• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

Volkl Auras vs. Volkl Kenjas (2017 models)

SkiCA

Diva in Training
Hello SkiDivas,

I'm new to this site so I'm sorry if there's already a similar thread out there.

I currently own the 2015 Volkl Yumi 154 and am looking for a more powerful ski. I've found that the Yumis can't always go as fast as I want when I try to push them and are not completely stable when I try to go fast on steep runs or in variable snow conditions. I am 5'3, 120lbs, and consider myself a strong intermediate skier transitioning to advanced. I currently ski in SoCal; however, I'm moving to NorCal permanently which I believe has different conditions if anyone can speak to that.

I'm considering buying the Volkl Kenjas in a 156 or the Volkl Auras in a 156 or 163 (I've heard Auras ski short?) as they are currently on sale. Normally, I would demo these skis before purchasing but since the resorts have closed in SoCal that's not possible! Any advice as to which ski or length best fits would be awesome! :smile:
 

santacruz skier

Angel Diva
Hmm. I have an older pair of Kenjas (2011) in 149 (that I no longer ski) and I am 5'1. I don't think they ski short as pretty stiff ski. Mostly I ski 153 - ish depending on the ski and as long as 162 (Rossi Saffron 7's really did ski short).
 

elemmac

Angel Diva
Either way you'll get a more powerful and more stable ski than the Yumi. Between those two skis, I would think the Kenja is your "safe" option. Based on your description, I'd be surprised if you didn't enjoy it. And without demoing first, "safe" is always good IMO.

If you are looking something that will float better in powder, and cut through chop easier, the Aura is a great option. However, with the Aura, you'll be giving up some of the groomer/on-piste performance.

As for size, you could probably go either way on either ski, although I'd be more inclined to recommend the 163 on either one. This recommendation comes from your statement that you're a strong intermediate skier transitioning to advanced. You may find the 156 more comfortable now, but as your skills continue to improve, you may be finding yourself wanting more length.

There are TONS of threads here that have questions, answers and reviews about the Kenja, if you use the search tool, you're bound to find them pretty quickly.
 

mustski

Angel Diva
Hmm. I have an older pair of Kenjas (2011) in 149 (that I no longer ski) and I am 5'1. I don't think they ski short as pretty stiff ski. Mostly I ski 153 - ish depending on the ski and as long as 162 (Rossi Saffron 7's really did ski short).

This is true of the older model Kenja, however the 2016 &2017 have the early rise tips which make them ski shorter than older models. Size the same as you would for any ski with tip rocker.

Either way you'll get a more powerful and more stable ski than the Yumi. Between those two skis, I would think the Kenja is your "safe" option. Based on your description, I'd be surprised if you didn't enjoy it. And without demoing first, "safe" is always good
I would add that if you have heard great things about the Aura from earlier seasons, this is a changed ski. It is definitely mire off piste biased than it's predecessor. The "new" Kenja is very similar to the "old" Aura.

I believe that either the 156 or the 163 wound serve you well. You are pretty much on the cusp of the 2 sizes and this is a VERY stable ski.
 

santacruz skier

Angel Diva
Good point @mustski . My older Kenjas are not rockered and a pretty heavy ski. The newer Kenjas are a very different ski.
 

SheSki

Certified Ski Diva
If you are looking something that will float better in powder, and cut through chop easier, the Aura is a great option. However, with the Aura, you'll be giving up some of the groomer/on-piste performance.
I disagree, with the caveat that I'm on the 2013 Kenja. I demoed the new Aura and found them to be as good on the groomers as my current Kenja. And they were the bomb in the trees. I'm buying them to replace my Kenja-daily-drivers.
Also, @SkiCA I'm about the same height 5'4" and heavier than you at ~150, and I preferred the 163 v. 170, but liked both.
 

SkiCA

Diva in Training
Thank you all divas for your input! I ended up going with the Auras since I would be skiing in NorCal which tends to get lots of fresh powder and I like to ski off piste about 60% of the time. I'm also glad to hear it's great on groomers too @SheSki. I went with the 156s because I figured the effective edge wouldn't ski too much shorter (if any) than my tip rocketed 154s in softer snow conditions. I also love skiing through the trees.

On a different note, I know most people on here are gear heads, but if anyone on a budget is interested, Evo has the 2016 Auras in 156 on sale for $350 including taxes and free shipping!

https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/vol...9/408495/volkl-aura-skis-women-s-2016-156.jpg

:smile:
 

volklgirl

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I also found the fully rockered, 100 mm Auras to be as good on the groomers as the old, unrockered, 94 mm version.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,633
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top