Supershape Titan

[Max_501]

Try the Movement Jam.

[Mac]

Don't know of anyone that carries them in my area. Not really looking to buy any skis anyway, but that is always subject to change. If I run across a pair at any demo events, I'll give them a try. But I'm much more apt to buy something with a sub 80mm waist. I have a pair of Elan Magfire 82 Ti's in the closet, and very seldom use them. I seem to have a conflict of interests. I much prefer the feel of a technical carver as opposed to a wide design, yet I would much rather ski ungroomed conditions than I do groomers. Which here in New England is not always and option. But I would much prefer to deal with the limitations of a narrow ski in deep snow than I would the limitations of a fat ski on groomed hardpack.

[Max_501]

For 78mm waist its hard to beat the price/performance ratio of the IM78. Plenty of ski for most conditions.

[Skiasaurus Rex]

I'm going to echo the sentiments of most of the posters here and say any mid fat (78mm give or take a couple of mm) that is overly stiff-especially unforgiving tips and tails that don't release fairly easily don't make for good one ski quivers, and tend to be a real chore in New England off piste (tight trees and choppy bumps). They are however not bad choices in crud and corn provided you have some room to turn them at the speed they like to be skied. Some skiers love powerhouse, no-nonsense skis like those (I ski with a few who love the Rossi CX80 and consider it the gold standard of all-purpose skis...I always found it a beast). But if the word 'brushed' is ever applied to the word 'carve' in your skiing you might find skis like these more than you bargained for.

I've never skied the Titan-can't speak to it directly but to sounds like a bear of a ski. I've never skied the im78 either-but I get that it is a great ski.

If you are looking for one ski to handle all New England conditions and not suck out west I'll add a few more suggestions:

Hart Pulse-wonderful ski, medium flex, easy to carve, well-made and enjoyable. I really wish this revived company could gain some traction in the US market.

Watea 78--these may be all but gone, but I was always impressed with the wide envelope of usage for this ski--find a left over pair from a few years ago cheap and you'd be stoked.

The real truth is-you might need to face up to the fact that in order to get the best of both worlds, you want two pairs of skis-each more purpose focused.

Stockli Rotor: I've skied the old 76--it's a ski I wished I had bought. The 84 is evidenly great too as is the 72. These are a little stiffer than average, but very responsive feeling with nice, easy releasing tails.

[BobD]

Realskiers also gives a 5 grade for clean carve for some heaviliy tip and tail rockered skis. That's the same grade as the ISL RD gets. Come on, you can't be serious!!

Peter Keelty acknowledges your point where he writes:

"It is also important to understand that performance scores are relative to their genres. In other words, a race slalom score of 5 for carving and an all-mountain versatile, early-rise ski score of 5 [for carving] are not the same thing. In fact, they might as well be in parallel universes!"

[jbotti]

I guess I should be clear about something. I think Peter does a great job and even more importantly, Peter introduced me to Harald and for that I will always be grateful. Peter has taken many phone calls from me and we have become decent friends. The comment from his site that you posted he put up after I pointed out the disconnect between the 5 clean carve marks on slalom skis and wide rockered skis. More than anything, it is impotant to realize that Peter has moved to a model where he relies very much on the test cards that he gets back from a good sized group of skiers. In the early years his reviews were done by a much smaller group and almost all were ex racers and Harald was a key contributor.

I find Peter's site still to be an excllent tool. Having said that, he is getting cards and comments back from skiers that are using very different movements than we are (or aspire to be using), hence the relevance of the reviews for PMTS skiers isn't there the way it used to be.

Reviews are only as good as the skiers giving them and their relevance is only high (to our own skiing) when we know that the skiers are using the same movements that we are.

[BobD]

I guess I should be clear about something. I think Peter does a great job and even more importantly, Peter introduced me to Harald and for that I will always be grateful.

I guess I learned of Harald and PMTS through Peter, also. (I suppose it was back when Inside Tracks was still being published.) Count me among those who are grateful to Peter for this.

My point is a very simple one, listen only to reviews from people you know and you know how they ski!! We know how Harald skis and what he is looking for in a ski and why he chooses them.

Point taken. And thanks jbotti for the original post in this thread.

[Skiasaurus Rex]

It does help to also consider exactly where you will use a ski most. Mac, where are you looking to use this ski? As a front side carver that can tackle crud and soft snow in more open areas (where there is room to turn at speed)--that sounds like where Peter's crew tested these skis--and that is exactly Peter's preferred terrain.

If you are venturing into tight spaces on a fairly consistent basis, along with moguls, et al with these skis...well, I would take Harald's pointed detractions of these skis pretty seriously.

[Mac]

Quote "
I've been on the 177cm Titans on a couple of occasions in different conditions (with fresh tunes), and the problem is really the flex profile, in my opinion. It's like they took an SS Magnum and made it wider. This is still not very useful off-piste for most of us, because the limitation on the SS Magnum isn't the width, but the flex profile. The tip spears into stuff rather than bending and riding over it, so you've got to be super careful about reading the snow and managing fore/aft. Great, so we go longer to get more fore/aft forgiveness...which leaves you with a ski you can't bend at any speed reasonable for the turn radius."

I couldn't disagree with this statement enough. I owned a pair of the SS Magnums in a 177. I'm 184cm tall, so I'll assume I was on the right length. My issue with them was just the opposite. The tip on the pair I had was softer than any ski I ever owned. Great for skiing bumps and crud, the tip was so flexible it would just wrap itself around the bumps. But the skis flex profile was so soft that it made it very difficult to engage the ski's tips on hard snow, and keep the tips engaged at any kind of speed. The ski just had a very vague feel to it at speed, didn't really feel connected to the snow. At first, I thought it had something to do with the tune, but I brought them to a reputable shop to be tuned to a 1/2 base and 3 degree side, and it didn't really change them that much. Those skis were so soft, I was starting to think that they were defective. Either that or someone left them next to a radiator too long. I have read that the SS Titan is basically a wider version of the SS Magnum, so I'm a little leary of them being too soft, too. But Todd seems to think that they were stiff enough, and he's a pretty big boy so I'll just have to wait and see for myself. But the ski that Dan described above was the total opposite of the skis I owned.

[dan.boisvert]

I don't know what to tell you, Mac. Maybe your SS Magnums were defective. I think you're the only person I've heard say his Magnums were softer than the normal Supershape, now that I think of it. I own the SS Magnum in 170cm, the iM78 in 177cm, and the i.GS RD in 178cm. I don't have a problem bending any of those the way I want at the speeds I want to be skiing on them. I'd actually like the iM78 to be a bit stiffer or have a larger radius for the speeds I like to ski on it, hence my quest for something in the 18-21m range that's maybe a little wider (likely to be filled by the Movement Pariah).

Then again, if I was your size, I'd probably also think the 177 was too soft and want to be on the 184. You're probably right that for the Titan to feel to me like the 177 would for you, I'd need to be on the 163 or something...but I've never seen a ski that short that's stable at the speeds I like to ski and makes the turns I want to make, so there's not much point for me. The closest I'd get would be a 165cm race-stock slalom ski, but I don't want to make turns that small every day, and those get scary if you try to make larger turns at higher speeds, too. That's a quiver ski for me, and I'm not looking for a 78mm wide ski to fill that role when a real SL will put a much bigger grin on my face.

Anyway, at the length you like your skis, maybe you'd like the Titan. Harald didn't; Todd didn't; I didn't, but it can't hurt to give it a try. I'll let you know if Sport Thoma has a pair available for demo again this year. I'm pretty sure they sold last year's pair..

[Max_501]

I couldn't disagree with this statement enough. I owned a pair of the SS Magnums in a 177. I'm 184cm tall, so I'll assume I was on the right length. My issue with them was just the opposite. The tip on the pair I had was softer than any ski I ever owned.

What other skis do you own? I wouldn't describe the Magnum as soft.

[Mac]

At the beginning of last season, I owned five pairs. Kastle MX 78, Elan 82 Ti, Fischer Progressor 9, Dynastar Contact Ti and Head IM 78. Previous pairs in recent memory, Head SS Magnum, Dynastar Contact 4x4, Elan Speedwave and Magfire 78 Ti, etc. A friend of mine who is an instructor and racer also owned a pair. He's about the same size I am, (6', 200 lbs) and he said he felt like they were border line too soft, too. But I'm not dicounting Dan's opinion, either. I have also heard more than a few people say that they consider it to be a stiff ski, so who knows. I just found them to be a bit wimpy, at least in comparison to the Dynastar 4x4, which in a 178 I found to be a burly ski.

[Mac]

You guys have got to remember that I'm not trying to build a case for the Titan, either. I was just intrigued by the ski's potential and some positive feedback I had recieved about it. And you've also got to remember that when Harald first tried the ski, the one he tried was a pre production prototype that he fully expected would be tweaked before it went into production. So before we go drawing lines in the sand and circling the wagons, give me a chance to try it. If I don't like it, I'll be the first one to say it sucks. And if it really lights my fire, then I wouldn't be adverse to bringing a pair home with me. Because anything that makes my life more fun on the slopes is always my common denominator.

[CO_Steve]

Last spring three of us (JMD, Geoffda and myself) spent quite a few days passing various skis around at the Basin. We range from 150-190 and various PMTS skill levels yet I can't recall any one ski that everyone universally loved. Of course we were limited to one length which in some cases was clearly not right. I remember skiing some IM78s in 171 (I'm the heaviest one) and being underwhelmed yet I later got on a pair in 177 and found them to be great. There were some skis that we all didn't like, notably a pair of MX78s that seem to get raves here. Geoff seemed to really enjoy a pair of Supershape Speeds even though they don't often get mentioned. I couldn't get too worked up over the Jams in 171 while the other guys love them.

I guess my point is that not only does PMTS demand a certain type of ski many other factors seem to be involved including getting the right length etc. I guess there's no substitute for personal experience.

[Skiasaurus Rex]

Mac,

just looking at the list of skis you already own...why do you need another ski? More specifically another 78mm waisted ski? That's a pretty good list of skis that all, except the Contact Ti, cover similar terrain and purposes.