EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Has anybody tested the new Head Supershape?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has anybody tested the new Head Supershape?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I keep reading lots of good things about this ski, but I cannot find a single person who has tried it or who knows somebody who did. Maybe, since this is a big and well attended forum, somebody did. Please, share your impressions/opinions. Thx
post #2 of 19

Just a link to a picture

http://www.mamboo.ru/front/object~sdy1102621734864

Probably a ski review as well, if you read Russian.
post #3 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandalf
http://www.mamboo.ru/front/object~sdy1102621734864

Probably a ski review as well, if you read Russian.
no, just an invitation for a demo day. the comments below the article don't indicate any results or opinions.
post #4 of 19

Look here, please

Here is an real opinion about HEAD Supershape skis (160 cm):
http://www.mamboo.ru/front/object~bxy1109593741686

You can translate it vith http://babelfish.altavista.com/

;-)
post #5 of 19
Bs"D

Hi John,
Where did you read good things about the Supershape?
Can you post links to those reviews please. Thanks.
post #6 of 19

Supershape Review

Here's one guys review on the Supershape:

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/viewtopic.php?t=499

Verdict: Too much shape--too little substance. The shape made the ski a bit squirrelly when flat. The ski was not stiff enough for it to give a real nice rebound. However, this is a great ski for someone learning to carve. It is a laminate, so it likes to be tipped and carve a pure turn, but it won't punish you if your feet sneak out in front of you. If you are an intermediate learning to carve a ski, this ski will help you learn to carve. If you are an expert who already carves, the XRC 1200 or the RD series is more up your alley.
post #7 of 19
It's funny that I mirror that guys reviews of both skis.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=25572

The XRC 1200 laminate rocks.

I am probably going to pick up a pair in 163.
post #8 of 19
Scalace, have you since gotten to try the 06' SL or SL Chip?
Have you also skied the 05' 1100 SW to compare to the 1200?
I wonder how much difference the liquid metal makes (that seems to be the only change?).
As far as your length choice goes, I would recommend that you consider going longer. I currently ski the 1100 SW @ 170cm (I am only a little heavier than you @ 175lbs. - 5'7").
Although this ski has a sidecut crossed between SL and GS (15.4R @ 170cm.), and will make an ok short radius turn (but a bit of work in the fall line), its essence is the high speed big ones on the groomers. For this I have never skied a better board. But, on hardpack days when the terrain is also narrower, or I'm in the small circle mood, I would prefer a full on Slalom ski - and then I would ski it @ 160cm. (and hence my interest in next years SL or Sl Chip).
Even if I could only have one or the other (till now the case), I would still (did) take the 1100 @ 170cm. That baby is made for screamers - and like I said, it still has some turn shape versatility anyway. All the more so if you can have a SL too.
Regards
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
Scalace, have you since gotten to try the 06' SL or SL Chip?
Have you also skied the 05' 1100 SW to compare to the 1200?
I wonder how much difference the liquid metal makes (that seems to be the only change?).
As far as your length choice goes, I would recommend that you consider going longer. I currently ski the 1100 SW @ 170cm (I am only a little heavier than you @ 175lbs. - 5'7").
Although this ski has a sidecut crossed between SL and GS (15.4R @ 170cm.), and will make an ok short radius turn (but a bit of work in the fall line), its essence is the high speed big ones on the groomers. For this I have never skied a better board. But, on hardpack days when the terrain is also narrower, or I'm in the small circle mood, I would prefer a full on Slalom ski - and then I would ski it @ 160cm. (and hence my interest in next years SL or Sl Chip).
Even if I could only have one or the other (till now the case), I would still (did) take the 1100 @ 170cm. That baby is made for screamers - and like I said, it still has some turn shape versatility anyway. All the more so if you can have a SL too.
Regards
Thanls for the info.

I am doing a private demo Tuesday and a Head rep will be there hopefully with the full line.

I really didn't feel unstable on the 163s and I didn't even push them that hard. I was skiing fast enough where my baggy shell was actually slowing me down.

I will demo them in a 170 and any other Head I can get my boots into.

If you like the XRCs you should really try to get out on the Elan Ripsticks.

I may have to get a pair of GS and SL specific skis.

I got my wife on some slaloms for the first time and she loved the Fisher SCs.
post #10 of 19
Scalce, if possible, maybe you can demo a pair of next year's i.SL RD? I'd really be interested in a review of them. Also, for those that are interested, I've heard 2nd hand (from a friend who owns a shop) that the 1200 skis pretty much exactly like this year's 1100SW, so I dunno if the LiquidMetal makes much difference.
post #11 of 19
Yeah I really don't have any comparison because I haven't skied on last year's 1100SW.

I will try to hop on the i.SL RD.
post #12 of 19
Bs"D
Thanks CanuckInstructor for the info on how much the liquid metal makes, or doesn't make, a difference.
Scalce: Sorry to load you up with too many requests, but please try to get on the SL Chips too. I have skied both the pre 06' RD and Chip and know their differences, but heard that the 06 models are somewhat different - and different from each other in a different way - besides the liquid metal. I need to know whether to buy this years model (also can be had cheap now) or to wait for the 06' - and which one. Thanks.
By the way, I demoed a lot of Slalom skis when in Switzerland last week, and got to ski the Fischer SC (they love racing skis in Europe, especially Slaloms, so there is a ready supply. It is a mix of the culture and the conditions [more like the US Eastcoast]. Try finding a slalom ski - even to purchase - at Snowbird or Alta). Anyway, I liked the ski, but more as an allaround free ski than a real slalom performer. It has less sidecut. It was more stable and comfortable in a longer turn and less nervous in a straight run out than full on slaloms, but definately less quick and with less rebound. It is a compromise. I prefer to choose my game of the day and go with a more powerful tool, even if more specialized. I have the 1100 RDs for greatness at one end, and would want a fuller Slalom for the other end. My favorites were the two Heads, but I had trouble choosing between the RD and the Chip. The chip itself is somewhat of a compromise vs the full on RD but in a different way. The RD was a more powerful carver and more stable at speed, but also more demanding of both my attention and leg muscle - even w/ a good skeletal technique. The Chip was still however better at a small radius turn than the Fischer SC. My secong favorite SL was the Volkl SC Racing. It was very similar to the Chip.
So, I guess I'm still encouraging you, in the direction that you are now considering, to take the 1200s (or as the Canuckstor says, even the 1100) in a longer length, and then get a good slalom too. But, fill us in on all after your next demo day.
post #13 of 19
I've heard bits and pieces about the '06 i.SL RD. I know it certainly has LiquidMetal, but as posted above, that may not really make a big difference. Secondly, I just recently heard that instead of the full VIST plate that the '05 has, it just has separate riser plates underneath the toe and heel pieces, apparantly to allow the ski to flex better underfoot. The i.GS RD will have this too.

Unfortunately I really haven't heard much else about it, so any info anyone has would be great.
post #14 of 19
Any info on the demo Scalce?
post #15 of 19
Hey Guys,
I demoed the Supershape, XRC 1200 and I have a pair of this years XRC 1100. I had a blast on the Supershape in a 170cm. It was very similar to that of the Volkl Allstar. Very smooth ski, do not have to work it as hard as the XRC 1200. If you like strictly groomed conditions in the East than the XRC is a great choice, it was a little more lively than the XRC 1100 and was snappier out of a turn. I really do think that the Liquid Metal does make a difference. The Supershape like the Allstar is a much more versatile All Mountain ski that won't wear you out by 1. It is very user friendly and had great edge hold at higher speeds.
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInstructor
Any info on the demo Scalce?
The Head rep only had the XRC 1200/1400, Supershapes, and Monsters. He didn't have any of the slalom or race skis.

I demoed the 1400 which is a slightly detuned cap version of the 1200. I didn't really like it.

I also demoed the Monster 77s and thought they held really well for a wider waisted ski. It was too icey for me to try the new 88s.

I was going to demo the Supershapes again but I banged up my leg before I got a chance.
post #17 of 19
Thanks for the feedback
post #18 of 19

A Blast

This Ski Rocks, It Can Do All Turnshapes Effortless And It Is Lots Of Fun.
post #19 of 19
i tested them out and thought that they were a decent ski. I think the 160 was a bit short for a 6'3" 200lber but i thought they were good. they lacked the rebound and engery of say a slalom ski however but if your not used to race skis, you would thoroughly enjoy them. They intiate easily and are smoothe throughout the turn. If you are an ex racer, i think you would be disappointed but if you enjoy quick, short and medium radius turns and dont want to be on top of the ski constantly, i would say buy them.
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 › Has anybody tested the new Head Supershape?