EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 Blizzard Supersonic 174cm vs 2008 Titan Cronus 173
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 Blizzard Supersonic 174cm vs 2008 Titan Cronus 173

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

Me: 53 yo. (and 44 year skier),  5'9.5 and 160lbs, level 9 (so I have been told by instucters), Eastern skier, preferred terrain - short turns down steep fall line

 

Current ride: 2007-8 Blizzard Titan Cronus; Dalbello Krypton Pro

 

Location: Tested at Sugarloaf (Maine) April 11, 2009

 

Conditions: Classic spring skiing in Maine - 45-50 degress

                 Snow: Groomed hardpack and ice on top/ ungroomed mash potatos at mid/ corn toward bottom

 

Test: I have wanted to test this ski since I first started reading about it earlier this year. And I have been a member of the elusive "Blizzard clan" since I got my Titan Cronus's late last year. I have grown to love the TC's. They are the ultimate fun ski - easy going, frolicing, always agreeable. On soft snow they carve with an edge unexpected from a ski with an 88mm waist, soft tip and no metal top sheet. While they have a big turning radius (19m?), they can be presssed with no effort into short scarved turns without balking. I took them to Vail and Deer Valley for my first out west in February and March. No big pow but some boot top height at Vail and softies at Deer Valley. The TC shined and gave me the confidence to get into the Daly Chutes which I would not have done if not for the utter trust in the TC. 

But they have their limits. No ski can do it all. And when you get the TC on real hard pack and ice it looks up at you wondering if you are mad. Not that it can not handle these conditons. I can scarve my way down the edges of an ice covered trail. But forget trying to hold an edge on a traverse or in medium turns. And that is no criticism of the TC. No hammer should be asked to tighten a screw.

That is why I wanted to try the Supersonic. And I was not disappointed. But I was not immediately smitten by them either. I skied them the entire day. It was 40 degrees warming to 50 as the sun rose. My first two runs were on flat, wide blue level trails. The snow was soft (3-4"), ungroomed with small clumps of mush. My first reaction after pushing off was that these skis seem a LOT longer than the TC's. But there is only 1mm difference. I figured out it was because I could feel the entire length of the ski. On the TC, the tails are, how shalI say, a throwaway. And that caused me some issues at first. The long turns I made were splendid. The Supersonics hook up quickly and effortlessly and will stay fixed on a trajectory until instructed to change edge, which again was effortless. I skied timidly for the first couple runs not knowing how the low profile tip and medium narrow waist (72mm) would handle the softies - not their optimal terrain. Not to worry. I was struck by the amount on energy the skis seemed to dissipate. They did not so much float over the soft, even with the wide shovel (123mm?) as plow through it. In his excellent review, gcanoe described the ski as "glued" to the snow surface. That was my impression as well. You really can let these skis run with utter confidence, even on ungroomed softies. Conversely, I saw a bunch of racer types on their short Atomic and Fischer race boards get bounced all over the place on this snow. 

The trouble began with those short turns I like to make. I initiated a few and thought "What the hell. Why won't the tails release?" Lesson #1. The TC are a scarvers delight. With a big radius and soft tail, you make short turns by carving the top of the turn and scarve the rest. Not with the Supersonics, and particularly not in mush. Once hooked up, they want you to complete the turn. I tried to overski and even manhandle them. Not good. And so I listened and learned. Be patient. Apply increasing pressure throughout the turn and the ski will come around and in a lovely line. Thank you for that lesson. So I did. And was rewarded with the experience of carving the full short radius turns. This lesson came in handy later in the day. So after a few runs, we were getting to know each other. I was gaining more confidence as I began to figure out what this ski wanted me to do.

As the day progressed, I discovered that this ski does not necessarily demand very precise technique but certainly rewards it. I own a pair of Volkl Supersport 6* in 175cm. They punish any technical indiscretion. While the Supersonics might "roll their eyes," at a technical blunder, they remain kind if not impatient for you to get your sh*t back together. And ultimately I did. First, I tested different postures - crouched, forward, back, etc. And I found that the best that worked for me was a more upright, very centered stance. I am upright on the TC's as well, but tend to have my center of pressure just aft of the arch. Looking back, I suspect that I do this to try to engage the tail more. You do not have to do this on the Supersonic. It rewards dead centered COM (if that is a proper use of the term), subject to tweaks on the fly, of course. In this stance, you feel the entire length of the ski which feels very engaged. I ski in Dalbello Krypton Pros and have found that I use my knees a great deal to fine tune turns, much more than I did in my old Tecnica XT 17 plugs. And the Supersonics approve.

The best skiing of the day was high up on the hill where the snow was still hard and shallow. And there were some steep sheets of ice. Just what I got this ski for. As an aside, they came from the Happy Tunes ski shop in Carrabassett Valley, which put an absolutely killer tune on them. I later learned that they tune their skis before every demo. That is righteous. Great guys too. Got to love a ski shop that dedicates more square footage to its tuning enterprise than to its retail space.

So I made my way over to White Nitro which by reputation has some of the steepest pitches in the East. The trail is wide and was free of bumps, for the most part. It is groomed by winch. And because it stayed cold higher up, the groomers were able to get up it recently. In the morning, the surface was hard and edgible, with sheets of ice where turning was marginal. Again, I like to ski the fall line with short turns for speed control. I skied this same trail in very similar conditions two weeks ago on the TC's. I swear they sent me the following message through my feet: "What the hell am I doing here." Fair enough. There was no way to hold an edge on the icy traverse. The heels kept washing out even with very focused boot pressure and CM moving down hill.  But I could scarve down the edge in my usual fashion. Here is where their burly brother really shined. The steeper the pitch, the more responsive and surefooted the Supersonics were. No tail wash today. Nice surgically cut short and medium turns all the way down. The ski was so quick to move edge to edge and hook up that I could literally go as slow as I wanted down this 30 plus degree hardpack/icy slope. At the end of the trail extention, and just before it dumps unceremoniously on a flat cat track, the trail steepens considerably. I have read it is 58 degrees. I am not a good judge of such things, but it is steep and usually has a sheet of ice from folks skidding down it. Not the Supersonics. They just continued to carve down the icy edge. If there was a bit of scarving, it was from me, not them, losing my "edge." As I looked up the pitch, I saw people timidly picking and sliding their way down. Now while I do know how to ski these conditions, the Supersonic just let me do it with great confidence.

For me that run was the lithmus test. TheSupersonics proved to be as capable and dependable in hard and ice as their TC brother is in the soft stuff. 

I am not much of a bump skier. But I was on these, and it surprised the crap out of me that a ski that can do the icy steeps and run on the wild side, can do the bumps easy enough for me to do enjoy the bumps. Now I am not talking about a mogul field, but bumps the that inevitably form from a day of skiers sculpting tums on soft. They were fun on these skis because I could literally carve quick power turns around the bumps, like a sports cars threading a line of cones. And I was also suprised to find that when I went over one (with soft knees), the ski seemed to absorb the energy from it rather than spool up and bounce as the TC's tend to do. Again, the "glue factor." It was great fun, so much so that I went looking for this terrain. 

By the end of the day, I really felt as if I had a handle on this ski which is so much different that the TC. I was even able to coax it into a series of scarved turns down a straight trail that is about 7' wide. They didn't like it, but they did it. The Volkl 6* would have catapulted me into the nearest pine tree - and snickered.

To be fair to the Supersonics, I was using these skis mostly in soft, ungroomed conditions where they could not be expected to shine. But they did. Truly I would have been happier dancing around on the 88mm TC's yesterday. But the Supersonics, even on my first day on them, and learning how to ski this ski, performed admirabley in the soft stuff and bumps, and majestically on the the steep hardpacked and ice. 

Trying new skis out is fun, particularly when they are so different from your current ride. The best part was that I learned as much about my skiing and technique yesterday as I did about the qualities of this ski. When a ski can teach you something, you should listen. I came away thinking that the TC is the ski for how I turn, and the Supersonic is the ski for how I aspire to turn. I learned to be patient and allow the ski's geometry to take command without my interference. And I was rewarded with an utterly unflappable and even elegant ride. And that is why I am going to buy a pair. I can not imagine a better two ski Eastern quiver than the Blizzard brothers. And while I know that they are out of stock now, I have read that, except for graphics, the ski is the same for 2010.

I finally want to mention that this ski seems to be skier size sensitive as well. The most favorable reviews have come from skiers, like me, who are lightweights. At least one reviewer, who topped the scale at around 200 and was well over 6' found it to be unsubstantial, while he found the Dynastar 4x4 to be more to his liking. I have tried to write this review in as painful detail as possible in the event that someone is not in a postion to demo before buying. But I stronlgy engourage trying this ski before pulling the trigger. The Titan Cronus you could buy untested. I did on a lark from Tramdock, and it has been great. But it is a much easier going ride and does not make the kinds of demands the Supersonics do. But if you get on the Supersonics and listen to them, they will be a great partner on the hill, and may just make you a better skier. Thanks for reading.

 


Edited by deliberate1 - 4/12/2009 at 05:14 pm GMT
post #2 of 23
Quote:

> My first reaction after pushing off was that these skis seem a LOT longer than the TC's.

 

I haven't been on the Cronus. But it does seem like many skis designed for soft snow have a relatively shorter running surface, between what often is a longer, higher tip and sometimes a flip tail as well. This is certainly true of my soft(er) snow skis. They're nominally 172s and appear to have a running surface that's only just barely longer than my 167 Supersonics, which have a really minimal tip and virtually no turn-up at the totally square tail. With this in mind, your comment does not surprise me. On the Supersonics, there's very little edge on the ski that's not participating in the turn.

Quote:

 

> The best skiing of the day was high up on the hill where the snow was still hard and shallow.

 

Yes. This completely jibes with my experience. I was ecstatic on this surface. Only just happy on the softer stuff.

 

Quote:

> I own a pair of Volkl Supersport 6* in 175cm. They punish any technical indiscretion. While the Supersonics might "roll their eyes," at a technical blunder, they remain kind if not impatient for you to get your sh*t back together.

 

LOL. Nicely said. I've been on the 6-stars - the 168. I hated them utterly. Felt to me like the core must have been made out of some piece of forged steel stolen from a abandoned railroad freight car. The Blizzards, by contrast, ski exactly like I remember the reviews on the Volkls at the time led me to expect from them, but never came close to experiencing. (I didn't like the 5-stars much either. Some kind of personality clash or something, because tons of people love these skis.) All the power and edge you want are right there, but they're standing with towels over their arms, waiting for you to wave them to your table only when you need them. Well, no. Not true. The edge is there weather you want it or not, but the power is very easy to modulate. I'm guessing this bit about the power range is what the lightweights like about this ski and the big guys don't. Meaning, it's probably easy to modulate FOR ME because my weight puts me in the middle between the ski's "min" and "max" power settings, so I'm using the whole dial, so to speak. (How's that for shifting metaphors?) On the other hand, a big guy probably has no use for the lower end, so he's trying to get everything he needs between the 75% and 100% levels. Therefore the ski it doesn't feel so tractable to him. The problem that the Supersonics solve for me is that they seem to give me the easy-going longitudinal flex I need for my size without giving up the full-on expert-level edge precision that I need in a hard-snow ski.

 

Quote:

 

> The trouble began with those short turns I like to make.

 

Yup. I had a similar issue, mostly where the snow was soft. For me it was more about the front of the ski than the tail, but I hear you. (Hm. Does anyone know if you can adjust mounting point with the IQ system?) Reading on, I'm glad you ended up having fun even in short turns. I'm wondering if maybe you really started to get into the short turns on White Nitro BECAUSE of the hard surface up high there on the mountain, not in spite of it. When the surface is hard, it was easier for me to start the turn on this ski, because the the tips were biting and hanging on, allowing the ski to flex right off the bat. Whereas on the softer snow, the tips tended to push snow at the start of the turn, staying straighter instead of arcing immediately. That was my experience, anyway.

 

The one thing that's too bad - or exciting, depending on how you look at it - is that it sounds like due to conditions you might not have gotten to experience these boards in what I feel is their ideal environment - easier blue cruisers with a firm surface, where you can really let rip with some medium - large arcs. Sugarloaf doesn't really have a lot of these slopes anyway - it tends to go from steep blues and blacks on the upper mountain to greens on the lower hill. The ones they do have - say, the bottom-most section of Spillway - would have been too mushy or chopped up yesterday. Get on something like lower Ecstasy or Dream Weaver at Sunday River (weekday, please!) or Gray Ghost at Saddleback on a corduroy day and you'll be pulling out the checkbook before you make it back to the lift corral. Maybe upper Tote Road or a couple of trails in the Timberline area at the Loaf would have qualified yesterday. Was that section open?

post #3 of 23

I think 174cm is too long in the Supersonic for you -- was it the only demo size available?  

 

If the 173cm Cronus is good/appropriate for your height/weight (probably about forehead height) then definitely go at least 5cm shorter, and probably more like 10cm shorter, on a hardpack carver like the Supersonic.

 

Quote:

My first reaction after pushing off was that these skis seem a LOT longer than the TC's.

post #4 of 23

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 


Hm. Does anyone know if you can adjust mounting point with the IQ system?


The IQ system is perfect for mounting fore or aft of ski center. If you remove the center screw and slide the binding out of the rails (video here: www.blizzardsportusa.com/Technology/IQSystem.html), when you turn the binding over, you will see the system used to adjust for boot sole length. The toe and heel pieces are secured by a notch and key system that are marked for sole length at 10mm equivalent intervals. For instance, my boot sole length is 313mm, so I set the arrows at toe and heel to "305" then turned the heel adjustment screw almost to its rear-most position to fit. An alternate way to make it fit would be to set the arrows at "315" which would mean that I would turn the heel adjustment screw forward.  The first method puts the boot center several mm back of ski center, the second would put the boot center several mm front of ski center. Trying to describe this is way more complicated than actually looking at the binding itself. Now, if you move both the toe and heel pieces forward or back in tandem, you maintain the correct distance for boot sole length, but move the entire contraption relatively forward or rearward on the ski. For instance, if I start with both at the "305" position then move the toe piece back to the "295" position and the heel piece to the "315" position, the binding goes rearward by 5mm, whereas if I put the toe piece at "315" and the heel piece at "295" the binding goes forward by 5mm. Again, much easier to look at the binding than to describe. Once you get the head scratching out of the way, the whole process would take less than 10 minutes.

 

Great review, deliberate1. I demo'd the Titan Eos 166cm at Steamboat a couple of weeks ago and was only told later by the Blizzard rep that it was the women's version of the Cronus. I got the impression from him that only the graphics are different, but there have been some comments around here that seem to indicate that the Eos lacks a layer of metal that the Cronus has. Regardless, after looking for the Cronus, I found a deal on the Eos that I couldn't pass up and since it was actually the Eos that I had skied on, I decided that the graphics didn't matter a bit to me. I am anxiously awaiting 3 days up at Mammoth Mountain next week to try them out. I am also taking my Volkl Supersport 6* 168cm up with me. Since getting hooked on Blizzard via the Eos, I have been prowling any thread here that has "Blizzard" anywhere in its title. I personally have not found the Supersports too punishing, and actually am quite fond of them. It sounds like the Supersonic and the Supersport are similar enough not to make me dump one for the other. On the other hand, if next week confirms my previous 2 hours on the Eos, the Eos will definitively replace my Head Monster im88s as my traveling (one ski quiver) ski. The primary reason being that the Eos are much better for me in the trees, though it is quite likely that the Monster 88s at 175cm weren't the ideal tool for me, at 140#, for that purpose in the first place.

post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

I think 174cm is too long in the Supersonic for you -- was it the only demo size available?  

 

If the 173cm Cronus is good/appropriate for your height/weight (probably about forehead height) then definitely go at least 5cm shorter, and probably more like 10cm shorter, on a hardpack carver like the Supersonic.

 


Appreciate your suggestion but am wondering why you would suggest the next one down, which is a 167. Gcanoe who wrote above and did a great review of the Supersonic last week has them in that length, but weighs about 30 lbs less than I do. The only ski I have that short is a pair of Elan Ripsticks in 166cm (I think) and they are squirlly for me. Ski the Elan M666 in 172 and that is fine. I think Scott (Dawgcatching tried them in the 174cm if I remember as well. I think the ski skied much "longer" in the soft stuff and mush than it did higher up on the hill when the snow was firm. On hard, it was very nimble and athletic. In soft, very powerful and determined, but less quick. I tend to think the size was just right, but the snow conditions were not.


 


Edited by deliberate1 - 4/13/2009 at 01:13 pm GMT


Edited by deliberate1 - 4/13/2009 at 01:49 pm GMT
post #6 of 23
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

  

 

 Nicely said. I've been on the 6-stars - the 168. I hated them utterly. Felt to me like the core must have been made out of some piece of forged steel stolen from a abandoned railroad freight car. The Blizzards, by contrast, ski exactly like I remember the reviews on the Volkls at the time led me to expect from them, but never came close to experiencing.

 

Bingo!

 

 

 When the surface is hard, it was easier for me to start the turn on this ski, because the the tips were biting and hanging on, allowing the ski to flex right off the bat. Whereas on the softer snow, the tips tended to push snow at the start of the turn, staying straighter instead of arcing immediately.

 

I think that is a very good call. The skis definitely felt longer in the mush and were more ponderous in shorter turns on that surface. But they were just utterly rock solid even on soft.

 

 

The one thing that's too bad - or exciting, depending on how you look at it - is that it sounds like due to conditions you might not have gotten to experience these boards in what I feel is their ideal environment - easier blue cruisers with a firm surface, where you can really let rip with some medium - large arcs.

 

I hear you. I was able to ski the top of Narrow Gague and Upper Tote Road, which had the same firm conditions as the top of White Nitro. Definitely the best skiing of the day on the SS. Felt so much more nimble and turny - and shorter. Definitely in their element on those conditions which are far more typical that the ones we had on Saturday. If I owned the Supersonics, I would not have been on them Saturday. That was a day for the Cronus'. I did see a pair of Atomic somethingorothers at the top of the hill. They were at least 120mm boards with no side cut either. Yikes!

If you experiment with the binding position, let me know.


Sorry for the posting ineptitude. Haven't got the hang of the multi-quote post yet. My bad.
 

post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

 


 

Great review, deliberate1. I demo'd the Titan Eos 166cm at Steamboat a couple of weeks ago and was only told later by the Blizzard rep that it was the women's version of the Cronus. I got the impression from him that only the graphics are different, but there have been some comments around here that seem to indicate that the Eos lacks a layer of metal that the Cronus has.

Thanks. From what I have read, the Cronus has no metal in it at all, save the edges. I am very smitten with the Cronus' as you can tell. And all the more so when I had a chance to use them in Colorado and Utah earlier this year in their "natural habitat." Dynomite boards. Enjoy yours.

David

post #8 of 23

 

Quote:

And when you get the TC on real hard pack and ice it looks up at you wondering if you are mad. Not that it can not handle these conditons. I can scarve my way down the edges of an ice covered trail. But forget trying to hold an edge on a traverse or in medium turns. Owned the Cronus in 173, different experience. It just takes some edge angle and pressure. Not as automatic as a pure carver, but better carving than most 88's for a lighter skier. 

My first reaction after pushing off was that these skis seem a LOT longer than the TC's. But there is only 1mm difference. They are a lot longer; the 173 Cronus is in the middle of its length range, with flex for an average size skier, and all wood/carbon, fairly soft skis. The Supersonic 174, which I demoed a while back, is the next length increment up relative to its range, so designed for a heavier than average skier, plus it's got all this magnesium in it, plus it's turn radius is 15 something at 174, plus you better hope a carver is stiffer than a soft snow ski.

 

The long turns I made were splendid. See above for why.

 

The trouble began with those short turns I like to make. I initiated a few and thought "What the hell. Why won't the tails release?" Lesson #1. The TC are a scarvers delight. Lesson #2, while they are very forgiving to scarve for such a high performance ski, they love medium radius carves, again just get those edges up. Since the 174 is pretty beefy, you'll need some pressure and/or speed. Doing an honest to god short radius carve will take some serious bending, not like a hyper-carver; these are more aimed at Progressor 9's and Dynastar 4x4's.

 

With a big radius and soft tail, you make short turns by carving the top of the turn and scarve the rest. You can, but you can also bend the tail, too. Really. Not with the Supersonics, and particularly not in mush. Once hooked up, they want you to complete the turn. Hmmm. I found the smooth release tail and big taper allowed a variety of techniques, including letting the tails go in crud and bumps. They have almost the same dimensions as the Dynastar Contact 10's, which are also great in soft snow, trees and bumps for the same reasons.

 

As the day progressed, I discovered that this ski does not necessarily demand very precise technique but certainly rewards it. Yep.

post #9 of 23

 I think beyond hit on the reason why I suggested a shorter length -- it has to do with the ski type, the construction/flex, and the lengths available.  If you are at 173cm in an all-mountain mid-fat like the Cronus and it's sized correctly/comfortably (about forehead height?), then you should almost surely be sizing down 5-10cm for a stiff hardpack carver like the Supersonic.  The ideal length of one ski does not usually translate to a totally different category of ski.  Flex, sidecut, stiffness, etc.. all factor in.

 

For instance, I may ski on a 190cm powder ski, but it would be suicidal to ski that length in a Supersonic.  But it can't happen, because the Supersonic model range is scaled down anyhow.  Being 6'1" 195lbs, I can almost automatically go with the longest version of any skis model, because they are targeting my general specs with that length.  So I'd probably go with the 181cm Supersonic, but the 174cm might work OK too.  Carvers are often like that, working well anywhere from chin to eye height.  This is one category of ski where you can often get away with going shorter.

 

Given that you're comfortably and correctly sized on a Cronus in the middle of it's model range, I'd look for the same in the Supersonic range, and that points to the 167cm by my read.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Cronus skis short for it's length because of the tip and tail geometry.  It's probably a good 5-7cm shorter than spec when it comes to the actual running length on hard snow.  The Supersonic you demoed was likely a good bit longer in running length despite the small difference in the "on paper" specs.

post #10 of 23

Okay, I think I  just hit my first big bug with this version of the site, so who knows what will happen to this post. My apologies in advance if it looks really weird. (No matter which post I reply to, the dialog box always wants to quote the most recent post.)

 

     beyond wrote:

Hmmm. I found the smooth release tail and big taper allowed a variety of techniques, including letting the tails go in crud and bumps. They have almost the same dimensions as the Dynastar Contact 10's, which are also great in soft snow, trees and bumps for the same reasons.

 

I have not been on the Contact 10s. But other Dynastars I've tried - including the Legend 4800s which I've owned in two lengths - are notably soft and slow-rebounding at tip and tail, whereas the Supersonics are neither soft nor slow-twitch. (Overall the Supersonics are not super-stiff, which is one reason I like them, but the tips, in particular, have a lot of attitude.) For me, soft tip and tail are a big part of the key to good soft snow and bump performance. So the fact that these two skis have similar sidecuts may not mean that they are similarly good in soft snow.

 

Skier 219 wrote:

I think beyond hit on the reason why I suggested a shorter length -- it has to do with the ski type, the construction/flex, and the lengths available.  If you are at 173cm in an all-mountain mid-fat like the Cronus and it's sized correctly/comfortably (about forehead height?), then you should almost surely be sizing down 5-10cm for a stiff hardpack carver like the Supersonic.  The ideal length of one ski does not usually translate to a totally different category of ski.  Flex, sidecut, stiffness, etc.. all factor in.

 

 

 

Yes. This is why my Legends are 172s (top of head) and my Supersonics are 167s (eyebrow).

 

 

beyond wrote:

 

Lesson #2, while they are very forgiving to scarve for such a high performance ski, they love medium radius carves, again just get those edges up. Since the 174 is pretty beefy, you'll need some pressure and/or speed. Doing an honest to god short radius carve will take some serious bending, not like a hyper-carver; these are more aimed at Progressor 9's and Dynastar 4x4's.

 

This sounds totally on the money to me. Deliberate1, consider that while my intended usage for these skis comprises a wide range of turn shapes, including small ones, my primary use case is medium to long turns at fair to insane speeds. I plan to use mine on Wednesday beer league race nights, trying to keep up with my younger and/or more talented colleagues - in the gates and otherwise. Consider that I am on a 167 and am finding that size perfect for that scenario. Now consider that you have stated that your favorite thing is shorter turns on the steeper terrain. (I think you've said that, anyway.) With all this in mind, and given the excellent length observations made by beyond and 219, it seems to me that even though you are a bit bigger than I am you should at least give the shorter length a try. If that length works great on medium and long turns for me, it might be perfect for short turns under you. What's your sole length? Maybe we can swap boards for a run.

post #11 of 23

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

 

Trying to describe this is way more complicated than actually looking at the binding itself. Now, if you move both the toe and heel pieces forward or back in tandem, you maintain the correct distance for boot sole length, but move the entire contraption relatively forward or rearward on the ski.

 

This is great. Thank you. I actually think I did understand quite well. After another day on the ski I may try moving forward by a cm to see what I think.

 

Quote:

   It sounds like the Supersonic and the Supersport are similar enough not to make me dump one for the other.

Yikes! If that's what you took from MY post, then I really did a bad job. I hated the Supersport 6*. I love the Supersonic. To me they are totally different skis. One is lighthearted and fun while still being an intense carver; the other is the stereotypical germanic taskmaster while still being miserably overbearing.   No offense to your personal choice of skis - just what I experienced.

post #12 of 23

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Yikes! If that's what you took from MY post, then I really did a bad job. I hated the Supersport 6*. I love the Supersonic. To me they are totally different skis. One is lighthearted and fun while still being an intense carver; the other is the stereotypical germanic taskmaster while still being miserably overbearing.   No offense to your personal choice of skis - just what I experienced.

No, qcanoe, I actually caught your drift and your post was quite clear. What I meant was that the two skis' design seems to fit the same need that I have for dealing with hard snow conditions, which I only encounter about 10-20% of the time. I am actually quite fond of the SuperSport/All Stars/6*s, having originally bought them 2 yrs ago at a sidewalk spring sale as ex demos for something like $300, thinking they would be good as rock skis if nothing else. The first time I took them out was on ice (what we out here call ice, anyway) and the way they held an edge was almost scary. They have won a place in my heart much beyond rock skis, particularly after taking them as the only skis to Steamboat a couple of weeks ago for what I thought was going to be a week of typical late March spring conditions, only to get hit by 4 straight days of snow. They were surprisingly versatile in all conditions, including knee deep pow, and I was perfectly happy on them until I took out the Titan Eoses, which allowed me to dance through the trees as I had never done on any other skis before.

 

If the Supersonics really can carve intensely without spanking me when I get caught using less than perfect technique, I really need to try to get on a pair. I never pass up a free demo tent, like at Steamboat last month, though the demo usually winds up being anything but free...

post #13 of 23

Love your review, I have the same quiver (TC and SS).  I ski the TC in 173 and the SS in 167.  The TC "skis short"  (Turned up tail?)...The SS seems like enough ski for me in 167.  In general I would expect to my wide soft-snow ski to be longer than my hard snow carver.

 

I can tell you that I love the SS because it has the highest performance/relaxation ratio of any ski I have ever been on.  The tip is longitudinally soft enough to be comfortable in bumps/rough yet torsionally rigid enough to offer excellent performance.  Are there stiffer, racier skis?  Absolutely, lots of them.  Are there softer, noodlier, more forgiving skis?  Of course.  Is there another ski with that offers a higher level of performance with so little demand--maybe, but I haven't found one yet.  This ski just inspires confidence, which could be dangerous because it continually urges me on, all the time reassuring me, "Go  ahead, It'll be fine.  I'l be here for you.  I'll take care of everything".  And so it has.  I'm just afaid someday I might start to believe it and end up in a bad spot because on these skis, I almost feel like I'm good enough to handle most anything that comes along and I know that's just not true.

 

My $0.02, YMMV

post #14 of 23

Not to hijack as i think the supersonics are going to be my next east coast ski to replace my volkl supersport allstars-but after reviewing a bunch of prior threads im still a little unclear where the cronus is designed to fit in blizzard lineup v. the 8.7  8.7s.  I understand that the cronus lacks some metal versus the others, but Is the cronus a mid fat western, 50/50 soft snow bias while the  the others frontside only with hardparck preference?  

 

Or am i just losing my reading comprehension as i get older....

 

thanks..

post #15 of 23

Cronus is definitely a mid fat with a soft snow bias. I recently bought the Eos, based on a 2 hour demo. I go the impression from the Blizzard rep that it is the same ski as the Cronus, with women's graphics, but some here say it lacks a layer of metal that the Cronus has. They have identical side cut specs. At any rate, I believe that my impressions of the Eos can be applied to the Cronus. I was up at Mammoth Mountain last weekend in typical spring conditions and the Volkl All Star/SuperSport definitely held on hard snow in a way that the Eos simply could not. However, as soon as the snow softened up, it began to carve up a storm and was great fun. The Eos is very quick for being 88mm underfoot, flexes very easily, and has decent pop at the end of the turn. It also is shaping up as the best ski I own for bumps. (Other skis: Pocket Rockets, original 1080s, Head Monster 88s, and the All Stars) Assuming that really hard snow can be "managed", the Eos has definitely become my new choice for taking on trips out of state where I will only take one pair to deal with whatever conditions await. By that I mean that I am always hoping for fresh snow, but am very happy to ski all over the mountain in whatever conditions exist. In that case, I would rather have a mid fat and deal with hard snow, than be on a front side carver and get left behind in fresh powder. The Eos also has the highest fun factor of any ski I have ever been on.

post #16 of 23

When i was in PC i demo'd the blizzard ss, 167 length for several days. initially i was apprehensive...one they were the shortest ski i was ever on, two, never ski'd blizzard b4. result=very impressed. great ski overall and would consider buying a pair. very easy to ski. i weigh in at 190ish and prob level 7.

conditions were mixed bag to very slushy .  the ss initiated very easily as noted above. i agree with previous comments on handling; when pressed the ski delivers without or little chatter. handled ice well too.

though i though a longer length may have different results - i naturally ski short turns and prefer some snap.

Deiberate1 above highligts were right on. it took me some time to get used to the tail - it felt fat and i had to adjust, for the better my technique.

I only go out west once or twice a year - so i would recommend this to the front-side peeps; though it can handle other stuff.  for my level of skiing it was the best ski i had ridden in a while.

post #17 of 23
Thread Starter 

GN, good for you. You may want to try the 172 before pulling the trigger. That is what I reviewed but ended up buying the 167 given the wisdom above. You have about 30 pounds on me. But, hey, if the 167 did it, go for it. I would love to try the SS at PC too. Was at Deer Valley for the first time ever in Feb. The Daly Bowl/Chutes are the real deal.

D1

post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

 
The IQ system is perfect for mounting fore or aft of ski center. If you remove the center screw and slide the binding out of the rails (video here: www.blizzardsportusa.com/Technology/IQSystem.html), when you turn the binding over, you will see the system used to adjust for boot sole length. The toe and heel pieces are secured by a notch and key system that are marked for sole length at 10mm equivalent intervals. For instance, my boot sole length is 313mm, so I set the arrows at toe and heel to "305" then turned the heel adjustment screw almost to its rear-most position to fit. An alternate way to make it fit would be to set the arrows at "315" which would mean that I would turn the heel adjustment screw forward.  The first method puts the boot center several mm back of ski center, the second would put the boot center several mm front of ski center. Trying to describe this is way more complicated than actually looking at the binding itself. Now, if you move both the toe and heel pieces forward or back in tandem, you maintain the correct distance for boot sole length, but move the entire contraption relatively forward or rearward on the ski. For instance, if I start with both at the "305" position then move the toe piece back to the "295" position and the heel piece to the "315" position, the binding goes rearward by 5mm, whereas if I put the toe piece at "315" and the heel piece at "295" the binding goes forward by 5mm. Again, much easier to look at the binding than to describe. Once you get the head scratching out of the way, the whole process would take less than 10 minutes.


Finally got around to doing this. It was easy, as advertised. I took some photos of the process and posted them in the Maintenance section here.
post #19 of 23
I finally got my Supersonics out on some traditional Northeastern snow conditions (prior day was last Spring in corn). What a fun ski! I can only compare them to my Head Supershapes and Dynastar Contact 4x4's but WOW!

These are my current modern go to skis for when the snow gods have not smiled upon us.
Blizzard has really been making some great skis the past couple of years
post #20 of 23
I was just out on my new 2010 Supersonics, they lived up to the hype!
post #21 of 23
On the basis of this and a couple of other threads, and already having fallen in love with the Titan Eos, I bought a pair from Sierra Trading Post toward the end of the summer. They still have a few left, but only in 160 cm, for $770. I haven't taken them out to dodge the early season rocks, but I found decent coverage at Mammoth Mountain and they go back up with me next weekend! I had the Volkl All Stars out over the weekend, so the comparison will be upcoming.
post #22 of 23
I've got 18 days on my new Supersonics and I'd buy another pair right now....they are that good!
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfl1 View Post

I've got 18 days on my new Supersonics and I'd buy another pair right now....they are that good!

I couldn't agree more, I'm tempted to buy another pair and stick them in the closet as a spare!!!
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 › 2009 Blizzard Supersonic 174cm vs 2008 Titan Cronus 173