or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2015 Head Supershape i.Speed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: 2015 Head Supershape i.Speed - Page 2

post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skigreece View Post

What it your height and weight?
I'm 187 cm and 84 kg, what's your opinion about the right height? 170 or 177?
185cm and 85kg unless you ski a fairly small mountain Id go 177cm seemed about perfect to me.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skigreece View Post
 

 

What it your height and weight?

I'm 187 cm and 84 kg, what's your opinion about the right height? 170 or 177?


If you are an expert skier and you are able to do super fast short turns and fast medium and long arcs you should go with 170 cm . If you are an intermediate skier and you need more of the so-called  'stability'   then go towards 177 cm. By no means longer then that with this ski. This forum has a tendency to always recommend long skis ,  longer then needed for a high end skiing.  Reilly McGlashan for example who is one of the best free ride skiers, normally ski 165 cm long skis (not the same brand that we discuss) and he does perfect short, medium and long arcs as well as bumps and different snow.

post #33 of 48
Yes, because we should always ski the same thing a guy who's 175cm and 175 Lbs uses no matter what. And then confusing the issue with tech skiers skiing 165 SL skis with a ski like a Rally is sort of silly. But because you say so, I guess we should all ski plug boots and SL skis all the time... rolleyes.gif

Do you ever have something to say or share without the binary 'if you don't ski what I say you should, then you're an amateur' schtick?
post #34 of 48

The advanced skiing technique doesn't change according to how tall or how fat you are or what type of snow you ski -- this is an archaic vision. And Reilly McGlashan is only one good example, there are also many others.

post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle-A View Post


Chris, your the first I have read that did not like the Rally and it is a ski I have been looking at for a Northeast Daily Driver and I think you also said that you ordered a Titan that I also have looked at but I stay on groomed slopes 99% of the time.  It was explained to me by one of the "sales professionals" that the Rally is like a SL ski and the Titan is like a GS ski.  If that is correct the SL ski would be stiffer than the GS ski but yet you called the Rally soft.  The more I look at these two skis the more questions I seem to find.  Could it be that you just out skied the Rally and not the Speed because the Speed is a little higher performance ski?
There's a ton of info on the Rally on this site. Less on the Titan. Don't get obsessed with one user who skied the Rally likely with a bad tune. Putting a .75/3 on the Rally makes a big diference.

This ski has nothing to do with a slalom ski and the Titan has even less to do with a gs ski. The Rally is quite a soft ski but I think the Kers system probably works because it shouldn't have the stability or hold it does. I skied the 170 and weigh over 200. It is not a massive edge hold carver but it's decent. Most people in the east should probably be on a ski like the Rally. Next years is a little stiffer. Just buy one now they're were half off at Northern Ski Works at Killington. Maybe they're gone by now but they had 163-177 2 weeks ago, unheard of for this time.


I have no love for the Titan but have spent not much time on it versus maybe 5 or 6 days with the Rally. I suspect a decent tune would improve the Titan. @ markojp likes it.
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post

The advanced skiing technique doesn't change according to how tall or how fat you are or what type of snow you ski -- this is an archaic vision. And Reilly McGlashan is only one good example, there are also many others.

I don't fold an 165 iSL... Lovely ski and a blast to ski on! I DO fold a 170 Rally. It's not as simple as you say.
Edited by markojp - 4/22/16 at 11:02am
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle-A View Post


Chris, your the first I have read that did not like the Rally and it is a ski I have been looking at for a Northeast Daily Driver and I think you also said that you ordered a Titan that I also have looked at but I stay on groomed slopes 99% of the time.  It was explained to me by one of the "sales professionals" that the Rally is like a SL ski and the Titan is like a GS ski.  If that is correct the SL ski would be stiffer than the GS ski but yet you called the Rally soft.  The more I look at these two skis the more questions I seem to find.  Could it be that you just out skied the Rally and not the Speed because the Speed is a little higher performance ski?
I didn't demo the Titan based on my feedback on the Rally to the rep who I know well and he knowing what I normally ski he handed me the iSpeed and said this is your ski that our the iRace which they didn't have. My goal was originally to look at the Rally as a potential ski to coach on for days its softer or more mixed snow when the WC Slaloms aren't ideal. I also own a Kastle MX83 so adding a Titan wasn't something I was exploring.
Yes the Rally imho is pretty soft waaay softer than my Slaloms or my MX83 183. That said it held up much better than I would have guessed and it wasn't the lenght or stiffness that was my issue and even if they had a 177 I would have passed on trying them.
In a similar width/ purpose I prefer the Stockli SC, Kastle MX 74/78, kastle rx12.
I'd demo and take my feedback with a grain of salt in part because the Rally in its current form may be close to what you're used to but compared to the skis I like and know there vastly different. If I spent half a day or more perhaps I would adapt but I saw no motivation to do so.
The iSpeed I had sorted in half a dozen turns. For a NE groomer ski provided you have some vert and like to peg the throttle the ISpeed would be awesome.
For full disclosure I decided to pass on a mid 70s width ski and go for a slightly wider, lighter yet powerful beer league Slalom to coach on and save my WC SLs for early and late season skiing. The ski I picked for that role was the Volkl Racetiger sl uvo
post #38 of 48

Thank you for your answers.

 

What am i thinking about is that a longer ski means more difficulty of pivoting them in shorter turns.

On the other hand, a shorter ski means that is easier to be unstable at higher speeds.

For example, i'm thinking that the ideal length for me, would be at 172-174, but i have to choose between 170 and 177,

These are issues of an intermediate-advanced skier with not the sophisticated technique of McGlashan who is able to be very stable (due to the excellent stance and movment) with a shorter ski, or is able to pivoting in a great way a longer ski.

post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skigreece View Post

Thank you for your answers.

What am i thinking about is that a longer ski means more difficulty of pivoting them in shorter turns.
On the other hand, a shorter ski means that is easier to be unstable at higher speeds.
For example, i'm thinking that the ideal length for me, would be at 172-174, but i have to choose between 170 and 177,
These are issues of an intermediate-advanced skier with not the sophisticated technique of McGlashan who is able to be very stable (due to the excellent stance and movment) with a shorter ski, or is able to pivoting in a great way a longer ski.

Exactly!
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skigreece View Post
 

Thank you for your answers.

 

What am i thinking about is that a longer ski means more difficulty of pivoting them in shorter turns.

On the other hand, a shorter ski means that is easier to be unstable at higher speeds.

For example, i'm thinking that the ideal length for me, would be at 172-174, but i have to choose between 170 and 177,

These are issues of an intermediate-advanced skier with not the sophisticated technique of McGlashan who is able to be very stable (due to the excellent stance and movment) with a shorter ski, or is able to pivoting in a great way a longer ski.

 

That sounds like the right thinking. I'm an intermediate who has tried different lengths the last couple of seasons and . As I've gotten better the last couple of seasons, longer skis have felt less unwieldy, and I've been able to take advantage of the length I think. When I initially tried some longer skis (early season 2014-15), I definitely felt like I was working more at things. 

 

That said, I haven't skied Supershapes so can't comment on those in particular. Right now I ski a 174 cm in about the same class as the Supershape (Atomic Nomad Blackeye), and I'm 183cm tall and 95kg. I could probably go one length longer, but I certainly don't need to for any reason.

post #41 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skigreece View Post
 

Thank you for your answers.

 

What am i thinking about is that a longer ski means more difficulty of pivoting them in shorter turns.

On the other hand, a shorter ski means that is easier to be unstable at higher speeds.

For example, i'm thinking that the ideal length for me, would be at 172-174, but i have to choose between 170 and 177,

These are issues of an intermediate-advanced skier with not the sophisticated technique of McGlashan who is able to be very stable (due to the excellent stance and movment) with a shorter ski, or is able to pivoting in a great way a longer ski.


If you have already made your choice and you would like to ski the i ss you should not think about how this ski pivot  in short turns.  You should mainly concentrate on what a great carving experience this ski can be for you since this ski is made for carving. Hardly for anything else.There are many other skis good for pivoting. You say that the shorter lengths are unstable at higher speeds, but  again do you feel the skier mentioned above to be anything close to unstable when he skis his 165 cm ski with speed which is basically unthinkable for 99% of the skiers on the slope.If you feel that you are unstable on a pair of 170 cm i ss and you need longer skis to be  'stable' then the first thing you will need to do is to have a neutral and closer  look at your skiing technique rather then   searching  a solution in longer skis !

post #42 of 48
Bogz, the tech guys are skiing 165 SL skis, not supershape series skis. You know this, yet you continue on pushing the OP to YOUR preference and exacting narrative.* You're not doing yourself or the OP any favors. Why do you do this? ... nonono2.gif


* believe it or not, I actually share some of your preferences... for myself. Not for others who have different goals, needs, experience, and ability levels.
post #43 of 48

If you like to ski fairly straight or make long radius turns at high speed, your favourite ski for doing that will not have a short side-cut radius.  The "instability" spoken of above making the Rally "scary" is due to the short radius interacting and hunting for turns.  Many good short skis feel stable at high speeds and have been so for a good number of years; I can recall skiing a 155 Atomic SX11 that felt fine at about 60 mph.  However, if you have say a 13 m side-cut radius ski it will hunt for turns when you try to go straight.  You can compensate by having it slightly on edge, but once you reach a certain speed, you have to flop back and forth too fast to maintain a mostly straight course and it's easier to just put up with the wobblies.  It's not like the front of the ski is vibrating up and down; it's just that they want to rapidly go left right as they skim along when flat.  That back and forth is less scary than true instability of having the edge vibrating up and down, as softer skis will at speed.

 

What should really scare you is that if you ever really put those short radius skis up on a big edge angle at speed, they may dig in, instead of skimming along, and make a turn that you can't make (due to the laws of physics) and either break your leg or leave you without skis at 60 mph.  Not a good place to be.

post #44 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post
 


If you have already made your choice and you would like to ski the i ss you should not think about how this ski pivot  in short turns.  You should mainly concentrate on what a great carving experience this ski can be for you since this ski is made for carving. Hardly for anything else.There are many other skis good for pivoting. You say that the shorter lengths are unstable at higher speeds, but  again do you feel the skier mentioned above to be anything close to unstable when he skis his 165 cm ski with speed which is basically unthinkable for 99% of the skiers on the slope.If you feel that you are unstable on a pair of 170 cm i ss and you need longer skis to be  'stable' then the first thing you will need to do is to have a neutral and closer  look at your skiing technique rather then   searching  a solution in longer skis !

 

Most of us we buy carving skis in order to carving to most of the times when we ski. 

The technique of carving is not the only one that an allarounder skier needs.

Since McGlashan is a pro skier ( i'm not) with the height of 1,70, it would be rediculus for him to be unstable with Sl skis at 1,65. He wouldn't be pro, he would be an amateur!

The facts that i mentioned refered to a copmarison between a longer and a shorter ski. In order to make it more clear let's sharp the differences. Think about of a ski at 1.87 and the same type of ski at 1,53. Due to pfysics, you won't disagree with me.

So, making a choise instead of another you just sucrifice something in order to master something else. That's all.

post #45 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCrash View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle-A View Post


Chris, your the first I have read that did not like the Rally and it is a ski I have been looking at for a Northeast Daily Driver and I think you also said that you ordered a Titan that I also have looked at but I stay on groomed slopes 99% of the time.  It was explained to me by one of the "sales professionals" that the Rally is like a SL ski and the Titan is like a GS ski.  If that is correct the SL ski would be stiffer than the GS ski but yet you called the Rally soft.  The more I look at these two skis the more questions I seem to find.  Could it be that you just out skied the Rally and not the Speed because the Speed is a little higher performance ski?
I didn't demo the Titan based on my feedback on the Rally to the rep who I know well and he knowing what I normally ski he handed me the iSpeed and said this is your ski that our the iRace which they didn't have. My goal was originally to look at the Rally as a potential ski to coach on for days its softer or more mixed snow when the WC Slaloms aren't ideal. I also own a Kastle MX83 so adding a Titan wasn't something I was exploring.
Yes the Rally imho is pretty soft waaay softer than my Slaloms or my MX83 183. That said it held up much better than I would have guessed and it wasn't the lenght or stiffness that was my issue and even if they had a 177 I would have passed on trying them.
In a similar width/ purpose I prefer the Stockli SC, Kastle MX 74/78, kastle rx12.
I'd demo and take my feedback with a grain of salt in part because the Rally in its current form may be close to what you're used to but compared to the skis I like and know there vastly different. If I spent half a day or more perhaps I would adapt but I saw no motivation to do so.

The iSpeed I had sorted in half a dozen turns. For a NE groomer ski provided you have some vert and like to peg the throttle the ISpeed would be awesome.
For full disclosure I decided to pass on a mid 70s width ski and go for a slightly wider, lighter yet powerful beer league Slalom to coach on and save my WC SLs for early and late season skiing. The ski I picked for that role was the Volkl Racetiger sl uvo

I agree with pretty much all of that. Have not tried the i speed though. But a lot of this is skiing style and what one likes. If you are used to technical skis like a skalom or the Kastle MX series softer skis with more sidecut just don't do it. Most MX's don't have much sidecut. Despite what people think, Fis slalom skis are not that "turny". They have smaller tips than most skis in thst range of sidecut. There's a reason lots of people ski them all over the mountain.

Slalom racers also almost never carve the whole turn. It's on and off. Back when men were on 155's and courses were like mini gs they did, but that was a long time ago.

It's hard to say what you would like. As far as length, i'm like 210 and 5 11. Skied the 170 Rally in the east.I tend to like that size, but if forced to purchase might go 177. But for me, I'd rather an Mx 83 or 78.

A ski that I saw in the store a couple weeks ago was the Volkl Code S uvo 173cm. Looked like a very nice ski, at half off was difficult to walk away. Nice flex but with beef, well made. The only thing that gives me pause is the mild rocker. Other than that, it has the things I kind of wanted in the Rally at my size.
post #46 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCrash View Post

For full disclosure I decided to pass on a mid 70s width ski and go for a slightly wider, lighter yet powerful beer league Slalom to coach on and save my WC SLs for early and late season skiing. The ski I picked for that role was the Volkl Racetiger sl uvo

Chris, curious how you found the Racetiger. Read your brief review on my RX12 thread. Trying to sort out my own needs for a training/serious ice day SL (have a Rossi WC SL for racing), the Racetiger SL UVO, the Rossi Hero Elite ST Ti and the Head iSL seem to most of the positives. :ahijack: 

post #47 of 48

The bindings on the i.Supershape series are on rails.  Try moving the bindings to different positions to find which you like the best.  This does not change the release as long as you move the toe and heel the same distance.

 

On my Rally, I much prefer the bindings set two notches forward of the factory's recommended position.  Much better tip bite, much better edge hold on hard stuff.  A friend on Speeds prefers one notch forward.

post #48 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Chris, curious how you found the Racetiger. Read your brief review on my RX12 thread. Trying to sort out my own needs for a training/serious ice day SL (have a Rossi WC SL for racing), the Racetiger SL UVO, the Rossi Hero Elite ST Ti and the Head iSL seem to most of the positives. hijack.gif  
Hey Beyond Sadly I haven't had another day out on the volkls since the demo. My recollection was the combined the turn shape versatility of my head wc sl with more ease and simular bite. Click in a go with no pussyfooting around and very little fishing when flat. At a pound lighter per ski or damn close they stand to be a more practical coaching and free ski that is easier on the body but still high performance
I'll report back if I manage to sneak a day out or next season I'll be sure to post a full review after a couple days and after running some gates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2015 Head Supershape i.Speed