Volkl Aura 2012 and later

[mollmeister]

I am just going to pretend that I haven't been missing from here for a very long time (only lurking and seeing folks on FB) and pop back in with a question...

I have been avoiding buying new ski equipment because, well, life got in the way. We no longer live in CO (sob!) and have been dealing with money priorities like kids, a move, renovations, and the cost of getting back out west to ski (with a husband who no longer works in the resort industry, what with its price breaks and other bennies).

However, we have reached the point where I actually have to drop some cash on new boots and also need new planks. I am going to be watching late season sales and summer deals and previous year merch to see what I can find.

My question is this: How different are the newer, rocker-tipped Auras from their flat predecessors?

My workhorse has been, for many years now, the flat 2009 Aura (pink and black geishas). Have taken them everywhere (in western conditions), from crunchy groomers to bumps to trees, from unfortunate styrofoam in Highlands Bowl to thigh deep powder. They've done everything, and I love how they hold an edge, blast through crud, and float in the deeper stuff. Do they still perform similarly?

I am 5'2" on a good day, can range from about 112lbs to 118lbs, depending on how much I am running and/or lifting, and was skiing the 156 (and loving it) in the old, flat version. I worried that it would be too short at the time, but it was right for me in that Volkl. Felt very versatile-- could smear easily when needed and was only very occasionally chattery at really high speed on steeps. Should I be looking at 163 in the newer version? Has running length changed that much? Seems like a lot of ladies of similar size are skiing 163. Also, did anything change besides graphics from 2012/2013 to 2013/2014?

Thanks!

 

[volklgirl]

You'd think I'd be able to answer this question, but sadly I haven't been on the rockered version of the Aura or the Kiku.

I can, however, say that DH went from the flat Mantra to the rockered one and loves it even more than his old ones. Originals were 177 and rockers are 176 (or whatever size they come in now). I keep wondering why I'm still on the flat Aura, bsides the fact that they no longer make the 177. I'm feeling a bit gyped here.

No changes from 2013 to 2014 as far as I can tell.

 

[pinto]

I wouldn't rule out trying a 159 Samba, btw.

 

[mollmeister]

I wouldn't rule out trying a 159 Samba, btw.

I have heard from a couple people that they are pretty unforgiving, but these weren't people skiing Auras, they were on softer skis. Are they similar, or likable by people who have loved the Auras?

 

[pinto]

I have heard from a couple people that they are pretty unforgiving, but these weren't people skiing Auras, they were on softer skis. Are they similar, or likable by people who have loved the Auras?

Yeah, I think they are similar to the Aura, but actually even a little more versatile. I haven't skied them back to back, and I haven't skied the rockered Aura, so I'm maybe not the best to ask, but definitely give it a go. I loved that original Aura, and then I loved my Blizzards even a little more. If there was a 177 Samba, I would probably own it. But the 173 was just a little short. (I did have the 173 Bonafide for a while, and it is definitely a bit stiffer. I just wanted a little more length. )

I would at least try it, though. AND, I believe next year's version of the Aura is quite a bit different than the past couple of years, just fyi. Of course you can still find the previous version, but just a heads up.

 

[Pequenita]

Hi, stranger!

 

[SkiGAP]

I haven't been on the rockered Aura, only the rockered Kiku, and only 1 day so far. And yes, if they still made the Aura in 177, I'd be all over it.

 

[mollmeister]

Hi, stranger!

HI!

 

[geargrrl]

the 15 Aura is fully rockered. I want to try it too. Based on how much fun I had on my Kikus today, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[mustski]

I ski the 2012/2013 Aura. It is a very slight amount of rocker - early rise tip. They are easy to ski and if you like Volkl, you will love them. They handle everything from rock hard stuff with icy patches, to crud, to a foot or so of powder. I did take them in thigh deep powder once and miraculously skied it pretty well. I think it was maybe a fluke because I suck at powder. I didn't demo these before I bought them though I had demoed the "flat" predecessor. I only demoed them once so take this with a grain of salt ... I didn't notice much of a difference. The rockered version "seems" like it makes turn initiation easier. Volkl is completely changing the Aura for 2014/2015. It will be a different ski though from what my boot fitter told me - he thinks way better. I wonder if it will lose some of it's carve-ability.

I would say if you find a good deal, and you like Volkl, grab them while they are still available. Otherwise, wait for the new model.

 

[snow addict]

I had old, non-rockered Auras in 163, and if I were to buy the current model I would go for the same length. The rocker is not that pronounced, so I doubt they would ski much shorter, probably just an easier turn initiation. Also the sidecut has decreased to 20.2 m from 19 in 163 in a newer model. If you felt fine and wasn't missing any length on 156, I would stick with the same length, if you wished they were longer - go longer in a new model.

 

[lynseyf]

I have the old non rockered Aura in 177cm, I like it but find it hard work in heavy snow compared to rockered skis I have tried, I love it on piste, in soft cut up snow and it is fine in powder, do you think I would find the Cochise/Dakota hard work as well? It is so hard choosing a new ski when you have limited demo opportunities

 

[ski now work later]

I have the '08 Auras (old style) and I had the '12 Auras (rocker tip). I thought the new ones were great and only different in that it was a little easier to initate a turn. Then I fell in love with a pair of Kenjas. Now with kids in college, it's been 3 seasons since we've been able to travel West to ski and who knows when we will (I have another child who's a junior in high school so 2015 is going to be a double tuition year), so I'm just skiing the Kenjas now and sold my '12 Auras. I think you will like the newer Auras just fine though I don't know if they've changed since the '12 version.

 

[pinto]

I have the old non rockered Aura in 177cm, I like it but find it hard work in heavy snow compared to rockered skis I have tried, I love it on piste, in soft cut up snow and it is fine in powder, do you think I would find the Cochise/Dakota hard work as well? It is so hard choosing a new ski when you have limited demo opportunities

Cochise/Dakota is a dream in heavy snow. Just cuts right through it. They don't have camber, though, so are not as fun on groomers, imo; they hold an edge fine, can make big solid turns, but sorta blah. They need speed to shine, as well. Great in steep terrain.

 

[lucine]

Mollmeister, I too have the 2009 Auras and just spent a day demoing skis to replace them. I will post my reviews later. I did not get to ski the Aura, they are ridiculously difficult to find to demo, but demoed the kenja. I may commit a cardinal sin and buy the Auras 201 or 2013 version with out the demo. The Kenja was fun but I fear too narrow underfoot for my liking and snow conditions. I need the float.
The 2012 and 2013 are the same except for top sheet. Next year they are going wider-- 100 I think and fully rockered with tapered tail. Will it still be the Aura? I don't know.

 

[mollmeister]

Am I crazy to look at 156 Aura again, even with the rockered tip? At just barely 5'2" and somewhere in the 115lbs range, I found the old 156 really fun for me in most conditions over the last several years. Sometimes a wee bit short at speed and in steeper, wide open spots, but surprisingly easy in bumps and trees, given reviews. And I don't want to lose maneuverability. SkiDiva is similar in size, and she skis a 163-- am wondering if I should size up as I look at sales, etc. When I bought the last set, everyone pretty much said I could go either way. Don't want to make the wrong decision, especially as I will probably pull the trigger over the internet in the next few months.

 

[ski diva]

Yep, I have the 163, and really, the length is no problem for me at all. It's actually the longest ski I own, and I got that length because of the rocker. But be forewarned -- the new, '14/'15 Aura is a completely different ski. No camber at all, and rocker in the tip and tail. I don't think it'll ski the same as it did in the past, which will be a big disappointment for a lot of people here. Which one are you interested in?

BTW, my Auras are the 2012 model -- the one with the hummingbird on it -- and I agree with SKI magazine's assessment. It's a great ski for all sorts of conditions -- crud, ice, and powder -- but not particularly quick in small, tight areas. Maybe the 156's would be better in that regard?

 

[mollmeister]

I am thinking current model, not 14/15 to replace my really old ones. I am all about a sale ski in the off-season! I love them for their ability to blast through crud + decent float for someone my size, but I have found 156 to be pretty good crossover to bumps, etc. I have a feeling I would like the 163 better in big, steep, open, powder situations, but would lose some performance in bumps and the like. I just wasn't sure if the rockered tip would make it ski even shorter than the really old, non-rockered 156.

 

[Robyn]

I have no info but did a double-take when I saw your name mollmeister.

 

[mollmeister]

I have no info but did a double-take when I saw your name mollmeister.

Hah. Yeah, I have started dropping in from time to time again recently.