2006-07 Supershapes

[Mac]

Harald, in your new posted picture you seem to be skiing on what looks to be a new pair of 2006-07 Supershapes. In a previous post, Hobbit was looking into the possibility of getting a pair for himself, and was looking for some feedback. I gave him some advice based on what I had learned from demoing the SS on several occassions last year. I am wondering if this years version is pretty much the same as last years, as I am toying with the idea of getting a pair for myself. Based on you personal experience, am I safe buying a pair based on last years impressions, or has there been enough (or any) change in the performance of this years model to warrant going through the demo process again?
Thanks in advance.

[jbotti]

Mac, I can tell you that this years SS has returned unchanged from last years. The only difference is cosmetic. JB.

[Mac]

Thanks, JB. I suspected as much. The reason I was wondering is that in Peter's reviews, he doesn't post reviews on the carryover skis this year, that is skis that are unchanged from last years models. He did however, post a new review of this years' SS, which made me question whether it had been changed. That also might have had something to do with the construction differences, aka the difference of the softer tip in last years 160 and under model as opposed to the longer lengths that has supposedly since been addressed. I think that was the basis of Hobbitt's earlier inquirey as to whether it was safe to buy the 160 model now.

[jbotti]

Mac, Peters review of the SS last year was a source of much confusion. His team of people did ski it in a 160, which we have learned was a very soft ski. I had demoed the ski in a 170, and I was amazed at how much ski there was. Harald as well was raving about the ski. Harald finally shed some light on the matter when he said that all the 160's that they had tried were soft.

I think what Peter is doing with his '06-07 SS reveiw is updating the misleading review from last year. In fact he calls the review "updated" and this year they skied the 170 (and you will notice that last years review was of the 160).

The ski is the same from last year. Having said that I don't have a sense as to whether the 160 now has the same character as the 165's and 170's. Harald and Peter might know. My guess is the local Head rep would know as well.

[Mac]

I weigh in at 200lbs, and the 170 that I demoed (twice) was all the ski I needed. That would be the length I would buy. My everyday skis now are a pair of the XRC 1100 Chips, in a 177, which is also a fine all around ski. I think there are people out there like Hobbit who are interested in the 160 but are afraid to buy because of the different lengths controversy. It would be helpful if someone could jump in and clear that up. We could ask Peter, but I have the idea that he is still pretty busy getting the rest of the reviews up. Still, it would be a question worth asking.

[Icanski]

Hi,
In the Ski Canada reviews of both the SS speed, and the SS

regular

versions in the On-Piste cruisers section and On-Piste Carvers sections, respectively, they said the speed, in a 170 was best for

long radius, and stability

the regular version was described as best for long radius, at the 165 length, and the specific comment for this one was:

long radius to dynamic parallel, this ski has beautiful prdeictable edge grip and sweet release out of the turn. Fall line short radius is work, but oveall it's a versatile ski

The overall rating said it impressed in GS type turns and that it was a speed machine that requires skill and nerves of steel. the speed version was said to be best suited to strong experts. I don't really know the specifics of teh differences between these two versions. Were there also two last season?

I know that when HH let me switch with him at Fernie (he took my 170 Stockli Laser SCs) my ability to lay down some deep carved turns jumped immediately. I had been afraid to trust the stance ski and consequently it tended to skid out a bit or I just couldn't lay it over, but with some good instruction, and trying the SS I could get much farther over and trust that it wouldn't slip out. And I had a huge smile and was giggling all afternoon. The next day, (I had to reluctantly give HH the SS back) I had some monster m77 from the rental shop and could get them over and lay some nice deep tracks with them as well. they were 165s. I thought that both of them were making pretty short radius turns.
I don't understand why they say they are difficult in short radius and best for GS...aren't these meant to be a sort of juiced up slalom radius ski?
I'll be looking for some this season. the Stocklis required lots of speed to really get them to work at their potential. Like taking a Ferrari to the 7-11.
regards
John

[jbotti]

Icanski, it sounds to me that the comments in Ski Canada are both about the Super Shape Speed which I have never been on. These are really just another sandwich version of the XRC 1100 or 1200's (which I have been on). IMO the XRC's are definitely work in the fall line, but are awesome for GS type turns.

The Super Shapes (non speed) are tight arc carving machines, and they have among the tightest turning radius of any skis (12.1 meters at 170cm). There were no Super Shape Speeds last year, only the Super Shapes.

The issue in question is whether the 160cm lenghth this year will be very soft in the tip as they were last year. This created a very different ski than the 165's and 170's which were much stiffer in the tip. It is unclear how Head has designed the '07 160's and we are all awaiting some clarification on this. JB.

[Mac]

I've got a call in to Peter on the subject. I'll let you know as soon as I hear something. He did say that he has had some problems with his email, so we'll just have to wait and see.

[Ron]

Jbotti is 100% correct. I spoke to Peter about the SS earlier last season after i skied it and was so blown away by it. No changes from last season, and yes, they tested a 160 pre-production model that was then modified. You will also note that the dims are different as they get longer and this makes it perform differently, To me the optimal leghth is the 170.