Supershape re-visited

[Gary]

Well here it is...when at Beaver Creek I jumped on Ron's Supershapes in a 170 length, we traded, he on my RX8's.

And.....well.....us ing PMTS...the Supershapes perform better than the RX8's. Yes I said and here's how.... The RX8's are a great ski, don't get me wrong but he thing I liked more about the Supershape was how well the shovel hooked up on each turn, like on a rail... more so than the RX8....well size matters here.

The Supershape offered the same solid ride and versatility as I could tell but man, it's ability to carve for me using PMTS principals was un-freakn' unreal!...It is much quicker edge to edge as well. The nod there goes to the Supershape.

Now as I bare my sole to all, I need to tell you I ordered a pair from Dawg....gave me a great price. Now why am I doing this to myself....
well, I'm a carving nut....the Supershapes made that experience more pleasureable.? So no girlfriends or drugs for me this year..I spent the buckaroos for some 07 SUpershapes and feeling buyers remorse.

Forgive me all you patient deal buyers....I'm a weak, pathetic man! Ron, it's all your fault!!!!

Now, give me some snow so I can go tear it up!

Gary

[Barrettscv]

I had a feeling this would happen  .

When in Beaver Creek, I followed Gary while he was on both the SS & RX8, and he was more aggressive & precise on the SS (and this coming from a Fischer fanatic!).

Now, if all you Head fans would compare the Fischer WC RC or WC SC to the Head Supershape, we would finally be talkin' apples to apples!

Congrats on the SS, Gary.

Sincerely,

Michael

[Gary]

Thank you Michael ,
what you saw is what I felt...

It's just that I didin't even think of doing this until my ride at the Beav...

Will have a chance for a full all mountian review once the Supershapes arrive....well...th at along with some snow.

Oh and Michael, if you ever get that feeling again....Tell me!

Hey BTW,  have you had the Contact 11's out yet?

Gary

[nevils]

I would also appreciate hearing about the Contact 11's
Nevils

[Barrettscv]

Hi Nevils & Gary,

No New turns on any of my gear. The weather has been above freezing almost every night, so only a few runs are open within 4 hours of Chicago. Plus, I'm pretty reluctant to ski locally even under the best of conditions...

I do have a trip to N.E. PA. planned in early February, but I'll need to bring the Fischer WC RC to keep Ron impressed? .

I hope to visit SLC, Northern California & Oregon in Mid February, that will be a trip for the Contact 11's & the Spats to see they kind of conditions they were meant for.

Cheers,

Michael

[jbotti]

This is an amazing thread. I have been away at Tahoe skiing for the last 8 days, and we finally got enough snow to make it skiable. In fact the conditions were actually pretty good. What's amazing is that the only two skis I was on were the Head SS's in a 170 and the Fischer WC SC's in a 165 cm from 3 seasons ago (which is now being sold new in Europe as the RX Fire). I picked up the Sc's hardly used recently and I knew that these were great skis.

I skied both skis at Squaw for several days. The conditions were 2 day old softer snow on the first day and harder conditions each day afterwards. I rarely skied off the groomed terrain as the coverage was so poor that I would have destroyed skis (and unfortunately I did some damage to my SS's hitting rocks twice on groomed terrain). At the end of each day there were a lot of skied off areas and with some re-freezing conditions the surface did get quite hard.

SS is 170 cm and R of 12.1. The SC is 165cm and R of 11.

I hate to dissappoint Michael, but for me the SS was a vastly superior ski in almost every category. I will talk about each to some degree.

Feel: the SC is a little livelier and zippier than the SS. This may due to the fact that I skied it in a 165 vs 170 on the SS. The SS is damper but not to the point of feeling heavy. With this dampness comes a feeling of stability that is far beyond what I felt on the SC's.

Quickness: Edge to Edge there is not much difference between the two, bit if I had to pick I would say that the SC is slightly quicker, and a little lighter feeling.

Edge Hold: hands down, the SS is superior. Both skis were tuned the day before and both were 2 degrees side and 1 degree base. This is where the SS shines in my opinion and it relates alot to the tail. The tail is much stiffer on the SS which was a surprise for me as the SC in a shorter length should have been harder to skid. I first noticed this about the SS the first day I skied them. It is hard to skid this ski and at first it felt very unforgiving. Now after skiing it for 15 days, I love the fact that it is hard for the tail to displace. This gives the ski incredible edge hold in arcs, and a feeling of stability at speed that dwarfed the SC. The SC because of this is a much more forgiving ski, but IMO lacks the high end power and performance of the SS.

Stability at Speed: again for the reasons previously mentioned, the SS is vastly Superior IMO.

Turn Initaion and Hookup: they are about equal. Both have wide tips and the skis hookup immedaitely and pull you right into the arc. I will say that carving the High C portion of the turn is easier for me on the SS. It will take more pressue on the tail in the early part of the turn. This is not to say that you can't carve the High C on the SC's,  you just have to be more gentle when engaging the edge of the new downhill ski.

Ability to alter Turn Shape : I found that the SC's were great in tight slalom turns, but larger radius turns were less stable than on the SS, which can arc GS turns at speed with great stability. Interestingly even though the SS does GS turns better, I also found it an easier ski to bend to tighten the the radius. When I took it into steeper terrain, and did short radius turns with lots of inside leg flexion creating lots of pressure to bend the outside ski, the SS's performed wonderfully whereas the SC's were actually harder to bend. This could be due to the shorter length.

For me, the SS is a vastly superior ski, to the point that I am giving the SC's to my brother. I know I will never ski them as along as I have my SS's. The SS's are the ultimate do everything carvers. They arc tight turns with any slalom ski. They have incredible edge hold and that wonderful damp sandwich feel. They have the stability of a stiff all mountain ski, without losing the quickness edge to edge. I came away asking my self why I own any other skis beside powder skis. I also skied the SS's in 10 inches of fresh on Wednesday, and they ski wonderfully in fresh snow (I didn't include this because I did not ski the Sc's in the same conditions).

I think Peter's comments are dead on when he said that the more you put into the SS's the more you get out of them. If there is a performance top to these skis I have not found it, and I clearly did on the SC's.

Michael, if you haven't demoed the SS's you must. This is the best ski I have ever been on!!!

[Barrettscv]

Hi JB,

Glad to hear your back on snow.

I'm actually not to surprised by your results. Modern design & detail improvements have been substantial in the last 4 years. I was mentally comparing the older 180cm Fischer Scenio S500 (118-68-100mm, 17m TR) to my 178cm Dynastar Contact 11 (122-72-102mm, 16m TR) and the change in performance was much higher than the specification would indicate. Any ski introduced in the last 12 months is going to be way better than any 3 year old product regardless of how advanced the older product was just a few years ago.

Head has much more rapid product cycles than Fischer and just about everyone else right now, part of this can be contributed to sandwich construction which is simple to tool-up for compared to cap construction models.

My Worldcup RC (112-66-97mm 16m TR) still has a place in my quiver mostly because I don't always want the characteristics of a ski with a big tip & small turning radius. As Gary and Ron will verify, I tend to ski at Mach Snell anytime the lack-of-crowds allow. Broad tipped skis with sub 16m TR are a little nervous on longer radius turns at higher speeds, IMO. However Gary had no problem keeping up or pulling away on his Monster 82's while I was on the Contact 11's.

I think the Supershape & Monster 82 is a killer quiver at this point.

Cheers,

Michael

[Ron]

Guilty as charged! 

I am so proud......

[Gary]

Ok JB, many good reasons for me to make the jump from the RX8 to the Supershapes.....Sti ll, I bought the RX8's last year, a few months before that I had the Salomon Equipe GC's...

I HAVE GOT TO STOP FALLING IN LOVE WITH SKIS!!

Hoping behond all hopes that the SS and the IM 82's will satisfy my lust for ski gear that satisfies my quest for the PPQ!.."the Perfect Performanace Quivver...well at least for 3 years!

YOu know Michael, I found the SS even with the wider tip very stable at higher speed sweeping turns which really amazed me given it's spicy dimensions. Must be the liquid metal and sandwich constrution.

My wife and I are heading for Jackson Hole in 11 days for a week. Debating whether I should bring both the SS and 82's.....well the 82's for sure. They've been getting great snow this past couple of weeks and I know the 82's will come in handy there.
 
I'm thinking I should bring? both just to experiment with the SS in a variety of snow conditions.

JB...your height and weight and your favorite mounting position........the binding mounting positionn of the SS? only please!

Ron, you are guilty and thanks for the demo...for sure! Now we are brothers in "Quivverhood"! SS and 82's!

Best,
Gary

[jbotti]

I don't need any more skis. I have been resisting getting on some IM 82's because I will most likely want to own them. I may have to try a pair next weekend in some of the fresh snow that Tahoe is expecting.

If I am lucky I will have my Lotus 138's by then and can take them out for their maiden voyage!! JB. ?

[jbotti]

Gary, I am 6 3" 190 and the SS's are mounted exactly center.

I would say definteky bring both to Jackson hole. I am finding that in everything but deep powder, the SS's are the ski of choice, but I don't own the IM 82's!!

Happy New Year, and lots of great snow to all!! JB.

[Ron]

Bring both and hope the SS's never see the snow!  Jhole is going to get pounded with the next storm and they are in the zone this year. The 82's are so versitile though

I will say that I do prefer the flat mojo to the RF if you are going to use them primarilly off-piste. After skiing on them flat before Christmas, I felt they were more stabile in pow and crud but still had plenty of carving prowess.

[Gary]

Ok....going to bring both pair and run the SS's through some boot high...I hope to see how they perform. AND JB...don't try the 82's..I beg you....please, they are the Medusa of skis....their song will enchant you, drive you crazy...your desire to own a pair will be overwhelming....but .....if you must, you've been warned!

When I skied Ron's SS's, they were forward mounted and I did like that position, no tail wash, stayed on track and felt stable, easy to ski from a centered position.? I'm sure I'll end up fiddling a bit with the mounting positions just to see how it performs..and then again, forward may be right on. One short turns run down a steep? along the tree line will let me know.

Hmmmm, Lotus 138's....yikes...be intrested in hearing your review of those fat boys.? Hope you have knee high plus for those babies!

Ron, I agree...the flat MOJO is the way to go on the 82's. Just enough height for edge to edge but not to much sensitivity for the deeper stuff. I liked them even on the groomers. No problem bringing them up on edge. I did notice they were more difficult to ski this past weekend on the ice pack that presented itself at Holiday Valley. Should have had the carving skis that day. Still, I now have a better feel for the strengths and weakness of the 82's; and really the only weakness I found were short turns on the cat tracked ice pack.

Please  you western skiers....send cold and snow to us here in the east....pretty please!?!?!?

Best,
Gary

[midwif]

Ok JB, many good reasons for me to make the jump from the RX8 to the Supershapes.....Sti ll, I bought the RX8's last year, a few months before that I had the Salomon Equipe GC's...

I HAVE GOT TO STOP FALLING IN LOVE WITH SKIS!!

Hoping behond all hopes that the SS and the IM 82's will satisfy my lust for ski gear that satisfies my quest for the PPQ!.."the Perfect Performanace Quivver...well at least for 3 years!

YOu know Michael, I found the SS even with the wider tip very stable at higher speed sweeping turns which really amazed me given it's spicy dimensions. Must be the liquid metal and sandwich constrution.

My wife and I are heading for Jackson Hole in 11 days for a week. Debating whether I should bring both the SS and 82's.....well the 82's for sure. They've been getting great snow this past couple of weeks and I know the 82's will come in handy there.
 Best,
Gary

Gary
First,let me say  that if you're going to keep falling in love, better it be skis than women!! Much, much less expensive.
Second, have a great time in Jackson Hole and do some rite/dance/celebration which will send some cold and snow our way east.
Have a great time.
Lynn

[Gary]

Thanks Lynn....and yes, I would agree.

However, my wife loves to ski and golf as well...so it's usually one for me and of course one for her...

Hmmmm, I wonder which is really more expensive.

Heck, wouldn't have it any other way!

I'll do what I can at JH to snow dance some snow out to the east!

Gary

[Ron]

Without a doubt a wife that skis is a very expensive proposition....

But worth it!

[Ghost]

I don't want to be a nit-picker, but someone has to.  Comparing the SS to the old (two generations ago) WC SC is not quite fair.  You should compare it to the new WC SC, or at least one that has a 13 m radius at 165 cm.

 

[Gary]

Hey Ghost...
I looked back a couple of years at Peters reviews and the turning radius of the WC sc in the 165 lenght has not changed much.
Not having skied that ski, not sure how they would compare. I do know Ron had a pair I think from last year and now skis the SS.

Still, it really may be a matter if skiing styles. The Fischer performance skis have really staked their terroritory as great performance skis the past few years.

Oh yeah...nit picking is what makes the forum interesting!

Best,
Gary

[jbotti]

Ghost, most people regard the older version of the SC as the superior one. That is not to say that perhaps the technology (distinct from design shape) may be superior now 3 yeears later. I skied the WC SC last year. It's a good ski. I actually like the shape of the older SC much better and the tighter turn radius, and that's why I bought it. Neither one compares with the SS in my opinion. The reason I wrote the comparison on the old SC was because I own them both and skied them on the same days and in the same conditions (and because someone, Michael, asked the question).

I have skied a lot of slalom carvers over the past two years (and I own a few pairs as well). Nothing IMO comes close to the SS.

Having said all this, because I have so much respect for Fischer skis, and have generally loved most Fischer skis I have been on, I would like to try the RX Fire, which has the same dimensions as the old WC SC, but hopefully has updated technology. It was rumored that these would be a late season intro this year (and currently only availabe in Europe). Perhaps we will start seeing them in the US in the next month. JB. 

[Aleksey]

I'm just wondering how good are SS on bumps and moguls?

Thanks in advance!

Aleksey.

[jbotti]

I find it to be an excellent ski in the bumps. What it may lack in flex (it's a relatively stiff ski) it makes up for with quickness and a very tight turn radius. It's a great ski for carving in the bumps and less good as a ski to slide with in the bumps. JB.

[Aleksey]

What length of SS would be better for 5'10'' 155 lbs skier? 165 or 170 cm? I tried them in 165 cm and really enjoyed it. I'm wondering if additional 5 cm will do anything.. Thanks a lot!

[jbotti]

I am 6 3" and 190 lbs and I find the 170 cm length to be plenty of ski. The 165 should be perfect for you. I would listen to your own experience as well in that you really enjoyed them. JB.

[Gary]

Hey Gang,
Just got back from a 3 day ski trip of local mountains. Best day was Monday with 4-8" of powder.

Must tell you I skied as did Ron the SS the entire 3 days in groomed snow, bumps, powder, broken crud, some death cookies , and some terrain parks.

Skied them forward, backward, (on green trails for short distances) powder along the trees, around trees, jumped some air in some terrain parks and am still convinced this ski works for me.

Now let me explain that last comment. I ski it in a 170 length and I'm 154 lbs. This ski I feel is a Thorobreed of skis. If you ever rode a horse and have one of the trail horses out, you can kind of just give the horse it's rein, sit back and enjoy the ride.

Do not try this on the Super Shapes....they will rocket you off without hesitation. This ski requires you be conscience ALL of the time while on board...be totally in charge of where the tips are going. For medium to long turns, ski them out of the center with a strong attack position, and ski the short and tight along the edge, quick turns, you must control the tips.

For carving, this ski responds best  when you commit 95-100% of your weight to the downhill ski....it's a scalpel...a real ski tool. If you have strong edging ski skills or know you really have committed to carving each turn, this ski will not disappoint.

What do you get for your effort....pure carving pleasure. Still for powder, bumps, and crud, you can two foot this bad boy with light tipping motion and never miss a beat. This ski to date..is a dream.

Still, I hope to get into some shin high powder to just see what MY limitations are with this ski. Sorry my 82's, you'll just have to wait for the deep stuff!

Gary

[Ron]

14" at Steamboat and another 6-8" in the next day.......

[Brendan]

Hi,

I am 160 pounds and 5,11 - has anyone tried the shorter version of the supershapes?  I know Peter has said that the 170 is the go but am wondering if the shorter version might be more in my ballpark considering my lighter weight.

Brendan

[Ron]

Brendan, the 170 SS is a different ski than the 165. If you can try both, do so. If you can handle the 170, which at 5 11' you should be able to , go that route. Don't forget the new Magnum SS coming out 121-71-107,

[Gary]

Brendan,
I mentioned that I'm 5'81/2 and 154 lbs and ski the 170 length.

Not sure what length ski you ski now or where your ski level is. I personally think the SS is a ski that requires strong technical skills to get the most out of. I went with the 170 length cause my RX8s were 170, and I think the extra length works well in powder and broken snow. My turn shapes run anywhere from short carvers to very short along the edge to medium and long swing carvers that create great G forces and a huge I just had sex smile.

If you are a skill strong skier (PMTS) or maybe have a race background, the 170 length should be cake. I have not skied the 165 length and don't know anything at all about the performance compared to the 170. Ron's point, ski both if you can demo. If you find the ski a bit more than you're comfortable with..the new Magnum SS looks pretty slick....again depending on your ski ability.

For me, there's a lot of enjoyment with the 170 SS in the way it starts, holds, and finishes each turn. If you have good balance skills, utilize counter rotation, and can commit to the down hill edge....this is one fantastic ski.

Best,
Gary

[fredm8]

While in Aspen Dec / Jan this year, I couldnt find any suitable rental skis until I stumbled across a pair of SuperShapes. Tried several different lenghts from 175 down to 160.
I'm 6'3", 210lbs early forties and ski anything groomed.

Fantastic for Colorado, no problems in powder on the one powder day, fabulous on the groomed.
Easy to get up on edge to carve.

Ended up buying a pair (cheaper than renting) and now looking forward to using these weapons on Turoa in the Southern winter.

Douglas

[Ron]

so what size did you end up with? welcome to the club