Black Pearls for Heavier Gals

[KLovett]

I'm really leaning towards purchasing Black Pearls this year- but I'm worried about buying another women's specific ski.
A bit about me- I'm no lightweight. I'm 5'10" and fluctuate between 150 and 160 lbs. I would say that I'm an intermediate-to-advanced skier, although I ski on a tiny East Coast hill and get away to bigger mountains 1-2 times a year. I usually ski front side, but love the trees and bumps when I can get them.
I have skied K2 Superglides for the past 4 years and I pretty much loath them. They seem way too soft and quite heavy.
I haven't been able to demo the BPS- but I did Demo the Brahmas and MOSTLY loved them...I'm afraid they are too beefy a ski for me.
I also demoed Head Super Joys and the one wider than those...again- I REALLY worry about buying a women's specific ski and then outgrowing/being unhappy with them after a few years.
I also unfortunately don't get a chance to demo a lot at my hill.
Thoughts on my stats and the BPS?

 

[Jilly]

I hated the Black Pearls for east coast ice. I found them too soft. I'm shorter but in the same weight range.

I mean to try them again, as I seem to be the only person here that didn't like them.

 

[bounceswoosh]

LOL. You're not heavier. At 5'10??


I don't know what lengths the BPs are available in, but that would be my concern - are they made long enough for you?

 

[surfsnowgirl]

The tallest they are available in is 173.

 

[VickiK]

I demo'ed a few Volkls many years ago and didn't like them. Perhaps I should give them another chance because they are so beloved by so many, especially those Kenja's. I think we adjust to what we have and I'm not sure what ski will be my next one. I'm just not ready to think about it yet.

More to @KLovett 's question, though, I'm heavy (oh don't make me say it!) and still have enjoyed my BPs a lot. They're a softer ski for sure, and though I find them serviceable in hard packed conditions, there are probably better choices if that's the usual surface one skis. BUT, I'm short, 5'2". @Olesya Chornoguz is very tall, athletic, skis East Coast & Western resorts...she might be a good person to answer here as I know she loved her Kenja's, which are stiffer but same width as the BPs.

I wouldn't stick solely to women's specific skis, and to that point, @bounceswoosh raises an excellent question. Maybe check out one of the Fischer Motiv line?

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I wouldn't rule out other possibilities. I am heavier also at 175 lbs, shhhhh and have generally found unisex or mens skis to be more up my alley. That said I love my Kenjas almost as much as my guy, well that depends on the day ..... I ski in the northeast so most skis I have must have some sort of ginsu knife into hard snow ability. I have never demoed the black pearl for 2 reasons. 1) resorts where I ski don't ever seem to have them as demos but also 2) they are 88 underfoot and my Kenjas are 87 underfoot so too close of a waist width issue for me and I feel I by far get more enjoyment and usefulness out of the Kenjas.

Its to each their own but I just feel that the BP as a one ski quiver for the northeast if you are tall and heavy might not be ideal. If I had the BP it wouldn't be my only ski and I'd have something narrower and rock solid on east coast ice for a daily driver. I don't even ski my Kenjas as daily drivers and they are more than decent on ice. I have a 80 underfoot ginsu knife of a ski for those really icy/hard pack days.

 

[BethL]

I'm 5'8" 125lbs, and I ski the 166. You'll definitely want longer than that. I ski in CO, so I'm not sure how the BP will do back east. We do not do ice here in CO, at least I do not do ice. There's one run at Winter Park that has a small amount of ice always, and I never ski it. Actually I skied it last Saturday and remembered why I never ski it.

I just put tech bindings on my Black Pearls. I'll be testing the skis going uphill sometime in the next two weeks. Should be fun!

 

[elemmac]

I haven't been able to demo the BPS- but I did Demo the Brahmas and MOSTLY loved them...I'm afraid they are too beefy a ski for me.

I'd say if your only concern was the stiffness/beefiness of the Brahma, but you enjoyed the way that it skied, you'll be fine on the Black Pearls. They're the same dimensions and specs with a slightly different core construction that will make it less beefy. But if you didn't like the way that the Brahma skied, you won't like the BP.

I mean to try them again, as I seem to be the only person here that didn't like them.

You're not the only one. I had a similar thought on trying them again, and actually got on them again yesterday...still, nope, not the ski for me.

 

[bounceswoosh]

The tallest they are available in is 173.

At 5'10 that will be several inches shorter than @KLovett herself is, which to me seems too short for intermediate/advanced. YMMV and all that.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

At 5'10 that will be several inches shorter than @KLovett herself is, which to me seems too short for intermediate/advanced. YMMV and all that.

Yea especially since it has tip/tail rocker and skis short anyway. Agreed.

 

[maggie198]

I LOVED my Black Pearls! Til my weight got up into the 170-ish range, and then found that they weren't enough ski. The Nordica Hells Belles in a 170 cm is what I switched to, they ski very similarly but more oomph. Unfortunately, they are discontinued. I also enjoyed the new (last year) Volkl Auras quite a lot (actually, loved). If my poor old legs didn't fatigue so quickly, or I was 20 years younger I would own these. I haven't had a chance to demo the new Kenjas, but I think they could fit the bill quite nicely.

I'm also an east coast skier. I find that I really enjoy a wider waisted ski, even in the northeast.

 

[lisamamot]

@KLovett , what length did you demo the Brahma in? The Brahma is one burly ski with a double sheet of titanium - I demoed the 2015 in a 166 and they were way stiff. The 2015 Volkl Kendo 170 was better, and the 2015 Kenja 170 better than that. I still found the Kenja 170 a bit too burly (I am 5'9", 140#+- a pound or two)

As an east coast skier myself, if I got to choose a ski for you to try I agree with @maggie198 - the 2016 Kenja 170. I haven't had a chance to demo it and compare it to the 2015, but all I read is thumbs up.

 

[KLovett]

Dayummmmm - reviews for the 2016 Kenja look promising! I like that it's been made stiffer this year. Might be just the ticket between BP and Brahma for moi. I demoed the Brahma in a 180 and felt wayyy to long for moi. I like something versatile that I can use ripping securely down groomers at speed or into the trees/bumps.
I like the width too. I just SERIOUSLY need to break up with my superglides. Plus they sound like a sexual lubricant.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I thought the 2016 Kenjas were a little softer than last years. I thought it was a little softer snow friendly and lost some of its bite/edge grip from last year but still has a very respectable bite, kind of like last years Kenja mated with the Black Pearl.

 

[VickiK]

@KLovett , Get thyself onto new skis, you'll definitely have more fun.

 

[va_deb]

@KLovett In case you're interested in a bargain check out the Hells Belles here in 178: https://www.skiessentials.com/skis/.../2013-nordica-hell-s-belles-women-s-skis.html

I'm drooling b/c I wish they had them in my size.

 

[Olesya Chornoguz]

Here are my thoughts and advice:
First my stats for comparison: 6'1", weigh about 200 pounds. Level 7 out of 9 skier - low advanced. Not very aggressive skier, sometimes let loose and go fast, but usually pretty cautious. Length of skis I ski is 170-177 cm.

I think that Brahmas ski a lot like Kenjas. At least the 2015 Brahma I demoed skis like the 2013 Kenjas I own and love. I l0ved Brahmas when I demoed them and I would probably replace Kenjas with Brahmas at some point. The new Kenja is probably softer so maybe not as comparable to Brahma as the previous year Kenja models.

I demoed Black Pearls 2 years ago and while they were fun and very easy to ski, but I thought they were way too soft on hardpack. I also have heard other Divas saying something similar about BP, and some Divas already commented about this above. BP ski are waay softer than Brahmas and BP are probably better suited for soft snow/western skiing. The caveat here is that I demoed BP in 166 cm which is way too short for me, but 170 cm length in women's demo fleet was not available.

Yes, Brahmas are a burly/stiff ski but for someone heavier/more athletic they could be just right. Did they ever feel like they were a lot of work when you demoed them? Or were fun and the stiffness felt just right? Could be something to ponder. My first skis before Kenjas were soft K2 Superfree and I was also afraid to try stiff skis until by chance I demoed Kendo and bought Kenjas shortly thereafter.

The unisex skis that I did find too stiff/burly were Volkl RTM 84 and Blizzard Bonafide. Those felt like a lot of work.

 

[Serafina]

160 lb at 5'10" and heavy. You're so funny! I don't know who told you that's heavy at that height, but unless you have bones like a bird, they were lying.

I've given up on women-specific skis - they are either too soft for me, or they're not made sufficiently long for me. I had to go to unisex in order to get the performance I want. I'm closer to Olyesa's size, but a bit heavier, and unlike her I don't find the RTM 84s too much work - that's my regular ski. I don't know what length she tried out for those, though. My regular ones are a 166, and very maneuverable. I've also skied them in the 171 and found them to be totally fine. I don't have much regard for those heuristics about how long your skis should be in comparison to your body. I've tried long skis that were too soft, I've tried shorter skis that worked great. Ski length is also assessed by the same mystery rule that they use for sizing women's technical gear. I've got two pairs of mid-fats, from different makers, both labeled "168", but one of them is six INCHES longer than the other.

It matters what your ski style is, too. My Volkls are a little on the short side - not a ton, but a little - but my preferred ski style is short-radius turns in a pretty narrow track rather than big swooping GS turns. It's possible that if I wanted to take full advantage of the RTM 84s massive turning radius, I'd want to ski them longer. I ski narrow runs, so GS turns are not usually an option.

I would not wish to take my RTM 84s into the woods or the bumps. Not what they're built for. If you're a front-side skier in the east, you should check out one of the Head Supershape models. I just bought a pair of the Titans, found them to be a very fun ski and extremely suitable for our usual conditions. The Rally (slightly softer version) is pretty popular too. They're shockingly versatile. Ran into a guy on the lift who's got a pair that he takes into the woods and bumps all the time, said they perform incredibly well there too.

 

[Olesya Chornoguz]

Meant to add that Brahmas in 180 cm, might be too long, but Brahma in 17o cm might be jut right. I demoed Brahmas in 170, wouldn't want to go longer. I agree about unisex skis with @Serafina I am coming to the same conclusion lately.
I demoed RTM in 176 I think, could be it was a tad too long. I also don't charge/ski fast most of the time and perhaps RTM reward more aggressive/fast style of skiing. RTM have amazing edge grip though, the best in the skis I've ever tried.
I demoed a Head ski last year and really like it too, I think it was Head Rev Pro that I demoed.

 

[Serafina]

Meant to add that Brahmas in 180 cm, might be too long, but Brahma in 17o cm might be jut right. I demoed Brahmas in 170, wouldn't want to go longer. I agree about unisex skis with @Serafina I am coming to the same conclusion lately.
I demoed RTM in 176 I think, could be it was a tad too long. I also don't charge/ski fast most of the time and perhaps RTM reward more aggressive/fast style of skiing. RTM have amazing edge grip though, the best in the skis I've ever tried.
I demoed a Head ski last year and really like it too, I think it was Head Rev Pro that I demoed.

That would do it. I should think the RTM 84 in a 176 would be pretty difficult to manage. The 171 was as long as I'd want to go with that ski. And yes, they definitely reward aggressive and fast skiing. One of the many reasons I'm fond of short-radius turns is that I can drive my skis pretty hard that way without rocketing down the hill. If I need to ski slow-ish due to crowds, or funky conditions, or poor visibility, or skiing with Mr. S. it's the best way for me to use the RTMs. I was skiing with Mr. S. yesterday and he said the way I was using my skis, it looked almost like I was figure skating my way down the run. And the RTMs perform very well with that even though they weren't designed for it...but when I get the opportunity to really open it up and let them fly, they're so awesome at speed that it's perfectly heavenly. It's definitely one of those skis where if you don't ski it, it's going to ski you.

That's one of the really nice things about that Head Supershape line. I bought them as my Lazy Day skis, because while they definitely reward speed and power, they don't demand it. In fact, they barely even request it. This is the mellowest ski I've ever had when I'm using it softly and at fairly slow speeds. I'll probably switch to using it exclusively on those days when I expect to be skiing with Mr. S. since it's so groovy with sedate tracks down the hill.

The Head Titan doesn't have nearly the ice grip that the Volkl does, but the tradeoff is apparently general friendliness, and especially friendliness in the bumps. I read an Onthesnow review of this ski - the rated it extremely highly, but they commented that it was really weird because the ski didn't place first in any category...except for overall awesome experience.

I know you said you don't get to demo much at your bump, KLovett, but it might be worth going out of your way and skiing at a bigger area just to get the chance to try out some different sticks.