or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Supershape Magnum's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Supershape Magnum's

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Anyone have opinions on these? I am looking for 170cm's.
post #2 of 38
Helpful newbie hint #1- search first......
post #3 of 38
Here is my review of them last spring. If they didn't cost so much I would consider owning a pair.
post #4 of 38
They are excellent for stroking your Harbl.
post #5 of 38
There are a handful of reviews out there, here's mine from back in the spring. http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53253

IMO, fantastic skis for most purposes, I've already got my pair for this season.
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
They are excellent for stroking your Harbl.
Not as excellent as you might think... they were not as well received on that turf as I would have expected.
post #7 of 38
I ski the original Supershape and really, really like them. I'm 200#, 6', good skier of medium energy level. I demo's some SS Magnum 177's, and they kicked my butt. Way too much ski. My feeling is that the Magnum is for the strong, high energy skier, even in the "right" size. For me, I'd choose the Supershape 170 over the Magnum 170. If I wanted more waist width for more floation, I'd get the new Xenon 7.0. (For the Xenon, go short. I know of one 6'2", 220#, excellent skier who found the Xenon 7.0 170cm just right.) If you're that strong, high energy skier, the Magnum may be the pick of the litter for you. Don't go too long.
post #8 of 38
Since SoftSnowGuy brought it up, it's worth mentioning for comparison's sake that the Magnum is more or less the same stiffness as the Supershape Speed or the '05/'06 XRC 1200SW (not the current 1200SW though), which is definitely stiffer than the original Supershape.
post #9 of 38
They are the #1 front face ski I demo'd this year, hands down. An absolute blast to ski and keeps begging you to give it more. I have to find a way to get a pair this season.
post #10 of 38
If I didn't think I would have to fork over $800+ to get them I would probably consider owning a pair for the days that the snow is soft around here... and possibly to take west in the place of my SLRs. They weren't nearly as beefy as a stock race ski, but were much easier to ski on. I had always thought that the Supershape was the same ski as the Magnum... too bad because I bet the Supershape would rip even more if it was as beefy as the magnum.
Later
GREG
post #11 of 38
The Magnum got great reviews on the Ski Press website, I'm having second thoughts on the Fischer Progressors I just bought. Ski press tested the Magnum in 177cm and said it is one of the best ski's they've ever tested!
post #12 of 38
I can confirm that the 170 rips.
post #13 of 38
"Realskiers" reviews did not rave over it. Thought it was a good ski but didn't make ski of the year for the carving category or anything. Interesting mix of reviews. Guessing only, but I think this ski would be more appealing and appreciated by racers.
post #14 of 38
I thought it was a bit too much ski for me. I liked the Progressor better, but others I spoke with who were heavier (over 175) would probably say the opposite. I had more fun on the Progressor and Elan GSX carver-the GSX is the one I ordered for myself :-)
post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Guessing only, but I think this ski would be more appealing and appreciated by racers.
For sure.
post #16 of 38
Ski Press didn't even include the Progressor in the high performance catagory with the SS Magnum, it was only considered a performance ski? The reviews of the SS Magnum are very mixed, not that they count but Ski and Sking mag's reviews both raved about the Progressor while the SS Magnum didn't even make the cut. Real Skiers which is very bias toward Head didn't rate the SS Mag very high either. After reading the SS Magnum review in Ski Press I want a pair, they sound like the perfect ski. They tested it in 177cm while others tested the 170cm! I owned the Supershape in 170cm and hated it but loved the Supershape Speed and XRC1200 in 177cm, maybe there on to something? It seems like all the magazines test skis in lengths on the short side. I'm 215 lbs unlike most of the 150 lb testers and prefer a little longer length. I bought the Progressor in 175cm which I feel is the correct length for me.
post #17 of 38
Buckwild,
I think you're right about length. Based on my experience on the 170 - at your size you would definitely want the 177cm ski. I am 165lbs and felt that the 170 was just about perfect (as did my younger brother who is a little lighter than I am and just a slightly lower level skier). I think Realskiers found fault with the Magnum because it was not as useful for a wide range of skiers as the Supershape is due to the increased stiffness and demanding nature of the ski.

I will say however, that one ski that I really enjoyed and didn't expect to was the iXRC 1200 (similar shape as the Superspeed I think, but with a flex softer than the Superspeed - probably more along the lines of a Supershape). For what it was I found it to be a very capable ski.

Later

GREG
post #18 of 38
I'm a 67 year-old, 225lb., level 8 skier from the East. My 06/07 quiver was: Nordica Top Fuels (170) and Volkl Superstars (168). Went to two large demo days last Spring and tried a bunch of skis. Out of everything that I tried, I loved the Fischer Progressor and the Head Supershape Magnum. Traded in my beloved Volkls and bought the Magnums. Spent the last three weeks of the season on them. I did not regret my decision! The Magnums are fantastic front-side carvers. They almost have a slinky feel about them. Very easy to initiate turns, and hold an edge like crazy.
Although I also loved the Progressors-I thought they were similar enough to my Top Fuels- that I went with the Magnums.
In closing-if you look at the numerical scores given to the Magnums over on the Real Skiers site-they were rated very high. The Magnums were also one of "Peter's Picks".
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by patprof66 View Post
I'm a 67 year-old, 225lb., level 8 skier from the East. My 06/07 quiver was: Nordica Top Fuels (170) and Volkl Superstars (168). Went to two large demo days last Spring and tried a bunch of skis. Out of everything that I tried, I loved the Fischer Progressor and the Head Supershape Magnum. Traded in my beloved Volkls and bought the Magnums. Spent the last three weeks of the season on them. I did not regret my decision! The Magnums are fantastic front-side carvers. They almost have a slinky feel about them. Very easy to initiate turns, and hold an edge like crazy.
Although I also loved the Progressors-I thought they were similar enough to my Top Fuels- that I went with the Magnums.
In closing-if you look at the numerical scores given to the Magnums over on the Real Skiers site-they were rated very high. The Magnums were also one of "Peter's Picks".
What length are your Magnums?
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwild View Post
Ski Press didn't even include the Progressor in the high performance catagory with the SS Magnum, it was only considered a performance ski? The reviews of the SS Magnum are very mixed, not that they count but Ski and Sking mag's reviews both raved about the Progressor while the SS Magnum didn't even make the cut. Real Skiers which is very bias toward Head didn't rate the SS Mag very high either. After reading the SS Magnum review in Ski Press I want a pair, they sound like the perfect ski. They tested it in 177cm while others tested the 170cm! I owned the Supershape in 170cm and hated it but loved the Supershape Speed and XRC1200 in 177cm, maybe there on to something? It seems like all the magazines test skis in lengths on the short side. I'm 215 lbs unlike most of the 150 lb testers and prefer a little longer length. I bought the Progressor in 175cm which I feel is the correct length for me.
Realskiers is not biased towards head, this is simply not true. Note, the Ski of the year was tigershark and many top scorers are Fischers. Peter Keelty, the owner of the site does not review the skis and is not sponsored by Head or any other ski company. Don't confuse Realskiers with the PMTS chat forum where there are bias's.
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Buckwild,
I think you're right about length. Based on my experience on the 170 - at your size you would definitely want the 177cm ski. I am 165lbs and felt that the 170 was just about perfect (as did my younger brother who is a little lighter than I am and just a slightly lower level skier). I think Realskiers found fault with the Magnum because it was not as useful for a wide range of skiers as the Supershape is due to the increased stiffness and demanding nature of the ski.

I will say however, that one ski that I really enjoyed and didn't expect to was the iXRC 1200 (similar shape as the Superspeed I think, but with a flex softer than the Superspeed - probably more along the lines of a Supershape). For what it was I found it to be a very capable ski.

Later

GREG
Hi Greg,
Your right on the money, I had the 07 Supershapes in 170cm and didn't like them (felt soft and unstable). I also owned the 07 Supershape Speed in 177cm which were much more to my liking (more stable) but lacked the quickness and short turn ability of the Supershape. I also owned the 07 XRC1200 in 177cm which was a good compromise of quickness and stability compared to the Supershape and Supershape Speed. The XRC1200 however had a softer feel similar to the 170cm Supershape, my thought was that if they made a stiffer XRC1200 (similar or stiffer than the Supershape Speed) it would be the perfect ski. I'm hoping thats what the Supershape Magnum is! Living in the Midwest we don't get many opportunities to do demos, in fact there isn't even a local dealer carring the SS Magnum. I bought a pair of Fischer Progressors based off magazine and reader reviews and my local dealer had them in stock. After reading the Ski Press review it sounds as if the Supershape Magnum in 177cm would have been the better choice?

Buck
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwild View Post
After reading the Ski Press review it sounds as if the Supershape Magnum in 177cm would have been the better choice?

Buck
I think you'll be fine. Fischer has always built great skis. The RX8, SC, and RC have been at the top of the industry for years and the Progressor is based off each of those skis, so I don't think you can go wrong. My expereince with Fischers is that they have a snappier (more lively) feel to them than Heads. While both are very solid and have energy, the Fischers have more of a snappy energy versus a more subdued energy in the Heads. I really like Fischers - especially their WC SL - but I find it too attention consuming to ski on as a free ski.

Later

GREG
post #23 of 38
HeluvaSkier - you remember the weight difference between the two skis?
2008 Head i.Supershape Magnum vs 2008 Head XRC 1200
post #24 of 38
I don't recally specifically but remember the Magnum feeling a bit heavier - possibly because of the larger tip and tail which increases the swing weight. The two skis are very different from each other in how they perform on snow though, so if you are considering either, first decide what kind of ski you want or demo both of them. The iXRC 1200 was more difficult to ski than the Magnum in terms of the technical prowess needed to pilot them properly.
Later
GREG
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
I think you'll be fine. Fischer has always built great skis. The RX8, SC, and RC have been at the top of the industry for years and the Progressor is based off each of those skis, so I don't think you can go wrong. My expereince with Fischers is that they have a snappier (more lively) feel to them than Heads. While both are very solid and have energy, the Fischers have more of a snappy energy versus a more subdued energy in the Heads. I really like Fischers - especially their WC SL - but I find it too attention consuming to ski on as a free ski.

Later

GREG
Hi Greg,
I like Fischers as well, I currently own a pair or Worldcup RC's in both 175cm and 180cm. I picked up a pair of RX8's cheap at the end of last season. I haven't skied them yet but thought they be good for easy days skiing with my 6 year old. I owned a pair of the Worldcup SC's breifly, I thought they were great on smooth rock hard surfaces but were scary on anything else. I do have a preference toward Fischer. I used to ski all Volkls but haven't liked any of their skis since the 6 Star.

Buck
post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwild View Post
I used to ski all Volkls but haven't liked any of their skis since the 6 Star.
They stopped building good skis long before the 6 Star. I think the seasons of the G40/41 was the last time I was actually intrigued by Volkl. The later P40's (when they used those metal tubes) and P50's were some of the worst race skis in modern history. Ironically, that was about the same time that the Fischer WC SL and GS started becoming the skis to have.
Later
GREG
post #27 of 38
Buck, the progressor is a better ski. You made a good choice. FWIW, Realskier actually rated the Progressor as a better carving ski.
post #28 of 38
My Magnums are 170's
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by patprof66 View Post
My Magnums are 170's
Did you happen to demo the Magnum in 177cm, I'm 215-220 lbs and was leaning toward the longer length? The 170cm seems short at 225lb's, I do some racing and prefer to ski fast all the time. I had bad luck with the standard Supershape in 170cm but liked the stiffer Supershape Speeds in 177cm, I'm guessing the magnum is closer in flex with the SS Speed.
post #30 of 38
MAgnum is stiffer but the 177 would be better for 220#
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 › Head Supershape Magnum's