EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What size I. Supershape for me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What size I. Supershape for me?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm looking at picking up some as my groomer ski... Anybody on these? I'm 6-1 210 lbs, agressive, level 8. Trying to decide between 170 and 175. TIA!!
post #2 of 27
175
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idahojef View Post
175
Agreed
post #4 of 27
175 - unless you plan to ski them only on groomers and you only like making short turns all the time.

The 175 would be a little more of an all-mountain ski for your weight.

Any way at all you can demo before you buy?
post #5 of 27
I say get the 170cm. It's essentially a SL ski (12.1m R @170cm) The 175 will just be a little less quick, not more stable.

You'll water down it's zippy nature by skiing it too long.

If you are thinking of buying a longer length look at the i.Supershape Speed (15.4m R @170cm) in a 177cm, it may suit your needs better than a long i.Supershape.
post #6 of 27
It essentially boils down to how you want to ski it. If you're looking for a quick slalom, go with the 170, if you want a medium-short radius carver, go for the 175. If you're looking for a medium-long radius (more cheater GS type), go for the Supershape Speed.
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
I say get the 170cm. It's essentially a SL ski (12.1m R @170cm) The 175 will just be a little less quick, not more stable.

You'll water down it's zippy nature by skiing it too long.

If you are thinking of buying a longer length look at the i.Supershape Speed (15.4m R @170cm) in a 177cm, it may suit your needs better than a long i.Supershape.
The Supershape Speed is basically last years iXRC 1200 SW.
post #8 of 27
Rob, yeah it's 1mm different (narrower) in tip/waist/tail, thats really close to the iXRC 1200sw. It's not the same, but it is close.

The '05 iXRC 1200sw or this years 1300sw would good choices also (in 177cm).
post #9 of 27
You may find 12 m a little too much short-radius for your only groomer ski. I suggest your look for something between 14 m and, oh, about 17 m.
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Rob, yeah it's 1mm different (narrower) in tip/waist/tail, thats really close to the iXRC 1200sw. It's not the same, but it is close.

The '05 iXRC 1200sw or this years 1300sw would good choices also (in 177cm).
Actually they are identical - it's just that the Supershape Speed generally has its dimensions quoted @ 170, whereas the 1200SW was quoted @ 177. The dimensions change between lengths, but they are in fact the same between the two skis at the same lengths.
post #11 of 27
Canuck,
It's wonderful for you to point out that they are the same, not 1mm narrower as I described... The thing is, I'm not interested in new skis for myself.

Hokiesnow is wondering if he should get a 170cm or a 175cm i.Supershape.

If you care to shed some insight on his dilema he'll probably appreciate it.
post #12 of 27
What do you know about the supershape Speed & the 1400 SW chip?:
post #13 of 27
Sorry Whiteroom, just wanted to clarify that for anyone else who's reading this and interested in the ski - it's easy to get confused given that they've changed the name of it every year since they introduced it. {end of tangent}

As I said a few posts back, what length really depends on how he wants to ski it. If a short turny slalom-ish feel is what's desired, the shorter length for sure. If you want a more cheater GS turn, then the Speed may be more appropriate. And for something in between, the 175 might be best.
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the info guys....

I'm looking for a short-Medium turner; nimble... Sounds like maybe the 175 in the i.supershape...

I don't think I will be able to demo; I'd like to, though...

What are the differences between the 1200 and 1400? TIA...
post #15 of 27
Both the 1200 and 1400 are new designs this year. The 1200 isn't changed much, just wider throughout, while the 1400 is also very slightly wider, and with 1m knocked off the radius (@177), and it's been switched to a sandwich construction. I had a chance to ski the 1400 for a couple runs over the summer, and it was a very nice ride, I'd like to try it some more, but from the couple runs I got, it skied much like my 1100SW (essentially same as last year's 1200), but slightly slower edge to edge (only really noticable doin fall line rollerblade style turns) and it was a little less energetic, more of a damp smooth feeling, which makes sense given the chip.

To cut to the chase: between the two, if you want smoother and slightly more forgiving, go with the 1400, if you want a little more kick and energy, go 1200 or Supershape (speed or non).

Definitely worth a demo if you can get it. I'm going to try and get a few more turns on it come winter if I can.
post #16 of 27

I would vote for 170

I think you could ski either, but most people I know that are in the 190-200 lb range ski the 170. It is an awesomely verstatile ski for skilled skiers.

I disagree with Ghost a little bit, because the ski is good at long turns as well as short, so don't be worried about the side cut consigning you to short radius turns only, and it also pretty good in boot deep soft stuff.


Re the 1200 vs. the 1400: the 1200 is actually the higher end, more demanding ski. The 1200 is a laminate construction, the 1400 was the high end of the cap construction with the chip system (but an earlier poster said that construction had changed this year?). I personally think you should stick with the super shape (I don't know the the supershape speed, but I believe it is closer to the old Head i.Race GS dimensions rather than a member the XRC family or based on the SuperShape in any way other than name).
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandalf View Post
I think you could ski either, but most people I know that are in the 190-200 lb range ski the 170. It is an awesomely verstatile ski for skilled skiers.

I disagree with Ghost a little bit, because the ski is good at long turns as well as short, so don't be worried about the side cut consigning you to short radius turns only, and it also pretty good in boot deep soft stuff.


Re the 1200 vs. the 1400: the 1200 is actually the higher end, more demanding ski. The 1200 is a laminate construction, the 1400 was the high end of the cap construction with the chip system (but an earlier poster said that construction had changed this year?). I personally think you should stick with the super shape (I don't know the the supershape speed, but I believe it is closer to the old Head i.Race GS dimensions rather than a member the XRC family or based on the SuperShape in any way other than name).
From Head's Official Catalogue, looks like the 1200 & 1400 are identical in dimensions and construction this year both 15.5 meter radius at 177, both Sandwich, both 116-69-102, 1400 is chipped, 1200 is not!
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
From head's official Catalogue, looks like the 1200 & 1400 are identical in dimensions and construction this year both 15.5 meter radius at 177, both Sandwich, both 116-69-102, 1400 is chipped, 1200 is not!
Exactly - same construction and shape, the only difference is the chip. I think it's a pretty good decision personally, but I'm kinda biased towards Head's sandwich construction - all 3 of my current skis use it.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInstructor View Post
Exactly - same construction and shape, the only difference is the chip. I think it's a pretty good decision personally, but I'm kinda biased towards Head's sandwich construction - all 3 of my current skis use it.
Is the supershape Speed, sort of a cheater Gs ski?

Advantage or disadvantage over 1200 or 1400? maybe all in a 177.

looks like the supershape speed has a slightly smaller radius maybe 14.4. quite a bit narrower overall
post #20 of 27
You can certainly make a perfectly fine 16-m radius turn with a 13-meter sidecut radius ski, but if you know the feeling of making that turn on hard snow or ice with a LR ski, the turn won't feel as sweet with the 13-m radius ski. It's the difference between cutting and ripping. It's not really a concern if you ski deep snow.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
From Head's Official Catalogue, looks like the 1200 & 1400 are identical in dimensions and construction this year both 15.5 meter radius at 177, both Sandwich, both 116-69-102, 1400 is chipped, 1200 is not!
I haven't skied them. I was just going by the RealSkiers review that says of the 1400 that "It is even possible to relax on this one, unlike the 1200." That is also consistent with last year's reviews. The 1400 is probably the more expensive ski, because that seems to be the way they price "chip" skis. The i.Sl chip is more expensive even though the i.SL is the more demanding, higher end ski.

But I sort of got off topic; I still think the SuperShape is a superior and more versatile ski and think Hokiesnow could ski either the 170 or 175 and would suggest the 170.
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 

Gandalf..... you made mention..

of skiers in the 190-200lb range using 170's... Is it going to matter that I will be a minimum of 215 lbs in my gear, most likely higher, as I'll put on some more hibernation weight before the season. 170 just seems small for my weight, but if they are plenty stable, I'd have no problems with it... TIA..
post #23 of 27

Virginia Tech

OK, I have to ask about your user name. Is it Hokies Now (as in Virginia Tech) or Hokie Snow (as in I don't get it)?

The following is my personal opinion, and may start a firestorm. With modern skis, there often is more difference between sizes of the same ski than there is between models of different manufacturers skis, and it seems to me that everyone of "average size" gravitates to the 170 Super Shape. Skis have gotten so good, that extra length for stability isn't really required. And we all add about the same amount of stuff to ski in, so I don't see your weight as out of line with the rest.

So, I'll go back to my original statement. I think you are right in between and could ski either size, but if you can't demo then I believe the 170 is a safer choice. You didn't say too much about what you ski now and how you like to ski, but you need to be honest with yourself about ability. One of the reviews I read said that "the shop testers thought it was too much ski, but the pro skiers loved it." It's a high-end ski (which is the reason I ski the i.SL Chip and not the SuperShape).

By the way, I'm not an instructor or even in the ski business, so you need to balance the information and opinions of everyone here. One of the great things about Epic is the quality and experience of most of the posters (one of the disadvantages is not knowing exactly how much credibility to assign to someone). Many of these guys are really highly qualified and experienced, but ultimately it's your decision.
post #24 of 27
Thread Starter 
Ha... My username should read Hokies (as in Virginia Tech) Snow. No big rhyme or reason behind it. I'm a Asst. Golf Course superintendent, so my username on most other sites is Hokiegrass. I wanted to keep the names similar, and relate them to the site they were created for.

Thanks for the info. I haven't heard that the supershape was too much ski, so I'll take everything into consideration. What I really need to do is demo, but I just don't know if I will be able to. I may have a window of opportunity open pretty soon for some Head products, before the season. I really like Head skis, as my other pair of skis are Monster 88's. I was trying to find a good Groomer compliment for these, although the monsters are pretty smooth on groomers-- GS style. Thus, I am/was looking for of a more short/Medium radius style ride.

I'm around a level 8, give or take a little. I'd say this year I'll try to ski at or around 215 lbs; last year, I was a solid 225. I skied 186's in the 88's, and believe I faired well on everything but tight trees. However, where I ski, the trees have pretty good spacing (most of my time at Heavenly). If I had a day without my "A" game, on the monsters, I'd get thrown in the backseat of and on, but I suspect that is probably the same for a lot of skiers who aren't 9's or 10's.

Anyway, I appreciate any advice/suggestions and am willing to consider a other options for a groomer short-medium turner ski, especially if what I have going doesn't pan out. TIA..
post #25 of 27

Good post

If you are skiing the Monster 88's and like them, then you won't have a problem with the SuperShapes and will probably really like them. I guess I missed that part.

There is a shop in the Heavenly area that focuses on Head products, but I can't remember the name. Sierra Jim has a ski shop somewhere in the area, but I don't know if he picked up the Head ski line this year or not (seems like he might not have).
post #26 of 27
HokieSnow: Thus, I am/was looking for of a more short/Medium radius style ride.

Sounds like you should go for the 170cm length. Many reviews of the ski mentioned that the Supershapes excel in long turns, and very short turns take a little more work than a spure SL ski.

I just bought the Supershapes in 165cm length. I weigh around 170 lbs and consider myself a solid advanced skier. I probably should be on 155cm or 160cm lengths since I love cranking out short SL turns, but my goal for the year is to open up my turns and let them fly a bit. Hence the compromise. I hope I won't regret it.
post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys.... Good Stuff...

Tom-- I think what I really need to do is demo, but that probably won't happen... I might just have to make a blind-gut feel selection!

Gandalf-- thanks for the info and your opinions...
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 › What size I. Supershape for me?