iSupershape: Go cheap, go long or go home?

[geoffda]

So I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've found a great deal on iSuperShapes, but only in 165. I'm 6' 150-155lbs and normally ski fast. I've got an iSL WC RD in that size and it is rock solid, but it is a bit too stiff to make skiing hard bumps a pleasure.

I'm looking for a good all-around ski to take to the SuperBlue camp in January and it seems like the SS is it. But I'm a little leery about 165 being too squirelly. Is there enough difference between the 165 and the 170 that I'm going to be sorry if I go short? Also, I normally ski a longer ski (more margin for error when dropping off stuff). Should I consider the 175? Paul seems to love it, but he's a bigger guy than I am...

Thanks,

--geoff

[DVLocal]

I weight 165-170 and ski on a 165 SS - it is great - I think that weight is more important height - I am 5'6"

In bumps the increased flexibility of the somewhat shorter ski should make it easier to flex on the turn at a somewhat slower speed and with decreased loading required for the flex.

Colin

[geoffda]

Hi Colin. Thanks for the response. That was helpful.

[orangeman]

I have skied the SS's in a 165 for 3 years. I'm 5'8", 190lbs. It is stable and very fun! Go as short as you can..........

[Mikey B]

I'm 5' 10" 155 -160lbs. and I ski the SS in 165 at all speeds, and size turns... I love it.


Mike

[François]

The 165 SS should be fine PROVIDED you use it for what it's intended purpose is, that is, making short radius turns. Being softer will make the SS better in bumps, I say go for it (provided).

I weigh about 165-170 and have had a 13-m 165 cm FISCHER WC SC as my main ski for the past little while, but I did demo the SS in a very short length (one fifty something) along with quite a few other skis in a wide range of lengths over the past few years. From my demo I could tell that it would be great in 165; it was very good at the shorter length.

The problem is that although you certainly can use a 13-m ski at high speeds and long radius turns, longer radius skis just work so much better at that game. I've got a couple of longer skis that excel at higher speeds and longer radius turns, and the 13-m ski might seem good if you haven't tried the longer radius skis at speed, but it really just doesn't compare.

It's not just a preference thing; it's a safety concern. The short radius ski can easily bite you. They were designed to be flexible enough to bend into a tight turn at low speeds and forces. Subjecting them to high forces that go along with high speeds can, if they should manage to grip and not slip in a high-speed long-radius turn (immediately dialing up a much shorter turn) they will fold up and either break your leg or eject you.

Final Answer: Go for the 165 SS, and ski it the way it was meant to be skied. Bring along a pair of GS skis too, for when you want to ski fast.

[Mikey B]

While what Francois says may be true about short radius skis in general, he admittedly does not own or ski the SS. I have been skiing it for 3 seasons now as my primary ski (also have Monster 78) I have no problem at high speed GS turns with the SS in 165, and have seen HH and Diana rip turns of various radius with this ski with no problems. While I'm not saying that a dedicated GS might not be a more optimal choice for high speed GS turns...I don't know about you, but when I ski, I may ski each run differently depending upon the terrain, crowds, and/or purpose...it's not like you have that second pair of skis in your pocket for when you want to ski fast GS turns. The SS is a good all around ski, and at that price, a steal...I think this years model will be over $1,000.00. I say go for it

Mike

[orangeman]

I agree with Mikey B.
The SS's @ 165 ski ALL turn shapes, and I would have to scare myself to ski them any faster.
If your technique is on....not a problem.
Go for it.

[Max_501]

I also have the SS in 165 (in a 170 too) and I'm about 5'11". Its reasonably stable at typical short turn speeds and I like it in the bumps, although it can be a bit hooky because of the wide tip and tail. It is basically a turny detuned (as in a softer flex) SL ski. The design makes it easier to engage and bend when compared to a race stock SL ski. If I'm going to be making GS turns it is not my tool of choice. For that I'll use my iRace (which is similar to the SS Speed) or race stock GS skis.

[h.harb]

Don't forget there is a new Head ski out the, Icon TT. It's in between a Super Shape and a iSpeed GS. I'm skiing on it in one of the You Tube "short turn" videos at Loveland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqB7BHl_5Mc

This is a great bump skis and it makes excellent GS turns. This is my everyday ski for the season.

[geoffda]

That's good to know. Might have pulled the trigger on that (had I known), but for the fact that the Supershapes only cost me $350 (including Tyrolia FF16 mounted). Couldn't pass up that deal. BTW, thanks for all of the size suggestions everyone. As it turns out he had one last pair of 170's hiding in the closet, so I ended up following my gut & opting a little longer. However, had that not been the case I would have followed everyone's advice and gone for the 165s.

[ToddW]

Harald,

Clarification question: There's a series of Icon TT skis (20, 40, 60, 80.) Are you recommending the 80 or the 60?

[h.harb]

Top of the line without the chip that's the TT Icon 80, I have a pair downstairs. They are white. We didn't like the chip version.

[geoffda]

Just a followup on this thread. It turned out that the shop did have a pair of 170cm SSs left in the closet so I ended up going with my gut and buying them. Last week, my buddy picked up a pair in the 165 length and since we share the same din size, he let me take them for a ride. Based on that experience, I can say that for my skiing style (very aggressive), 170 is a much better choice. The SS is a weak tracking ski (meaning it doesn't tend to want to go in the direction you point them when the ski is flat). For me, straightlining the 165 was a bit of a nerve-wracking experience. The ski was much to squirrelly trying to straightline at speed. However, the extra five cm in the 170 makes a marked difference in tracking performance (at least for me--6'0", 150 lbs). It is still far from perfect, but it is solid enough that I don't think twice about pointing them when I need to. The 165 is a great ski when on edge and can be skied at high speeds (while on edge), but the lack of tracking in that length may be an issue if you are looking for an all around ski. No question it is a great ski, but get the length right if you need more than just a slalom ski.