EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Blizzi G Power vs G Force
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blizzi G Power vs G Force

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

Specifically the Blizzard supersonic vs the G-Power FS. Looks like they are the same ski save the G-Power gimmicky thing. If anyone has tried both side by side, what are your thoughts? Is one better for a certain type/build of skier?

post #2 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppa Ski Love View Post

Specifically the Blizzard supersonic vs the G-Power FS. Looks like they are the same ski save the G-Power gimmicky thing. If anyone has tried both side by side, what are your thoughts? Is one better for a certain type/build of skier?


Some people would say an Nissan 370Z and GTR are very similar cars, both will go 150MPH with ease. Like the GTR, the G-Force is a technological tour de force. I skied them back to back last year, love the G-Force (in the east), killer hard snow ski. 

post #3 of 19

I like Phil's car analogies even though I don't know that much about cars............

 

I also skied both skis last year at the industry event at Winter Park. The main test run was an FIS homologated GS trail that had hosted a race in the recent past. I suspect that the snow had been treated or was man made with a very high water content b/v it was very hard in spots. While there were a number of skis that exhibited good edge grip, the "power" tech skis were clearly a cut above most of the other offerings on the steeper sections where the snow was scraped off and sort of rough. The unique feel of the G-Power was that the extremities felt "glued" to the snow as an extremely stiff ski might feel, yet the G-power is not uber stiff. The only other ski that had a feel like this was a Head GS/RD (but of course the Head was not nearly so easy to ski)

 

SJ

post #4 of 19

I've been trying to figure this out too.  I've looked at Realskiers.com, this site, and Blizzard's website, which has video examples of each ski in action.  Of course the videos are highly dependent on the syle of the skier, but they're trying to show a typical application for each ski.

 

Anyhow I've gleaned the Supersonic is a little more turny and energetic, and maybe meant for stronger skiers.  Blizzard recommends the G Power for "advanced" and the Supersonic for "expert" skiers.  Realskiers also says the Supersonic is more demanding.

 

Can't really tell til you try 'em.  Hoping to ski both in December, will post comparison if I can find demos.

post #5 of 19
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the input. So I've done some research myself and from what I can tell the supersonic is lighter, snappier and energetic while the G Power  is heavier, more damp, and requires more energy or a heavier skier to really get the most out of it. I'm 5'10 160, thinking that the supersonic might be the better option given my size. Thoughts?

post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppa Ski Love View Post

Thanks for the input. So I've done some research myself and from what I can tell the supersonic is lighter, snappier and energetic while the G Power  is heavier, more damp, and requires more energy or a heavier skier to really get the most out of it. I'm 5'10 160, thinking that the supersonic might be the better option given my size. Thoughts?


Heavier...yes. More damp......yes. Requires more energy......no (it probably requires less)

 

SJ

post #7 of 19

I skied both 8.7's and preferred the non carbon version as it felt more versatile yet was still plenty stable and grippy for our West Coast conditions.

post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

I skied both 8.7's and preferred the non carbon version as it felt more versatile yet was still plenty stable and grippy for our West Coast conditions.

I agree with you here. I like the 8.7 over the M-Power too. I think the M-Power on the 8.7 Chassis is a miss application of design, kinda like a 600HP SUV. 
 

post #9 of 19

Phil, you have a gift for analogies! icon14.gif

post #10 of 19

That M-Power 8.7 was super stout: kicked my butt in bumps.  I think I need to put on about 80lbs and squat another 200lbs before skiing it well.  Somebody is going to like it, but that somebody is going to be a bigger skier than I.  I am much more of a fan of the 8.1: I that is Blizzard's best mid-fat ski for me. 

post #11 of 19

Maybe I'm crazy but I thought the OP axed about the G-Power. It is a very different critter than the M-power.

 

SJ

post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

I've been trying to figure this out too.  I've looked at Realskiers.com, this site, and Blizzard's website, which has video examples of each ski in action.  Of course the videos are highly dependent on the syle of the skier, but they're trying to show a typical application for each ski.

 

Anyhow I've gleaned the Supersonic is a little more turny and energetic, and maybe meant for stronger skiers.  Blizzard recommends the G Power for "advanced" and the Supersonic for "expert" skiers.  Realskiers also says the Supersonic is more demanding.

 

Can't really tell til you try 'em.  Hoping to ski both in December, will post comparison if I can find demos.

Haven't tried the skis.  Looked at Realskiers too.  Identical shape, but different characteristics.  From Realskiers review, my guess would be that the (edit: G-Force Supersonic)  supersonic was designed to ski same turns as the g-force, only at higher speeds, ergo stiffer longitudinal flex in the supersonic.  The g-force (edit: G-Force Power FS)  likely kept the damping and torsional rigidity of the supersonic, but went a little easier on the longitudinal stiffness.  Result is that the balance of torsional and longitudinal rigidity in the g-force (edit G-Force Power FS) make it a beautiful tool to ski those turns provided you have the skills to handle the uncompromising grip and willingness to bend into a turn, while the (edit: G-Force Supersonic) supersonic with a different balance won't be as demanding because it will take more to bend it and the grip will be matched by the speed. 

 

g- force (edit G-Force Power FS) = Mustang I once test drove with quick ratio steering and sticky tires (the test drive had the steering, but not the tires).

supersonic (edit G-force Supersonic) = same car, but slower ratio steering and stiffer springs/shocks.

 

Again, just a guess based on what would be required to design the characteristics I see reported in reviews.
 


Edited by Ghost - 11/13/10 at 6:10am
post #13 of 19

Blizzard needs to work on their communication skills.  I think some posters are confusing the 2 skis.  The G Force Supersonic is the older ski, the G Power FS is the newer ski.  Realskiers.com and Blizzard.com both indicate the G Force Supersonic (old one) is meant for higher speeds and stronger skiers, from what I can tell.  Ghost's post seems to imply that G Force and Supersonic are different, but they are 2 different names for the same ski.  So. I'm not sure what his conclusion was. 

 

Just trying to get this straight so I can demo the better pair for me.  I'm a strong fast skier, but I'm 150 lbs and prefer short radius.

post #14 of 19

.... yes, but which Blizzard has more trunk space. I could not find this anywhere.

 

OP, I skied the Supersonics for two years. An early review:http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/83443/2009-blizzard-supersonic-174cm-vs-2008-titan-cronus-173

I ended up buying the 167cm, believing that the 174cm was too long for my natural habitat. By the way, I am your height with about 15lbs on you.

I just sold them last week. They were great for me in the 167cm, until I learned how to really carve turns. And then they felt too short. Simply put, the 167cm were perfect for my more imperfect technique. I could scarve them anywhere. That is why I wrote in my review that the 174's felt too long. They were much harder to push around. Once I stopped foot steering (which prompted faster, carved turns), the 167's felt too short and unstable at my new speed range.

This became most apparent when I tried a friend's VIST SC DEMO's with VIST Speedlock plate, in 174cm. See review:http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/91211/any-vist-skiers. THE most amazing ride.

So I sold the Blizzards and got a pair of beat up VIST's cheap on Ebay, and a pair of new Hart Phoenix. They are both pure carving machines - 116/66/101 in 174cm. Rumor has it that they may the same ski. At least they come from the same Italian womb (Blossom factory). My season ended unnaturally last Feb from an injury and so the Harts wait expectently in my garage (and the VIST's are in my office - I like looking at them).

Moral: Supersonics are a splendid ski. But in the shorter size (167cm) they can easily be overskied. If your technique is strong, and if you ski fast with good carving technique, and if you decide on the Supersonics, I recommend the 174's. If your technique is more scarving, go with the 167's. Of course, this all assumes that he new version of the Supersonic is like the older ones I had.

But if you are looking for an amazing ride on a pure carving machine, check out the Hart Phoenix - a cheaper entry into the VIST world.

Happy trails,

David 

PS: Another advantage to the VIST/Harts is that they are flat skis. VIST has a terrific Speedlock binding system. The toe and heel mount separately on a plate on the ski. You can move each mechanism forward or back along the plate. They pop off with a button/lever mechanism. Means you need only one pair of bindings for several skis. And you can move you COM forward or back to taste. The VIST plates come on many racing skis and are killer.

post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

Blizzard needs to work on their communication skills.  I think some posters are confusing the 2 skis.  The G Force Supersonic is the older ski, the G Power FS is the newer ski.  Realskiers.com and Blizzard.com both indicate the G Force Supersonic (old one) is meant for higher speeds and stronger skiers, from what I can tell.  Ghost's post seems to imply that G Force and Supersonic are different, but they are 2 different names for the same ski.  So. I'm not sure what his conclusion was. 

 

Just trying to get this straight so I can demo the better pair for me.  I'm a strong fast skier, but I'm 150 lbs and prefer short radius.


My comments apply to the 2011 skis. Two skis were reviewed in 2011: the G-Force Supersonic and the G-Force Power FS.  I've edited my post to make that clear.

 

The 2010 G-force Supersonic could well be a different ski than the 2011 G-force Supersonic.  Just like the 2010 Chevrolet Capice is different from the 1996 Chevrolet Caprice. frown.gif

post #16 of 19

Okay, we'll switch from cars to dogs. The [un-reconstructed] Supersonic is a border collie: very fast, very quick to change direction, very accurate, very obedient, light but substantial (not a useless yippy little thing). If you like weighty, damp skis with a "full suspension" feel (to switch metaphors yet again), you will not like the Supersonic. I have to quibble with Deliberate's implication that they are unstable at speed, or that they're not for serious carving. (Sorry, David.) They're not unstable, for what they are (light 14.5m radius ski @ 167cm, with no plate). They do what you ask, immediately. If you are rocking them at serious edge angles and speed, you had better be ON IT, because they will launch you if you're not. If you ARE (on it), then you will have a LOT of fun. Even without the dampness, they put down very clean and reliable arcs on extremely hard snow, if you do. The RealSkiers.com review of this ski is absolutely on the money, based on my experience:

 

Quote: Keelty Site:

Zoom! Great frontside carver, [snip]

"Fast moving ski, quick edge to edge. Excellent for the advanced or developing carver, a very fun ski, especially on hard snow."

"Smooth, sensitive and lively!"

 

Sorry I haven't tried the newer G-Power version.

post #17 of 19

<duplicate removed>


Edited by Noto - 12/9/11 at 11:43pm
post #18 of 19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppa Ski Love View Post

Thanks for the input. So I've done some research myself and from what I can tell the supersonic is lighter, snappier and energetic while the G Power  is heavier, more damp, and requires more energy or a heavier skier to really get the most out of it. I'm 5'10 160, thinking that the supersonic might be the better option given my size. Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

That M-Power 8.7 was super stout: kicked my butt in bumps.  I think I need to put on about 80lbs and squat another 200lbs before skiing it well.  Somebody is going to like it, but that somebody is going to be a bigger skier than I.  I am much more of a fan of the 8.1: I that is Blizzard's best mid-fat ski for me. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

Blizzard needs to work on their communication skills.  I think some posters are confusing the 2 skis.  The G Force Supersonic is the older ski, the G Power FS is the newer ski.  Realskiers.com and Blizzard.com both indicate the G Force Supersonic (old one) is meant for higher speeds and stronger skiers, from what I can tell.  Ghost's post seems to imply that G Force and Supersonic are different, but they are 2 different names for the same ski.  So. I'm not sure what his conclusion was. 

 

Just trying to get this straight so I can demo the better pair for me.  I'm a strong fast skier, but I'm 150 lbs and prefer short radius.


 

Let's put this all together, shall we?

 

Blizzard's Suspension system is a wonderful invention...if put on the right ski.  It REALLY stiffens the ski, so putting it on something as relatively stiff as the Supersonics (i.e. the G Power FS) will make it too stiff for a lightweight, such as myself (5'7 155lbs), to drive.  Hence why they came out with the Ultrasonics...they took the softer G-Force Pro and slapped on the suspension system, then got rid of the rest of the lineup below it.

 

By the way, for anyone still having trouble with the Dynastar contact 4x4 vs Blizzi Supersonic debate (took me a month of forum/review reading to figure it out), use this guide (as a guide only):  if you weigh <175lbs, get the 4x4s, <175lbs get the Blizzis, =175lbs, get both, lose a pound, or gain one ;)  Heavier skiers will prefer the 4x4s and find the Blizzards too soft.  I know that being the shorty that I am, the Blizzis are justtttt right!


Edited by Noto - 12/9/11 at 11:44pm
post #19 of 19

I own a G-Power and demoed the Supersonic several times. Both great skis. Both very versatile, grippy, surprisingly good in hard bumps, although I'd give a very slight edge to the Supersonic there; it's springier. I do not find an enormous difference in overall feel; both have that Blizzard metallic sound, lots of snowfeel, both ski light and quick, both have fairly stiff fronts relative to their rear ends, at least as far as race-carvers go, so they are not much bothered by crud. Where they differ IMO is that the G-Power has unearthly grip, without a lot of fuss. The Supersonic is merely excellent, if that makes sense. The G is damper than the Supersonic, and a touch better in stiff crud. Feels like a higher speed limit. Some ^^^^ and Dawg, for instance, have said that the G-Power is stiffer, but I didn't notice a giant difference. I'm 165 and can bend it just fine. (OTOH, I've owned several oil piston Marker/Volkls, so the sensation isn't new.) For me, it's mainly the composed, no drama grip - just below that of actual race skis, but without the demands. The other differences are there, but minor. 

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 › Blizzi G Power vs G Force