Blizzard G Force Supersonic 174

I was looking for an east coast groomer ski since that's where I spend most of my time. The Supersonic seemed to fill the bill for me because:
I like wood core skis with metal in them.
I like basic sandwich skis with vertical sidewalls.
I like skis with low camber.
I like the simplicity of the IQ system.
I like the Duke type heel piece.
I find the Blizzard line the most organized and well defined so there was little involved in figuring out which model would do the job.
My old friend Weems said he was going to be on them this year.

Reservations:
The shape (123-72-105) is more extreme than any ski I've owned. The length (174) make this the shortest ski I've owned.
Would it be too unstable at speed or force me to make to make short radius turns all the time? I've been skiing on skis in the Volkl G40, G4, AX4, Explosiv, Mantra (love the 06-07 Mantra) lineage for quite a while and like the feel of those skis. With ex-Volkl engineers on board at Blizzard, my guess was that they would get it right. To put things in context, I'm not a fan of the Volkl AC3, AC30, AC40 genre. Too much camber, too heavy an edge for my tastes which (to me) limits their versatility. Also not a fan of the fan favorite Dynastar Legend 8000. Autodrive don't work for me.

Conditions:
Well groomed eastern snow.

First impressions: Very favorable. No weirdness. Comfortable and balanced from the first turn.

Second date: I skied on them twice this week and they've only gotten better. They are very predictable, or as my wife would say, "obedient." Like a faithful dog (dog in the good sense)they only want to please their master. Easy pressure and they turn easy. Quick carved turn? No problem. Stomp on the gas? They give you a strong, balanced platform to stand against. Dial up the speed and make big radius turns? They lay right down and hug the snow. The best thing is that they allow me relax and let the ski do the work. Get on them early in the turn and they take it from there. You can tighten up the radius with a little more pressure, or back off and let them run. There wasn't any super slick stuff, but they held and carved without protest on the hardest stuff I could find.

I have not skied them in anything but consistent, hard snow conditions, but my experience is that if they work well there, they'll work well anywhere.

Me: 6'0", 175 lbs. High level skier (don't know what those level numbers mean). Spend lots of time off piste and touring in the spring in Europe. Bought my first AT boots in '82.

Other rambling random observations: The past few years I've convinced myself that I can ski everything on 85 - 95 mm waisted skis. That's true up to a point, but getting on these makes me think that I've been missing out on a lot of fun. Bob Barnes has made some good comments here on how he uses his narrower Head skis at Jackson a lot and how he is still learning about all the things that he can do with them. All I know is that I can't wait to go skiing again.

Bottom line: Definitely worth a good hard look if you're thinking about something in that category. I'm betting that they work well pretty much anywhere, but time will tell.

I thought you were going to be on a Magnum, either 8.1 or 8.7?

I agree with Weems that they have a lighter, quicker (quicker in the good predictable sense not the quick but I don't know where they're going sense) feel than some of the Volkls that I mentioned above. I did not ski it against the Tigershark, but I'm not surprised by Weem's comments vs. that ski.

I don't know how racey they are vs. a race carver. My guess is that they will stand up pretty well against the beefier skis in the category but offer more versatility. The Blizzard GSR and SLR both looked great, but the sub 70mm waist made me leery. I'm betting they they ski great, are racier, but lose versatility with their overall narrower profile. On the Supersonics, I could bend the ski and dictate the arc. I wasn't just along for the ride.

I am waiting to see a comp between the SS magnum and the supersonic. They seem like they share a lot of similarities

I'd like to see that one too. I looked at the SS Magnum, but the sizes were a negative for me. 174 seems like the right size for me in that category ski. The SS Magnum is available in 170 and 177. I know that this not a huge difference, but I was told that 170 was the right size in the Head, and I didn't feel comfortable going that short. Having never skied it in either size, I'm in no position to make a (somewhat) informed comment whether my thought process was in any way valid.

Hi guys,

I am very interested in this category of skis. on piste carver with radius arnd 14-15m, not less.

Last February I looked at '09 G Force Supersonic in a store in Cortina (now where is that "smilie" with saliva dripping from the mouth?...) but they didn't have it for rent, they would only sell. And with a 4 digit price tag all I could do is scratch me head and leave.

Last week I spent a whole day on Nordica's Speedmachine Mach 3 (Carbon) and really enjoyed it, which was interesting considering the conditions: heavy snow fall, so lots of knee deep powder, crud, later in the day pressed into soft bumps. I had a great time on Mach 3, including in that knee deep fresh! BUT - I already have a ski for those conditions (Head iM78).

My next target for demo was TS 10ft - until I saw this thread.

My question is really, can you gents compare these skis (G Force Supersonic and Mach 3 Carbon - and TS 10ft too) in terms of hard snow performance - edge hold, stability through the turn, liveliness and so on?

Many thanks beforehand.
Alex

Alex -- Haven't tried those so I can't comment. A lot of variables there. I've been on the Supersonics about a dozen times so far and the honeymoon effect has not worn off. Because they are so smooth, I tend to think that I will push them beyond their limit and that they'll break loose at some point. Other than on some "polished porcelain" that I couldn't hold on with a pair of ice skates, they have not let me down. They could do with a little more pop out of the turn, but if they had that (adding more longitudinal stiffness and camber), they'd more than likely give up the pleasant, silky feel that makes them so enjoyable.

Thanks, Choucas,

Sounds really good! I just hope I'll get a chance to demo before rattling the piggy bank... lol.

Think the Sonics are less stable? The SS are a bit wider w/ a shorter radius but I've only skied the Sonic and they were such a relevation for smooth, effortless, yet perfectly edged turns.

They sure are hard to find. Probably will order from the bike and ski place in Norcal.

I haven't skied the Sonics (though I hear good things from those who have), but I'd guess that if anything the Supersonics would be more stable due a wider waist and a larger turn radius than the Sonics.

 

 

Your wish has been granted.