Super Worldcup Supershapes

[SrMike]

See what you guys have done. Thanks to you, I have a pair of 170s coming. If I get in trouble with the better half, it's your fault.

Hopefully, the Supershapes should work well on midwestern (Ohio) conditions. Can't wait until they get here so I can make some turns on them. I am on Head XRC800s in a 177. While I like skiing on the XRC800s, I found skiing demos last year, I really like slalom carvers as they fit the way I like to ski. The slaloms were more demanding and gave me a pretty good workout so I will probably ski the 800s when I'm taking it easy, i.e. skiing with the family.

BTW, as far as Atomics go, I had a chance to demo some M11 Metrons last year in Steamboat and I really liked that ski. It seemed to match up well with the way I like to ski and I was confident enough on that ski to explore teraign I had not considered earlier in the week. I think I will eventually consider getting B5s in a 172. Funny thing about the Metrons though. I demoed a pair in Ohio and thought they were OK, but nothing special. They were great at Steamboat in Colorado conditions.

[Heyoka]

Heya Max,

No, but I'll keep my eye out. Atomic SL9. I'll be watching.

SrMike,

You should love them. Providing your technique is there, I think you'll get off on them. If you love them, please send Head an email, let them know.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Calling Heyoka, he/she/its need your help.
Could you please use your Head connections (not him again) to get us some answers? Below is a copy of John Botti's post on the gear forum about the SS, and my response with some questions, and some of Jim Raitliff's. If we could hassel you to read through it and then turn on the Sherlock powers, we would be Grateful Head.

JB:
I think I have finally figured out why Peter's review of the Super Shapes is so dratically different than my experience and different than Harald's and Heyoka's experience. I was skiing today with Diana Rogers and she was skiing the Super Shapes in a 160 cm length. Chris Brown at the Harb shop also skis them in 160cm length. She said that the tip is very soft. Which is what everypone who has skied the 160 has said. I commented that those that have skied the 170 or the 175 have not felt that the tip was mushy. And she agreed. She thinks Head has assumed that mostly women will be skiing the 160's and therefore they have softened the tip a ton. In reality, these are different skis in different lengths.

David, if this is a ski that you are close to purchasing, it appears that you must absolutely demo them in different length's or buy at least a 170 cm or larger.

I haven't checked Peter's site but I will bet that the size that was demo'd was the 160.

For what it's worth. JB.


Bs"D
Thanks JB for this important revelation.
It does seem that most of Peter's cards were on the shorter lengths. (Don't forget that most people would try this ski in the shorter lengths because it is a Slalom ski - despite the fact several of us share HH's strategy of using longer lengths in a slalom ski for all around free skiing?)
My first days on snow will probably be around Dec. 15 in Switzerland. I found only one shop where I will be that has it, and he only has it to demo @ 170cm. I thought, great, that is the length I'm looking for anyway. But, I will not be able to compare. I either need more info (as to where the 165cm - the only other possibility - fits in), or, as you suggest, I will just buy the 170cm. after demoing it.
But, two questions that hopefully you can get to the bottom of before I have to pull the trigger, are curious. If this theory is true, why didn't/doesn't Head make this clear? It is a major issue which has baffled us for a while, and as you said, it is like two different skis at the different lengths.
Also, why does Diana, a strong race ready woman use the "woman's" model - even for freeskiing/teaching?! She used to use the Elan SLX (a very serious stiff carver) for that? And, for all around she also used another Elan all mountain model in a longer length. And, why does Chris Brown also use it @ 160cm (is "Chris" a man or woman, and how does he/she ski?)?
Maybe Diana could call Head.
If all else fails, I will just get the 170cm.
Thanks again!

Jim:
[A lot of mixed messages]...There is the Fast Thang SL that Peter describes as the womans specific SuperShape, so why would they design the shorter SuperShape with a wimpy shovel (especially since most buyers will look at the dimensions, think slalom, and buy 160). I haven't heard anyone describe the 160 favorably because of it.
There is Harald's statement that you have to have a 3 degree side bevel to get them to perform?

[Tommi]

Just my 2 cents worth:

How soft are the supershapes?

I compared very stiff skis to the supershapes, Atomic SL11m 04/05 in 160cm to Supershapes in 170cm:
I simultaneously bent the skis in my garage, just a static test. Overall bend of the Supershapes was approx 50% more than the Atomics (accuracy of this value is not the best possible..).
But, the bend curve is different. Atomic bends in a very linear way, almost like an arc of a circle. Probably typical for race slalom skis, which are optimized for high forces and small turn radius range.

Supershape bend curve is more elliptical. The first 20% of the tip is quite soft, but then it gets gradually stiffer closer to the center. Actually, I think this is very typical for skis that have been 'tamed' from race skis. This is probably the secret behind the versatility and ease in soft conditions. Also the sidecut seems different, in a similar, elliptic way.

For me, it's a bit easier to get carved small radius turns with the 170cm supershapes than with the 160cm Atomic slaloms, especially in slow speeds. Atomic sidecut is not very radical, radius is approx 14m compared to 12 m of the Supershapes in 170cm.

In softer conditions the Atomics are a nightmare, where SS works very well. However, in hard/ice conditions the difference is very small, Atomics really being perfect and supershapes good. I have the factory standard side bevel in the supershapes, which seems to be less than 3 degrees. With higher side bevel the difference may be even smaller in very hard conditions?

Tommi (T2)

PS Beaver creek GS looks pretty interesting from US/Finland perspective..

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Tommy, your point on the softer shovel for versatility is well taken, but is the shovel of the 160cm (and 165cm) even softer. Must one get the 170cm or longer to get at least the amount of stiffness that you experienced?
Could this be the explaination for the mixed reviews - some are touting the ski as lacking power and agressiveness, but it seems that they were probably based on the shorter lengths?

[Mac]

I demoed the Supershapes last weekend at a demo event. I wasn't expecting too much after some of the negative reviews I had read. Actually I just took them out to kill some time while I was waiting for another pair I wanted to try to became available. I tried them in a 170. I weigh about 200 lbs, and normally ski a 177. Peter's review of them said that the tip was soft, but I didn't find that to be the case, which surprized me a bit, as usually I pretty much agree with Peter's reviews. I took them through some nice bumps, and they behaved quite well, as long as you didn't take the bumps head on, as they would tend to lauch you a bit. I also didn't find them to be squirrelly as I had read over on Epic, quite the opposite. Likewise with the comment someone posted about not being able to make a good turn on them. Must have been a tuning issue, because I found that I couldn't make a bad turn on them. Very puzzling, because all the stuff I had read about these skis turned out to be the exact opposite of what I experienced. I'm headed to another demo day next weekend, and I plan on spending some more time on these, as I only took a couple of short runs on them. Maybe I'll have some more answers after getting better aquainted with them.

[Heyoka]

We got he/she/its bending skis in their garage, comparing. Way cool.

Max. Let us know what your thoughts are.

I did talk to Peter. He says that when the cards came in for the Supershapes, he knew something was off. Peter plans to ski it himself, then update the review.

So in this case one has to pretty much ignore the Keelty review, as it's not accurate.

My clue was when HH posted about them. Then I started thinking (smell the smoke?). Harald was on them at the Love Land that day. We was on them at race camp. Hmm. Then the post, then I demoed the 170 myself -- which I knew would be too short for me or my purpose. My bet was that if it felt good in a 170, it'd feel better in a 175.

He shoots, he scores.

Remember. I replaced the ic160, which as it turns out, I should have replaced a year or so ago. I had outgrown that ski. My mistake was thinking I needed to stay in the same ic160 genre.

Luck be a lady.

I'm sticking with my im75's. I gave away my ic160's to a he/she/it. So my quiver is:

1) Supershape
2) im75**
3) im88

**I'll replace the im75 with the im72. I dig the im72 because it has the same graphics as the i88 and the liquidmetal, which seems to be working for me. I'm digging the liquidmetal. The 72 is going to be quicker than the 75, which is quick. Then, it'll be better all mountain, with the liquidmetal. I can get in a 177, perfect. The 72 is a bitchin ski.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
"KISS"
Not only keep it simple stupid, but keep it (only) SS (Supershape, and not 72)
It seems that one of the beautiful things w/ the SS and the im88, is that you don't need anything else - even that sweet im72.
If you could only have one ski, then yeah, it would be either the im72 or im77 depending on where and what you ski more etc.
But, the other two got it all covered.
SS is much more than just a Slalom ski. It starts from the bottom (groomed hardpack) w/ its sandwich and deep sidecut, but has the contruction for high speed stability along with its little extra width (and especially at longer than normally would be skied for a Slalom), and can even handle the left over (and firmer) powder according to you guys. So, it goes all the way up to where you would already want the im88 - powder day, or maybe day after. And, conversely, according to you guys, the im88, w/ its sandwich construction and relatively deep sidecut for such a wide float providing board, also takes you past all of those transition days after the storm, all the way down to where you would already want to get back on your SSs.
Either one of the other two will be better at the extremes than the im72, and probably almost as good at the in betweens.
So, finally we are able to go to a truely effective two ski quiver, and you want to hang onto ("hmmm which one to choose?") yesterday?
Just keep the 75s for rock skis, and you're done. Forget the graphics, its good to be done.

[Tommi]

Heyoka, I truly am a professional ski bender
I'll better stay in my garage, because there is almost no snow here.
But I'm waitin. As long as it takes.
Perkele!
Cheers,
T2

[Max_501]

Harald,

Should I stick with my 160cm Head iSL Chips for masters racing or should I switch to the SuperShapes in a 165cm?

Thanks!

[Heyoka]

Yesterday at the Beav I was a little off in the bumps on my supershapes. That ski can get out in front of you, fast. Then when it does, it's not as easy to real back in. You don't want to get behind on it. It was cold, maybe I was having a bad day. Or maybe that I've been on my i88's for a few days? Or maybe that I have the 175, which probably stretches out to about a friggin 220 in the old skis. Or that I need to fine tune my bumpies turns?

On the flip side, I found some milk in Rose Bowl (I called botti). In the milk I was actually carving, I could feel it. Short stretches of milk for sure, but milk none the less. I stopped and looked up hill, I could see tracks in the milk. I have never experienced that type of turn in the milk before. So today with Blue Sky opening, I'm thinking of bring my supershapes. I have that much confidence in them.

My carving has never been better. I'm known as a skidder, right? Not so fast, long turns face.

I'm not laying tracks, I'm diggin friggin trenches. The trenches are equal distance apart, all the way through the turn. Yesterday my hand was touching the snow in a turn. I can get over on them so far, I worry I'm going to boot out.

That ski is ball to be on. 5 or 6 days later I'm...as happy as a hooker with new shoes (note to self. Come up with a new saying) that I bought them. Just don't get behind, respect the power they have.

Enjoy.

[Heyoka]

Bs"D!

Did you catch what the Rad said?
"Grateful Head".
Bitchin.
You're right. No way I'm buying the 72. What was I theenkin? If I buy another pair or skis it'll be another pair of supershapes, for use when my other pair is getting tuned. Good i.

Oh and BTW. The i supershape is my every day ski now. I'm not skiing anything else -- I refuse. Anybody need a pair of im 75's? Free to a good home. Nah, I'll use 'em for rock skis. Did I mention? The next big milk day I'm leaving the 88's in the garage. I'm showin up with my...you guessed it...i supershapes.

Harald.
I was so on today at the Beav. Rose Bowl, Grouse, Front side, Larkspur, a couple of Peregrines. Just nailin it. The snow is so good. I'll probably go to Vail tomorrow. Gawd, these choices I have to make.

[Max_501]

I demo'd the SuperShape today in a 160. Yeah, I know, everyone seems to hate that size. Well, you know what, I think it skis just fine in a 160. Feels like a slightly detuned oversided SL ski to me. Its a great carver and handles light crud fine. But, my 162 Metron B5 kicks the crap out of it in real crud. My guess is that if I were to buy it I'd go for a 165 or a 170.

Anyway, the 160 is more like an Atomic SL9 (another overside detuned SL ski) than the Metron B5 (an all mountain SL derivative).

[onyxjl]

What length would those of you that have skied it recommend for a 160lb, 6'0" improving all-mountain skier? I live in the midwest so skiing in any real powder regularly is not going to happen, but I usually get in around 10-15 days out west each year. The SuperShape sounds like a great ski for me where it can rip in the conditions I ski most, but also handle the in-bounds conditions I usually ski out west.

I am really thinking about pulling the trigger on a pair, but I a little undecided between the 165 and 170 length.

[Heyoka]

In case anyone missed it, I'm not out a pair of i supershapes. I'm jonezin, big time.

I need a miracle. The ski is probably sold out, but I have to have my i supershapes.

Harald. Would you please see what you can do to get me a pair? I sent Eric an email, but he hasn't got back to me.