Review: 2008 Head Supershape Magnum

Time to chime in on some new skis:

Skier: former FIS racer, grew up skiing in Utah, skied primarily in the east since 1993.
Height: 76 inches / 193 cm
Weight: 198 lb. / 90 kg / 14 stone (for the UK crowd)

Skis: 2008 Head Supershape Magnum
Length: 177 cm
Bevels: 1 degree base / 3 degree side

Conditions: just about everything that New England can generate: boilerplate ice, hardpacked corduroy, hard moguls, soft moguls, smooth-but-ungroomed, crud, both windblown and rain-created crust, powder - sometimes a combination of many of the above in the same run, or same turn.
Slopes: mild greens to solid blacks, with a few very steep pitches, quite a few narrow lanes through tight trees. Also ran NASTAR gates at Loon (a flat course).

Review: I auditioned a lot of skis this season, including these, the Fischer Progressors (which I may also buy once the 180 cm model of the 9+ becomes available), the regular Head Supershapes, and the Atomic Nomad Blackeye. These rose to the top during a demo day close to home here in DC, so I bought 'em from Dawgcatching and took delivery of 'em in time for my President's Day weekend trip to New Hampshire.

Day one on 'em was at Loon, where the effects from rains a few days previous were evident on the higher and steeper slopes. Temperatures were in the mid-30s all day, so the snow that wasn't boilerplate was soft and very ego-boosting. Loon grooms a lot of their terrain, so it was a good chance to see if the skis had a speed limit. They held solidly on the boilerplate, and had no speed limit that I could discern. And they did well at slower speeds, too, though not as effortlessly as the plain Supershapes. In the hard bumps, they were easy to pilot, and in the gates they were happy to both turn and glide.

Day two was at Cannon, where the effects of an overnight drop in temperatures (the top of the tram was -10º F at the start of the day, with clear skies) made the snow a lot more challenging. Additionally, the overnight hours also saw a fall of 4-6 inches of fresh snow, which was wind deposited in some areas as deep as 10-12 inches. I was skiing with KevinF, and we tried all kinds of terrain: steep groomers, non-groomed bumps with powder, and some "off-piste" over at Mittersill, the abandoned area adjacent to Cannon. These skis performed exceptionally well in any conditions I faced, and at any speed. In the moguls leading into Mittersill, they were the most rock-solid bump skis I've ever skied - yet also let loose at high-mach GS turns with nary a whimper. In the crud at Cannon and Mittersill, the skis tracked true, and the ski felt longer than its 177 cm when brought up to speed.

Summary: a great ski for the advanced or expert skier who wants the stability and tracking of a race ski with more all-mountain versatility. Not really a 50/50 front/back ski - more of a 70/30 - but adaptable to almost any condition (even foot-deep powder).

songfta, while you quite clearly are a more advanced and experienced skier that I, my impressions are the same as yours. The best all around, every day ski I've ever owned. Whether teaching skiers at Level 1, 2 or 3, or racing the boss from the top, these skis do all I ask, and do it comfortably.

To demonstrate how versatile these skis are: I'm a 68 year-old, tough old geezer skier, long ago instructor, 5'11", 225 lbs., who still can carve on Eastern groomers. I also love a variety of turn shapes from short, to medium, to high-speed GS turns. The Magnums(I ski the 170's) are the best, all round skis that I've ever owned. And, one of the few skis that I've kept for more than one year. I ski 5-6 times a week.

I'm thinking one of the Supershapes would be ideal for my NASTAR racing, question is which ones. I am leaning towards the Supershape Speed since their radius lands right in the middle of my iSL and iGS skis. What do you guys that have tried them think?

I think the Supershape Speed is the best of the supershapes, at least on harder snow.

Rich: I'd imagine the SS Speed would be perfect for NASTAR. The SS Magnum works great in the NASTAR course, as well, but you might want the more narrow waist of the Speed if you plan on using the skis in the gates more often.

The main reason I went with the extra width of the Magnum was for the all-mountain, all-snow versatility. Then again, the Fischer Progressor is a 70mm waist ski, and it's excellent in the gates, too (and to be honest, the Magnum doesn't really give up a lot in the NASTAR courses).

Well I am about to buy the Supershape Speeds, but the package deal includes FF11 bindings. My BSL is 303 mm, so I know they will fit, but I am a wee bit concerned about the DIN. My other two race skis have FF17 and FF18x, which I use at 10 and 12 DIN respectively. My understanding, perhaps erroneously, is the FF11 is a junior binding. Do those of you in the know think that it will be alright to use the FF11 @ 10 or even 11 ? Oh my weight during ski season will be 200lbs. Thanks.

The FF+11 isn't a junior binding, it is often paired with jr race skis, but it isn't a jr binding specifically.

The FF+11 has a down graded heel. I'd hold out for a FF+14 or a LD12, both of which have the 3 piece heel, IMO this is a major performance consideration. The DIN will be OK at 10 or even 11, I like to have some 'head room' above my DIN but it isn't technically necessary. The heel, on the other hand, does matter.

Yeah, definitely avoid the 11. Go for the FreeFlex 14 or 17. The 11 is made with more plastic, and IMO has a cheaper feel to it, and just isn't that great a binding.

Thanks guys, 14 and above it is.

retune them to a .7/3 or 1 /3 and you won't believe this ski. it has become my favorite ski. I have the SS speed in a 177 w/FF 17+ and absolutely love it!!!!! If I run masters GS this year this is what i would race on.

Thats the one I ordered earlier today!

Is the 11 to be avoided because we're "big guys that ski hard" or because the construction makes it suspect even for jr racers?

I think all Tyrolia bindings are well made, all my skis have them. But what I think is being suggested here is that if you weigh 200lbs+ and are going to be using these things for skiing aggressively or racing then perhaps one of the more stout bindings might be a better selection.

FWIW, my LD 12 bindings have far less metal than my FF bindings (the 18x is nearly all metal), and they have worked 100% so far, but then again I dont race on them.

You could go with the Fischer FR12; mine have a lot of plastic compared to the old all-metal 490s, but then so do my Tyrolia FR17+ and both pair seem to work ok. Here's hoping the new plastic is better than the old plastic.:

Sounds like you guys don't like this ski. Hi-jack or derail?

OK Head guys, I need some advice. I'm looking for a narrow ski to teach me something -- Mermer Blakesly and Bob Barnes suggest I get one. I'm a big guy -- about 235, and ski most anything. I also live in Colorado, which poses a problem since it is virtually impossible to buy a ski in Colorado anymore under 76 mm.

I've been intrigued by the Head skis for a while, but don't know what to get. Tog thought the straight Supershape is way too soft for me (we skied together a bit at Big Sky), but I wonder about the SS Magnum or the Speed. How would either ski compare to a Fischer RC or a Dynastar Speed? I've been a Volkl guy since my return to skiing ten years ago, love wood core skis, and hate foam. Currently, my go to ski is an AC4, but I have a pair of Mantra's for deeper/crud conditions.

Thanks,
Mike

Hey Mike, you'll probably get better answers than mine but at your weight and what you are looking for, maybe you can look into some iGS skis. Since the rules for race skis have changed all the GS skis with old measurements are now obsolete for FIS racing, so I see many of them deeply discounted. You will get the liquid metal, and the intelligence technologies with those skis, and nothing will give you better edge hold.

The SS Speed is a fabulous ski once it is retuned to a 1 (or .7)base 3 side edge. I am much more a fan of Heads very smooth quiet ride then Fischer hard snow skis which has more of a "tinny harsh" feel, IMHO. All the fischers hard snow skis I have skied on feel very stiff under foot compared to the rest of the ski. Heads seems to have a more even flex pattern. Much of what you may hear about Head's being too damp with no "pop" from my experience is just the fact that Head's factory tune is has too much base bevel and not enough side bevel.

The Magnum is softer and wider then the SS Speed and not as "high performance" or as fast. The magnum has a tighter turn radius.

I ski the SS speed in a 177cm which has a 16.6 radius, the Magnum in a 170 is 13.5 and the SS speed in a 170 is a 15.4. So I think the Speed has a more versatile sidecut radius. Also I believe you can get the SS Speed in a 184, which may be the ticket at your size, and the Magnum is made no larger the a 177. The Magnum does not have the edgehold of the SS Speed.

the SS Speed is the same construction as the old WC i.Race GS

Ya probably need to go demo and report back what you find!

habacomike:

Do you know what Bob and Mermer may have had in mind as far as what a narrower ski could teach you?

My *guess* would be that a narrower ski could help you get more of a feeling of using the ski completely through a turn. By that I mean getting it on edge early at the transition, pressuring the edges by bending the ski into an arc, and learning the feel of actually carving a turn all the way through to completion.

(This is an aside - I know that everyone who skis wide skis is convinced that they "carve" them, but I don't think the feelings, movements, or sensations are the same and a narrow ski can be enormously helpful in learning to feel what modern skis are really capable of.)

So, if that's what is being suggested to you, then I have a slightly different suggestion than Atomicman (or RR). I believe that semi-radical sidecuts are extremely useful in helping teach us to make round, solid turns. A sidecut in the low teens will really respond when you put pressure in the right places. It'll tell you when you're doing it right and when you're doing it wrong. I also feel that a shorter length is actually helpful in this because your fore-aft balance HAS to be correct or you'll find yourself on your nose or on your backside.

A more radical sidecut is going to give you more turns on a given slope. It's going to give you a faster learning path to the feel of using the design of the ski to make rounded, C-shaped turns. A longer sidecut can be enormous fun, but I think that by definition your turns would be longer, your speeds higher, and your skills have to be dead-on to properly "work" that longer-sidecut ski.

So, if my interpretation of what Bob and Mermer are trying to help you with is correct, my recommendation would be the SS Magnum in the 177. I skied a pair of those all over the Jackson Hole mountain for about fifty days last season. I weigh about 30# less than you, but I almost always ski with a backcountry pack and camera(s), etc, so I would bet that our on-ski weights aren't a long ways apart. I think the SS Magnum is an incredibly versatile, high-performance ski. True, it probably doesn't have the pure edge hold that the Speed does, but I think it would be ideal for what I think you're trying to learn.

So, my suggestion would be either the SS Magnum in the 177 or - if you want to go all the way to the extreme of learning from a narrow ski, the iSL RD in the 165cm.

Good luck with the choice.

What they said ^^

The old Race GS would probably be your best buy, but the Speed might be your best choice for what you want to do. I demoed the SS, SS speed and SS Magnum back to back on hard snow. The SS would be too soft for you. The Speed blows the Magnum away by a wide margin in terms of grip available when pushing it. Because of the shorter radius the Speed might be a better learning tool than the old race GS, more turns per run and all that. However the Magnum goes too far in this regard because it has too short a radius if you ski a decent sized mountain; you would find yourself skiing at speeds and accompanying turn radii, trying to make turns that could not be carved with such a short turn radius.

Bob,

i absolutly agree with everything you said, if in fact that is the purpose of the narrower ski recommendation, although a 16.6 radius in a 177 is certainly not a big true GS sidecut and still has much of the sensation you describe in the lower teen sidecut with a bit more versatitlity in turn shape and a whole lot more edgehold!

Funny, I was also going to suggest the i.sl Rd but it sounded like he was more after a GS or cheater GS ski. Although as beefy as the i.SL Rd it can make some awfully fast big turns! And talk about edge gruip. it's like skiing with crampons!

Hi, A-man.

We're both on the same page. That's why I asked if he knows exactly what they're hoping he "gets" from a narrower ski. If they're really trying to get him to experience laying them over and feeling them come around, then I think shorter-sidecut is better.

You're certainly dead-on about the i.SL RD. That is SUCH a fun ski - I just wish I had the skills to REALLY make it do what it's capable of.

I hope you'll have a chance to try out the Worldcup iSpeed this winter. I'd be interested to hear your impressions.

I'm not sure what, exactly, was the idea behind the narrower ski. I do have problems with rushing my turns and overpowering the ski, particularly when it gets steep. I suspect that Bob is pretty much dead on for the reason they suggested a narrower ski.

Tog thought that an SL ski would be "dangerous" for me, because it tends to hook up and you've got the possible spiral tibia fracture problem -- and he thought it too much of a change from what I've been skiing. He thought I should rule out anything with a turn radius less than 14 m.

Does that help? And thanks guys, I really appreciate the advice.

Mike

I am not the best of skiers, I have the best gear but not the best skills (there I said it!). That being said I find my RD iSL skis the most challenging to ski in my quiver for the reasons you state, they hook up to everything and anything like crazy. Granted they are new and I really have very little time on them (one day) in non optimal conditions (powder and crud).

that is a gross exxaggeration of slalom ski hook up. they only hook up as fast as you let them just let any ski. An argument could be made that since a GS ski is longer it torques you with more force. afterall you have about 15cm less ski on your foot!

i ski slaloms all the time spiral tibia fracture from a slalom ski, jeez, what a bunch of hooey! maybe if your bindings are set to 30. but that is a binding probelm not a ski problem.

I train slalom, (no injuries)both my boys raced slalom for years and guess what? my older boy blew his knee out in Downhill on 212's .

Slalom skis are way at the top of the fun-o-meter on hard snow. As Bob said if you really want to learn to carve and want great edgehold and have that true laying 'em over carving sensation a slalom ski just might be the ticket.

Wrong tool for the job at hand, although i have skied my i.sl Rd here the bowl in the middle of the shot. check out this great photo. I normally would never ski that ski here but got roped into it! it wasn't as brutal as i expected!!!!!

http://www.skicrystal.com/_IMAGES/Ga...rtHumphrey.jpg blow it up to 200% looks great.

They are a groomer ski!!!!!

Don't think the issue is with the torque, it is that the weighted ski hooks up and crosses under the inside ski, causing a break.

The SS Speed is looking like a great tool. BTW, I intend to ski these skis both on and off piste.

Mike

that has never happened to me.

My answer stands. Just don't let your ski do that. it is as simple as that. Under Tog;'s assumption any ski with a wide tip would do that. You must just must be discplined and not allow your skis to be flailing around with no guidance.

The SS speed is not an off piste ski. Althoug I have skied it in a few inches of new snow. If you are looking for a narrower ski on & off piste I would go back to the magnum or maybe a Monster 78. The 78 it may be perfect in a 177 it has a 14.6M radius dimensions are 124-78-110. has great hard snow performance and is wide enough for some off piste but certainly not a powder ski.

Hi, hmike.

I think "rushing my turns and overpowering the ski, particularly when it gets steep" is almost the perfect description of what can happen when we haven't quite reached the point where we truly trust our skis to come around strictly via pressure on the edges. I apologize if this next part sounds lecturing or preachy, but I think this is a very important step in becoming a good and versatile (and safe) skier.

What you're describing is pretty common. Whether consciously or not, you're probably reacting to the fact that an aggressive line with turns like these these ( will very quickly have you going much faster than turns like these C. Because of that speed, you're "rushing" the process of getting your skis across the fall line because your subconscious is telling you that's where safety lies in the form of braking, skidding, slowing, whatever. My own personal belief (many disagree with me) is that wide skis help foster this type of skiing because typically they have pretty long sidecuts and the ski has to be "helped" when going from transition to apex or else you're going to be going real darn fast real quickly.

What a slalom sidecut can do for you is help show that a ski actually CAN be trusted to bring you around in that phase from transition to apex. The turn radius of the ski can help you learn to control speed by offensive means like turn shape (and use of the terrain) rather than defensive means like getting the skis back across the fall line as fast as you can.

Like A-man, I'm not really a believer in the idea that a slalom ski is a ticket to a spiral tib-fib. I *would* say that a more "forgiving" slalom ski like the SS Magnum might be a little better place to start this process than a surgical instrument like the i.Sl RD. The more forgiving ski will help lead you into the learning process a little more smoothly. Then, maybe two or three years from now when you've reached the point where you can smoothly move from transition to transition by arcing your turns, then you can really start to appreciate what a World Cup-like slalom ski can do.

Just editorializing now... I think there are so many really good skiers who could benefit from getting on slalom skis and really learning to "work" a ski for all it can give. I spent 30+ years as a powder/crud/backcountry skier and didn't really start to work on angles and carving and serious turn shape until just a few years ago. As the new slalom skis came out, I started experimenting with the skis and with the movements it takes to really use them. I've come to believe that I've probably learned more about ski technique in the last five years than I did in the previous twenty five. It's exciting and challenging and just plain fun. Best of all, that budding knowledge of how a ski actually works has really helped my off-piste skiing - I can actually feel it.

Sorry for the long-winded dissertation. I just think this is a phase of the game that a lot of really good skiers could benefit from.