or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2008 Head Supershape Magnum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: 2008 Head Supershape Magnum - Page 4

post #91 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeX View Post
I have not checked mine yet, but don't they come from the factory 1, 3
No 1/1 or 1/2
post #92 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Here's an opinion...

I agree with Ghost. Go with the regular SuperShape in 165.

If you're going to spend MOST of your time in the Midwest on these skis, then don't compromise on wider waist width. You mentioned above that you really liked it and I *know* that it's possible to ski quite fast on that ski when you feel like it.

Sounds to me like the regular SS in the 165 is your best option.

Good luck.
Thanks to everyone for all of the feedback. I need to clarify that the Slalom ski I demoed was the Worldcup iSL, in its longest length (165).

Based on the above comments It looks like I need to find a pair of iSupershapes to demo. I also found a pair of Chips in a 170 that I can try out which should be fun.

Bob, you suggested that I look at the 165, can you shed some light on your reasoning versus the 170 that Buckwild suggested?
post #93 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsandskis View Post
Thanks to everyone for all of the feedback. I need to clarify that the Slalom ski I demoed was the Worldcup iSL, in its longest length (165).

Based on the above comments It looks like I need to find a pair of iSupershapes to demo. I also found a pair of Chips in a 170 that I can try out which should be fun.

Bob, you suggested that I look at the 165, can you shed some light on your reasoning versus the 170 that Buckwild suggested?
I based it on your comments about having liked the 165. You liked the edge grip and the feel and everything. I would say to go with that.

You said originally that you wanted a shorter length and a smaller turn radius. If the iSL performed well for you at 165 when you demoed it, maybe that's the right ski? Since it was the iSL you demoed, why not just buy that one? It's a great ski for what you said you were looking for.
post #94 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
I based it on your comments about having liked the 165. You liked the edge grip and the feel and everything. I would say to go with that.

You said originally that you wanted a shorter length and a smaller turn radius. If the iSL performed well for you at 165 when you demoed it, maybe that's the right ski? Since it was the iSL you demoed, why not just buy that one? It's a great ski for what you said you were looking for.
Thanks for the quick reply. I thought you might have some big formula based on my weight, height, etc to dictacte the ski length. Just kidding.

Like I mentioned before I am going to try and make some turns on the Chips & Supershapes before I make a decision. With any luck I can make couple of runs on the iSL again too.

Think snow!
post #95 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInstructor View Post
I'd hardly call the Magnums unstable at speed or lacking edge hold - anything but, particularly in a 177. The Chip even moreso. So from your description I suspect the tune wasn't really up to par.
I'm like Ghost - I have and will call them unstable - sort of. Look, the Magnum is a damn soft ski - when you walk to the lift with them putting them on the ground as you walk, they flop around like few skis I've seen.

It's actually surprising that such a soft ski could be as stable as it is up to a point. I think a lot depends on weight of the skier. I'm about 200 pounds and my magnums are 170's. They're fine for general east mtn skiing unless you really want to turn up the speed. Compared to the Stockli Laser sc, which is much narrower - 63 waist!, yes the magnums are unstable. It ain't got nuttin' to do with edge angles either!

The real problem for my weight and the 170 is steep stuff with soft snow. At Big Sky they were a bit of a nightmare in those conditions. What happens is the ski just starts flopping like a dying fish particularly at the bottom of the turn. This isn't the most confidence inspiring trait on a 40 something degree pitch. (Yes, I'm a moron for skiing that ski there I know) Possibly in a 177 it might be better, but really it's too soft with too much shape for such conditions and my weight.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great ski with a very unique feel. It's probably a fantastic choice if you weigh under 170lbs. If you're way under 150 it probably could be a bit of a ripper. I wish I could get the feel of that ski in something that was a bit more appropriate for me.

I had this discussion with someone on the hill. He actually wasn't all that interested in the details and kept saying "yes, but do you like them? yes, but..."
Now I realize that's actually the answer!
"Yes, but..."
I'm also annoyed that one of them is slightly bent - after only a few days. Idiotic rep claims "even I couldn't tell the difference". Yeah well everyone with a brain lik Lou who owns a shop says clearly that it's bent. Bent is Bent no?

edit: Ok, I just saw Bob's post about the world cupper. Well fine, he could've probably won that race on straight skis or Bro's. I'm curious though, how much did he weigh? Also he was on the 177cm. (as if it matters!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsandskis View Post
While I generally liked the slalom, it did feel really short and I am not real sure it is the best ski for me. One reason is because I want a versatile ski that will perform well on our Midwest hardpack, but will still be acceptable to use out west and I don't think the slalom will fit that bill.
Go with the slalom or at least the chip. Rent when you go outwest or buy another ski for there. Seriously, that's too big a range 250ft. vertical hardpack to 10 times that and soft snow? Also, "acceptable to use out west" - yes slalom skis fit that bill. I've seen Bob B do it all over big sky by necessity, but really, you'd be better off with something wider and longer.
post #96 of 124

compare Fischer rx8 07' to the supershape speed

I went the route of buy a carver to learn how to carve well in the Fischer rx8 in 165. I then went to a more of a gs feeling ski in the stockli stormrider xl....

Now how much more muscle and power will a supershape speed have compared to the rx8... worth spending the coin? I've improved but my rx8's are still good skis and in great shape....


Thanks in advance.
post #97 of 124
Never tried the speed. If you're looking for more muscle and power then you should go to a slalom ski! Another alternative is something in between - try the Stockli Laser Sc. Fischer also makes "illegal" gs skis - that is skis with a lot more sidecut than is allowed by Fis rules. They have the power you're looking for. Probably everything else is compromising in ways that take away muscle and power. If possible, you want a laminate ski.

Want to save money? Buy last years.
For slalom, if you're not heavy, or even if, I might recommend a woman's race stock - that is 155 or 160cm. They're a little more flexible.
post #98 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I went the route of buy a carver to learn how to carve well in the Fischer rx8 in 165. I then went to a more of a gs feeling ski in the stockli stormrider xl....

Now how much more muscle and power will a supershape speed have compared to the rx8... worth spending the coin? I've improved but my rx8's are still good skis and in great shape....


Thanks in advance.
I have tried the 170 cm RX8 for a day. It's a good ski. I own the Fischer WC SC in 165 cm. It's like an RX8 on steroids, but requires a little speed to really shine. I demoed the SS Speed for a few runs. It is great, even more so after skiing the shorter-turning skis. Skied very aggressively, as if it were a slalom ski, you can set up some wicked locked-in turns at big angles while maintaining good speed. There's just something about a high-g large turn. Well worth the coin if you can afford it. And unlike my super-g skis, you can enjoy it on most hills; it wants you to go a little faster than the RX8 does, and small slow turns are even better on the WC SC, but it does not require ludicrous speed.
post #99 of 124
just had two weeks on the 177 Supershape Magnums and really liked em. Initially i thought they were very floppy and soft in the shovels but they held an edge real well and didnt chatter on me. Only complaint was at higher speeds they did flap a bit and were a bit grabby coming into turns and well as in deeper snow they wandered around a bit but they are 15M radius.... All round great ski !!
post #100 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsandskis View Post
Need some opinions on which ski & length.

Background:
I am 6' 0" tall and weigh ~180-185 lbs. I would consider myself a strong advanced skier, while I can carve near perfect turns on the blues, I need to work on my steeps skills. Currently I am on an older pair of 177 iXRC 1200's which I really like, but I am looking for something shorter both in length and turn radius, for some of the very reasons discussed earlier in this thread. The XRC's are one of the best skis I have been on, but I find the turn radius a bit long for the short Midwest boilerplate runs I spend much of my time on.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to demo several different skis, including the Magnum, Supershape Chip, Supershape slalom & Xenon 10. The problem was they were all different lengths, Magnum -177, Chip - 163, Slalom - 165 & Xenon - 170. The conditions were generally soft (not mushy) with crud and there were hard spots, although not enough to give a real good test.

To start the day off I was disappointed by the magnums because I felt like I had to work my arse off to stay in the drivers seat on every type of run I never felt like I lost control, but it was exhausting and I really don't enjoy that type of skiing. Next I jumped on the Xenon 10's and really liked them, it was like having cruise control, but several people including the local rep felt that the conditions were really ideal for that ski and it probably wouldn't perform as well when things firmed up. I took two quick runs on the Supershape Slalom ski and although it felt really short, I really liked the handling, grip etc that it offered. My last run of the day was on the Chips, they handled great and did not feel quite as short as the slalom skis even though they are 2cm shorter. Go Figure... Overall the Chip and Xenon's were probably my favorite's

So when the day was over I was left even more confused then when I started. Several people felt that the 177 Magnums were too long for my weight and I was just getting tossed around. I liked the Xenon's at 170, but I am concerned that they won't hold up (grip) well on the hard snow we typically have.
So now I am left wondering two questions, Magnum or Chip and 163 or 170? From everything that I have read, the Magnums probably fit my type of skiing a little better, most runs at average speed, with a handful at high speed. What about length, is the 163 too short? With my weight will the 170 be tamer then the 177 that I tried?

Opinions Wanted!
We are same size.

My recent history was 168 volkl allstar, and extensive miles on 165, 170 and 175 RX 8. I asked our epic dawgcatching what ski would have the quickness of the 165 RX8 yet retain high speed cruising stability of the 175, within reason of course. You can search my posts for extensive discussion on all these skis....the allstar thread is one of the most viewed threads ever in the gear forum....a lot of RX 8 talk went on there too...give you an idea of my thoughts and history.

I now am blessed to be riding (thanks to dawg) the 170 Head i supershape. Quick as needed for shortswing down a steep pitch yet capable of the cruising speeds without wobble that I wanted.

Dawg spot on as always.

Disagree with 165, go 170 i supershape at your size and prepare to grin. Fantastic piece of ski gear....absolute top notch. The ski will do everything you dream of, just engage the tips at all times and enjoy the ride. If you get back on your heels once or twice, don't worry they won't spank you, they'll just give you a gentle nudge and tell you to fix your technique. Very forgiving for such a high performance ride.

Contact dawg for a good deal....can't rave enuff.

Enjoy and happy holidays.
post #101 of 124
I own a pair of 08 Magnums (177cm) and also feel the tips are somewhat floppy. I also own the 07 Fischer RX8 (175cm) and the new 09 Supershape Speed (177cm), both of which are more stable than the Magnum. The 09 Speed with a side cut of 117-69-101 and a radius of 15.7 makes turns similar to those of the Magnum but are much more solid feeling. I feel that the Speeds could maybe even be skied in a shorter length.
post #102 of 124
Well, today was my first day on a new pair of SS Magnums (177cm), although I skied a pair last year for most of the season. I simply must not ski fast enough because I just can't seem to find that speed where the tips start flopping around.

For me, it's an incredibly responsive and versatile high-performance ski that's biased toward hard snow but works really well in almost everything else. It was a real hoot to be back on them.
post #103 of 124
I want time on the new Supershape Speed. A co-worker has a set in 170, and I want to borrow them when I get back on the hill. It is indeed a little beefier than the Magnum, which likely limits it's versatility somewhat, but makes it a better hard-snow tool. That isn't a widely-available ski, and with the iSpeed WC out, it is hard to see why they need so many frontside skis.

As to my initial less than stellar review of the Magnum, I found out that the demo in 170 was a poorly-tuned pair. Another friend ended up wanting the 177 he tried on the spot. My later try on them was much more favorable, so much so that I ended up mounting a pair of 170's in our "shop demo" fleet, knowing full well that nobody takes out frontside skis around here They will be waiting for me come late February/March!
post #104 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Well, today was my first day on a new pair of SS Magnums (177cm), although I skied a pair last year for most of the season. I simply must not ski fast enough because I just can't seem to find that speed where the tips start flopping around.

For me, it's an incredibly responsive and versatile high-performance ski that's biased toward hard snow but works really well in almost everything else. It was a real hoot to be back on them.
Bob: I agree with you. I just bought a new pair of Magnums after trying them during a recent demo day. I skied them at speeds I thought were very fast, and they were stable at those speeds. I was actually surprised they were as stable as I found them to be at high speeds, given their sidecut. One of the reasons I decided to add them to my quiver, was their ability to perform both short radius and long radius turns while remaining stable. I have not found many skis as effective at short radius turns as the Magnum, that maintain their stabilty at high speed GS type turns.
post #105 of 124
dauntless, couldnt agree more. they only seemed a bit squirrly to me when the ski was flat and gliding at speed. They dont flap when in a turn
post #106 of 124
I too got a new pair of Supershape Magnum's (163) this year. I am about 150lb and have been skiing them some in Snowmass the past 2 weeks. Here are some quick meandering comments:

I haven't been on them a lot but they were a breeze to just hop on and go - almost no accomodation needed. Given the conditions here I've been mostly skiing them in soft snow. As I am teaching lower level skiers here over the holiday so I am mostly on short skis but they have been a lot of fun on the runs I have taken with them. On groomed runs (nothing hard or bullet proof) they seem pretty silky and in powder and cut-up powder they perform very well. Yesterday I audited a higher level class so I was on the magnums. At slow speeds their softness seemd to be a nice virtue. I don't ski at super high speeds (> 50 mph ???) but at my higher speeds they were solid. They are a blast carving short radius but complete turns on a reasonable pitch.
post #107 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsandskis View Post
Thanks to everyone for all of the feedback. I need to clarify that the Slalom ski I demoed was the Worldcup iSL, in its longest length (165).

Based on the above comments It looks like I need to find a pair of iSupershapes to demo. I also found a pair of Chips in a 170 that I can try out which should be fun.

Bob, you suggested that I look at the 165, can you shed some light on your reasoning versus the 170 that Buckwild suggested?
You tried the iSL. You liked the iSL. Buy the iSL. End of story.

Now about that Magnum:
I cannot speak to their stability or lack thereof; I didn't get to ski them at high speeds; it was a small hill.

There was however some of what I call hardpack - snow that has been melted by the sun and refrozen in the shade and also scraped off by newbie boarders scraping sideways down the steepest section of the hill because they are afraid of a little speed. On this type of snow/ice what I found was the supershape speed had more grip than the supershape magnum. The super shape speed met my standards for grip, and the magnum did not. My standards for grip could be higher than the average bear's. I usually ski my own Fischer WC SCs that I keep very sharp (except this year I left my tuning supplies at another residence and will be skiing the third day without a tune. Maybe it will dump and I can take the Volants.)
post #108 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post
I too got a new pair of Supershape Magnum's (163) this year. I am about 150lb and have been skiing them some in Snowmass the past 2 weeks. Here are some quick meandering comments:

I haven't been on them a lot but they were a breeze to just hop on and go - almost no accomodation needed. Given the conditions here I've been mostly skiing them in soft snow. As I am teaching lower level skiers here over the holiday so I am mostly on short skis but they have been a lot of fun on the runs I have taken with them. On groomed runs (nothing hard or bullet proof) they seem pretty silky and in powder and cut-up powder they perform very well. Yesterday I audited a higher level class so I was on the magnums. At slow speeds their softness seemd to be a nice virtue. I don't ski at super high speeds (> 50 mph ???) but at my higher speeds they were solid. They are a blast carving short radius but complete turns on a reasonable pitch.
Si?! Hi! Long time!

How long have you been teaching at Aspen?! What a life!
post #109 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
Si?! Hi! Long time!

How long have you been teaching at Aspen?! What a life!
Hi Oboe, Just started teaching this year part time. I am basically here over the Christmas Holiday, President's Week, and a couple of weeks during spring break in March.
post #110 of 124
How are the SS Speed in the bumps?

Not to toot my own horn, but i'm a very technically skilled skier in the bumps and can handle most skis in them. How stiff do they feel and do the tails hook consistently?

I think they'd be a great front side ski to rip all sizes of turns at various speeds. They look like the perfect front side ski... exactly what i'm after
post #111 of 124

put another 3 weeks on my Magnums and the screws holding the bindings to the plate pulled loose. Head sent a new set of plates through but on close inspection the plates are pretty lightweight. a shop owner said he skis on Magnums but put VIST plates on as the head/tyrolia ones arent sturdy enough....

post #112 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike View Post
I'm not sure what, exactly, was the idea behind the narrower ski. I do have problems with rushing my turns and overpowering the ski, particularly when it gets steep. I suspect that Bob is pretty much dead on for the reason they suggested a narrower ski.

Tog thought that an SL ski would be "dangerous" for me, because it tends to hook up and you've got the possible spiral tibia fracture problem -- and he thought it too much of a change from what I've been skiing. He thought I should rule out anything with a turn radius less than 14 m.

Does that help? And thanks guys, I really appreciate the advice.

Mike
that is a gross exxaggeration of slalom ski hook up. they only hook up as fast as you let them just let any ski. An argument could be made that since a GS ski is longer it torques you with more force. afterall you have about 15cm less ski on your foot!

i ski slaloms all the time spiral tibia fracture from a slalom ski, jeez, what a bunch of hooey! maybe if your bindings are set to 30. but that is a binding probelm not a ski problem.

I train slalom, (no injuries)both my boys raced slalom for years and guess what? my older boy blew his knee out in Downhill on 212's .

Sorry, I didn't make it up! VailSnowPro and Tony Sears are the victims here of this problem. Both are far better skiers than either I or Habacomike. Spiral fractures at the boot top.  Caused by the skis hooking up in soft packed powder. Ask BobBarnes.

 

Of course, Bob told me about "how dangerous" my skis were at the top of a run looking down at my skis.  Gee, thanks Bob! Maybe you could've waited till the bottom?  Actually, the ss magnums are probably too soft to do that?  They'd hook up, but literally you might snap them in half before you broke the leg, or the whole ski would bend so much.  Might.

 

Notice however, that BobB still skis slaloms exclusively.  He did actually have this happen to himself too, only it just resulted in a gash in the top of one ski as the outside ski hooked in crossing over the other.

 



My answer stands. Just don't let your ski do that. it is as simple as that. Under Tog;'s assumption any ski with a wide tip would do that. You must just must be discplined and not allow your skis to be flailing around with no guidance.  - Atomicman



 

It's not a question of "letting". Did you "let" the avalanche happen?

Again, as BobB put it, "Tony Sears is one of the best skiers I've ever known..."

Sure, they could've not skied quite so hard on that type of snow condition, or made bigger turns.

I'm not trying to scare anyone here, "just the facts m'am"  The culprit is sidecut with beefiness, aka a slalom ski, skied hard on a surface that's firmish on top and  soft underneath.  This probably wouldn't happen in the east, or at least there's way fewer days the surface is firmish on top and soft underneath.

 



Just editorializing now... I think there are so many really good skiers who could benefit from getting on slalom skis and really learning to "work" a ski for all it can give. I spent 30+ years as a powder/crud/backcountry skier and didn't really start to work on angles and carving and serious turn shape until just a few years ago. As the new slalom skis came out, I started experimenting with the skis and with the movements it takes to really use them. I've come to believe that I've probably learned more about ski technique in the last five years than I did in the previous twenty five. It's exciting and challenging and just plain fun. Best of all, that budding knowledge of how a ski actually works has really helped my off-piste skiing - I can actually feel it. - Bob Peters



^^ Hallelujah! ^^

See, habacom, it's not just me! (and Bob, Squatty, Mermeer, Robin...(haven't cornered here completely yet) [not implying at all that "They learned it from me!" ] As for Dan, well as long as you've got things on your feet!

With the narrower ski on packed you can feel it working and responding, now! Plus, as Squatty was saying, pretty much anything over about 81mm fights you putting it on edge.  That is, as you tip it, there's enough ski to the inside of your big toe that it counteracts the tipping force.

Jump on a pair of those Stockli Laser Sc's -63mm underfoot and you'll be amazed at the control on hard stuff.


Edited by Tog - Thu, 05 Feb 09 21:55:53 GMT
post #113 of 124


On this type of snow/ice what I found was the supershape speed had more grip than the supershape magnum. The super shape speed met my standards for grip, and the magnum did not. My standards for grip could be higher than the average bear's. I usually ski my own Fischer WC SCs that I keep very sharp (except this year I left my tuning supplies at another residence and will be skiing the third day without a tune. Maybe it will dump and I can take the Volants.)

-Ghost



Totally agree that the Magnum's grip is not at all stellar. 

I've actually never experienced "tip flopping" on the Magnums. (love that term) I would say that the whole ski is just soft and it affects the stability.  Don't let any shop people tell you these are like race skis. They've either just heard that, or only ski fat skis and have never tried a race ski.  Ask Ghost.

 

Also, it seems a lot of partic. western demo shops have a different idea of what sharp is.  At BigSky the skis came in different shades of dull.  Even in the east you run into this but it's far rarer for any decent shop to send out dull skis. 

I got into a bit of an argument with the demo guy at an eastern mt. recently when I returned the skis.  I said , "Just tell me, cause I don't care, but do you think these are sharp?"  He started talking about his machine and blah, blah, blah. I had a junior racer feel the edges. He described them as "rounded"! - even though they'd just come "out of the machine... with spinning discs and blah blah..."

 

If you want to experience "tip flop" try a Kastle 78 and turn up the speed on hard snow. Those tips flop at speed but the center is very solid/stable.

 

I would like to try the magnum in a 177cm it might be a bit different for me.  Currently mine are at Head because one of them was bent.

post #114 of 124

I have to confirm what tog said in post 112; it really depends on the snow.

 

I have had my WC SC (165 cm 13-m radius)skis going as fast as Ontario runs would allow, on some days when covered with freezing rain, other days on very hard snow.  On these hard snow surfaces there was never a problem.  Any time I wanted to turn I could pretty much make any turn shape from infinitely long to as small as could be achieved on any other ski (though the long radius turns were scarved).  I never had a problem with the tip "hooking up".

 

Also if you don't ski over about 35 mph with the ski you shouldn't have a problem with boot top fractures.  I did notice that in snow that the ski can sink into, but that is still solid, dense, and meaty enough to put some real force on the ski that the slalom flex combined with the sidecut makes the ski a little bit harder to control when dialing up turns that are much larger than the sidecut radius.  It can be done, but it's a little harder to control; you can easily end up with more turn than you intended.

 

The real problem comes when you are really booting it, doing about 50 mph and want to make just a little bit of a smeared turn in snow that is not hardpacked, not icy, not chalk, but more like a cross between poridge and wet cement.  You need a certain amount of tipping on edge on the body of the ski to get you around that corner.  That amount is enough to get the tip to bite in, and if the snow is grippy and deep that tip will fold up.   Either you are sans-skis in snow too soft and deep to ski in your boots or your leg is broken.  Either way, you are going down.  Yeah, it's a beefy slalom ski, but it ain't no SG ski!

 

My advise: it's ok to ski a slalom ski in any snow, or at any speed on ice or really hard snow; just don't ski it at GS and higher speeds in deep grippy snow.

post #115 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

Also if you don't ski over about 35 mph with the ski you shouldn't have a problem with boot top fractures. 

 

bull crap.

 

really bad bull crap

post #116 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brumos View Post
How are the SS Speed in the bumps?

Not to toot my own horn, but i'm a very technically skilled skier in the bumps and can handle most skis in them. How stiff do they feel and do the tails hook consistently?

I think they'd be a great front side ski to rip all sizes of turns at various speeds. They look like the perfect front side ski... exactly what i'm after


 

For the level of performance, these skis are easy to ski.  When I skied them at Stowe last Spring, I ran them though bumps that were ice hard with a few inches of pow blown around.  The were fantastic.  It's a soft ski compared to other similarly performing skis.  They hold an edge and can do tight turns and faster almost gs turns.  I think the ski could be an East Coast all mountain ski.  The softer flex allows a bit more float than you might expect.

post #117 of 124

quote no workee?


Edited by Ghost - Fri, 06 Feb 09 02:46:42 GMT
post #118 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

Also if you don't ski over about 35 mph with the ski you shouldn't have a problem with boot top fractures. 

 

bull crap.

 

really bad bull crap

Well it works for me.  What were you skiing and how fast when you broke your leg?

post #119 of 124

For what it's worth, here's vailsnopro's summation of some boot top fracture probs.  Apparently there's a whole thread on that but I haven't found it just yet.  As you know, right now the search function is 'mentally challenged', aka 'genetically retarded'.

 

As for the 35mph, I'm not sure ultimate speed is necess. the cause.

Also, from a quick read, it sounds as if the inside ski deflects to the outside and goes underneath the outside ski. Not the other way as I described it.

 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/51002/the-re-emergence-of-boot-top-spiral-fractures

post #120 of 124

Thanks Tog,

That's a totally different failure mechanism that what I have experienced.  I have expereincced the tip turning where you direct it by tipping, but with too much vigour. I find that given the stiffness of my skis and my leg strength I can pretty much cope with whatever it's doing at 35 unless I make some terrible faux pas and give the ski the wrong marching orders.

 

I can't say what speed that other mechanism (inside ski hooking under outside ski) would or would not be a problem at.  It is hard to imagine what would make the inside ski come across under the outside ski while in a turn, other than hitting something.  I could see possibly how having a stem or else steering the old inside ski into the new turn at transition might cause it to happen then.

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 › Review: 2008 Head Supershape Magnum