Author Topic: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09  (Read 1639 times)

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« on: December 20, 2008, 11:26:56 am »
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]
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 07:47:16 am by Svend »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2008, 10:20:57 pm »
nice review Svend!  And helpful to me at least.

For me, the appreciation of good repeatable short turning becomes more evident when you see people skiing bumps or real steep terrain with a lot of control.   I can ski steeps but need a wider open slope than a more expert skier.  My guess is that the speeds, in the right hands(boots) would give pretty good short turns.  Sounds like your skiing is progressing very well.  Keep it up.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2008, 07:59:42 am »
What are you skiing on now? I would say that steep terrain, esp. icy steep terrain would have been a total no-go for me up to this point on my old skis.  They were just too soft torsionally and didn't have the edge grip to handle that.  It seems to me that on steeps it's a matter of excellent edge grip and controlled short turning.  With the Speeds, I think I will have no problems there.  These will give me the confidence and ability to go where I wouldn't have ventured before, they're just that good.  And they certainly seem robust enough to handle my weight without being overpowered.

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2008, 01:57:24 pm »
I'm skiing Fischer RX 8 at 170cm.  It it a very good and fun ski. 

I agree, a good ski especially on hard icy slopes is a must.  You also have to pull you feet back/ press forward and stay aggressive and confident mentally.  You can watch people as they get in trouble and they get tentative, start seeking the safety of the uphill side of the slope, they get back on their skis, start railing out, which causes them to go faster and get locked in without an ability to turn.....wait for it.....wait for it.....YARD SALE!! >:D

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2008, 02:45:44 pm »
.....wait for it.....wait for it.....YARD SALE!! >:D
  ....preceded by a ride in the Boo-Boo Truck...ouch!  You're not an ambulance chaser are you? "Excuse me sir, would you like to sell me your very fine skis?"  >:D >:D

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2008, 06:50:29 pm »
Unfortunately, I write from experience.  I have hesitated, got locked in the back seat and railed out until I wiped out.  Once, at a local hill, I got on a double black with one of my kids at the bottom (a "hey, watch this!" moment) I fell, skis came off and it was so steep and icy that we were both sliding down the slope.  The ski was ahead of me but because of the brake, I rapidly gained on it and when right over it!!  Tyrolia enema >:D.  All this with my son watching ;D

Humble pie............yumm ie.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2008, 08:12:27 pm »
Yeah, that's happened to me too...not pretty, and our kids will never tire of retelling the story of when Dad ate big-time snow.  I posted a little anecdote in Jim's recent thread about helmets http://skiforums.org/rev2/index.php?topic=1486.0 which concerned a rather acrobatic crash that I had last year.  The frame-by-frame replay continues to amuse during supper hour whenever my girls are in the mood to take me down a notch.  Humble pie is right...dessert tastes a bit off today dear.... ::)

Philpug

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2008, 05:35:46 am »
6'2", 220, on a 170? It is a shame you didn't get a chance to demo the SS in a 177, I would think that would be more for your size. I tried GC's 165 and felt I was tripping over the tips. Personally, for my svelt 5'10 200lb frame I would want these in a 177. I felt teh same when I tried Ron's Magnums, I would have wanted them in a 177 too.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 08:01:05 am by jim-ratliff »

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2008, 06:10:52 am »
I'm comfortable with my choice.? As I said, this is only my third season out.? In my mind, when I was deciding on the length, the 177 just seemed a bit daunting given my lack of experience -- I didn't want to be fighting the extra length.? My old skis were 170, and that's all I know...my comfort zone, so to speak.? I'm sure for my next pair I will go longer.? For now, I'm OK with these.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 06:41:00 am by Svend »

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2008, 01:31:30 pm »
Just to add that Svends SPeed is a much beefier ski than the SS and Magnum.

Also, my SS are mounted forward so that would make the tips a bit twitchy for you Phil for sure.

Svend...keep the reports coming on those babies as you conquer more terrain and snow conditions.
G

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2008, 04:15:50 pm »
I'm comfortable with my choice.? As I said, this is only my third season out.? In my mind, when I was deciding on the length, the 177 just seemed a bit daunting given my lack of experience -- I didn't want to be fighting the extra length.? My old skis were 170, and that's all I know...my comfort zone, so to speak.? I'm sure for my next pair I will go longer.? For now, I'm OK with these.

Comfort is key.  If you don't have the luxury of demoing different lengths, then you have to trust your gut.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2008, 10:23:42 pm »
Skied some pretty chopped up stuff last night -- lots of fresh snow, chewed up by the boarders.? The SS Speeds just blew through it like it wasn't there...brilliant! Like skiing on freshly groomed.? No lack of stability here, and for once, I didn't get fussy about picking my way around the worst of the crud -- I just went right over it.? This kind of snow used to give me the fits on my old skis -- got tossed around pretty bad.? New Skis = Nice, Nice, Nice!!!

Gary -- not sure if the Speeds are beefier than the Magnums.? My recollection of the Magnum is that they were slightly stiffer over the whole length than the Speeds, but I could be mistaken.? The Speeds certainly have a stiff tail.? Last winter I had them side-by-side in a shop, but was comparing them to last years version of the Speed, which is a different ski.? Now that I think of it, though, they may be stiffer than your SS's -- it would be good to have all three side-by-side to check 'em out.? They're not wimpy skis, though, any one of them.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 09:14:06 am by Svend »

Philpug

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2008, 06:03:11 am »
Just to add that Svends SPeed is a much beefier ski than the SS and Magnum.

Also, my SS are mounted forward so that would make the tips a bit twitchy for you Phil for sure.

Svend...keep the reports coming on those babies as you conquer more terrain and snow conditions.
G
The forward mount point in a ski that was already too short for me was a recipe for a disaster. Plus, on a ski like that I prefer a more aggressive tune on 1/3 vs. the 1/3 that was on them. But they are Gary's skis and set up the way he likes them, thats all that matters.

Quote from: jim
Phil, edit this out if I'm wrong, but I think you meant to say "a more agressive 1/3 tune vs. the 1/2 that Gary had on them".
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 08:40:05 am by jim-ratliff »

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2008, 10:09:13 am »
FYI, I plan to play around with binding position on my Speeds.? I want to get at least 5 more days on the present setup, which is just shy of the BOF-CRS mark, before I move them back one set of holes.? We'll see how that works out, and I'll let you know my preference.? So far I like the way it is -- makes turn initiation a breeze -- very agile and quick feeling for a GS ski, and no issues with stability as yet.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2008, 10:22:10 am »
Perry -- a footnote on my comments regarding the flex of the Speed relative to the Magnum:  I hope you didn't misunderstand me -- the Speed is by no means a soft ski.  It is very robust and strong, and very torsionally stiff due to the sandwich/sidewall construction and the Liquidmetal.  It's just that when I held last year's model of the Speed (a different ski) beside the Magnum in my local shop, the Magnum did seem stiffer in the front half of the ski.  The tails seemed about the same.  I have not compared my ski (the 08/09 model) with the Magnum, so I can't say what the difference is. 

My ski is definitely not too soft for my height and weight.  I was doing some high speed runs last night over chopped up snow, and it just blasted right through it all -- never got tossed around, and held its edge with aplomb.  Sweet ride!

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2008, 02:12:04 pm »
Svend - I'm tracking with you.  I'm glad that they are busting through the crud...thats a nice feature in a ski.  Actually, when I got my Magnums I was surprised at how soft they felt compared to my RX 8 and older IM 75.  I haven't gotten a chance to ride them so I'll let you know how much that transfers to the snow.  In the end, it's all about how it performs.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2008, 02:43:07 pm »
FYI, I plan to play around with binding position on my Speeds.? I want to get at least 5 more days on the present setup, which is just shy of the BOF-CRS mark, before I move them back one set of holes.? We'll see how that works out, and I'll let you know my preference.? So far I like the way it is -- makes turn initiation a breeze -- very agile and quick feeling for a GS ski, and no issues with stability as yet.

Svend.? Are you that close to BOF-CRS with factory setup or did you do something initially to move bindings forward some.? I'm surprised if it is all factory and you are within 10mm (.2") of BOF-CRS.?

And yeah, I've been accused of over-analysing stuff all the time.? Often my kids will ask a question, followed by the statement "the short answer dad, not the full dissertation".
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2008, 07:17:45 am »
Perry -- sorry, I totally misunderstood.? I thought you were still shopping for skis, and were looking for feedback about alternatives to the Magnum.? Didn't realize you'd already bought the Magnums.? Feel especially daft now that I just read your "New (old) Magnums" post from two weeks ago.  And here I am rambling on to you about how great the Speeds are....sheesh! :-[ :-[ :-[

Jim, when I first picked up my skis from the shop, I had them mount the binding forward of the factory position, to just shy of the BOF-CRS point.? They were never mounted at the factory mark, although I probably will try them there some day just to see what it feels like. Sorry for the confusion....
« Last Edit: December 26, 2008, 07:20:36 am by Svend »

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2009, 05:14:10 pm »
Svend- Just wanted to update you.  I did finally get to ski on the Magnums yest.  I thought that you would be interested because you are a relative newcomer as am I.  From reading this forum, I have taken to heart that it is probably better to ski on skis that are a little shorter in order to learn and reinforce good habits.  The problem becomes.....when am I good enough to ski longer skis, what will I notice etc.

Yest. the snow was soft, almost spring like conditions except their was no loud corn snow.  I am 6'2" 200lbs and ski fairly parallel.  Most people would say parallel but I notice a little stem move that creeps in at or just prior to release.  The SS magnums are 177cm, my RX8 and Monster IM75 are both 170cm.

The length was really no problem at all.  The skis are super stable and a lot of fun.  They are not quite as quick as the RX8 but they are definitely more stable and they are not at all sluggish.  The RX 8 is also very stable but once or twice when I really got going, I felt a little bobble.  The 177 also should give me more float when I go out west.  It was crowded enough that I spent most of the day skiing around others skiers.  I look forward skiing them when I can really let them loose.

The other benefit long term may be that they will give me more feedback when I do stem.  I noticed this yesterday a few times.  Perhaps if I ski more on these, then moving to the short skis will be a piece of cake (kind of the flip side of the argument above, you just have to have enough technique to make it work).  I would be interested in what the more experienced skiers in the forum would say about this.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2009, 07:09:43 pm »
Perry:

Glad you liked them.  Super stable and a lot of fun certainly match my perspective.  at 5"11" and 185 I got the 170's, but I'm not surprised that 177's worked for you and will give a bit more float.  My observation was that they were excellent at skiing either slow or fast, and did seem to "help" me make better turns.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2009, 03:13:53 pm »
Perry, they sound like nice skis.? And interesting to hear your comments about the length.? Being about your height, but about 3 years less experience, I'm still comfortable with my choice of the 170s.? With my limited experience, the 177 may have been a bit of a handful, and I would have lost some of the agility that I love.? However, as I've been out on my Speeds about four days now, and they being so easy to ski on, I'm thinking the 177 would have been OK too.?

Oh well...too late to change now (not that I would, anyway).  I would drive myself bonkers if I second-guessed every decision I made.? Gotta be content with what I have, and so far the Speeds are everything that I wanted in a ski.? Fast, stable, great edge hold, agile (for a GS ski), great crud busting, easy to turn and change turn shapes in mid-arc, and silky-smooth on the snow.? And I can skid 'em if needed (good for skiing with kids!).? No shortcomings apparent to me yet.? I love 'em!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 04:09:06 pm by Svend »

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2009, 03:37:35 pm »
Svend:? I actually think you have the right size for you in the SuperShape Speed and that Perry has the right size for him in the SuperShape Magnum.

Perry:? I think that "little bobble" that you felt is what Gary and the good skiers refer to as the sweet spot.? Some skis require more attention to maintaining a centered and balanced position on the ski in order to maintain control, some like the Magnum allow you to wobble or get out of balance a bit more without generating any negative feedback.

Perry:  BTW, where were you skiing?  Up in the Blowing Rock area or Snowshoe?

I wouldn't agree that shorter skis imply a better skier, but that high performance skis with a short radius will be shorter.? Equally high performance skis with a longer turn radius will be longer.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 03:47:14 pm by jim-ratliff »
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2009, 04:14:52 pm »
Jim, didn't want to give the impression that I am not happy with my choice of length.  On the contrary, I am totally convinced that I made the right decision.  I was merely pointing out that, given how easy the Speeds are to ski in a 170, I would also have been OK on them in a 177.  They are surprisingly forgiving, and a longer length seems like it would be in my range of ability.  But I wouldn't change length now.  As I said, the 170s have all the qualities I was looking for, and more.  (BTW, I edited my previous response to emphasize my point  ;D)

Cheers,
Svend

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2009, 04:49:57 pm »
Jim - I was at Sugar.

Svend - I also agree that 170 was probably right for right now.  I have wondered if I should have gotten the 175cm RX 8 but the truth is that the 170's are very quick and a ton of fun to ski on... so what is not to like?

I would love to hear from someone who is more committed to skiing at "maximum length".  I am just curious as to the benefits they have noted or if it is just a personal preference.  For those who like to ski with their hair on fire >:D >:D, it obviously makes a lot of sense.  Just wondering if I can pick up something that may not have occurred to me.  Perhaps it is a dumb question.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ski review -- Head Supershape Speed, 08/09
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2009, 05:01:04 pm »
the 170's are very quick and a ton of fun to ski on... so what is not to like?
  Hear! Hear! My sentiments about my Speeds exactly.  And ain't that what it's all about? If the ski is a ton of fun, why agonize over a few centimeters of length? Just get out and enjoy 'em!