2010 Head SuperShape Magnum Skis

I demoed these twice last season.  Great ski - very responsive, very stable at speed, although my 'at speed' is not really all that fast.  I did find that it's stability, responsiveness and short turning radius instilled a lot of confidence in my skiing and I increased my 'typical' skiing speed substantially.  My son skis on Head Supershapes and loves them.  I was soooo close to buying a pair, than decided to go fatter under foot (81 -87 range).  I may still pick up a pair one of these days  - absolutely nothing wrong with these skis.  For what they're designed to do - and their dimensions - I would venture to say that they're probably one of the very best skis out there (from my modest demoeing experience and other reviews I've read).

I live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and ski essentially every day at the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort.  I use the 177cm SuperShape Magnum as my main, everyday ski for this mountain.  I use a pair of 187cm Head Mojo 94's as my "deep snow" skis, but I probably spend 70% of my time on the SS Magnums. 

 

As far as credentials, I'm a part-time instructor at the Jackson Hole Ski School and I spent a bunch of winters as an alpine guide for backcountry skiing here at Jackson Hole.  I love ANY kind of skiing at our mountain, from hard, smooth groomers through crud and powder in trees and chutes.

 

There are many things I like about the SS Magnum.  It's a "forgiving" ski at slow speeds.  I can very easily skid it, smear it, switch it, wedge it, or any other slow-speed maneuver.  Despite that, it's a ski that feels super-solid and comfortable at high speeds on any surface.  I ski them all over our mountain and I believe the ski responds extrememly well as long as there is a base of some sort.  It's quick enough to be a pleasure in bumps and trees and chutes, but it's stable enough to go pretty darned fast when you're out cruising and the trees along the side of the trail are just a blur.

 

A ski of this width underfoot (71mm) is not going to be as easy in deeper, softer snow as a fat ski, but I find the SS Magnum to be very skiable in anything up to boot-top powder and crud.  It is truly my ski of choice for any skiing I'm going to do if I expect there to be a foot or less of powder or crud.  As proof of that, I've spent the last three days skiing my Magnum's out of bounds here at Jackson Hole, and I never felt I needed something wider.

 

I just think this is a truly great all-mountain ski.  It's hard-snow responsiveness will help you learn better carving skills, but it still has that characteristic crud-eating "feel" that many of the Head models share.  Give this ski a try.  Practically everybody likes it.

 

By way of full disclosure, I'll also mention that I'm an on-mountain rep for Head skis/boots here at Jackson Hole.  You should try the skis yourself to decide whether my opinions are objective or not.

 

Thanks.

Right now, this is my favorite ski I've ever owned.  I'm not that big into tighter slalom side cuts as I don't have quick reflexes but this ski makes very nice longer-radius turns for a ski with R=13.5.  Some tighter-radius skis I've been on are only fun if you turn turn turn all the time.  These, I can lay off and cruise when I want.  Then, get a bit higher on edge and get on them to bend them a bit and they'll lay down some tighter arcs.

I find it fine in the bumps and trees too.  It can carve or you can lay off and slip if you want.  I love bumps and trees and really like the skis in those conditions in addition to ripping up groomers.

I find it odd that this ski is listed under Head's Race category.  It really does make a fine all-mountain ski.

I would definitely recommend these to anyone who wants an all-mountain East coast ski for most conditions.  Sure you'd want something wider for the deep but this is a do-most-things ski.

I'm on the 170cm and it's a fine length for east coast skiing for me.

Me-
50yo
6'
185lb.
PSIA-E L2 alpine (I guess that must make me at least about level 8 huh)
ski 35-45 days a year

Coming from the Head SS Slalom @165 ... the 170s were too much for me [at 6'1" / 250#]