EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Blizzard Supersonic 167 (LONG ... includes vs. Head SS Magnum)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blizzard Supersonic 167 (LONG ... includes vs. Head SS Magnum)

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Ski: 08/09 Blizzard G-Force Supersonic IQ, 167cm.

Me: 5’ 7”, 130lbs, 46yo, level 8, right coast

 

Executive Summary

 

What I liked, in rough order of importance to me:

§         At medium to high speeds, amazingly quick & reactive. Responsive to small inputs without being abrupt or unpredictable in any way.

§         Superb grip

§         Curious but wonderful combination of light weight with relatively high stability

§         Smooth, effortless initiation in hardpack arcs

§         Wide range of turn shapes – not a specialist ski

§         Born to carve, even at milder edge angles (thus, perhaps, the range of turn shapes)

§         Perfect tune out of the box

§         Good length fit for me – no wish for a “between” size (bridge of nose @ 167cm)

§         The way my ski buddies say “Blizzards? Really? Huh. Hmm. Really? Blizzards? Okay. If you say so.”

 

What I could live without, in order of importance:

§         Smallish sweet spot in softer snow and on slower “scarved” turns (but I expect I will dial that in after another day or two)

§         Not the easiest initiator in same conditions as above

§         Somewhat jarring in “mini-crud”

§         The fact that I couldn’t buy them used or deeply discounted as a last-year’s model

§         Metallic noise on hard snow, that at least one other reviewer mentioned

§         Foil top sheet that has already proved a bit too easy to scrape off

 

Overall

§         A sports car thrill ride for able lightweights who want to carve it up on hardpack, but don’t want the responsibility of having to push a race ski all the time. Not for skidders or soft snow, unless you’re bigger than I am.

 

 

The Gory Details

 

I demo’d several skis in my quest to replace my Fischer World Cup RCs with a hard snow ski that is better suited to my light weight, is a bit turnier, and that will be slightly more versatile without sacrificing too much hard snow grip or high speed stability. A couple of these reviews can be found here. I was interested in shopping around at this time of year, when prices tend to be relatively low and my skiing is fairly well dialed in. One of the skis that I had been most anxious to try was the Blizzard Supersonic, based on a combination of magazine reviews and commentary found on this board. I found this thread and this one particularly compelling. Unfortunately I was not able to find anywhere even to LOOK at a pair of these, let alone demo them, within a reasonable distance. Meanwhile I liked the Head Supershape Magnum a lot. It was very close to what I was looking for. Hindsight revealed that I probably should have been on the 170 instead of the 163, and that part of what I did not like about the ski might have been attributable to Head’s allegedly unreliable factory base angles. However, the logistics and expense of making a second demo pass to try to figure out if those factors would turn “like” into “love” were a big hurdle. (I could just picture the eye-rolling “get a load of this dude,” reactions of the shop staff as I tried to explain my nerdy concerns about base bevel issues I heard about on the Internet.)  I was feeling a bit of time pressure as most eastern areas and ski shops were visibly winding down the season. Most of them had long ago shipped their demos off to … wherever it is that demos go to await the late fall ski swaps. I was seriously considering just ordering a pair of the SS 170s from Dawgcatching. (Who helped me out a LOT with narrowing my choices and who had a good price on this ski. Thanks, Scott!) I had pretty much exhausted all available demos of candidate skis – which included the Progressor 8, among others - within a two hour drive. Just about then, I located someone a couple states away who had the Supersonic in my size of choice for a reasonable price (even though it was still about double what I’d ever paid for a pair of skis) and was willing to ship free. I took a deep breath and bought them, un-demo’d. Gasp!

 

Any review under these circumstances is highly suspect. Who is going to admit – even to himself, let alone on the open Internet – that he spent a lot of money on something untried and then didn’t like what he got? Just acknowledging that I am making at least a token effort here to counterbalance my own consumer psychology with healthy skepticism. That said, I now have several hours on this ski on two different days and I’m convinced I made a fantastic choice. (The “right” choice? Who knows.) Strangely enough for Maine, there hasn’t really been all that much hard snow around lately for proper testing, but I did get two good hours in at the ‘Loaf this week on some very firm but very consistent corduroy. This ski absolutely rocks for me in these conditions.

 

Maybe it sounds stupid, but my very first impression was that these were the sharpest boards I’d ever been on. Obviously they must have had a very good tune, but I’m sure my impression came from more than just that; for some reason I seem to be able to just glue the entire edge of this ski to the snow and keep it there, even at relatively low angles. Turns initiate quicker and less fussily on this ski than on my RCs, and I can vary the turn shape more easily. It’s just way easier to ski. So, one goal achieved. At the same time, it seems fully in the same league in terms of grip. Stability is definitely lower than the RC’s – no surprise there, I guess. For one thing, the RCs are about 15lbs and these are less than 12. You feel that right away. However, the more I skied the more I realized that only part of what I was feeling here was a real loss of stability, while much of it was strictly psychological. The Supersonics are not the least bit jittery or squirrelly. And they have none of that brittle, glassy feeling that some Salomons, such as the GC from a couple years ago, have, that I hate. They’re just lighter and quicker-reacting and not quite as damp. The more I skied them, the more confidence I had on them at speed. At first I had to be careful not to do anything too sudden, and I wasn’t sure I liked that. After a little while longer, though, I actually started to get really psyched about how much more control I had over them with small movements. What had seemed at first like a bug now seemed like a feature. Seriously. I’m pretty sure that if I got back on the RCs – since sold to a bigger friend – I would find them ponderous now. The Supersonics are just sooo reactive, and I seem to have become addicted to that quickly. J  Also, the length of the ski just feels right to me. I don’t have any of that nagging feeling that I’d really like the ski a lot better if it was 4 or 5 cm longer or shorter.

 

The feel of these skis was much closer to that of the Fischer Race SC Pro that I’d demo’d (and reviewed elsewhere) than it was to the feel of the SS Magnums. Neither the Fischer nor the Blizzard is really damp, and both are very crisp and confidence-inspiring on edge. I didn’t ski them side-by-side on the same day, but my feeling is that the SCs were interested primarily in short turns, and that they were distinctly better at true slalom-radius ones than the Supersonics are. The Supersonics are really more of a medium-radius ski both on paper and in practice. However, the Blizzards work for me in a wider range of turn sizes, and are more stable with the gas pedal down. I didn’t notice any lack of edge-to-edge quickness at all with these skis, even though they verge on a waist width that would have been called a mid-fat six or seven years ago. At any rate, if there’s a limitation there, I’m not discriminating enough to appreciate it.

 

The Heads were even easier to initiate than the Blizzards, with their soft tips. This was very noticeable at lower speeds and/or on softer snow, and I much prefer the Heads on that score. I’m thinking, though, that the relatively stiffish forebody on the Supersonics is probably one of the things that helps them rail on the hardpack, and since that’s their primary intended usage for me, I have to give that more weight. Like the Race SCs, the Heads have more sidecut and do make very short arcs more easily than the Blizzards. But the Supersonics feel like they have far tighter steering and suspension. With a few hundred turns under my belt I REALLY don’t think I’d want to give that up, now that I’ve started to groove into it with subtler and easier foot and lower leg movements. [Insert your analogy to a favorite parallel activity here – sporty cars, chef’s knives, bicycle geometry, etc.] Moreover, they feel more secure at speed than the Heads did for me. Yes, the Magnums were damp and calm, but the edge simply did not have the same glued-down feeling I get with the Sonics, except when I had them WAY up on the sidewalls in a knuckle-dragger turn… and then you lose the turn-shape flexibility. I guess I’ll never know if I’d still think that, if I got onto a pair of the 170 Magnums with a known-good tune, but I can live with the uncertainty. ;-)

 

So what were the downsides? Well, for me, at least, there were some, believe it or not. One of the goals I had was to get onto a hard-snow ski that was still decent in the bumps and in small quantities of soft chop. Unfortunately I did not get to ski any of these skis in real bumps. The SS Magnum was definitely better than my other candidates in the soft chop. It’s the soft tips again. Another reviewer said that he didn’t like “tip deflection” in these conditions. I do. I want the ski to absorb some of the shock, even if it throws me slightly off line. I’m usually not doing a full-on carved turn in these conditions anyway, so who cares? (This is where I love my Dynastar Legends.) The Supersonics were better than my RCs, and better than the Fischer Race SC Pros at this. But they’re not great. The very low-profile tip tends to cut through the clumps of soft snow instead of riding over them (“tip deflection”). Perhaps irrationally, this kind of tip also makes me nervous in bumps. The somewhat stiff front end can be jarring when blasting through uneven "mini-crud."

 

For the same reason, initiating semi-carved “brush” turns on steeper slopes is not always easy for me on these skis. (Although I was getting more of a feel for it as I skied them more.) If you are patient and accurate with your movements, and have bulletproof “instructor turn” technique, they will perform well in this kind of turn. In this sense, I feel that these are quite demanding boards and would not necessarily make great learning tools for someone of my size. I know this contradicts what a couple of other posters have said. There is just a whole lot of  “snap” to these skis, which is a good thing only when you’ve learned how to control it. And controlling it is harder at slow speeds, because the timing is more difficult: You’ve got to know how to wind up the ski and keep it wound up until the right moment, even without the continuous supply of energy available in a longer turn at higher speeds. For lighter folks like me, this can be a challenge with anything but a very soft ski.

 

In the end I think I resigned myself to the fact that I just wasn’t going to get the soft snow behavior I wanted out of a true hard snow carver. But I totally achieved the objective of getting a high-performing speed-tolerant ski that was much easier to ski and much better suited to my size and style than the cheater GS skis from Fisher, Atomic, Volkl, etc. that I once thought were the obvious choices.

 

 

[edits to fix broken links]
Edited by qcanoe - 4/4/2009 at 12:52 pm


Edited by qcanoe - 4/4/2009 at 12:53 pm


Edited by qcanoe - 4/4/2009 at 12:56 pm

 

[minor edit for clarity]


Edited by qcanoe - 4/14/2009 at 02:45 am GMT
post #2 of 18

Nice review. I learned a lot, particularly since we are close to the same height and weight. Much of what I read pretty much anywhere is hard to apply to my own situation.

post #3 of 18

What a splendid review, and from a fellow Mainer no less. Who knew? qcanoe, I have been on Bliz Titan Cronuses for two years. At 88mm they are no scalpels. That became quite apparent on White Nitro a week ago Wednesday. But in soft, they are a dream. I think Bliz makes a great product and plan to try the Supersonic in 172 (i have about 30lbs on you), for all the reasons you detail,  if there is enough snow to ski on in two weeks. And Saddleback is my go-to place too. Great job!

David

post #4 of 18

If there is a downside to the sonics, it's availability.  They are scarce right now. David, this is a decent deal on a great ski in your own backyard:

 

http://www.ski-depot.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=820938&Category_Code=fischerskis2009&Product_Count=7

 

(assuming they have one of the sizes you want).  Have you ever been to that shop or demoed from them?  I've talked with Ron a lot over the years, and bought many skis there -- he seems like a good guy.

post #5 of 18


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

If there is a downside to the sonics, it's availability.  They are scarce right now. David, this is a decent deal on a great ski in your own backyard:

 

http://www.ski-depot.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=820938&Category_Code=fischerskis2009&Product_Count=7

 

(assuming they have one of the sizes you want).  Have you ever been to that shop or demoed from them?  I've talked with Ron a lot over the years, and bought many skis there -- he seems like a good guy.

I have a bead on a pair in the size I am looking for. But even at 40% off, they are $800 or so with tax. Was seriously considering the 2010 Dynastar 4x4 that Scott (dawgcatching) offered to me for aobut $200 less. And then I seemed to gravitate more towards the current Contact 10 which can be had for less than $400. I would still spend the premium to get the Bliz, but not double. And especially not for what is "last year's ski" at this point.
 

I have not bought from Ski Depot. Have checked out their site a fair amount but have gotten  better deals from Scott or Tramdock/S&C etc. I have read good things about the Progressor. But it is 70mm in the waist and the Bliz is 74mm (I think). I have a pair of Elan Ripsticks which at 66mm are pretty close to the Fischers. Appreciate the help, though.

David

post #6 of 18

The Supersonic is 72 in the waist compared to 70 for the Progressor, so not too different.  They have a similar turning radius but I think the Progressor feels more GS oriented and may be more flexible with turn shape (which I like -- I don't have the interest in making only slalom turns all day long, which is something the Contact 4x4 wants to do).  I do think the Progressor is more demanding than the Supersonic, and it could be a ski for a casual racer, but it's also fairly approachable, enough that it didn't scare me away (I'll admit, I like a smooth easygoing ski most of the time).  In fact, it sort of seduced me back into appreciating energetic, spirited carving on groomers.

 

At this point in the season, I wouldn't spend much more than $450-550 for any of these skis.   The trick is finding the size you want in stock with a suitable year-end discount.  I don't think you can go wrong with the Supersonic, Progressor, or 4x4 in general.  They all have some compelling/unique strengths.

post #7 of 18

The last Fischer I demoed was a few years back. Was an RX9 I think. I liked it in general but did not care for the feeling that it needed to be on edge all the time. Progressor cut from the same cloth? 

The Cronuses have me believing that you can have a very high level of performance without a high level of mental engagement al the time. If that describes the Supersonic, then it is for me - at the price point you mention.

post #8 of 18

 Great thread...particularly to those of us in the 4x4 versus the blizzard fence.  So who carries the blizzard at a reasonable year end price reasonable to both a dealer and consumer?

post #9 of 18

The Progressor is a bit beefier and smoother than the RX-8/9 were and has a lot more straight line stability at speed.  I owned both the 8 and 9, and they were great skis, but a bit light and raw at high speeds where the Progressor is rock solid and comfortable.  The 8 especially wanted to be on edge at all times, due to the deeper sidecut.

 

Any of the Supersonic, 4x4, or Progressor are going to be in a different category than the Cronus in terms of the performance/forgiveness mix.  The former bunch are much more happy on edge, carving at or very near the design radius of the sidecut, than they would be skidding or skarving.  Skis like the Cronus are a lot more accommodating with a range of turn sizes and shapes, and that's what makes them forgiving in the "mental engagement" department while not giving up too much performance.  These raw differences trace straight to the combination of sidecut and construction.

 

I've only skied the Progressor and 4x4, but the paper specs of the Supersonic and the calibration of my experience against the Epic collective really makes me lump the Supersonic in the same bunch (I have yet to ski a Blizzard that has not impressed, I can say that much).  They will have unique pluses/minuses and feels, but be in the same band of the envelope.  Any would be great choices in that band in my opinion.

post #10 of 18

And I would add terrain and conditions to the "mental engagement" formula . That is to say, the more suited a ski is to the conditions and trail, the less the skier has to be enagaged with or compensate for the ski design geometry and construction. For example, I took the Cronuses out to Vail and Deer Valley this year for my first time ever foray out west. After a few days, I felt so comfortable on these skis in those conditions that I pushed the envelope of my personal comfort level. Ultimately ended up doing drops into the Daly Chutes (45-50 degrees or so) for the most challenging skiing of my life. I certainly was "mentally engaged" as my testicles tighted before the drops in. But I was not in any way consciously thinking about the ski dynamics because they were so perfectly suited to the conditions. Fast forward to Sugarloaf Maine a few weeks later. I am on the same skis on White Nitro which is in the mid 30 degree range (except for the last pitch which is considerably steeper - 58 degrees I have heard said). The surface is hard packed with ice patches. Quick, fall line scarved turns down the extreme edge go down nicely. But holding the long edge on a long, fast traverse required as much "mental engagement" with the ski dynamics as I could muster, particularly as the heels washed out with rear arch pressure. With 88mm under foot, a soft tip and no metal, holding the edge I was demanding went well beyond the Cronus' design perameters. But if I were on the Supersonics or Progressors or 4x4's, I suspect that I would have had been able to "disengage" from the ski just as I had when in the Daly Chutes with the Cronuses. Or if I was there with a 72mm waist ski, I may not have even ventured into the breach. 
 

We often speak about a one-ski quiver. It is acheivable so long as you are only shooting at one target. I do wonder whether folks' choice of skis have the unintended consequence of limiting them to certain conditions for which their skis are suited. Happened to my wife. She was on a pair of K2 3500's for several years, and never seemed to progress beyond a timid intermediate. Those skis were most unsuited for the conditions at Vail, and so she consented to demo a pair of Volkl Lunas. Revolutionized her skiing and confidence. She began the week on the K2's as a timid, flat blue groomer skier. By the end of the week, she was bouncing down the bumps of Gandy, threading the trees in the China Bowl and looking for powder stashes in the Sunshine Bowl. What a transformation. When I asked her why, she said that the skis felt great - stable and so controllable. Clearly the right ski for the terrain (ans a few generations newer as well). And that allowed her to "disengage" mentally from the ski and push her own limits. Just like I did on soft with the Cronuses and would expect to do on hard with the Supersonics or other ski of its ilk.

Skier219, appreciate the opportunity to get "mentally engaged" with this discussion. This is your mind on skis.....

David

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

   Skis like the Cronus are a lot more accommodating with a range of turn sizes and shapes, and that's what makes them forgiving in the "mental engagement" department while not giving up too much performance.  These raw differences trace straight to the combination of sidecut and construction.

 

 

post #11 of 18

Ski something long enough and in enough conditions/locations/etc and you'll eventually find the weak points.  I think the good skis are ones whose weak points are acceptable (maybe you can deal with them temporarily, or with slight tweaks to technique, or maybe they fit into a quiver strategy) and that don't outweigh the strong points.  I've been on some skis that failed so epically in a particular area, that it really soured me.

 

I keep coming back to the Head iM82 as the closest I have seen to a one-ski quiver just because it's average to above average in all categories and doesn't fail any of them.  It's not the most exciting ski and I can't say it has any particular strengths that are best in class, but the lack of well-defined weak points is impressive.  Hard to believe, but consistent mediocrity ends up being a plus in the case of that ski!  It would be a dependable choice if you had to pick one ski to take on a trip with uncertain terrain/conditions/etc.

 

I do tend to put a lot of emphasis on a quiver, for the ability to have skis with unique strengths that give me better coverage over the whole envelope than a single pair can do.  Having the right ski for the conditions definitely helps as you have noted, and frees up extra ability/talent/thinking for pushing the envelope rather than just being on it.  Interestingly though, I think some people are more sensitive to this than others.  

 

While at Alta a few weeks back during a powder dump, I was on my 186cm Watea 94s and generally having an easy time in the new snow (if there were limitations, it was me and not the skis).  My young brother in law, who was on his first trip out West and his first time in powder, was on his K2 Omni intermediate skis, about 167cm long and 70mm in the waist.  I have skied them before for kicks, and let me just say it's not a lot of ski even on a groomer, so they were definitely out of their element at Alta.  Well, that kid followed the rest of our group everywhere and charged everything,including double diamond terrain.  He fell a few times and lost a ski once or twice, and his intermediate-level skiing wasn't always pretty, but he stuck with us and generally exceeded my expectations.  For someone to take such major leaps in challenge/difficulty on such lousy skis was an eye opener.  I think it's partly due to the gung-ho nature of a young college kid who doesn't think about ski performance, quivers, perfect fitting boots, etc.  There is quite a bit of liberation and freedom when you don't think about the equipment AT ALL, and just bro it out! 

post #12 of 18

Agree. You love your im82's for the same reason I have been so smitten with the Blizzard Cronus. I like to think of them as fullfilling the Boy Scout creed: trustworthy. loyal, friendly, courteous, kind, obediant, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Before I got them, I used the Elan 666's and Ripstix as my two ski quiver. Both were servicable outside their design limits, but barely. Very little overlap. The Cronus skis very well any snow condition that is soft or somewhat hard (with a good tune). If I were out west, I would need nothing more - except a pair of dedicated pow skis. But I am East, so I need something on the other end of the spectrum - for hard.  I know some folks like to have a ski for every conceivable condition - like a full bag of golf clubs. That is not my personal goal. I am hoping that the Supersonics and Cronus overlap enough that I could ski either 80% of the time. That would be my ideal quiver.

Great story about your bro in law. That kind of enthusiasm can help you overcome a lot. If you shared your Wats with him, imagine the grin he would have had.

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 

Wow, and I thought this was a review thread. Turns out it's a philosophy class! Cool.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deliberate1 View Post

 

Great story about your bro in law. That kind of enthusiasm can help you overcome a lot. If you shared your Wats with him, imagine the grin he would have had.

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Your assumption is that the kid would be thrilled by the difference a more appropriate tool would make in his skiing experience. That's one possibility. Another possibility is that he is one of those free-spirited, completely uncritical people who just never sweats what he may think of as "the small stuff," and maybe never will. If so, he might just smile politely but unconvincingly at the Wateas and say, "That was very nice. Thank you. It was fun." I know people like that, including some talented skiers and bike riders who just don't care all that much about equipment. They may take mild satisfaction in a good tune or a ski that's well suited to their ability or conditions, but not having those things would never ever affect their day the way it might taint mine. I have a deeply critical nature - in the broad sense of being analytical, not necessarily of being negative. I suspect a lot of people reading this forum do too. But lots of people just don't. And their lives may be the better for it.

post #14 of 18

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Another possibility is that he is one of those free-spirited, completely uncritical people who just never sweats what he may think of as "the small stuff," and maybe never will. If so, he might just smile politely but unconvincingly at the Wateas and say, "That was very nice. Thank you. It was fun." I know people like that, including some talented skiers and bike riders who just don't care all that much about equipment. They may take mild satisfaction in a good tune or a ski that's well suited to their ability or conditions, but not having those things would never ever affect their day the way it might taint mine. I have a deeply critical nature - in the broad sense of being analytical, not necessarily of being negative. I suspect a lot of people reading this forum do too. But lots of people just don't. And their lives may be the better for it.

 

That's exactly what he's like.  I think he'd need to be in pain before equipment became a factor!

post #15 of 18


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

 

 

That's exactly what he's like.  I think he'd need to be in pain before equipment became a factor!

I think that is a great way to live. Not sweating the details. But the right gear can not only enhance the experience but provide the platform for improvement. Just look at folks in the lift line. Some are on 20 year old straight skis and rear entry Salomons. And they are having a ball. God bless them for their sense of satisfaction. But for most, the right skis and well fitted and aligned boots can provide a new level of enjoyment, without turning into a quest for the Holy Grail. My wife could not care less about gear for gear's sake. But when she put on her Lunas for the first time, she gained a level of control and confidence that enhanced her experience and passion for my passion. She was able to move beyond her longstanding comfort level because the skis supported her. I skied with a buddy in Utah last month and was shocked that this once very capable skier was on 30" Salomon skies that did not have releaseable bindings. And one of the componants of his 15 year old rear entry Salomon boots was busted. He skied remarkably well on this rig, but bitched when it got too steep or hard, because there was no edge to these things. I worked on him all week. And by the end of it, he walked out of Coles with a new pair of Blizzard 8.1's, Nordica boots and a Giro helmet. He called me the following week and told me he was having the best week he could remember. He was skiing faster, more confidently and on harder terrain than he ever would have ventured onto with his shorties.
 

As with most pursuits, the attention to detail can turn obsessive. Some cyclists will spend top dollar for a titanium seat bolt that saves as much weight as the three french fries they just ate or beer they just downed. And others just roll down the road on whatever they happen to have under them. As for me, give me a pair for soft and for hard and I'll make due. 

 

post #16 of 18

Q

 

It's funny.  Sugarloaf is what convinced me I loved the MAgnums over other Head skis.

 

Intersestingly what moved me to Heads was most likely the higher degree of edge bevel angle over other brands.  While the other brands tend to hook and get stuck in their radius the Heads could easily go longeror shorter.

 

In Sugarloaf I liked the Magnums because of ski rebound on steeper slopes.  Just plain fun.

 

I have skied various lengths but love the 163 for its turninss and responsiveness.  I find all longer Head carving skis feel softer rather than tiffer as length increases.  Exception is Monster/Peak series which feels fine in 176 or so length.

 

For the record I am a lot heavier that Q or many others.  I do not find the Magnum soft although I do feel a lot of other skis feel like 2 x 4 (I mean planks not Dynastar) unless you are travelling at Mach 9.

 

But that is just my preference,

 

Doesnt matter though.  Its sailing season now.  Skis are away bu it looks like for the third season in a row with my choice of every ski in Head lineup I have once again selected Magnum SS 163.  The SS 160 was close second.  The chip skis I tried were slightly longer and very distant 4th  - all three

 

My favourite hill in the East is Sugarloaf

 

Mike

 

post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehoyt View Post

Q

 

It's funny.  Sugarloaf is what convinced me I loved the MAgnums over other Head skis.

 

[snip]

 

In Sugarloaf I liked the Magnums because of ski rebound on steeper slopes.  Just plain fun.

 

[snip]

 

My favourite hill in the East is Sugarloaf

 


Hi. I totally agree with you and I don't think this is a contradiction at all. I think if Sugarloaf was my "home" mountain I would actually like the Heads better than the Blizzards too. A really turny, damp ski like the shorter Head would be great on the steeps there. I was just there with a friend today and encouraged him to try the Magnums for this exact reason.

 

Sugarloaf has a lot of steep and steeper terrain and some really flat terrain, and really very few of what I consider blue cruisers, which is where the Supersonic shines brightest for me. The Loaf is not my favorite hill at all; I just seem to be going there a lot lately because of circumstantial factors. I much prefer nearby Saddleback. It has some cruisers, like Blue Devil, that the Blizzards will be a blast on.  And the terrain and typical surface at local area Shawnee Peak, where I ski every Wednesday night during the center cut of the season, is dead perfect for the carvy-but-not-excessively-slalomy nature of the Blizzards.

post #18 of 18
Nice review Q, ...coming back from "the non-existent season" of 08/09(for me)...the Supersonic sounds like a firm snow ski that'll work for me..  Something I can back off from and push rather than be on the defensive for ~30% of the time @Sugarloaf, SundayRiver, and Saddleback.  The original RX8 would be nice...but the wider waists of today's designs don't seem to lose that much of edge-to-edge as in the past....



Edited by HaveSkisWillClimb - 8/13/2009 at 02:35 pm GMT
Edited by HaveSkisWillClimb - 8/28/09 at 7:36pm
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 › Blizzard Supersonic 167 (LONG ... includes vs. Head SS Magnum)