I skied these last week in Montana. This is an excellent ski. It has a 13.5m turn radius so it makes tight slalom turns. Unlike the old SS, it has much more of a GS tail so the tails release very easily and quickly. The ski has a very nice level of performace and if you bend it and pressure the tips it will pop/rebound nicely. At the same time it is very easy to ski and quite relaxing. It is a truly a fun ski, with solid performance that intermediates and up can use. It also may be the best bump ski on the market today. It is just soft enough to ski bumps well. The tails also don't hook making it very easy in the bumps. I skied it in a 170 length which is perfect for slalomish turns and for bumps. My guess is that the 176 length would be a great ski with a cheater GS feel. I doubt Head is selling a lot of these skis. They have gotten no press and Keelty gave them a poor review. The review is just wrong and everyone should look at this ski. To me it is the prefect ski to replace the old Head SS's. I actually like these better because the tail is so much less hooky. My guess is that these will go on sale on Ebay in the next month or so, with few takers. Everyone should put this on ther demo list.
John,
I'd been looking to demo these since hearing about them back in December from Chris and Harald who said they had a more slalom feel than the SS.? I got my chance a week ago at the Northeast PMTS gathering at Pico where I borrowed a demo pair of 170cm Icon TT 80 from Mac for several runs.? Conditions were firm and irregular since it had rained the day before and then refrozen.? Since the shop tune skied like a dull 1/1, I was cautious seeking angles and tight carves.
I was on supershapes before and afer skiing the Icon 80.? For me, the Icon's shovel starts to bend with noticeably less input than a supershape 170cm (even less than an im78 171cm) but is otherwise almost the same longitudinal stiffness -- a distinctly nonlinear response.? As a result, if you just flex a little on moderate blues they make sharp short turns.? They release quickly from a carve compared to a supershape, presumably because of the different tail design.? In fact, the biggest distinction I perceived between the two skis was during my first run back on supershapes when I felt this big tail cutting into the snow behind me.? I didn't miss it when I put on the Icons, but I sure noticed it when I switched back.? Mac and I both felt they would be good in bumps, but the upper lift was on windhold so we couldn't test this.? To me, the Icon 80 is easygoing compared to the SS and requires somewhat less fore-aft effort to achieve comparable results.
1)? I bet your demo pair was tuned 0.5/3 with sharp edges knowing where you probably got them.? And I know you had some icy conditions.? How was the edge hold compared to supershapes, your progressors, and the new "supershape RD" ?
2)? Did you also experience a very soft initial tip response, or is this a reflection of skier size (I'm 220 #) ?
Todd
Todd, the tips didn't seem that soft to me. In fact the tips are probably a little firmer than those on the new SS's and definitely firmer than those on the old SS's. Yes at 220 lbs that would be a lot on the Icon 170's. The 176's may be better for you, but it is definitely not a burly/stiff ski. For me at 6 3" 180, it was fine and I could easily ski both the 170 and the 176 and both would have a freindly felx for me.
As for edge hold, I did not notice a difference between the edgehold on the TT''s vs that on the new SS's. I did not ski my progerssors on this trip in the same conditions. At 1 base and 3 side, these skis will hold fine on almost everything, certainly everything that we would want or be willing to ski. The edgehold felt better than that on my IM 78's, but my 78's feel a little base high and I have them at 2 degrees on the side (I have been too lazy to take them to 3 degrees). If my 78's were a true 1 degree base and 3 degree side, I think it would be the same or at least feel the same.
Jim. I own a pair of the SS Magnums. I like the Icons better. The turn radius is about the same on both in a 170, but as I mentioned, the tails release so much faster on the icons. This makes the ski a lot faster edge to edge. I also find the Icon more stable at speed especially in any turn that is silghtly wider than true slalom turns. Lastly, the Icon is a better bumps ski than either SS and it relates back to the tail. The tail on both SS's can be very hooky in bumps and it makes things quite a bit harder. Being able to release the tail at will in the bumps is essential.
So for me the Icon is a much more versatile ski. As well, as I have said, I have grown to dislike the hooky tail on the SS's and I find it a lot of work to do fast , quick slalom turns on them. Now if you don't take the Magnums into the bumps and you don't do fast slalom turns on them, you probably won't notice too much difference. I will say that I did not notice the difference until I got my RD slalom skis. I noticed immediately that I could do things on the RD's that I couldn't on my SS's.
At the end of the day both are excellent skis. I wouldn't be the skier I am today had I not owned a pair of Head SS's. It is still the sngle best tool for an intermediate skier to get immediate feedback from doing the proper carving movements.
As for your question on bike tires on crushed rock paths, I am of no value. I am only on ashpalt on my road bike and if I know I will be on something other than that, I will grab my MTN bike. Proof to Ron that some poeple can and will do both!!!
1- its travis parr at Icelantic, Pilgrim is a ski made by never summer for icelantic
2- i ride mtn and road bikes. i prefer mountain biking.
3- yes you can run commuter tires on a standard roadie, the issue is that you don't want to take an expensive roadie on trails that are overly bumpy and rugged, that can bend/warp wheels, break spokes, stress frames and screw up front forks. Not to mention if you don't have a lot of stand over clearance, I don't think I need to explain that one!
