supershape size question again

[natlee]

I bought the supershape in a 165 but have been noticing that most skiers are recommending the 170. I have not mounted them yet. Is it worth sending them back?
5'11"
180#
ski mainly in the midwest on hard pack
own Stockli sl 171, Stockli GS 182, allstar 168
Nordica dobi 150

thanks for you opinions

[jbotti]

I have never heard of their being a problem with the 165 length. The early version of the 160 was very soft and especially so in the tip. My guess is that they have corrected this on the '07 ski.

I did read Peter Keelty's comments yesterday and he said that his demo last year had occurred on a 165cm ski. This is not what his review said last year (160cm). My guess is that Peter is remembering incorrectly and that he was on a soft 160 last year. Having said this you may want to e-mail him and see what he says about the 165cm length.

I feel pretty confident in saying that Harald Harb has seen no issues with the 165cm length. JB.

[Mac]

There's so many things to consider when it comes to ski length that it is difficult to give a definate answer to that. I'm 200 lbs, and I found the 170 was the right length for me. I could ski it in a 175, my everyday skis are 177's, but I think this particular ski is more effective if you ski it a little shorter. I'm guessing from your height and weight that the 165 is probably the right length for you, also taking in to consideration where you are skiing, but that is only my humble opinion.

[Icanski]

I spoke with a Head rep at the Toronto ski show and he told me that the problem was on the 160s and mostly preproduction models, and that it's been addressed for this season.
I'm 5'11 and 185 and I'm probably getting the 165. I want the shorter turn radius.
I've got some Stockli 177 if I want something long that requires great speed to turn.

Icanski

[Ron]

IMHO- if you can get exchange them for 170's i would. Look at the dims on the 165 vs. the 170. You would be just fine with the 170. I'm 6', 175. The turning radius is plenty tight and gives more versitility and stability.

[Ron]

[quote="jbotti"]I have never heard of their being a problem with the 165 length. The early version of the 160 was very soft and especially so in the tip. My guess is that they have corrected this on the '07 ski.

I did read Peter Keelty's comments yesterday and he said that his demo last year had occurred on a 165cm ski. This is not what his review said last year (160cm). My guess is that Peter is remembering incorrectly and that he was on a soft 160 last year. Having said this you may want to e-mail him and see what he says about the 165cm length.

I feel pretty confident in saying that Harald Harb has seen no issues with the 165cm length. JB.[/quote]

JB is correctg, i remember speaking with Peter last season after getting my 170's and telling him he needed to go re-demo the ski. I do believe the 170 is the better length.

[Golfskisleep]

Folks I have the same 165 vs 170 dilemma ... 165 for energy and short turns on groomed or 170 for greater versatility off piste and crud ... ... am 5'10" and 165-170lbs and a strong blue/easy black skier ... comments appreciated ... BUT I have an even bigger problem - how to figure out which Supershapes are mine when getting together with my PMTS buddies!

[Ron]

I would go with the 170's. THere is no difference in energy with the 165's the 170 has plenty of that. It still makes very short turns.

[rbrooks]

Guys--

I skied with Chris Brown pre-Christmas. He starts his days on the double black crud at Loveland on his 165's. He has no trouble on or off-piste.

Colin, Vicki says we're bringing Kittiecat to Winter Park, so you won't have Gatta withdrawal.

Randy

[Ron]

either size is goin gto be awesome but I still prefer the dims on the 170

[Max_501]

I'm 170lbs. I have the SS in a 170cm. I didn't demo the 165cm so I can't compare them and certainly the same ski in different sizes will often feel surprisingly different. At my weight and skill level the 170cm is capable of tight high energy turns. In addition, the 170cm gives me just enough float and stability for up to 12" of powder. All that said, if I know I'm going to be spending the day carving on groomed runs I'll typically grab my 160cm Head iSL Chips.

[Icanski]

Hi,
I just got back from five days at Tremblant. I skied four and got rained out on one of the five, so we were on lots of ice sheets, and gravel sized nuggets of hard ice and snow. It was like skiing on marbles at times. They had only a few blacks open, and I was mainly on the greens and blues with my 9 year old daughter. I am 5'10", 185 and was on my new SS in 165. They were fantastic. I have never been able to ski across ice and hold it like this before. They could do really tight quick turns and I could fly down the greens and leave railroad tracks all over. I worked on many of the exercises in the new book, and my skiing jumped up a notch. I did take one run on a black during a lunch break, so I was alone, and it transfered there as well. These skis are terrific, and I'm on the 165. I'm coming off of Stockli Snake BCm and Laser SC, both in 177cm, and my older Volkl T50 supersports. they were excellent, but this is so much better and more fun. The Stocklis were really fast, but didn't perform until at high speed. I can have great fun and carve all over on the SS. I'm happy with this size. Yahoo...now, we just need snow!
Icanski

[Max_501]

The Worldcup i.SL Chip was a lot of ski. To me it felt stiffer and less forgiving than the Supershape.

Now that's a surprise! Exactly opposite of how I feel about the two skis but I ski the SS in a 170cm.

[skidaddle]

I recently demoed the SuperShape at 165cm in Utah. The conditions were hard groomed and hardpack. I am 6'2" and weigh 200lbs. You may wonder why I didn't opt for the 170 (I am kicking myself that I didn't at least go back and swap out) It was day 4, my legs were tired, and I had to walk down two flights of stairs to get to them so I whimped out. I was psyched out by the reviews I had read noting the need for great technical skill so I erred on the short side.

I have been skiing for 5 years, I am 51, I ski everything pretty well except bumps, (it happens but it ain't pretty) I usually ski Head IM 75, for this trip I had some 72's.

The supershapes felt a little too short right away. They just felt too squirrelly at slow speed until I got used to them. They were great at speed and really wanted to run fast. The were absolutely solid at speed while carving. They were lively and quick and required paying attention. I was skiing with my kids so, I had to keep slowing them down and checking my speed. As I said, it was day 4 and this was tiring me out. I would like to ride them with fresh legs and long enough to get more aquainted with them and in a situation where I could let them run. I personally suspect that I would prefer the 170; we'll have to see. These do require energy to get out of them what they were built for. For me, that could be a great excuse to get into better shape. They are fun!

[rbrooks]

And to make matters more complicated, Al's Ski Barn now advertises the '08 Supershape SS Magnum, at 121-71-107.

Last one in's a rotten egg

(with thanks to Golfskisleep)

Randy