Suggestions for first skis?

[Lmk92]

Funny you're looking at Aurenas too. I own a pair - they replaced my daughter's Airs for me (just bought Vanhoskier's Wild Belles for her for this season). I'm not happy with them, though. They're still soft, and I'm ready for a stiffer ski. The group recommended the Violas or Charismas for me, but my local shop (which is now going out of business!!!) only had the Aurenas. I think they are pretty similar to the Airs (which are apparently now Pures - I don't know if they've changed anything).

As far as size - that's a good question. I'm 5'2, and when I started skiing on the Airs, I weighed 150 (I've added to that since...). The skis were 154s, and were perfect. You're two inches taller, but weigh less, with plans to lose more. I'd almost be tempted to tell you to stick with the 154s. The ladies here know more than I do, though.

 

[SkiMauw]

Corbett's says anywhere from 150-170 for me. Leaning towards the Dynastar Neva size 159...the price for a first ski is just so good and I could buy a ski bag with the extra money I saved.

I have plans to lose weight but those plans haven't worked the last few years. LOL with all the kids so, I have no time to exercise! I was thinking that even if I lost weight, my skills should improve over the next couple years making the longer skis still okay?

The size down in Dynastar is 152 which I could get in the Glory but not the Neva. I can get the Pures in 154. But I suppose those could be comparable to the Dynastar 152 depending on rocker on each of those skis.

 

[Lmk92]

So many choices! You are probably right about the longer skis. When I demo, I'll be trying a bit longer ski, if available. I'm pretty comfortable at 154-155, so it will probably depend on the ski.

152 sounds very short. But if you're sticking to mainly greens and easy blues, it may not make much of a difference. I didn't know my 142s were way too short until my kids progressed to harder blues.

 

[Jilly]

I'm 5'4 and heavier that than you. I ski a 154 in standard skis and 161 in my rockered Temptations. Corbetts are on the right track.

On the Glory - take 5cm off your height. On the Neva - shorter. Also the Neva was discontinued this year, or the Dynastar site I was just looking at in something else. The Pures - same as the Glorys. (If you were looking at the Cloud's then the same as the Neva's - shorter)

 

[SkiMauw]

I'm 5'4 and heavier that than you. I ski a 154 in standard skis and 161 in my rockered Temptations. Corbetts are on the right track.

On the Glory - take 5cm off your height. On the Neva - shorter. Also the Neva was discontinued this year, or the Dynastar site I was just looking at in something else. The Pures - same as the Glorys. (If you were looking at the Cloud's then the same as the Neva's - shorter)

Sounding like Dynastar isn't for me. The Glory and Neva both come 152 and 159. I measured myself and I'm just over 161cm, basically 5'3.5". Sounds like the Neva may work in 152 but I can only find 159. Glory 159 too tall? And 152 too short?

The Pures come in 154 and 160.

 

[Jilly]

Glory in 159 should be good. 5cm off your height - your height is 161, so 159 should be OK. Which Glory was it? 70's something? The lower waist the less stiff it is.

 

[SkiMauw]

Glory in 159 should be good. 5cm off your height - your height is 161, so 159 should be OK. Which Glory was it? 70's something? The lower waist the less stiff it is.

2016 Glory 79

 

[Jilly]

Wish I could find just how much rocker there is. Rossi tells you, and Dynastar is a sister company. Still think you'll be OK with the 159's. Rocker makes them ski shorter.

 

[Albertan ski girl]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 159 would be fine as well, like @Jilly - they still should be easy to turn and quite forgiving. It is tip and tail rocker - I can't find those specs either, but the ski will ski a little shorter than 159 with the rocker.

 

[badger]

I am 5'2 and 94 pounds. I demoed the Glory in the 159 and found it to be very friendly. Initially the longer length may seem cumbersome, but as you commit to owning the ski, your motivation to ski it will bring about a discovery of its best qualities. The Glory is a really fun ski, easy to use.

 

[marzNC]

I am 5'2 and 94 pounds. I demoed the Glory in the 159 and found it to be very friendly. Initially the longer length may seem cumbersome, but as you commit to owning the ski, your motivation to ski it will bring about a discovery of its best qualities. The Glory is a really fun ski, easy to use.

Not sure whether it helps to know or not, but I enjoyed the Glory 84 at 156cm and I'm 5'0", 110 lbs. Since you are a little taller and heavier, 159cm should be okay. In general, I've liked Dynastar skis even when I wasn't as advanced a skier.

 

[SkiMauw]

Okay, then Glory or Pures?? I think I have it narrowed down to those!! (unless you gals think those Rossis at MEC are way better even though they look like a kid's toy!)

 

[Jilly]

The Temptations at MEC are last years graphic. This year is much better. But that said they should be at a better price point too. Just throwin that out there.

 

[SkiMauw]

The Temptations at MEC are last years graphic. This year is much better. But that said they should be at a better price point too. Just throwin that out there.

I think this year's are great but $700 is not happening. :(

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I don't think you can go wrong with either the Glory's or the Pure's. I don't remember where you ski in Canada but I found the Pure's to be way better on ice/hard pack than the Glory's but that's just my opinion.

 

[elemmac]

Okay, then Glory or Pures?? I think I have it narrowed down to those!! (unless you gals think those Rossis at MEC are way better even though they look like a kid's toy!)

FWIW, I think the Glory is a better ski, construction-wise. I think it will push you, but not throw you for a loop. It has a wood core instead of the Pure's foam core. Wood cores are generally more durable, and will last longer. Where foam cores will often start to lose their pop, liveliness and camber quicker.

Please note I said "generally" and "will often" as this is not a one shoe fits them all scenario. There are many foam or composite material skis that will hold their properties and ski well for a long time. But with that being said, going in blind without demoing first, I'd choose a wood core over a foam core any day.

 

[Jilly]

Both Atomic Affinity Pure and Dynastar Glory are all mountain skis. For skiing western Canada, perfect skis. Yes the Glory is a better construction for durability. I think the OP is worried about the best ski for the best price. And I too hate last years graphic's on the Temptation line. But if you keep them in snow, you might not notice the bubble gum pink!

 

[SkiMauw]

I missed these Salomons...https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5043-900/Cira-Skis-With-Bindings should I add them to the list? The Temptation 80's might be out now as MEC no longer has my size! I maybe have seen them elsewhere though.

 

[Albertan ski girl]

The Ciras were a new ski last year – I don't know anything about them, or anyone who has ridden them. I think either the pure or the glory are a great choice.

 

[Jilly]

Interesting - looks like MEC bought the manufacturer's close outs. That's last years colour too on the Solly. The Ciras is more of groomer ski, with an all mountain shape. Only has tip rocker, but nothing wrong with that. You could add it to the list. FWIW, Salomon and Atomic are sister companies. Rossi and Dynastar are too. So technologies are shared.