Is that a light at the end of the tunnel? (and it's not NJ
Ok, let's not rush into anything here though. The tigershark12's on sale above are still 79mm underfoot - not much different than the AC40 82mm. Not sure about the AC4.
The Tigershark 10 is 73mm underfoot - now we're getting somewhere.
168: 121-73-105 14.3m radius
175: 121-73-105 15.8m radius
I would say if you go with this ski you definitely want the power switch.
I will say definitely that the Head supershape magnums are too soft for you.(too soft for me also)
Hmmm why not even go towards an even more "slalom like" ski in the 60's?
There's a lot of choice in this area of skis. Perhaps start a thread and get some suggestions. There's people here with good advice since you've narrowed your search somewhat.
Your going to need a ski with some beef in it.
Something like the Stockli Laser Sc might be good:
: 95 14.8m radius @170 16.1 @177
170 w/plate would make more sense I think but you'll hate it for awhile in anything other than groomed.
Bear in mind that with these types of skis plates can make a big difference. You can take a 170 and drastically alter the stiffness/response with the type of plate. You would definitely want some sort of plate.
Fischer World Cup RC (not SC)
112 - 66 - 96 16m at 175cm (so less at 170) this might be good at 175 too for west.
Really, there's tons of choices.
I guess I would caution against going with too much sidecut, say much less than 14m. (In the true slalom category) Just because that's a drastic change for you and if the skis come around too quickly legs can be broken. (I heard horror stories from Bob about this happening with very good skiers. It took me a couple of runs to forget as he looked at my skis while talking.(13.5m radius) hmmm...guess what he was skiing Big Sky in? 165 slaloms...)
I noticed the Atomic Pimps were on sale here....