2021 Ski Gear Preview

[contesstant]

@contesstant I was talking with you on SkiTalk about your SA experience. I really thought last year was the big change for Santa Anas and now it seems the 2021-2022 changed even more. So much for 2-year product cycles. I'm peeking around at the 95-98 options. I may just try the SA when I'm back in Big Sky soon, along with the Kastle 96W and the BC Camox Birdie.

The 21/22 did not change. The 2020 version did (last year.) What was interesting to me was that the 88 changed after one year. I owned the 2020 version and now own the 2021, and it's funny, in that ski, I preferred the one with two sheets of titanal. But the Santa Ana 98 last year? Felt like a barge. Could have been conditions weren't conducive at all to that ski when I skied it. Could have been that I'd been on an 88 or narrower just prior. This version in fresh snow was SO playful yet very damp. Right up my alley. We'll see how I like them at my home mountain, where powder days are fewer and farther between anymore.

 

[MissySki]

The 21/22 did not change. The 2020 version did (last year.) What was interesting to me was that the 88 changed after one year. I owned the 2020 version and now own the 2021, and it's funny, in that ski, I preferred the one with two sheets of titanal. But the Santa Ana 98 last year? Felt like a barge. Could have been conditions weren't conducive at all to that ski when I skied it. Could have been that I'd been on an 88 or narrower just prior. This version in fresh snow was SO playful yet very damp. Right up my alley. We'll see how I like them at my home mountain, where powder days are fewer and farther between anymore.

I already wanted to try these and now I do even more! Please report back after you ski in the deeper snow too.

 

[VickiK]

why do so many magazines and review sites always say that 98 under foot is a great mostly-groomer ski?

Must be advertising dollars. It's ridiculous.

 

[contesstant]

I already wanted to try these and now I do even more! Please report back after you ski in the deeper snow too.

Will do! There's a TON (as in almost two feet, with more falling today) at Targhee right now. Not sure if we'll find untracked as I'm sure it's all skied out, but I didn't want these for untracked, I wanted them for the leftovers because (as is being discussed in another thread) the resorts are so busy now that untracked is good for about one run. I will say, I did ski two runs of untracked/mostly untracked and at 165, they were PERFECT. I don't want a powder ski that's 5cm or more longer than my daily ski, I don't care how "short" they ski, they've always felt too long. I took out some Fischer Ranger 102 FR in a 170 last weekend in over a foot of fresh, and the tips almost planed too much on top of the snow. (Nice ski, BTW!)

Must be advertising dollars. It's ridiculous.

I was digging for reviews for the SA 98 because I love to see what various outlets say after I've spent some time on a ski. "Great ski if you are primarily on the groomers but want to be ready for the occasional surprise powder." What?! Maybe for a bigger dude, or a young woman whose joints don't feel the beating that a wider ski gives them, I don't know. Meanwhile, my husband is here with his 83 under foot Stockli AR's and couldn't care less that there's feet of new snow and that's all he has. His widest ski is a 100 under foot Rossignol Experience and he skied it ONCE last season.

Anyway, I digress. One of the things that makes the SA series great but also at times not my favorite on groomers is it's tail breaks loose pretty easily. Great in crud especially for someone with not super solid technique, but I can really feel it on groomers especially after I spend time on a ski with a stronger tail.

 

[scandium]

(why do so many magazines and review sites always say that 98 under foot is a great mostly-groomer ski? I don't get it!)

Because wide skis are trendy and not all women's skis are actually reviewed properly before a review is posted?

 

[MissySki]

Will do! There's a TON (as in almost two feet, with more falling today) at Targhee right now. Not sure if we'll find untracked as I'm sure it's all skied out, but I didn't want these for untracked, I wanted them for the leftovers because (as is being discussed in another thread) the resorts are so busy now that untracked is good for about one run. I will say, I did ski two runs of untracked/mostly untracked and at 165, they were PERFECT. I don't want a powder ski that's 5cm or more longer than my daily ski, I don't care how "short" they ski, they've always felt too long. I took out some Fischer Ranger 102 FR in a 170 last weekend in over a foot of fresh, and the tips almost planed too much on top of the snow. (Nice ski, BTW!)

Good to hear on the 165 length, I’m the same where I just do not want to go so long for a powder ski.. Especially in the East where I like to be in the trees with fresh snow but definitely don’t want extra length in there.

 

[contesstant]

Good to hear on the 165 length, I’m the same where I just do not want to go so long for a powder ski.. Especially in the East where I like to be in the trees with fresh snow but definitely don’t want extra length in there.

I have found that especially for a "stiffer" ski (which I prefer for the stability) the extra length is just cumbersome. I have now skied the SA 98s at Big Sky, Jackson, Targhee, and oodles of powder at Snowbasin (finally!) and the length feels very intuitive and perfect. I skied more ungroomed black diamonds yesterday in one day than I EVER have, all over the mountain, some was wind-affected and weird/punchy as the top 4 inches was fresh cold fluff, but below was dense, heavy and much deeper, and these skis were like an old friend. I still prefer a narrower ski once things are really tracked out. The wider skis just wear me out over time. But being over 50 is the prime contributor to that, I think.

 

[VickiK]

I don't know about that, @contesstant . You're in great shape. Your MTB gives you stamina and endurance. I realize when one's older, it takes longer to build strength, and work to keep it, but it seems like you're already there and doing what-all to stay there.

 

[contesstant]

I don't know about that, @contesstant . You're in great shape. Your MTB gives you stamina and endurance. I realize when one's older, it takes longer to build strength, and work to keep it, but it seems like you're already there and doing what-all to stay there.

Except I can't/don't ride in the winter, so I start to lose that. I really can't go like I used to. I need to incorporate more strength training. I just get so incredibly bored while strength training! What I've been doing on my skis more so lately is lots of one-legged skiing and really standing hard on the outside ski for a few runs. Builds some stamina. I get sore a lot more frequently than I used to. Wider skis absolutely exacerbate it.

 

[LauraVa]

I demoed the new Santa Ana 98 this week at Big Sky on a day with fresh powder and the later leftovers. I LOVED them. The previous version was a bit of a handful to me, not so anymore! I will say, they were still wider than I care for on groomers (why do so many magazines and review sites always say that 98 under foot is a great mostly-groomer ski? I don't get it!) But in the fresh powder, they were the BOMB and in the leftovers/crud? The bombest! Stable, easy to turn, playful, fun!! Made me feel like a hero in the crud, which is my nemesis.

Can't wait to take them out in 20+ inches of fresh at Targhee tomorrow!!

@contesstant Did you ski the 2021 or 2022? I bought the 2021 98s without demoing based on my love for my SA 88's. Wondering if I should have gone with the 2022s which are out now....

 

[LauraVa]

Never mind @contesstant. Should have kept reading.

 

[contesstant]

@contesstant Did you ski the 2021 or 2022? I bought the 2021 98s without demoing based on my love for my SA 88's. Wondering if I should have gone with the 2022s which are out now....

2021. The only changes for 2022 are the topsheet.

I now see that there is a Santa Ana 84 coming out for 2022. And it appears the Belle series is coming back. My interest is piqued. I prefer the 2020 version of the SA 88 (which had one more sheet of titanal in it--it was smoooooth) so am curious of the construction of the new 84. I can't read the article, even though I subscribe to Ski Mag. It won't allow me to sign in.
https://www.skimag.com/gear/ski-rev...ica-santa-ana-84-vs-nordica-wild-belle-dc-84/

Might have to convince my husband to call the local Nordica rep and ask him some questions about these.

 

[pamjam5]

Curious if you've taken the Volkl Blaze 94s out in crud yet? Trying to decide between those and the Secret 92s. Would appreciate any guidance on which one would be most appropriate and size to choose (149 or 156 or even 163?) I'm 5'2", 150 lbs

Looking for skis to help me work on/improve my carving ability while still being able to run down the North Face at Alyeska when it gets a bunch of soft snow. Would also be helpful if they could make their way through crud.

Ski history: I've only skied Salomon Q83s (159 cm) on the resort and in the backcountry and am looking to upgrade to two sets of skis for their intended purposes.

Skier Ability: advanced intermediate skier in Alaska. I very comfortably ski blue to black diamond on groomers and am still adventurous and cautious on off-piste black diamond run. Would primarily use new skis for resort/off-piste skiing with some side country (have a resort here that's a small t-bar lift to ungroomed snow).

Typical ski conditions: Our conditions lend themselves to hard-packed snow through the season, though I do try to get out for the snow dumps when I can or seek powder stashes at the resort.

Thanks in advance for your help!

I've tried a couple skis that are new for next year, and a few stood out to me:

Volkl Blaze: This is a new line that's much lighter in weight than you'd expect in a Volkl, yet playful and with the same great edge hold. I tried the 94 waist, 163 length (that was all they had) on packed powder conditions; I'd love to take it in the crud to see how it does, but there was not crud to be found. Nonetheless, I thought it was lots of fun and deserves further investigation..

 

[SarahXC]

@contesstant From skimag

Nordica Wild Belle Preview
2022 Nordica Wild Belle DC 84
On to the exciting news for ladies who need something edgier than the Santa Ana 88 to slice up groomers. Nordica’s all-new Wild Belle line adds three new women’s-specific skis designed for frontside fun.
The collection’s flagship model, the Wild Belle DC 88, features Nordica’s new Double Core construction technology, which includes two poplar cores with beech wood stringers sandwiching a thin layer of rubber in the center of the ski. Translation: There’s a lot of wood in the middle of this ski, but no metal. The result is meant to be a lively, poppy frontside ski that nevertheless provides a smooth and damp ride.

Nordica’s new Double Core Technology features a lot of wood in the middle of the ski, but no metal.

The Wild Belle DC 88 and its sister models, the Wild Belle 78 CA and 74, also include women’s-specific design elements tailored to a woman’s size and body mechanics. On all three models, the two parts of the binding plate are shorter and moved closer together, which allows the ski to flex more naturally when pressured.
Wilde Belle DC 84 Specifications
Lengths (cm): 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 133-84-162 (162)
Price: $700
Wild Belle 78 CA
Lengths (cm): 138, 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 127-78-106 (162)
Price: $600
Wild Belle 74
Lengths (cm): 138, 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 124-75-104 (162)
Price: $500

 

[contesstant]

@contesstant From skimag

Nordica Wild Belle Preview
2022 Nordica Wild Belle DC 84
On to the exciting news for ladies who need something edgier than the Santa Ana 88 to slice up groomers. Nordica’s all-new Wild Belle line adds three new women’s-specific skis designed for frontside fun.
The collection’s flagship model, the Wild Belle DC 88, features Nordica’s new Double Core construction technology, which includes two poplar cores with beech wood stringers sandwiching a thin layer of rubber in the center of the ski. Translation: There’s a lot of wood in the middle of this ski, but no metal. The result is meant to be a lively, poppy frontside ski that nevertheless provides a smooth and damp ride.

Nordica’s new Double Core Technology features a lot of wood in the middle of the ski, but no metal.

The Wild Belle DC 88 and its sister models, the Wild Belle 78 CA and 74, also include women’s-specific design elements tailored to a woman’s size and body mechanics. On all three models, the two parts of the binding plate are shorter and moved closer together, which allows the ski to flex more naturally when pressured.
Wilde Belle DC 84 Specifications
Lengths (cm): 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 133-84-162 (162)
Price: $700
Wild Belle 78 CA
Lengths (cm): 138, 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 127-78-106 (162)
Price: $600
Wild Belle 74
Lengths (cm): 138, 144, 150, 156, 162, 168
Dimensions (mm): 124-75-104 (162)
Price: $500

I’d read that review, but sure want to try them before I pull the trigger. I’m intrigued for sure!

 

[ski diva]

Curious if you've taken the Volkl Blaze 94s out in crud yet? Trying to decide between those and the Secret 92s. Would appreciate any guidance on which one would be most appropriate and size to choose (149 or 156 or even 163?) I'm 5'2", 150 lbs

Looking for skis to help me work on/improve my carving ability while still being able to run down the North Face at Alyeska when it gets a bunch of soft snow. Would also be helpful if they could make their way through crud.

Ski history: I've only skied Salomon Q83s (159 cm) on the resort and in the backcountry and am looking to upgrade to two sets of skis for their intended purposes.

Skier Ability: advanced intermediate skier in Alaska. I very comfortably ski blue to black diamond on groomers and am still adventurous and cautious on off-piste black diamond run. Would primarily use new skis for resort/off-piste skiing with some side country (have a resort here that's a small t-bar lift to ungroomed snow).

Typical ski conditions: Our conditions lend themselves to hard-packed snow through the season, though I do try to get out for the snow dumps when I can or seek powder stashes at the resort.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Sorry, no. I never took the Blaze 94's out in crud. But based on their past performance, I'd guess that they'd be pretty good.

 

[scandium]

Sorry, no. I never took the Blaze 94's out in crud. But based on their past performance, I'd guess that they'd be pretty good.

How did you like them/how would you say they felt vs the Santa Ana 93? The Blaze 94 is definitely on my demo list if I can find it this year - wondering about a possible addition to the quiver if the Kenjas prove too much at my current stage of skiing.

 

[ski diva]

How did you like them/how would you say they felt vs the Santa Ana 93? The Blaze 94 is definitely on my demo list if I can find it this year - wondering about a possible addition to the quiver if the Kenjas prove too much at my current stage of skiing.

Really, I wish I could help, but I only skied them briefly, and it was quite a while ago. That said, I have the Santa Ana 93's, though mine are from before they took the sheet of titanal out of the core, and I love them.

 

[pamjam5]

How did you like them/how would you say they felt vs the Santa Ana 93? The Blaze 94 is definitely on my demo list if I can find it this year - wondering about a possible addition to the quiver if the Kenjas prove too much at my current stage of skiing.

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

[pamjam5]

Sorry, no. I never took the Blaze 94's out in crud. But based on their past performance, I'd guess that they'd be pretty good.

Thanks for the quick reply!!