New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

how short?

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

advice requested

i have several skis in my collection, but the ones i use most often here in the east are my SHORTY CHEATER slaloms.

my supershape 160's (@ 10.7m) are just about out of edge to file

i like them a lot.  but was thinking maybe downsize to the 155 (@10m) for fun.  i'm sticking to the fall line (sides of trails) for the most part these days and the 155's should be even easier to flick side to side than the 160's

but are they going to feel too short?  

(i'm thinking probably not - world cup women use 'em, and they ski a lot faster and better than i do)

post #2 of 9

Please provide more information about yourself. Height, weight, technique.

Are the presents skis letting you down in any way? Are you unable to make the turns you desire? If not, shorter skis with the same radius are just going to be an unnecessarily squirrelly ski.

As far as your edges being worn down, do you use stones between filing your edges? Race edges (narrower than on recreational and park skis) are pretty small to start with. Maintaining sharpness can be done with a stone instead of a file if you keep up with it daily. This will help preserve the edges. The only time a file should be used is when you have bad damage that requires major removal of edge material or you have to establish a bevel.

post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 
thx for the stone tip.  i'll try it.

i'm an old fart who nevertheless is a very good skier (58).  5'11".  175lb.

the 155 supershape cuts the radius to 10m from the 160's 10.7m
post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 
 i love my 160's.  pretty all-around useful ski too.  no problem making any sorts of turns, but am thinking it might be - 5 or 10% easier to make cleaner SR carves on steeper terrain with the 155's?
post #5 of 9
If you are only planning to make tiny radius turns on the skis, then smaller propbably won't be a bad thing. However the shorter you go, the more you give up on the other end of the spectrum. .7m r difference isn't that much and can be made up easily by bending the ski more using greater edge angles. You say you have other skis in the quiver so maybe the other end of the spectrum is already covered. That said, you only have one pair of skis on at a time, so a fuller range of turn shape can be useful.

If it were me, I'd draw the line at 165. (I'm 5'11", 205 lbs.; racer type) Although I do have some skis I have used to teach with and on that are 130s and they are a blast, so size does matter.  The shorter you go, the more you have to have spot on balance., a sponsor of this site, has videos on tuning as well as products for sale. The owner and member of Slide Wright, Alpinord, is very helpful with suggestions for methods and products.
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 

i might just order up another pr of 160's 

post #7 of 9
no_more_shoes 001.jpgStelmar

I am not sure we have ever had Supershape demos shorter than 160 in Atlantic Canada.  Usually if you want to try a 155 you would try a WorldCup iSL RD (the women's length race ski).  This year our demos seem to be a bit longer than in the past.  Supershape is 165 not 160 ... seems the same for the Magnum (we only received 170), Worldcup iSL (165) and Supershape Titan (163 and 170).  I know that John McNair (forget his shop name) in Moncton area puts on a demo day at Poley in March each year - you should talk to him about trying some of these other lengths.  You may in fact find that a 165 cm iSupershape is more versatile - I have been wondering that.  Would certainly be a good ski for Sugarloaf.  if you really want a 155 you might even consider picking up a pair of slalom skis from a local racer as all the girls seem to be using 155 for slalom these days.  There is usually some edge left after they use them for two seasons and they sell them cheap at the Fall swap shops.

I have a couple pair to take to Wentworth this weekend.  The new WC iSL in a 165 and the Supershape Titan at 164.  Am very interested to compare this years WC iSL 165 vs the 2011 ski at same length to see how much if any difference the new KERS technology makes.


Note - picture above taken this morning in my living room
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 
 hi mike

i think i'm going to stick with the 160 supershapes (10.7m) and probably get a new pair.  i know the ski, i like the ski.

but i am going to keep an eye out and see if the atomic d2 race sl's go on sale.  my research indicates there are quite a few 155's out there and a few 160's.   but price is still $999.  that's not in my range.

post #9 of 9

The iSupershape has not really changed in past three years.  This year cosmetic looks like those above but ski is still the same with exception of the new KERS technology.  I believe dimensions, etc... unchanged.  That being said I think Cleve's Source for Sports may have some in stock in their Atlantic stores.  They often have skis one or two model years old which translates to a pretty good price.  You might want to call them and ask.  (sorry - I thought they had store in Moncton).  You can email them at info at and ask for Matt or call 902-468-2002  - just thinking about a place to get these at a good price.  They have alot of stores and like to clear older stock.

Moderators - let me know if this is pushing the rules - I don't work for them but do demo Head skis so know them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion