or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Supersport

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
I'm 6' 3" 200 and looking for some new skis. I demoed most of the skis available last year and found the Volkl Supersport 5 to be my favorite. Unfortunately, I've grown alot over the last year and i'm unsure as to what size i should get. Also if you suggestions about new skis that would be good for my conditions, that'd be great.
post #2 of 14
If I were you, I would demo the 6* in 175. It is beefier than the 5*, and probably better suited to your build. I wouldn't recommend the 5* to anyone who weighs over 185lbs. If you truly like the 5*, ski it in 182.
post #3 of 14
I skied with a friend last year at Canyons UT. He was on new Supersport 5* skies and weighs over 250 lbs and raved about these skis. I weighted 220 at the time and took up his offer to try his skis out for a few runs. I loved them and pushed them fast in a variety of conditions....They were 168 cm. I encourage you to demo skis, but if you like the 5* the 175 will work best. They are made to be skied short, and I certainly don't think you will find them unstable at that length, and I believe you could even ski a 168 length comfortably. Trying is the only way to know for sure. I disagree with advice to go to a 182 simply on the basis of height or weight; it is the turn shape and speed that matter. These skis will easily carry a heavier skier without folding up and quitting.
post #4 of 14
the 175cm is fine for up to 250 lbs. The 182 is too much ski for most humans.
post #5 of 14
I've skied the 182 in the woods - well under 200 lbs thank you very much...and had a blast. My 200 lb. hubby skis the 182 on patrol and loves it. Don't be afraid of the length - but 6'3" 200 does seem a bit skinny - so you might find the 175 more versatile.
post #6 of 14
I hate to disagree with my learned bretheren, but I do. I have atleast 25 days on each of the skis (5 and 6*). I am 6' 185, aggressive and a powerful skier. I have skiied both the 5* and 6* in 168 and 175. I overpowered the 5* 168. The 175 was fine, but not nearly as stable or powerful as the 6* 168. In fact, I chose to keep a pair of the latter. Furthermore, while I don't always agree with the magazine tests for skis, SKIING Mag. was right on about the 5* when the following was said: "Burly testers overpowered the ski, especially on hard snow." I would demo both skis before making a purchase.
post #7 of 14
I might have agreed with Canyons last year. But with the stronger construction on the 5* this year it is good for almost anyone.
post #8 of 14
5'9, 145 lbs--skied my new 168 5*s yesterday they are superb but so heavy with piston bindings. I think maybe i should have gone
160 instead like the salesguy said. Any opinions?
post #9 of 14
Since you are in my general range of size ansd weight, I'm curious: If they were "superb", what was the problem?
post #10 of 14
super grippy on ice, cut thru crud like a hot knife through butter--but, felt long to turn, a bit heavy maybe more pop than i need-- i'm a girl, if that makes a difference--less heavily muscled than the average guy.
post #11 of 14
The reason I'm interested is that I also am asking that question - in reverse. I'm a 63 year old guy, 5' 8" and 150 pounds, advanced intermediate on snow 8" deep or less, skiing Elan Fusion S12 in 160. From the demo skiing I've done, the S12 is roughly comparable to the 5*. I plan to demo the 168 Fusion S12, just to see what it's like.

My S12 Fusions are a great ski. They have superb grip, they're stable at speed on hard snow, they're not hard to turn. They are not nervous - or snappy - but very smooth. I feel confident sking on them more than other skis I've owned or tried. I chose them over last year's 5* because they hold as well but were less grabby.

Anyway, dneyadog, I'll be interested to read of any experience you have on shorter skis. Post here or e-mail me. Here's the address: bg@vtlink.net
post #12 of 14
For what it is worth, I am 5' 10' 195# expert skier. I skied last year's, (different from this year's) 5* in 168. It nearly wore me out because it wanted to turn so much. The ski got a little twitchy at speed going straight. I loved this ski and searched dozens of ski shops throughout the country trying to find a low milage pair of demos at a good price. I found a nearly new pair of 175's in Beaver Creek, CO for $350 with bindings. I have not tried them yet but I am sure the extra length will fix the stability problem at speed.

I have skied literally hundreds of different models of skis over the years and the 5* is the best I have ever had the pleasure to ride. Although I have not been on the 6*, I was told by several ski pros that it would be better suited to a heavier or more powerful skier than the 5* in the same length. Hopefully this info helps.
post #13 of 14
I demoed the 175 5 stars last yearin Copper last year, Im about 6'2" 170 annd they werent that overpowering if anything i would have gone up to 182 because like dsafety said they were a bity turny and they favored a sl turn more. Stability wasnt that much of issue at 175.

Ill probably be more in the market for a 6 star if your a stronger skier(and with size)
post #14 of 14
Originally Posted by Canyons
If I were you, I would demo the 6* in 175. It is beefier than the 5*, and probably better suited to your build. I wouldn't recommend the 5* to anyone who weighs over 185lbs. If you truly like the 5*, ski it in 182.
I am 6'1", 195 and a very aggressive skier. The 2003-4 5 Star in a 175 was too short but the 182s that I bought are great.

The 2004-5 5 Stars are beefier and I demoed the 175 and it was fine. Choose the length for where you ski....softer snow, more versatile, 182s. Hard snow, bumps, quicker turns get the 175s.

Liked the 6 stars more but they are not as versatile. Bought a pair of Atomic SX11s for strictly hard snow skiing and a change of pace.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion