EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help! Question Head Supershape vs Magnum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help! Question Head Supershape vs Magnum

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I demoed a lot of skis last winter, and started to focus on the Head Supershape based on reviews on this site and others.

At the end of last season I bought a pair of Supershape 165cm, and used them 2 days in early December and 4 days over Christmas. The top sheet on the tail of both skis started to separate. The shop I bought them from was very helpful and we got the skis back to Head.

They told me they were going to ship out a replacement this morning, & I thought all was well. Then I got the call.

They did not have any Supershapes in 165 or 170. They are sending me a pair of Supershape Magnum in 163. Now I'm a little worried. :

I'm 5'9", 200lbs, 45 yrs old, ski in upstate NY. Becuase of my knees, I usually ski Black Diamonds all morning, then move to the blues in the afternoon. No bumps. I demoed both the 165 & 170 SS, and liked the 165's better.

Any thoughts?

Thanks Pete_in_CT
post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_in_CT View Post
I demoed a lot of skis last winter, and started to focus on the Head Supershape based on reviews on this site and others.

At the end of last season I bought a pair of Supershape 165cm, and used them 2 days in early December and 4 days over Christmas. The top sheet on the tail of both skis started to separate. The shop I bought them from was very helpful and we got the skis back to Head.

They told me they were going to ship out a replacement this morning, & I thought all was well. Then I got the call.

They did not have any Supershapes in 165 or 170. They are sending me a pair of Supershape Magnum in 163. Now I'm a little worried. :

I'm 5'9", 200lbs, 45 yrs old, ski in upstate NY. Becuase of my knees, I usually ski Black Diamonds all morning, then move to the blues in the afternoon. No bumps. I demoed both the 165 & 170 SS, and liked the 165's better.

Any thoughts?

Thanks Pete_in_CT
The Magnum is a BIT more ski in terms of total surface area than the SS. If you liked the 165 SS, I would think you'd be fine with the 163 Magnum.
post #3 of 12
After having spent the last month reading every review and many comments on these two skis it seems that they are both considered very good but different skis. The magnum has gotten great reviews on expertskier.com and I have talked to several shop people and read many comments here that have been very positive. It does seem that lighter guys don't fare as well, heavier guys 180 and up love it. It will be more versatile than the supershape as the waist is 5mm wider, but the supershape would be the better carver with a slightly shorter turning radius.

I demoed the magnum last week here in Michigan and liked the ski; my only reservation was that my ability wasn't up to the ski's level, and I wanted something less than 70mm to focus on my carving and technical skills over the next two years, as I'm just getting back into skiing.

I don't think you'll have a problem.
post #4 of 12
Two different skis. I'm surprised they'd substitute the Magnum for the SuperShape.
post #5 of 12
What's going on?! A lot of people are asking for help getting Head online.*






(* Sorry, Bob. I have no will power at all.)
post #6 of 12
Personally I would not accept the change if they only offer Magnums 163 cm. If you liked SS 165 cm then I think Magnum 170 would be good for you. I can't imagine why you would buy ski (Magnum) which is meant to be versatile on-piste carver in a lenght (163) of a pure slalom ski.

My friend just bought Magnum 170cm. He is intermediate skier, 40, about you height and little lighter. He absolutely loved the ski. I'm quite sure that shorter Magnum would be too short for you.
post #7 of 12
Has Head fixed the delam issues with the SS? Has the Magnum been reported to have delam issues? I am probably inclined to buy a used pair sometime if I can find a "killer" deal.
post #8 of 12
Hey Pete,

I own the original iSuperShape 170 with a 12,1 Radius. I got a chance to demo the Magnum yesterday in the 163 @ 12,4 Radius.. What a GREAT ski. I love it a lot more than my iSS.

I am 220 @ 5,11 and the 163 was a ton of fun to run around the mountain. It handled sloppy slush and ice very well. It turned hard and fast but could also be locked in and brought to handle longer turns as well. I cannot say how much fun the 163 size was. For me the length did not seem to be an issue, but I generally focus on short turns and slalom style riding.

The ski is very stable underfoot, and it loves to be driven into turns. I am in no way a reputable ski instructor / racer / skier ect but from my personal experience it was a very fun ski.

I normally ski Atomic SL12 and iSS. I use a Rossi Scratch when I want to relax. Hope this helps,

David
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post
Has Head fixed the delam issues with the SS? Has the Magnum been reported to have delam issues? I am probably inclined to buy a used pair sometime if I can find a "killer" deal.
roundturns, can you cite some examples of this delam issue? I'm personally familiar with about two dozen skiers who have skied their pairs of SuperShapes hard for up to three years and I've never heard of a delam. That includes some shop demos that probably have 100+ days on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidKramar View Post
Hey Pete,

I own the original iSuperShape 170 with a 12,1 Radius. I got a chance to demo the Magnum yesterday in the 163 @ 12,4 Radius.. What a GREAT ski. I love it a lot more than my iSS.

I am 220 @ 5,11 and the 163 was a ton of fun to run around the mountain. It handled sloppy slush and ice very well. It turned hard and fast but could also be locked in and brought to handle longer turns as well. I cannot say how much fun the 163 size was. For me the length did not seem to be an issue, but I generally focus on short turns and slalom style riding.

The ski is very stable underfoot, and it loves to be driven into turns. I am in no way a reputable ski instructor / racer / skier ect but from my personal experience it was a very fun ski.

I normally ski Atomic SL12 and iSS. I use a Rossi Scratch when I want to relax. Hope this helps,

David
I think that does help, David. Personally, I think the 163cm Magnum is a bit MORE ski than the 165cm SS, in the sense that there's a bit more surface area and a bit longer turn radius. I think the OP would be very happy with it.
post #10 of 12
No I can't qualify the delam issues with the SS other than seeing it posted ove at the PMTS website. So if others can't reinforce the level of incidenccce of delam witht the SS , my comment should be considered not based in fact and with drawn.
post #11 of 12
Isn't it fascinating how these stories generate, propigate and perpetuate? No doubt, there must be at least SOME occasions when skis delaminate for one reason or another. I've never, ever seen it, but it must happen. I can just imagine one of my buddies skiing in complete control, when before our very eyes - POP! Her skis delaminate! Fascinating!
post #12 of 12
There are a couple of 100+ day skiers in my ski school that are still on first gen SuperShapes. The ski seems to be plenty durable.
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 › Help! Question Head Supershape vs Magnum