Supershape re-visited

[Ron]

Without a doubt a wife that skis is a very expensive proposition....

But worth it!

[Ghost]

I don't want to be a nit-picker, but someone has to.  Comparing the SS to the old (two generations ago) WC SC is not quite fair.  You should compare it to the new WC SC, or at least one that has a 13 m radius at 165 cm.

 

[Gary]

Hey Ghost...
I looked back a couple of years at Peters reviews and the turning radius of the WC sc in the 165 lenght has not changed much.
Not having skied that ski, not sure how they would compare. I do know Ron had a pair I think from last year and now skis the SS.

Still, it really may be a matter if skiing styles. The Fischer performance skis have really staked their terroritory as great performance skis the past few years.

Oh yeah...nit picking is what makes the forum interesting!

Best,
Gary

[jbotti]

Ghost, most people regard the older version of the SC as the superior one. That is not to say that perhaps the technology (distinct from design shape) may be superior now 3 yeears later. I skied the WC SC last year. It's a good ski. I actually like the shape of the older SC much better and the tighter turn radius, and that's why I bought it. Neither one compares with the SS in my opinion. The reason I wrote the comparison on the old SC was because I own them both and skied them on the same days and in the same conditions (and because someone, Michael, asked the question).

I have skied a lot of slalom carvers over the past two years (and I own a few pairs as well). Nothing IMO comes close to the SS.

Having said all this, because I have so much respect for Fischer skis, and have generally loved most Fischer skis I have been on, I would like to try the RX Fire, which has the same dimensions as the old WC SC, but hopefully has updated technology. It was rumored that these would be a late season intro this year (and currently only availabe in Europe). Perhaps we will start seeing them in the US in the next month. JB. 

[Aleksey]

I'm just wondering how good are SS on bumps and moguls?

Thanks in advance!

Aleksey.

[jbotti]

I find it to be an excellent ski in the bumps. What it may lack in flex (it's a relatively stiff ski) it makes up for with quickness and a very tight turn radius. It's a great ski for carving in the bumps and less good as a ski to slide with in the bumps. JB.

[Aleksey]

What length of SS would be better for 5'10'' 155 lbs skier? 165 or 170 cm? I tried them in 165 cm and really enjoyed it. I'm wondering if additional 5 cm will do anything.. Thanks a lot!

[jbotti]

I am 6 3" and 190 lbs and I find the 170 cm length to be plenty of ski. The 165 should be perfect for you. I would listen to your own experience as well in that you really enjoyed them. JB.

[Gary]

Hey Gang,
Just got back from a 3 day ski trip of local mountains. Best day was Monday with 4-8" of powder.

Must tell you I skied as did Ron the SS the entire 3 days in groomed snow, bumps, powder, broken crud, some death cookies , and some terrain parks.

Skied them forward, backward, (on green trails for short distances) powder along the trees, around trees, jumped some air in some terrain parks and am still convinced this ski works for me.

Now let me explain that last comment. I ski it in a 170 length and I'm 154 lbs. This ski I feel is a Thorobreed of skis. If you ever rode a horse and have one of the trail horses out, you can kind of just give the horse it's rein, sit back and enjoy the ride.

Do not try this on the Super Shapes....they will rocket you off without hesitation. This ski requires you be conscience ALL of the time while on board...be totally in charge of where the tips are going. For medium to long turns, ski them out of the center with a strong attack position, and ski the short and tight along the edge, quick turns, you must control the tips.

For carving, this ski responds best  when you commit 95-100% of your weight to the downhill ski....it's a scalpel...a real ski tool. If you have strong edging ski skills or know you really have committed to carving each turn, this ski will not disappoint.

What do you get for your effort....pure carving pleasure. Still for powder, bumps, and crud, you can two foot this bad boy with light tipping motion and never miss a beat. This ski to date..is a dream.

Still, I hope to get into some shin high powder to just see what MY limitations are with this ski. Sorry my 82's, you'll just have to wait for the deep stuff!

Gary

[Ron]

14" at Steamboat and another 6-8" in the next day.......

[Brendan]

Hi,

I am 160 pounds and 5,11 - has anyone tried the shorter version of the supershapes?  I know Peter has said that the 170 is the go but am wondering if the shorter version might be more in my ballpark considering my lighter weight.

Brendan

[Ron]

Brendan, the 170 SS is a different ski than the 165. If you can try both, do so. If you can handle the 170, which at 5 11' you should be able to , go that route. Don't forget the new Magnum SS coming out 121-71-107,

[Gary]

Brendan,
I mentioned that I'm 5'81/2 and 154 lbs and ski the 170 length.

Not sure what length ski you ski now or where your ski level is. I personally think the SS is a ski that requires strong technical skills to get the most out of. I went with the 170 length cause my RX8s were 170, and I think the extra length works well in powder and broken snow. My turn shapes run anywhere from short carvers to very short along the edge to medium and long swing carvers that create great G forces and a huge I just had sex smile.

If you are a skill strong skier (PMTS) or maybe have a race background, the 170 length should be cake. I have not skied the 165 length and don't know anything at all about the performance compared to the 170. Ron's point, ski both if you can demo. If you find the ski a bit more than you're comfortable with..the new Magnum SS looks pretty slick....again depending on your ski ability.

For me, there's a lot of enjoyment with the 170 SS in the way it starts, holds, and finishes each turn. If you have good balance skills, utilize counter rotation, and can commit to the down hill edge....this is one fantastic ski.

Best,
Gary

[fredm8]

While in Aspen Dec / Jan this year, I couldnt find any suitable rental skis until I stumbled across a pair of SuperShapes. Tried several different lenghts from 175 down to 160.
I'm 6'3", 210lbs early forties and ski anything groomed.

Fantastic for Colorado, no problems in powder on the one powder day, fabulous on the groomed.
Easy to get up on edge to carve.

Ended up buying a pair (cheaper than renting) and now looking forward to using these weapons on Turoa in the Southern winter.

Douglas

[Ron]

so what size did you end up with? welcome to the club