I’m looking to buy new skis I’m 163cm tall female weight 68kg
Ski upper intermediate charge hard and carve on smooth groomers blues reds can ski quite well in slush
Ok I’m not too deep powder but need to improve here
Weakness is ice and big mogals or ice with moguls
Mostly ski on trail as there’s often not the fresh snow but would like to venture of the sides when the is some fresh
Thinking the Nordica Santa Anna 87 in the 161cm
Have skied Rossignol temptation 160 for a few years but unstable for me now at higher speeds and borrowed some faction dictators 162cm they were nice and stable but less manoeuvrable I think a bit too advanced for me
Any advice?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Try and ski them before you buy.
I see Nordica have remodelled the line-up this year, so my sizes are off the charts now. I'm the same height as you but under 60kg, and ski the Santa Ana 93 in 165cm. It's a fairly stiff ski and you need to pay attention, though not so much that it's tiring, but I would consider sizing up in both the length and width.
Are icy moguls something you encounter regularly? It's a versatile ski, but I take them out when I think there's a good chance of some nice snow off the sides, not as a dedicated piste ski. However, I'm guessing from your language that you are US/Canada based?, so conditions may be different than I'm used to in Europe.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I’m in the uk ski mainly France Austria Italy 2 weeks per year sometimes a bit longer
I like a ski to be responsive but gave stability at higher speeds
Powder is rare when you only go for 2 weeks
So it’s not high priority but would like to venture of the piste when it does snow and aim to improve my powder skiing
Wonder if the next width 93 might be heavier and harder work for carving?
The ski you are considering will probably meet your piste requirements, but it’s a bit too skinny to really assist your powder skiing. It is not a light ski, it’s a burly crud-buster.
TBH, these days I’m struggling to find a use for a ski in the 80-90mm range. My 84s are about to be sold, and replaced with something much thinner and piste-oriented. For versatility on/off piste, mid 90s is much more usable in soft snow, whilst still being skiable on piste, but I wouldn’t want something that size if the entire week was on the piste.
Although you can always hire a ski for a couple of days if conditions are not suitable for your own, just be aware that hire shops have much more available at the piste end of the scale. However, Santa Anas do feature in the rental fleet of a shop in St Anton, this I know.
Don't know if you have come across the ski essentials ski reviews but they are pretty awesome, the link above is last years ladies mid 90s with about 20 reviews including santa ana. This years reviews will be released soon i think. My friend has some and she likes them. There's also the lighter santa ana unlimited.
@JDgoesskiing, might be a tad controversial but sounds like you need to commit to off piste or not.
You don't need fresh snow to ski off piste. Snow can keep for days.
You won't improve dib dabbing.
I did quite a bit of research for skis for my wife a couple of years back. The Santa Ana's were high on the list. In the end she got Rossignol Blackops Escaper.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Thanks for all the advice it’s a minefield I think given I’m mostly on piste I’ll go for the 87 wide and as people say rent wider skis if there’s a massive powder dump.
Easier than trying to ski around the piste all week on big skis
After all it is free
After all it is free
JDgoesskiing wrote:
as people say rent wider skis if there’s a massive powder dump.
Reality is that you won;t, And anyway "a massive powder dump" is a rarity. Aaaand if you don't ski off piste regularly you will flounder regardless.
JDgoesskiing wrote:
Easier than trying to ski around the piste all week on big skis
Not really. I have 97 wide skis and have no problem skiing on piste.
As I say you need to decide what sort of skier you are.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
Not really. I have 97 wide skis and have no problem skiing on piste.
Yes, but you are 6'4" and twice JD's weight.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@musher, as mentioned my above my wife (a foot shorter) skis 94 width skis.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I have no problem with people saying they only ski on piste.
But people who say "would like to venture of the sides when the is some fresh" need to stop faffing about.
No offense to the OP, they are in a long line of people who say this.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
I do actually go off piste every time there’s powder it’s just that when you ski 2 weeks per year you can wait two years for there to be any decent fresh snow. I’ve ok now skiing in about 6 inches and chopped powder I tend to struggle when it’s super deep 60cm plus but that’s a rarity and I used to be a decent snowboarder so I could always just rent a board those days and have a blast
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I’m similar weight to you, and swapped Salomons for Santa Ana 93s (165cm) a couple of years ago, I have the 2022 model. I absolutely love them! I’d been a Salomon fan for years, and just used to buy the newest ski closest to the one I’d been skiing on, as I was happy with what I had. The last ones I had were Gemmas, but the reviews that year told me the newest model had poor quality top sheet that chipped and peeled easily, so the Santa Anas were the alternative ‘best all mountain ski.’ I would happily buy them again in the 93 width. They ski on anything - my skiing these days is generally chasing the teenage boy wherever he is going, so they have to be stable for an adventurous middle aged woman with knackered ankles in powder, on ice, and over a jump.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Think I’m sold and don’t want to spend any more hours on the internet analysing reviews/skis
Reckon 161 as next up is 167 and I’m only 163 tall. Now I’m 50 more likely to be slowing down than speeding up always skied around a 160-163
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Don't forget the skis don't know how tall you are, only how heavy. You're 10kg heavier than me, the same height, and I'd ski the 161s. In your shoes I'd definitely rent the 167s and the 161s before you decide.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
My daughter (similar size and weight, mid-20s) loves her Santa Ana 93s in 165cm. They are significantly bigger than her previous piste focussed skis, but now she says she wouldn’t go back.They work well in most conditions and she still skis just as fast on piste as she ever did on skinnier piste skis. They feel very light for their size.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Still haven’t clicked buy on the Santa ana 87 but most likely will have teetered on whether to go for something less stiff and lighter but then think it might be less stable I do go fast sometimes. Been trying to check out my actual ski level as it can be grey area according to this website I’d be a level 8 early advanced https://www.insideoutskiing.com/level
Reckon I definitely ski as well as those in the video level 8 but probably faster on the blue easy reds due to keeping up with teenage kids! My legs are strong as I do weights at the gym to maintain some strength I am 50 now though so unlikely to be getting more aggressive as a skier
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
swoafs wrote:
Don't forget the skis don't know how tall you are, only how heavy. You're 10kg heavier than me, the same height, and I'd ski the 161s. In your shoes I'd definitely rent the 167s and the 161s before you decide.
That!^
I’m the same height but 10 kg lighter. When I was choosing skis a few years back, I was probably similar in skill level as the OP (or a tad more advanced). The Santa Ana was also a candidate I tried. I ended up with a Volkl Kanja at 167.
So much of how a ski “feel” is very individual. I’m not sure I can say for sure which ski or what length is good for someone.
Before the Kenja, I was skiing something in the low 80’s width and 159 length. I will say though the Kenja is far more stable on piste, It requires a different way to ski moguls (mostly in a good way). Still, just how one ski has a lot to do with whether one likes or dislikes a ski.
I know this doesn’t sound like helping much. What I’m trying to say is, either go test a bunch of skis, or pick one that sounds about right, hunt for a deal. It’s likely an improvement of what you’ve grown out off anyway. It doesn’t have to be perfect. It probably won’t be perfect anyway. No need to overthink it.
Another Santa Ana owner here (163cm tall 53 kg) but have them in a 84 width.
I added them to the locker last season, as my daughter wouldn’t let me share her Factions
Used mostly as spring skis in choppy/soft conditions but they do have decent grip in early morning ice as I upped the length.
They do need attention and to be skied, I remember testing them about 10 years ago (can’t remember the width exactly back then) and found them too much for me at the time so bought some Salomon QST instead.
I wouldn’t buy any ski without testing first.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
