by RadRab » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:55 am
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?
Last edited by RadRab on Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.