish turn initiation and lack of agility; liked the Dynastars for their lightness, easy turning and edge grip, but disliked them for their seeming inability to change turn shape in the middle of a turn (that locked-in feeling) and their "always-on" edge grip (this may seem contradictory, but sometimes you just don't want all that grip, and want to soft edge or skid a bit when desired -- with the Contacts I couldn't do that, and I hated the lack of versatility).
With that under my belt, and no possibility to demo the SS Speed, I really wasn't sure what to expect from these skis.? I was afraid they might be too demanding, too difficult to ski for an intermediate, and the transition from a middle-of-the-road ski to a real performance ski would be too tricky.? The usual trepidation, when first trying untested gear (familiar to anyone...?).?
However, my wife skis the 06/07 SS Speeds, and I got a lot of feedback from her (hint....she LOVES them!!!).? The clincher for me was that the wider sidecut for the 08/09 models was almost exactly the same as my old iM70s, and I thought that this would make the transition even easier.? Heck, if I can ski the burly Stocklis and the stiff Dynastars without any problem, these should be fine....right?
Well, I needn't have worried....the skis are fantastic! For my first day out, they were so easy to ski, so stable, easy to turn, and smooooth, that I just had a ball.? Here are some details:
Conditions: eastern panzer-proof ice under a couple of inches of packed fresh snow; ice cookies littered in big patches on some runs; bare icy patches in places; no major crud or clumped-up snow.
First impressions:
Edge grip ? excellent in all conditions, but not like riding on rails like the Dynastars; no locked-in feeling (on my first run, I?m already grinning about this)
Stability ? likewise, excellent; blew through what little crud I could find (I had to look for it) like it wasn?t there; handled ruts and bumps with ease (my wife says the same about hers -- she blasts through crud fields at high speed as if it were freshly groomed, with nary a hiccup)
Turn initiation ? excellent, just roll ?em over and they turn smoothly and predictably
Turn changes ? no problems, I could change turn shape in the middle of a turn just by shifting my weight and pressure on the outside ski
Turn radius ? best for medium to long turns, short turns are a bit more work; I got a couple of high- speed long-turn runs in, and they flew! And I never felt out of control.
Soft edge ? very good, I could get the tails to skid if I forced them, and skid sideways just by releasing the edges
Liveliness ? moderate, they were so smooth and stable, that I wouldn?t call them lively, but they weren?t over-damp or dead feeling either, in my opinion.
Energy ? gobs of it, the tail is somewhat stiff and has lots of energy; I got in the back seat a couple of times, and Whoa Nelly, just about lost it.
Lightness ? moderate, but then I?m coming off some pretty light-weight skis; they weren?t heavy and cumbersome like the Stocklis, not as light as my iM70s or the Contacts; just right for me, I think ? solid enough to stable and in control, light enough to be agile and maneuverable and feel light underfoot.
Sweet spot -- seemed pretty large; I never got kicked around or felt out of control, except when I got too far back, but even then was able to recover no sweat.
As the day progressed, and I tried different things, I could not find a single thing that they did poorly, and they seem to be exactly what I had been hunting for in a ski.? They are so smooth over the snow...silky smooth...it?s just sensual, I tell you.? Patprof posted some feedback to me about his Magnums, and that?s how he described them too....silky...or did he say slinky?
As I?m not a short turn kinda guy, the short radius thing is not an issue with me.? They can turn quickly and sharply if they have to, but it takes a bit more effort (this may be a matter of technique, and to be honest, I didn?t try many short turns....I?ll update this later when I have more time on them).? On the other hand, a couple of narrow runs that we went down were no problem to navigate ? I never felt like I had to wrench them around to avoid careening into the trees ? total control....sweet.
In short, I found the ski to be surprisingly undemanding given the level of skier that it is aimed at, yet had bags of performance to spare.? I felt that I hardly scratched the surface of what it can do performance-wise, as I was being rather conservative first day out.? It does want good technique, but let me know politely when I did something wrong, rather than spank my bottom.
...I am 6'2" 196 lb level 7 to 8 skier. I have been skiing for about 6 years and currently working on better bump and off-piste skiing. I am also working on a more consistent and reliable short radius turn on steep terrain.? I like it all, short and medium turns on the groomed and did a little tree skiing last year at wolf creek.
Perry, I?m not sure that these would be any better or worse than the Magnums at short turns.? While the turn radius is slightly tighter on the Magnum (13.5m vs. 15.0m), the Speeds are slightly softer flexing and may be more compliant and changeable in a turn (I?m a bit out of my depth here...comments anyone else?).? Also, the softer flex may be better for bumps too, but I have no experience here either.? FWIW, my wife skis bumps on her Speeds, and has no problems (she?s 5'7", 130 lbs, and skis on 163's).? The softer flexing front half of the ski seems to make them fairly agreeable in the bumps, and the stiff tail gives some fun lift-off.? As for off-piste, it?s hard to say....the sidecut of mine is the same as yesterday?s all-mountain ski, but it?s certainly no iM82.? I can only pass along my wife?s experiences on her?s (which are narrower than the current model) ? she?s not skied deep powder on them, but in up to 6" of fresh snow in the Rockies and here in the east, they?ve never been a hinderance.? You may want to go for the 177 and get some more real estate under your feet.? If I get out in some deeper snow on mine, I?ll let you know how they are.
All in all, I probably would have been OK on the 177 length, but then would have lost some agility and lightness, and the learning curve would have been steeper.? The 170 length is right in my comfort zone, and will allow me to really work on good technique without having to fight the extra length.? Given their awesome stability and edge grip, and their rock-solid build quality, I don?t think I?ll outgrow these too soon.? Besides, they?re quick and agile, a scream on a wide fast run, and just a ton of fun, and ain?t that all that matters?
Hope y?all find this insightful and helpful.
Svend
[attachment deleted by admin]