or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Choosing the right size - Head Supershape Magnum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Choosing the right size - Head Supershape Magnum - Page 2

post #31 of 53
Dark yeah. Only because the best of champions derive strength from fighting levels of defeatism most of us can only begin to get into.

What else did anyone here wanna know about my work ethic.

Give my poor ass a breather here, dudes.

Thanks for your input.

In the morning I might even recall that signed up for this god forsaken journalistic vacuum.

I jest.

Seriously .

Somebody find me a factory clean Head GS ski at 162cm plus or minus 5cms that'll take the segmented Marker plate rig, and I think I could get happy as a clam with that set up.

Consider the alternative.


Many thanks to you guys.

Out for tonight I think.
post #32 of 53
Steve wins platinum simply because he showed up and also best understood how strong all of these ski are.

Now it's just a question of WHERE each ski is snakiest. Under the arch? The forefoot? Or under the toes perhaps? Does the binding combo present a price point obstacle? Ah.

Will attempt to respond more kindly to your premium help tomorrow turner. tks
post #33 of 53

I guess it's kind of riddle I'm asking you guys to solve for me.

I understand how the evolution of racing skis has gone vis a vis the mass marketplace off the racing models.

My fave ski ever - albeit at age 24 was a pair of Dynastars that weighed less than the Look bindings I had on those. They were 203's Bob. And THAT felt short to me coming off a pair of 210 Rossi SupahDubah sports right after the maroon series. Circa 1971. Used to prance all the heck over double diamonds all day long on those babies.

Maybe I gotta impress these hexperts how much I am actually intending to slow down yet maximize fun on this (fingers crossed) ski purchase if I can find the length Steve was beginning to discuss. Please stay tuned or go on a tree bashing trip with the likes of that dude from Pennsylvania, for a week or so. Meanwhile I gotta take all o you mental gypsies with a grain of salt, y'know.
post #34 of 53
Geez I hope these get posted in sequence as/to/as sub-posts.

Bob Peters was recommending a length of 180 based on my height and weight. A textbook ski for a 27deg pitched decsent for a whip whizzle more my height and weight. See your locally certified DIN setting consultant for further information.


Everyone. The section of trail I want to do will never be a powder flume. It's treeless. It's a usually open lift line between two towers. The section requires 7 or 8 tight turns between some well exposed scratchy outcrops but the naturally drifted (not artificial) fluff collects on this stupid silly easy 30ft wide - 90ft drop of pure powder just begging to get gobbled up.

Unfortunately this year, DC got the 18 inches Santa was attempting to deliver.

And so it goes when Santa get's no cred at the DOD.
post #35 of 53
As a mathematical reference, gentlemen, the average radius of the turns in question would maybe be on the order of 5 feet, max. Probably closer to 50 inches. 36 when necessary to avoid an obvious rock, you slothful and imprecise Stowe factions.

I intend to P-Tex the ever loving crap outta the core shots these 165cm babies will suffer.

But my guess is a pair of sluts this short won't need tuning until slush season and Tuckermans all got buttoned down for the year.

But please.

Suggest I am over the top here and all you do is encourage this behavior.
post #36 of 53

Head iSL RD in 155cm. Have fun.
post #37 of 53
The kicker on this particular customer appreciation exercise, babes n giants is maybe it is just about how slowly I do like to savor every run.

A recent poll someplace found that over 70% of recreational alpine skiers are way more out of control than Gilbert Godfreid.

Or so it said on the internet.


Somebody suggested to me.
post #38 of 53

Did you read how I was still amping (woprking) my way back down to under 200lbs?

No kidding around, Joe Fitness from that show I watch on late latte niight tv all the time.

I think I can speak for all of us that you'll solve all our problems for us.

Please by all means entrench yourself here by sharing your unique spins on life n such.

post #39 of 53
 I have a tip for you Poleplant - www.ambiencr.com - you are not making sense anymore. Maybe some sleep will help.
post #40 of 53
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

I'm older than you, by the way.

and much cooler and when you ski the earth moves :P.

poleplant I do have to say your post are quite funny and well written whether you mean that or not I dont know but its funny!. PM when you come up here if you want to ski with a 20 something going on 18 and trust me I can help you find skis.
post #41 of 53
If you call that response something resembling a fresh rising for the brand new day, epic, I'd gather you haven't learned to turn more than 10 pairs of skis in your young life. It would be appreciated on a free site that most participants would lighten up off the ego act, and let people play. 

Not necessarily the best idea when functioning as the editor of commercialism though.

Gotcha chief.


My! What an interestingly ballsy format you run here, friend.

May we set up an appointment to lick your family's favorite corporate advertisment jewels sir?
post #42 of 53
Poleplant, sorry, you've lost me. I don't quite understand what you are saying/playing whatever. Are you trying to speak in riddles, or using a random word generator to create strings of words between full stops?
post #43 of 53

Any snowballs prayer we could get something straight with you right off the bat.

Somehow you assume my waking hours will even give a dang how many kiss assed pansie dildo shill backups reside on this site or any other site to keep your commercial myths and scams all contained nice and neatly..

All of my communications regarding what I am collecting good comments on - ONLY has to do with the best length of ski for me. What sucks here apparently as is so true on so many boards is that it's more about pecking orders than sharing wisdom.

That I may have lost you or ruffled some feathers of certain types of parties over the last several hours. That was pretty perceptive of you to pick up on that so early in the morning, Wear The Fox Hat. But none of my irreverence is intended to be hostile. And frankly what I find provocative and pushy, is how many stuffed shirt braggarts you can draw out into the open when certain silver spoon yuppies are making such a show of controlling other certain markets. Pal.

Far as I can read back on this thread, man, neither me nor anyone else was attempting to make any significant effort to explain it all exclusively for you. 

Please explain which parts you THINK went over your head.

Chances are you were only trying to get through your first course breakfast sorbet on your terrace at Sun Valley, right?
post #44 of 53
With the additional info you have given, I would change my rec to the Head SS magnum at 170 or 177 cm.  I would say 177 will give you more support, and I don't think you would have any trouble with the extra length.  

Length is no longer required for stability at speed, although turn radius is a safety concern, but not if you're not going fast.  The reason I was not recommending this ski for you had nothing to do with stability at speed, but was that I thought you might not like the feel of it on your way back to the lift, when you might be cruising in a more or less straight line.  Coincidentally, there are a couple used ones for sale at the moment.
post #45 of 53
Yet another argument for the "Ignore" button.


I guess we were past due for our periodic influx of bizarre/antisocial newbies.
post #46 of 53
post #47 of 53

36 - 48 hours hereafter?

Can only smile on that comeback.

My mother was an RN, and has Phizer stock, so.



Yes gentlemen I think it is positively comical anyone my size would blow a grand on a shrink wrapped pair Heads and merely be looking for the best performing rock ski on the planet.

I will admit 155cm sounds about right in my wildest dreams.

Again, gentlemen.

I don't think you guys under 40 can relate to what I'm getting at because "prancing" can always be done well, so long as you have the option of checking (stabbing) (aks nailing) your turn(s), precisely when you need to, without worrying about the tails of your line (skis), scraping off so much on the undersides of the previous moguls or drifts.

It could also very well be that many of you over 40 have learned the sweet comfort zones of the sport and don't do ungroomed stuff under the lift lines but once a year. Hey. I never relished beaking a shoulder either okay? But haven't we all seen tracks laid down by some 80lb kid on 125cm girl skis or something wear he/she tore up a peice of really steep (or narrow) terrain.

As I attempting to splain to other mods on here, I simply have a budgeting problem which is kind of urgent since good old March is nigh upon us.

Fix my wasted Stockli demo mistakes with $300 in tuning gear/supplies, or buy a pair of Heads brand new, and shorter than 170mm (in theory to be discussed given desired double diamond rhythm).

In my opinion any group of enlightened ski board message board members would not and should not be so worried about newbs asking questions. If you understand your best skiing posture and aren't suicidal for the sake of landing yourself a covershot on Ski, then chances are you are qualified to post messages on this site. But how would a noob like me know who was whom, gentlemen?

Don't any of you in the sweet under 40 crowd realize how many cliches you all need to dodge along the way?

Please, moonunits. Indulge me a sec.

When we see data on ski radii, on which pitch are those figures calculated. Does any one here on this site know? I contend, no. Because what you guys know is how sharply a ski will slice through a drift and turn back the other way.

Sub 170 skis.

I think I framed my whole goal inadequately, gentlemen.

Yes when I say steep I mean trails like FIS, National, Noze Dive, Avalanche, Gary's, The Headwall. What sucks is knowing you could still get down those memory lanes again if you only met up with the correct technology in a shorter ski.

Look, you spiffies. About 10 Aprils ago I was on some lame pair of Olins I had that were like 210's, and I shared a few runs and chair rides with a guy who was on a pair of those novelty bigfoot jobbers. And he was working way way less than I was, while having twice the fun. Those things weren't longer than a yardstick.

I'm not sure we've got some universal measure of understanding on the front to back support boys and girls. With all due respect to skiers with fewer years of mistakes under their belts, the front to back "support" factor is much less a worry for me, as would be twisting and cutting and carving the front of the ski around through an 18" drift. My weight will finish the turn just fine if can learn how to commit the ski through the place where I expect to avoid the rocks in front of the next drift.

These are very short turns which I am surprised most of you have not seen other people make.

Look you guys. I give just about all of you cred for knowing more than I do about equipment and advanced technique.

But when it comes to balance and knowing how to adjust that on steep terrain, I think that'll all come back to me, so long as I'm not having to worry about far forward or quick (or late) I have to shoot the danged ski tail around to clear the damned tails around the last mogul.

I hope some of you who have no clue what I am trying to communicate would simply lay back not worry about your internet reputations for a couple days.

I am an old guy with creds most of you would drool to have going on in the sport. At the same time ski equipment is not my only budget outlay. So there's a tradeoff going on here.

If I didn't mention it I'm pissed my goto ski shop humped me on pair of Stockli demo they fixed up nice and pretty and over humped me on. Guess it made up for the P60's I practcally stole from them. Those Volkls being 185's and perfect until April 1st, if y'all follow.

But the Stockli's got beat on bigtime and now I have them all gutted and cleaned for the new tuneup supplies but notice there is barely enough edge for 40 more days on them if I treat em right, jump over rocks n pebbles skidded out by the Shaun White fans.


Here's an idea.

Lobby the Olympic Half Pipe Commitee to establish a standard placement of granite ledge rip rapp into every half pipe at certain intervals.
post #48 of 53

I reviewed a few of those Head models, then went onto the ones - the Xenon series -

Those looked decent except for I think it would be good to have more bite in the tail (less Wayne Wong forgiveness) if that makes sense

Hoping to run all this by Mike on here regarding the semi-Comp Head models he has pictured on this great site.

Thank you so much for your input, sir.
post #49 of 53
That's it in a nutshell, Wave.

Everyone except the established buzzkill establishment is out to ruin your buzz.

post #50 of 53
I think I can speak for everyone here, that the word "influx" is a wicked cool word.


Maybe not everyone.
post #51 of 53

About this "Ignore Button" champ.

Do you think he could run down for me how the Xenon series versions run?

I was thinking about asking him whether the version .03 was softer than the .05 and so on on up to the .10?

He'd probably be the best goto expert on that, right?
post #52 of 53
The ignore function is not too far away, and I agree, there is a pattern of posting demonstrated here that would make my life easier if it could be ignored.

A suggestion for the new-guy.  Show some respect.
post #53 of 53
I have tried the Xenon on a demo day.  It was whatever number was tops at the time, but the numbers went up since then, and I've since read good reviews on the top Xenon.  For me at the time the Xenon would have been fine in loose snow at the speeds you are suggesting.  There was a nice section of scraped off snow that had been sun-baked, melted and refroze.  The extra flexibility, both longitudinal and torsionally were what made me discount the Xenon.  The SS and the SS speed worked great there, the Magnum, not so much but still in the ball park, the xenon, not in the same league.  If you are in 18" of snow, then fine, but if you are on the icy back side of a well-scraped and sun-melted, refrozen mogul, forgetaboutit.

However, I have to qualify my statements by admitting that much of my skiing was influenced by the success of Canadian skiers in the DH events,  so my skills at slower skiing techniques are perhaps not the best; a mogul skier for example might think the Xenon great for skiing moguls.  I prefer to have more edge grip all the time; you never know when you might need it.  The magnum might not carve the hardpack as well as the other SS skis, but if I skied an equal amount of moguls and hardpack, it's a compromise I would gladly accept.  You would never convince me to accept the performance of the Xenon I tried.  Maybe the newer ones are better.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Choosing the right size - Head Supershape Magnum