EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Length advice for Head i.Supershape Magnum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Length advice for Head i.Supershape Magnum

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

I'm 57 and a former racer (long ago) looking for a frontside/carving ski primarily for groomed trails and hard snow. My skiing gravitates toward relatively fast, moderate length GS turns, although I also spend a lot of time making shorter turns at slower speeds in order to survive on overcrowded Northeastern trails. I'm 6'/182 lbs. and currently coming off an ancient pair of Atomic GS:9's in 170 cm. I've been pretty happy with the length and 15m radius of the Atomics, although at full throttle they're occasionally not quite as stable as I'd like.

 

Among other skis, I've been looking at the Head i.Supershape Magnum. The Head website suggests the largest available size (177) is the correct choice. The 177 has close to my desired 15m radius, but I've always thought that the largest size in a high-end ski line is the domain of the >6'2"/200+ lb. skier. For those of you who know this ski, should I be looking at the 177 (just above eyebrow height) or stick with the 170 length I'm more familiar with?

post #2 of 24

I would stick with the 170cm length.

post #3 of 24

I've previously owned two pairs of the Magnums, wonderful ski. Both pairs were 177's, but I've got 30 lbs on you. The KERS system also ups the performance of the ski in comparison to the older version, so that's another reason to error on the shorter side. However, the 2013/14 model now has ERA 3.0, which they claim has a bit of tip rocker. From what I've heard, this is somewhat of a marketing ploy, if there is tip rocker there, it's hardly noticeable, but I have no experience with the new ones, so I can't really say. But if there is tip rocker going on there, it would make sense that the ski might have a shorter feel to it. And it might have a different feel to it than last years model. So I would say that if you are planning on buying a leftover pair of last year's model, you would probably be safe with the 170. This year's model, I have no way of knowing, Whiteroom might have a better handle on that. 

post #4 of 24

I'm a little bigger than you, similar age/style. Just demoed the 170, that's the one.

 

or

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/123782/fs-stockli-laser-sc-170-12-13

post #5 of 24

Also, I presently own a pair of the 2012/13 Head Titans, also in a 177. Pretty much a slightly wider version of the Magnum. That ski definitely skis on the longer side, so if you have any doubt that the 170 Magnum might be too short, than the 170 Titan might be worth a look.

post #6 of 24

I have been selling Head ski for a long time, and customers seem to be all over the place with the Supershape line.  I would say 170cm off the bat, but some like to go as short as 163 for your size.  In fact, I would say 163 is the most popular ski for your size, but you are likely a better skier than average, so size up. .  177cm is going to feel pretty long; the Magnum is moderately stiff ski.  I ski the 177cm in the Titan (5 foot 9, 155lbs) and it is VERY stable. The 170cm is snappier, but I can find the top end on it.  177cm is the better length for skiing fast. 

post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

I have been selling Head ski for a long time, and customers seem to be all over the place with the Supershape line.  I would say 170cm off the bat, but some like to go as short as 163 for your size.  In fact, I would say 163 is the most popular ski for your size, but you are likely a better skier than average, so size up. .  177cm is going to feel pretty long; the Magnum is moderately stiff ski.  I ski the 177cm in the Titan (5 foot 9, 155lbs) and it is VERY stable. The 170cm is snappier, but I can find the top end on it.  177cm is the better length for skiing fast. 


Scott, which Titan are you skiing, 2012/13 or 13/14? Just curious to know if you can notice what difference the ERA 3.0 makes, if any.

post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post
 


Scott, which Titan are you skiing, 2012/13 or 13/14? Just curious to know if you can notice what difference the ERA 3.0 makes, if any.

 

I didn't really ski last year's ski much.  We did a couple of special orders, that was it. There was renewed interest this year in Head's frontside stuff (frontside skis are getting really hard to find, many shops just don't have a single model), so we brought in both the Titan and Rally to compliment our other frontside offerings.  Unfortunately, I can't compare.  Both ski well.....and are typical Head, that is pretty much I can say.  

post #9 of 24

Great skis.  I also think 170cm is the right length.  I'm 210lbs and would opt for the 177.

 

I demoed the iRally in late July and can't say I noticed much in the way of early rise.  It may have been there, as I wasn't looking for it.  If so it's very slight.  On the other hand the black, textured topsheets and the 'dayglo' highlights look fantastic.  Best looking skis on the hill.

 

Just reading the blurb from Head.  Apparently the new Magnum  is not just a new ski, it is a totally new skiing experience  ... Gosh!

 

Head's site says the skis have 10% rocker, so I guess it's in there somewhere.  I still say the 170cm is the OP's length.

 

http://www.head.com/ski/products/skis/performance/isupershape-magnum/5989/?region=eu

post #10 of 24
Thread Starter 

Thanks to all who replied. It looks like 170 is the preferred length for me. If I could find last year's Magnum in this length I'd snap it up, but no luck with that yet. For 2013-14 the Magnum's turn radius has been reduced to 13.1m at 170, which makes me wonder how well this ski will do with GS turns at speed. Perhaps I should be looking at the Supershape Speed instead (not as forgiving for less-than-perfect conditions but maybe better suited for my kind of skiing)?

post #11 of 24

Yes, 13.1 metres is getting a bit slalom-like.  You could opt for the new Rally, which would be more like 15m, although it's a tad wider in the waist and is a new model for 2014.

 

The Speed is a great GS cheater ski.  It handles slower speeds and shorter turns better than many in this category, although you quickly work out that's not it's 'thing'.  Once you start shifting along it hardens up and gives you some of that "is that all you've got?" attitude you want from a GS ski.  It's a terrific choice for your stated purpose ...

 

relatively fast, moderate length GS turns, although I also spend a lot of time making shorter turns at slower speeds in order to survive on overcrowded Northeastern trails

post #12 of 24

Is the current iteration of the ss magnum like the older one?

I skied the older white one through two versions. (warranty replacement)

I think this is one of those skis that may vary a lot when switching sizes.

 

I think 170 might be the right length, but really it depends. I think you should see if you can try the 177cm. I used to ski on the old ss magnum in 170 in the Northeast and I'm heavier than you. Very very soft ski. Superb snow feel, but as for "a gs ski" -eh no. It'll do it, but you'll be skiing slower. When I switched to my slaloms, I skied probably 20 percent faster and that's just free skiing. That was primarily due to the increased stiffness.

The 177cm was a stiffer ski and quite different. It might be more what you're looking for.

post #13 of 24

As I mentioned earlier, I also owned two pairs of the Magnum. And I agree, the first pair I owned were very soft, IMO, but I had a lot of people that disagreed with that, some people thought they were actually a pretty stiff ski, so who knows. I guest it depends on who's skiing it. The second pair had the KERS system, and it was noticeably stiffer. That ski was much more to my liking, but I don't know whether that is just an effect of KERS, or whether they made some other changes to the ski. I did some night skiing last night at a local hill, and they had the new Magnums set up for demo. I was going to give them a try, but either they didn't have a 177 or it was already out, so I"ll have to wait till next time.

post #14 of 24

Flex on the i-titan at least, changes a lot from 170 to 177. I had skied the old Magnum in 177cm, it was too much ski for me (most of my skis are mid 170 and up).  The stiffer metal laminate Supershapes are one ski that you want to downsize on if you are between sizes. 

post #15 of 24
Skied my 177 Titans yesterday for the first time. Limited terrain, and no slope angle. Firm'ish natural and man made snow mix. So far, it feels like a narrower, slightly turnier Rossi E-98, which in my book is a very good thing. I won't be able to give it a proper full on review until I'm able to ski better terrain, but so far, so good. smile.gif

Dawg, is the 170 softer? Stiffer? I don't know that I'd call the 177 Titans that stiff.
Edited by markojp - 12/19/13 at 3:39pm
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Skied my 177 Titans yesterday for the first time. Limited terrain, and no slope angle. Firm'ish natural and man made snow mix. So far, it feels like a narrower, slightly turnier Rossi E-98, which in my book is a very good thing. I won't be able to give it a proper full on review until I'm able to ski better terrain, but so far, so good. smile.gif

Dawg, is the 170 softer? Stiffer?

I don't want to put words in a Dawg's mouth but...I'll be interested to hear what he says.

 

I'm guessing the 170 is softer, maybe much. Seems like that's the Head way with these skis. Volkl on the other hand, most of their shorter skis just got stiffer cause they're shorter. Seems like Head changes the layup to make shorter skis softer.

The old magnum got a ridiculous, absurd rep by shop people as "a lot of ski" and "like a race ski".

 

Maybe it was because it was expensive and a laminate ski and Head put that word out. All you had to do was flex it. Extremely soft. It wasn't anything like a race ski. The 170 was a true noodle but a really good one.  The 177cm was stiffer. I learned a lot skiing a soft ski. I think most people are on too stiff a ski - well they don't really turn so a board is ok.:cool

post #17 of 24

hey guys,

 

i recently bought a pair of magnums in 177 cm lenght (2013/2014 model with the tip rocker). i am 9' 2" and 195 lbs. i didn't try them yet but i am wondering if i did the right lenght choice. i am an advanced skier and i ski groomed for 90% of the time.

 

was it the right lenght for my weight?

 

thanks guys for the advice :)

post #18 of 24
Most likely.
post #19 of 24

is it right that when a ski has a tip rocker, you need to go for a longer ski?

 

the reason why i am saying that is because I owned a 170 cm all mountain ski (full camber) and was great for me to learn. now i thought that 177 cm with a tip rocker will give me  the same feel on piste

 

what do you think?

post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoinel View Post
 

I am 9' 2" and 195 lbs. 

 

:eek   Whoa!  Somebody got the number for the NBA Players Association?  

post #21 of 24

So, what ski and size did you get and how do you like it?

post #22 of 24

Hi Everyone,

I'm trying to make a right choice of Head skis size - could you please advice first which skis:

1. Head i.Supershape Rally

2. Head i.Supershape Magnum

I lean more towards Magnum version though. I'm switching from Volkl Racetiger SL 165cm

 

And the size which one will be better for me 170 or 177? (I'm 82kg; 187cm)

 

Many thanks for suggestions

post #23 of 24

The Magnum is a little stiffer and less forgiving than the Rally, better suited to higher speeds. The Magnum would probably fall into the de-tuned race ski category, while the Rally has more of an all mountain feel. Both are very good on groomed hardpack, but the Magnum has a higher speed limit. So if speed is your thing, and you like that race carver feel, than the Magnum would be the choice. If you prefer more of an all mountain carver that would be friendlier in bumps, than the Rally would be the way to go. Both are great skis, hard to go wrong with either one.

Size wise, you could probably go either way. Depends on your skiing style and what your terrain preference is. The 170 is going to have more of a slalom feel, if that's what you're looking for, or if you are going to be skiing bumps a lot. But if you like to open it up on the groomers, and want the added stability of a longer ski in mixed snow, than the 177 is the way to go. I personally would error on the longer side. Just keep in mind that the 165 you are coming off of is a different animal, so comparing it to the Magnum or Rally is not relevant.

post #24 of 24

I'm 5"8 (174cm) 150lbs (68kg) and ski the supershape magnums in 170.  

I typically ski frontside very tight radius carved turns (which is why I bought this ski) and moderate-fast speeds.

 

I would suggest 177's for you.  Reasons:

 

* The ski has a 13m sidecut with moderate-to-stiff flex.  If you are looking at GS style turns, it's likely that at 170cm the ski will feel VERY turny and I'd rather have extra stability from the length....you will not be giving very much up in turning radius.

* Even at my height/weight, I have had to adjust the edge geometry to support wider turns at higher angulation, because the ski wants to carve turns closer to SL than GS radii. 

* When I open up at speed, 170cm remain stable but no amount of dampness can properly compensate for some additional longitudinal stability.  You are taller than heavier than me.

 

So in summary, at 177cm you're getting a lot more stability with very little sacrifice on agility.

 

Hope that helps for others posterity (since the original question was quite a while ago).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Length advice for Head i.Supershape Magnum