Help Needed: Skis similar to Blizzard Black Pearl

[claire030]

Ladies, I recently demo'ed three pairs of skis but not 100% happy about either, so looking for ski recommendations here.
For reference, I am 5'6, 120lbs, intermediate skier, and trying all three pairs in similar lengths ~159. Demo'ed at Snowbird UT on relatively icy / firm snow condition :(

- Dynastar E pro 85: they were okay but not super impressed, felt sliding down on icy slopes
- Blizzard Black Pearl 97: loved how they feel, easy to turn despite the wide waist, and stayed stable on icy slopes
- Black Crows Camox Birdie: easy to maneuver and make turns but also felt a little sliding on icy slopes

Loved everything about the Blizzard BP except the topsheet design. So looking for recommendations here for skis similar to BP.
Skis I'm interested in include:
- Nordica Santa Ana
- Faction Dancer
- Fischer Ranger
- Black Crows Captis Birdie
Anyone has comments on either of these? Ofc other recommendations are highly appreciated as well!

I have another pair of narrow skis for on piste / East Coast skiing, so really looking for an all mountain pair for UT/CO mountains. How should I think about waist width? For example, do BP 97 and BP 88 make a huge difference?

Thank you!

 

[Chuyi]

For your style of skiing BP97 is probably too wide. It's harder to go from edge to edge. Santa ana have been revised for 2024 & the new skis will be available on Feb 1. It may be worth demo SA88 or SA93 in softer stuff.

 

[contesstant]

You need to demo in the conditions you want the skis for. The Black Pearl 97 can be a handful of a ski for an intermediate. There are a lot of factors that can make one ski seem better than another, including conditions. Do you like to make long turns, or short? Do you like to ski fast, or more slow and controlled?

 

[marzNC]

For reference, I am 5'6, 120lbs, intermediate skier, and trying all three pairs in similar lengths ~159. Demo'ed at Snowbird UT on relatively icy / firm snow condition :(

What were your favorite trails at Snowbird that day? Do you ever ski black trails out west? Have you tried any skis that are a bit longer?

When I was an adventurous intermediate, my all-mountain skis for trips out west were mid-70s underfoot. I've become a solid advanced skier (lessons plus lots of time on snow) in the last decade. I've been quite happy with skis that are mid-80s underfoot. I'm petite and my skis are 159cm. As an intermediate I used skis that were 150-155cm, shorter for my home hill in the southeast.

I demo'd the BP97 at the Alta Demo Day in April 2022. Agree that they fun on groomers. I also enjoyed the BP82 that day. I checked them out on the same groomer (Mambo) on the Collins side.

 

[tinymoose]

You may also want to consider trying the Faction Agent. I'm not sure how stiff the Dancer is with the titanal in it, but the Agent is basically the same ski shape-wise as the Dancer but with carbon instead of metal so it's lighter and less stiff. I found the Agent and the Black Pearls do be similar as far as stiffness. I will say I think the tail of the BP's was flatter and felt stiffer than those on the Agent, so they may have felt a bit grippier overall than the Agents. The BP definitely felt like a more piste-oriented ski than the Agent so I think it all comes down to what you want to use them for.

Also, fwiw, I tried the BP 88... not the 97.

 

[JayZeeSquared]

Love my SA88s - holds great in ice, a crud buster, fun solid ski. I skied them in thigh deep powder and they did fine (I'm petite) but they are clearly not a powder ski.

Maybe check out Head Total Joy, Volkl Blaze 86

 

[Analisa]

Before getting into recommendations, I want to talk through what you tried, because I think your demo list is very diverse and I can totally see why you haven't landed on a winner, but I think it'll give us really good clues on where to go next:

1. The Dynastar E Pro 85 is a beginnermediate ski. It's a mix of wood and composite PU core, which makes it a softer ski, and a nice little step for people transitioning from fully composite/foam core rental skis into with a little more room for growth. There's a titanal frame, but it's a little sprinkle of metal. Weight-wise, it still sits alongside skis like the Maven 86 (non-C version) or Pandora 84. At 5'6, I like that this is the middle of 3 sizes for the size run. At a little over average height, I think a safe place to start on length is the middle size or slightly longer (like the 3rd size of 4 options), but I think this is a good ski for a former version of yourself when you had weaker skills. That slide-y feeling on ice is likely related to the fact that you can overpower it.

2. Black Pearl 97 is the heaviest, burliest all mountain ski on the market for women. As @contesstant mentioned, it can be a lot of ski for an intermediate. I think the thing that made it easy and fun was the length and going for the 2nd of 5 sizes. This makes the ski more accessible, but you're also losing a lot of surface area for float if this is going to be your all-mountain-west ski that can handle soft conditions. I'm also not sure if moguls are a priority for this ski or if you rode it in the bumps, but that stiff tail can be a lot to flex through bumps. I like the metal laminate, but I think we can go a little softer in the flex in a similar model, but then maintain all that stability by adding a little more length and get the best of all worlds.

3. Black Crows Camox Birdie: This is a wood and fiberglass ski and designed to be very flexy. It's not "mushy" soft, more elastic. It's meant to bend really deeply, and then when you release the ski, it slingshots back with a lot of energy. I'm obsessed with that sensation (the wider Atris is one of my favorite skis). It's easy to bend in soft snow when I can't get the same leverage compared to hardpack. It can flex into all sorts of turn sizes and shapes skiing in the trees. But that lighter weight and softness comes at a price for stability in crud. It also has a lot of rocker in the tail, which isn't in contact with the snow when you're on hardpack, so it loses effective edge and skis shorter. That effective edge makes things feel secure and stable when things are icy. I don't know if these are the skis for you, but I think you'd have a better experience on the 168 (3rd size of 4)

In terms of what I'd recommend, I'd go with a ski that has titanal like the Pearl, but either uses partial sheets or razor thin sheets. You'll get a flex that's accessible to you as an intermediate, but will also provide plenty of room for growth. I'm thinking Sheeva 9, Santa Ana 93, Nordica Unleashed 98, Armada Reliance 92Ti, Fischer Ranger 90/96, Dynastar E Pro 99 (much heavier than the 85/90) or Faction Dancer 2/2X. Some of those also have a little more twin-tipped tails like the Camox Birdie if you're looking for a best of both worlds. Happy to deep dive any/all of these if you're trying to get a sense of the softest / strongest / strengths of each ski / recs on length.

 

[contesstant]

I'm absolutely smitten with my 2024 Sheeva 9s. Way more user friendly than the BP97, super versatile. Not as stable but they make me want to ski the trees

 

[lisamamot]

I'm absolutely smitten with my 2024 Sheeva 9s. Way more user friendly than the BP97, super versatile. Not as stable but they make me want to ski the trees

The charm of the Sheeva 9! I get this from the original version, but I haven't been on the new one yet.

 

[claire030]

Before getting into recommendations, I want to talk through what you tried, because I think your demo list is very diverse and I can totally see why you haven't landed on a winner, but I think it'll give us really good clues on where to go next:

1. The Dynastar E Pro 85 is a beginnermediate ski. It's a mix of wood and composite PU core, which makes it a softer ski, and a nice little step for people transitioning from fully composite/foam core rental skis into with a little more room for growth. There's a titanal frame, but it's a little sprinkle of metal. Weight-wise, it still sits alongside skis like the Maven 86 (non-C version) or Pandora 84. At 5'6, I like that this is the middle of 3 sizes for the size run. At a little over average height, I think a safe place to start on length is the middle size or slightly longer (like the 3rd size of 4 options), but I think this is a good ski for a former version of yourself when you had weaker skills. That slide-y feeling on ice is likely related to the fact that you can overpower it.

2. Black Pearl 97 is the heaviest, burliest all mountain ski on the market for women. As @contesstant mentioned, it can be a lot of ski for an intermediate. I think the thing that made it easy and fun was the length and going for the 2nd of 5 sizes. This makes the ski more accessible, but you're also losing a lot of surface area for float if this is going to be your all-mountain-west ski that can handle soft conditions. I'm also not sure if moguls are a priority for this ski or if you rode it in the bumps, but that stiff tail can be a lot to flex through bumps. I like the metal laminate, but I think we can go a little softer in the flex in a similar model, but then maintain all that stability by adding a little more length and get the best of all worlds.

3. Black Crows Camox Birdie: This is a wood and fiberglass ski and designed to be very flexy. It's not "mushy" soft, more elastic. It's meant to bend really deeply, and then when you release the ski, it slingshots back with a lot of energy. I'm obsessed with that sensation (the wider Atris is one of my favorite skis). It's easy to bend in soft snow when I can't get the same leverage compared to hardpack. It can flex into all sorts of turn sizes and shapes skiing in the trees. But that lighter weight and softness comes at a price for stability in crud. It also has a lot of rocker in the tail, which isn't in contact with the snow when you're on hardpack, so it loses effective edge and skis shorter. That effective edge makes things feel secure and stable when things are icy. I don't know if these are the skis for you, but I think you'd have a better experience on the 168 (3rd size of 4)

In terms of what I'd recommend, I'd go with a ski that has titanal like the Pearl, but either uses partial sheets or razor thin sheets. You'll get a flex that's accessible to you as an intermediate, but will also provide plenty of room for growth. I'm thinking Sheeva 9, Santa Ana 93, Nordica Unleashed 98, Armada Reliance 92Ti, Fischer Ranger 90/96, Dynastar E Pro 99 (much heavier than the 85/90) or Faction Dancer 2/2X. Some of those also have a little more twin-tipped tails like the Camox Birdie if you're looking for a best of both worlds. Happy to deep dive any/all of these if you're trying to get a sense of the softest / strongest / strengths of each ski / recs on length.

Such a detailed analysis! I think your read on my demo list was fairly accurate. It does seem like I should try something softer than BP but more stable than Black Crows I tried.

Interesting how several of you mentioned longer lengths... these demos were brought to me by the rental center so I never thought about requesting a longer pair. So at my level should I be looking for skis at my height? In the case where my height falls between the length stack (e.g. Faction Dancer has 163 or 171, Armada Reliance has 164 or 172), should I consider the shorter or the longer one?

Could you elaborate on "partial sheets or razor thin sheets"? What does that mean? What are usually the key words I should look for on retailers/websites?

Within your recs, how do Sheeva 9, Nordica Unleased 98, Fischer Ranger 90/96, Faction Dancer 2x compare in flex / stability / etc.? Ideally I want something 50/50 that performs on solid conditions but also capable of handling bumps and trees.

 

[Analisa]

For length, I take a slightly different approach than most online guides. Brands want to plan their sizes to appeal to the majority of women skiers. It maximizes their revenue. If they make their sizes too big or too small for the bell curve of skiers, there's significantly less demand:



Now, we need to determine where you fall on the bell curve. The average woman in the US is 5'4, but the ski market also includes a lot of Western European countries (who tend to be 5'5 to 5'6 on average). So height-wise, you're a smidgen to the right of center. Taking in skill and force put on a ski, as an intermediate, I wouldn't shift you up or down from there. (I'd plot myself in the same spot at 5'4 / advanced-expert). I usually land in the middle-of-3 sizes, or the 3rd-longest-of-4. From there, I look at the number and range of sizes. So for a piste-carver-groomer ski, that puts me around a 160 ski. For my powder skis, I'm in the mid-170s. I let the manufacturer's size range kinda tell me what that final number should be. (But I do think for most 90-something skis, approx head height is also a great starting ballpark).

In terms of "partial sheet / razor thin" titanal, titanal used to always be used in 2 moderately thick sheets that made for really burly, heavy skis. But brands realized that titanal absorbs a lot of vibration and can come in handy in smaller doses, and still be accessible to intermediate and advanced skiers and deliver that smooth, stable riding experience.

So "smaller doses" looks different for different brands. Liberty uses the least metal. They use 1 string down the length of the ski (that darker grey line in the circled "1" mark)



Then for the Sheeva, Blizzard uses metal down the outer edges of the ski (the dark grey on the outside border). The inner, lighter grey square underfoot is fiberglass. The black stripes extending towards the tips and tails are carbon fiber.




Then the Santa Ana uses more metal. It almost covers the entire ski, but it nips in in the shovels and through the waist of the ski.



Generally, the more metal in a ski, the more it weighs, and the more demanding the ski is. So here's the 90-something skis with titanal by weight in a mid-160s size:

Liberty Genesis 96 (1600)
Nordica Unleashed 98 (1620)
Armada Reliance 92Ti (1625)
Stockli Nela 96 (1650)
Ranger 90? (Ballparking this one based on longer lengths)
Faction Dancer 2X (1660)
Dynastar E Pro 99 (1700)
Ranger 96? (Just going on vibes)
Blizzard Sheeva 9 (1765)
Salomon Stance 94 (1690)
Nordica Santa Ana 93 (1715)
Nordica Santa Ana 98 (1820)
Volkl Secret 96 (1840)
K2 Mindbender 99 Ti (1887)
Blizzard Black Pearl 97 (1900)

For reference, a 168 Camox Birdie is 1575g, so the Genesis and Unleashed are going to be much more like a sized up Camox than the stability you liked from the Pearl 97. I'd say most women in this forum (and in the broader market) land somewhere in the "Nela to Santa Ana 93" part of the spectrum. That range may look really wide, but it's 65 grams. The SA93's only 4% heavier than the Nela. It's a crowded competitive field. But it's crowded for a reason. A lot of the best selling women's skis fall in that section of the list. They're stable when we're skiing terrain where we're fast & confident. But they're also easy enough for when we're in challenging terrain. They're able to make tighter turns in trees and bumps. And they like a forward, confident stance, but if terrain's intimidating and you want to shift into the backseat and take any falls on your hips or bum, they'll be kinda compliant.

Happy to break down sizing from there, but also realize I've written a small novel so far, so happy to break it up a bit and try to stick to digestible "bites."

 

[contesstant]

The charm of the Sheeva 9! I get this from the original version, but I haven't been on the new one yet.

I honestly have no doubt you will love them.

 

[mintzcole]

Try the Salomon Stance! I just bought a pair in 84 at 159 (I'm 5'1 135lb). I demo'd a bunch of skis and fell in love with these. I thought the BP88 were a bit to soft for me and the SA88 were a bit too stiff. The Stance's come in an 88 width also. The Stances have titanal with a carbon window. They also have a nice top sheet.

 

[mustski]

I tested the Salomon Stance 88 and it is a blast. It holds an edge tenaciously but is super poppy while still being damp. It's a really interesting ski. The more you drive the ski, the more it gives back. The rebound is a hoot and it is super energetic underfoot. It is one that I want to take out again in some soft bumps and trees. I skied it early season and there were only a handful of bumps around but it did really well.

 

[mintzcole]

I tested the Salomon Stance 88 and it is a blast. It holds an edge tenaciously but is super poppy while still being damp. It's a really interesting ski. The more you drive the ski, the more it gives back. The rebound is a hoot and it is super energetic underfoot. It is one that I want to take out again in some soft bumps and trees. I skied it early season and there were only a handful of bumps around but it did really well.

I feel the same way. I think this is a skin that I’m going to continue to develop and feel confident taking any place.

 

[claire030]

For length, I take a slightly different approach than most online guides. Brands want to plan their sizes to appeal to the majority of women skiers. It maximizes their revenue. If they make their sizes too big or too small for the bell curve of skiers, there's significantly less demand:

View attachment 22330

Now, we need to determine where you fall on the bell curve. The average woman in the US is 5'4, but the ski market also includes a lot of Western European countries (who tend to be 5'5 to 5'6 on average). So height-wise, you're a smidgen to the right of center. Taking in skill and force put on a ski, as an intermediate, I wouldn't shift you up or down from there. (I'd plot myself in the same spot at 5'4 / advanced-expert). I usually land in the middle-of-3 sizes, or the 3rd-longest-of-4. From there, I look at the number and range of sizes. So for a piste-carver-groomer ski, that puts me around a 160 ski. For my powder skis, I'm in the mid-170s. I let the manufacturer's size range kinda tell me what that final number should be. (But I do think for most 90-something skis, approx head height is also a great starting ballpark).

In terms of "partial sheet / razor thin" titanal, titanal used to always be used in 2 moderately thick sheets that made for really burly, heavy skis. But brands realized that titanal absorbs a lot of vibration and can come in handy in smaller doses, and still be accessible to intermediate and advanced skiers and deliver that smooth, stable riding experience.

So "smaller doses" looks different for different brands. Liberty uses the least metal. They use 1 string down the length of the ski (that darker grey line in the circled "1" mark)

View attachment 22331

Then for the Sheeva, Blizzard uses metal down the outer edges of the ski (the dark grey on the outside border). The inner, lighter grey square underfoot is fiberglass. The black stripes extending towards the tips and tails are carbon fiber.

View attachment 22332


Then the Santa Ana uses more metal. It almost covers the entire ski, but it nips in in the shovels and through the waist of the ski.
View attachment 22333


Generally, the more metal in a ski, the more it weighs, and the more demanding the ski is. So here's the 90-something skis with titanal by weight in a mid-160s size:

Liberty Genesis 96 (1600)
Nordica Unleashed 98 (1620)
Armada Reliance 92Ti (1625)
Stockli Nela 96 (1650)
Ranger 90? (Ballparking this one based on longer lengths)
Faction Dancer 2X (1660)
Dynastar E Pro 99 (1700)
Ranger 96? (Just going on vibes)
Blizzard Sheeva 9 (1765)
Salomon Stance 94 (1690)
Nordica Santa Ana 93 (1715)
Nordica Santa Ana 98 (1820)
Volkl Secret 96 (1840)
K2 Mindbender 99 Ti (1887)
Blizzard Black Pearl 97 (1900)

For reference, a 168 Camox Birdie is 1575g, so the Genesis and Unleashed are going to be much more like a sized up Camox than the stability you liked from the Pearl 97. I'd say most women in this forum (and in the broader market) land somewhere in the "Nela to Santa Ana 93" part of the spectrum. That range may look really wide, but it's 65 grams. The SA93's only 4% heavier than the Nela. It's a crowded competitive field. But it's crowded for a reason. A lot of the best selling women's skis fall in that section of the list. They're stable when we're skiing terrain where we're fast & confident. But they're also easy enough for when we're in challenging terrain. They're able to make tighter turns in trees and bumps. And they like a forward, confident stance, but if terrain's intimidating and you want to shift into the backseat and take any falls on your hips or bum, they'll be kinda compliant.

Happy to break down sizing from there, but also realize I've written a small novel so far, so happy to break it up a bit and try to stick to digestible "bites."

Felt like learning from an essay Very detailed explanation of the metal/construction/weight. I am now narrowing my list to Faction dancer 2x in 163 and Fischer ranger 96 in 166 (or 159?) - Curious to see your thoughts!
Also just saw that Blizzard is coming out with new BP designs for next season so maybe I should put BP 88 and 94 back to my list? Realize I'm asking tons of questions & really appreciate your answers!

 

[claire030]

Try the Salomon Stance! I just bought a pair in 84 at 159 (I'm 5'1 135lb). I demo'd a bunch of skis and fell in love with these. I thought the BP88 were a bit to soft for me and the SA88 were a bit too stiff. The Stance's come in an 88 width also. The Stances have titanal with a carbon window. They also have a nice top sheet.

Great to hear your experience on the Stance! I'll look into these as well!