Nordica Santa Ana 93

[ski diva]

I skied the Santa Ana 93 today and fell in love.




And I see that Lisamamot did, too (you can find her review here). I agree with her completely. This is one very fun ski. Granted, conditions today were very firm, as is typical to the East, with not a lot of soft stuff around. And no, I did not take them into the bumps (the only ones around were rock hard ice bombs. Forget it.). What impressed me, however, was the playfulness of the ski. It has tremendous energy and rebound; you can feel yourself shooting out of the turn and launching into the next one. And even though it has a 93 waist, it still grips the hard pack like no one's business. Super stable, easy to turn, and not hard to look at, either (I love the color). If I was going to replace my beloved Hell's Belles, this is the one I'd do it with.

Stats: 124-93-112
Turning Radius: 15.5
Core: wood
Sidewall construction

I'm an advanced, Eastern skier, and I skied the 153.

 

[santacruz skier]

@ski diva We're similar stats (you're probably a better skier) except I ski in the West...
I want to try both the Nordica Santa Ana 93 and 100. Did you think they ski short? I'm leaning towards demoing the 153 as well.

 

[RachelV]

I use the 100 as my 1-ski quiver in Colorado and echo everything @ski diva said -- super fun & energetic ski. I think they ski pretty true to length.

 

[lisamamot]

Turning Radius: 15.5

And that 15.5 turn radius is for the 169 ...only 16.5 in the 177! The turn radius on the 153 is 12.5. WOW.

@RachelV , have you also skied the new Santa Ana 93? I hear perhaps the 100 and the 93 ski a bit differently...perhaps the increased width makes the 100 ski truer to size? I only say this because for the first time I truly felt I could size up from the 169 to the 177.

 

[RachelV]

@RachelV , have you also skied the new Santa Ana 93? I hear perhaps the 100 and the 93 ski a bit differently...perhaps the increased width makes the 100 ski truer to size? I only say this because for the first time I truly felt I could size up from the 169 to the 177.

I haven't skied the 93. Sorry -- I saw "Santa Ana" in the thread title and couldn't help but express my enthusiasm for my pair.

 

[santacruz skier]

@RachelV I am planning on trying the Santa Ana 100 in a 153 but others said it skis short. You're saying not really? I literally almost bought a pair for a good price in a 153 but thought I should really try them first.

 

[contesstant]

I'm with RachelV and love my Santa Ana 100s, LOVE them! Agree with everything that was said about the energy and pop, yet they are SO playful and easy, they are really elevating my game in the crud and chop and powder! I can demo the 93s on my hill, and plan to do so just to compare. I personally think they ski a tad short, or at least in comparison to the Sambas in a 166, I feel that the 169 SAs are easier and ski a tad shorter. 169 would typically be quite a lot of ski for me, yet, these are easy peasy!

(We just got a huge powder dump, I cannot WAIT to get out on them tomorrow )

 

[bounceswoosh]

@RachelV I am planning on trying the Santa Ana 100 in a 153 but others said it skis short. You're saying not really? I literally almost bought a pair for a good price in a 153 but thought I should really try them first.

I gotta admit, I have no idea what people mean when they say a ski "skis short."

 

[santacruz skier]

I gotta admit, I have no idea what people mean when they say a ski "skis short."

apparently it has something to do with the contact on the snow.....

 

[santacruz skier]

I'm with RachelV and love my Santa Ana 100s, LOVE them! Agree with everything that was said about the energy and pop, yet they are SO playful and easy, they are really elevating my game in the crud and chop and powder! I can demo the 93s on my hill, and plan to do so just to compare. I personally think they ski a tad short, or at least in comparison to the Sambas in a 166, I feel that the 169 SAs are easier and ski a tad shorter. 169 would typically be quite a lot of ski for me, yet, these are easy peasy!

(We just got a huge powder dump, I cannot WAIT to get out on them tomorrow )

You may have liked the Samba in the 159 better. I have the 152 and think they are an absolute blast.

 

[bounceswoosh]

apparently it has something to do with the contact on the snow.....

The "rockered skis ski short" thing only applies to running length. So if that's all people mean, maybe so. But it does not seem to me that the Santa Ana is crazy rockered. I guess it just depends on what you're used to.

 

[santacruz skier]

The "rockered skis ski short" thing only applies to running length. So if that's all people mean, maybe so. But it does not seem to me that the Santa Ana is crazy rockered. I guess it just depends on what you're used to.

Yeah I have the Rossi Saffron 7 in a 162 and it has tip/tail rise but not super rockered. It was the shortest length available and I demoed in 2015 and bought it, but was never quite convinced about the skiing short business. I'm fine on them, but remember skied as long as 180's years ago and i'm only 5'1.

 

[contesstant]

apparently it has something to do with the contact on the snow.....

Entirely possible. I liked them well enough, I just found them to wear me out after awhile. But, I'm very happy with my Santa Anas so won't be changing those anytime soon!

 

[santacruz skier]

Entirely possible. I liked them well enough, I just found them to wear me out after awhile. But, I'm very happy with my Santa Anas so won't be changing those anytime soon!

No reason to! I will try the Santa Ana this year just for the heck of it! I'm going to Tahoe next week but will probably not try them early season....thinking about what ski to take to europe in february.... or demo there..... ok I digress.

 

[WaterGirl]

I gotta admit, I have no idea what people mean when they say a ski "skis short."

well, it just feels like you need to get on the next size up

 

[bounceswoosh]

well, it just feels like you need to get on the next size up

Okay - I guess what I mean is, I've never encountered a ski in "my" preferred ski range that felt short for its length. Maybe I did, but I interpreted it as some other flaw.

 

[Kimmyt]

I skied the 93 yesterday. I have skied the 100 in the past (169).Sadly due to placement of the demo binding I couldn't actually confirm the size of the 93 that I rode on (demo shop owner wasn't certain which I thought odd). I have a feeling that it was the 161, because it felt and looked really short. The surprising thing about the 93 in a 161 is that it still felt really stable in larger medium speed turns, I noticed it lost that stability in powerful short turns that were a little higher in speed and it did have a lower speed limit. I think in general it felt really similar to the 100 in terms of dampness and stability and ease of skiing.

 

[ski diva]

@ski diva We're similar stats (you're probably a better skier) except I ski in the West...
I want to try both the Nordica Santa Ana 93 and 100. Did you think they ski short? I'm leaning towards demoing the 153 as well.

Sorry; I just saw this.

I don't think it skied too short -- at least for me. Then again, tomorrow I'm heading to another demo day, this time at Killington. I plan to try it in a couple different sizes there, so we'll see how I feel then.

 

[lisamamot]

I skied the Santa Ana 93 169 at a demo on Friday. It is the first time I have been on a ski where I thought pretty quickly, wow, I want try a longer size...that next length would be outside my usual preference of the high 160's to the low 170's. I am confident I would be very happy on the Santa Ana 93 177 and I have never skied something that long. Just wondering how much I can translate that to the Santa Ana 100, but that is for me to puzzle out...I have as much info as I need without being able to ski it.

The combined 30% rocker on the Santa Ana is more than I have ever skied. Even on my twin tip Elysian, the combined rocker is 25% - I know I could handle the Elysian a bit longer too. In my stiff, pretty much no rocker Blizzard 810 ti iq, I could go a few cm longer than the 167, but really have no desire or need to...plus, that is the longest it was made in so I would have had to do the men's, which I found too stiff.

I agree, if you have always skied a similar type of ski in terms of rocker percentage, then perhaps the "skiing short" doesn't click.

If I take the 5% of the Elysian length that is not rocker, 8cm, and add that to the length of the Elysian, there is a 176 cm ski..perhaps similar to the 177 Santa Ana 93 or 100. Even if we say the extended effective edge is only important on hard pack, the extra length helps in flotation and stability too.

I marvel that I agonize so much about the next step up in ski length.....8 cm is 3", lol.

 

[bounceswoosh]

I agree, if you have always skied a similar type of ski in terms of rocker percentage, then perhaps the "skiing short" doesn't click.

I think it's also terrain. The impact of rocker on ski length is only relevant when on edge. If you smear a lot, it's not a factor. You still get fore/aft stability, and it's still just as long when you hit a stump with your tip.