Advice on Skis! Blizzard Black Pearl 97 vs. Nordica Santa Ana 98

[badger1993]

Hi! I need some advice on skis!

I demoed the Santa Ana 93 (151) while I was in whistler and loved them! but then we had a few big powder days and I wanted to try a wider ski in those conditions so I switched to the Blizzard Black Pearl 97 (153). I really liked the black pearl but felt they didn't have the same "bounce"/energy when carving/turning. Otherwise, I really loved them. I ended up buying the Santa Ana 98's 2024 (151) without trying them because I could get them heavily discounted in Whistler ($200 for brand new skis!) but I am just a little nervous about having bought them without trying.

Do you think I made the right call based on your experience? Of note, I am 5'3 and an intermediate/advanced skier (mostly blues and blacks) in Seattle Washington. I ski west coast - mostly Stevens/Crystal on weekends and go to Whistler for 1 week a year - I also have friends I visit in Colorado to ski with. I feel more comfortably on a wider ski, but I want a ski that can handle both powder days and ice/slush. I ski mostly groomers (about 75% groomers and 25% off piste) but I know that on our more powder/snow days out here, sometimes our groomers don't stay that "groomed".

I found someone selling slightly used Black Pearl 97's (153) and am wondering if I should buy these and return my Santa Ana 98's before I mount them. I just can't decide what to do and would really appreciate any input!

 

[Analisa]

I'd stick with the Santa Anas. The Pearls are 100g heavier and use full sheets of titanal that span the entire ski, and then adds carbon stringers. Titanal makes a ski stiffer and "damper" (won't feel as many vibrations from chunky, inconsistent snow conditions). And then the carbon makes the ski even stiffer. The mount point is also further back on the ski and the tails are stiffer, meaning that the pearls need you to lean forward and bend the tips & shovels on the ski. If you take more of a defensive stance & lean back in challenging terrain to take falls with your hips & rear, they won't bend & turn as easily. You didn't mention what your progression goals were, but the Santa Ana's will be a little more amenable for terrain where you're intimidated.

Meanwhile, the Santa Anas use "terrain specific metal," or a partial sheet that's subtly hour glass shaped and not quite edge-to-edge through the middle of the ski. They also skip any carbon laminates. It cuts a little bit of stiffness & dampness, but that flex & release give the ski that pop / bounce / bend-&-snap sensation from turn to turn. That softer flex & more forward mount will also make the ski a little more nimble as you push your comfort zone. They're still on the stiffer / burlier / less forgiving side of the spectrum, but if 75% of your skiing is on piste where it sounds like you're very capable & confident, something "moderately burly" makes a lot of sense. The 98 & 93 also have really similar flex profiles and shapes, so if you liked one, it's almost guaranteed you'll like the other. I've got the 2nd gen 93 & 110 Free, and have done laps on the 3rd & 4th gen, and they remain really similar. (Not always the case with lines sharing a name!)

I also do a lot of gear consults here in the PNW, and I do like to take the time to speak to the limitations of a ski & when it might be wrong match for someone. If you're looking to really push your comfort zone and spend a lot less time on groomers & spend a lot of time in the trees or getting up on Crystal's Chair 6 or Stevens's 7th Heaven, there are easier, more nimble options like the Sheeva 10 or Nordica Unleashed that use even less metal / are softer / bump that mount point forward for an easier package. You also may grow out of the 151 at some point. I generally try to match intermediate-advanced women to roughly head height on an all-mountain ski. If you're an every weekend skier & progressing really quickly, you may want to reconsider size. A 158 would be a little less nimble, but offer more stability and better float. But also, they're $200, resale super easily, and hold their value. There's really no risk to mounting your 151s and skiing them & loving them as long as they serve you, whether that's 1 season or 5.

 

[badger1993]

I'd stick with the Santa Anas. The Pearls are 100g heavier and use full sheets of titanal that span the entire ski, and then adds carbon stringers. Titanal makes a ski stiffer and "damper" (won't feel as many vibrations from chunky, inconsistent snow conditions). And then the carbon makes the ski even stiffer. The mount point is also further back on the ski and the tails are stiffer, meaning that the pearls need you to lean forward and bend the tips & shovels on the ski. If you take more of a defensive stance & lean back in challenging terrain to take falls with your hips & rear, they won't bend & turn as easily. You didn't mention what your progression goals were, but the Santa Ana's will be a little more amenable for terrain where you're intimidated.

Meanwhile, the Santa Anas use "terrain specific metal," or a partial sheet that's subtly hour glass shaped and not quite edge-to-edge through the middle of the ski. They also skip any carbon laminates. It cuts a little bit of stiffness & dampness, but that flex & release give the ski that pop / bounce / bend-&-snap sensation from turn to turn. That softer flex & more forward mount will also make the ski a little more nimble as you push your comfort zone. They're still on the stiffer / burlier / less forgiving side of the spectrum, but if 75% of your skiing is on piste where it sounds like you're very capable & confident, something "moderately burly" makes a lot of sense. The 98 & 93 also have really similar flex profiles and shapes, so if you liked one, it's almost guaranteed you'll like the other. I've got the 2nd gen 93 & 110 Free, and have done laps on the 3rd & 4th gen, and they remain really similar. (Not always the case with lines sharing a name!)

I also do a lot of gear consults here in the PNW, and I do like to take the time to speak to the limitations of a ski & when it might be wrong match for someone. If you're looking to really push your comfort zone and spend a lot less time on groomers & spend a lot of time in the trees or getting up on Crystal's Chair 6 or Stevens's 7th Heaven, there are easier, more nimble options like the Sheeva 10 or Nordica Unleashed that use even less metal / are softer / bump that mount point forward for an easier package. You also may grow out of the 151 at some point. I generally try to match intermediate-advanced women to roughly head height on an all-mountain ski. If you're an every weekend skier & progressing really quickly, you may want to reconsider size. A 158 would be a little less nimble, but offer more stability and better float. But also, they're $200, resale super easily, and hold their value. There's really no risk to mounting your 151s and skiing them & loving them as long as they serve you, whether that's 1 season or 5.

wow! thank you so much for all the detailed information. I really appreciate it! The more I have read, the more I feel good about my Santa Ana's - it's just hard to feel confident about my purchase since I haven't skied the 98's before. Do they feel similar to the Santa Ana 93's? (obviously wider, but anything else worth noting?). Im hoping the 98's feel just as good as the 93's did on groomers (but even better than the 93's felt on powder).

As far as length - I know the 151 length is on the shorter size, but I tend to like shorter skis that are a little easier for me to maneuver. I know 2 cm makes no significant difference, but that's one of the reasons I kept considering the slightly longer Black Pearl 97's in 153 (silly, I know!).

In your opinion, do you think the black pearl 97's (in 153) or the Santa Ana 98's (in 151) will perform better in powder/off piste? I know they are very similar in terms of size - with the Santa Ana 98's ever so slightly wider but also ever so slightly shorter compared to the Black Pearl 97s. Just curious to hear your thoughts!

Anyways, my goals are to improve on my carving, venture more off-piste, be more carefree and dynamic on moguls, and just generally feel more confident/relaxed when I ski (I tend to get in my head a little bit and can be stiff/hesitant when I ski anything challenging).

Thanks again for all the help!

 

[Analisa]

@badger1993 - Expect the 93 & 98s to be super similar, just narrower / wider. The shape, profile, mount point, overall flex, flex patterns, wood cores, laminates - all of those are almost identical. The one difference is in the relative metal coverage from one ski to another. For "terrain specific metal," Nordica covers a larger percentage of the ski with titanal sheets. Generally, the narrower skis are spending more time on firm snow where there's a firmer surface to press into to bend the ski. On soft powder, you don't have a firm snow surface to press against, and going a little softer makes it easier to flex & bend the ski.

This link has Nordica's illustration for TSM across all 5 Santa Anas they launched with in 2021. The 88s have a lot of metal coverage. The 110s have a lot more exposed wood. Between the 98s & 93s, there's a *slightly* higher ratio of wood-without-metal-laminated-to-it-ness. Theoretically, this should make the 98s ever-so-slightly softer & poppier, but looking at the weights, it should be almost unperceivable.

In terms of the BPs vs. SAs for ski sizing & powder skiing, they're kind of related. The SA93, SA98, and BP97 are profiled from L to R below. The Santa Anas have "deeper rocker lines" in the tip & tail. This makes the effective edge of the ski shorter. The effective edge influences how short a ski feels & it's the portion of ski you press into & bend in order to turn. The BP97 also bumps back the mount point 3cm, which means there's more ski in front of you to manage. So I'd ballpark that a 153 BP would feel equivalent in length to like a 155-157 Santa Ana.

And while I feel like the length feels more appropriate, it comes with a handful of worse trade-offs. The deeper rocker lines in the tips & tails makes the Santa Ana more forgiving & maneuverable. It helps it float better. Like if I break down your goals and designate a winner for each, the Santa Ana has an edge.

improve on my carving (Pearls)
venture more off-piste (Santa Ana 98)
be more carefree and dynamic on moguls (either Santa Ana)
Plus, it was your preference while testing, which is worth a lot.



If you felt really good about the the 151 during demoing, trust that. (Esp. for $200!). If there's part of you craving more stability at speed (related - what ski / size are you replacing?), the best way to get a longer Santa Ana is to get a longer Santa Ana, not switch to a ski less aligned with your goals.

 

[badger1993]

@badger1993 - Expect the 93 & 98s to be super similar, just narrower / wider. The shape, profile, mount point, overall flex, flex patterns, wood cores, laminates - all of those are almost identical. The one difference is in the relative metal coverage from one ski to another. For "terrain specific metal," Nordica covers a larger percentage of the ski with titanal sheets. Generally, the narrower skis are spending more time on firm snow where there's a firmer surface to press into to bend the ski. On soft powder, you don't have a firm snow surface to press against, and going a little softer makes it easier to flex & bend the ski.

This link has Nordica's illustration for TSM across all 5 Santa Anas they launched with in 2021. The 88s have a lot of metal coverage. The 110s have a lot more exposed wood. Between the 98s & 93s, there's a *slightly* higher ratio of wood-without-metal-laminated-to-it-ness. Theoretically, this should make the 98s ever-so-slightly softer & poppier, but looking at the weights, it should be almost unperceivable.

In terms of the BPs vs. SAs for ski sizing & powder skiing, they're kind of related. The SA93, SA98, and BP97 are profiled from L to R below. The Santa Anas have "deeper rocker lines" in the tip & tail. This makes the effective edge of the ski shorter. The effective edge influences how short a ski feels & it's the portion of ski you press into & bend in order to turn. The BP97 also bumps back the mount point 3cm, which means there's more ski in front of you to manage. So I'd ballpark that a 153 BP would feel equivalent in length to like a 155-157 Santa Ana.

And while I feel like the length feels more appropriate, it comes with a handful of worse trade-offs. The deeper rocker lines in the tips & tails makes the Santa Ana more forgiving & maneuverable. It helps it float better. Like if I break down your goals and designate a winner for each, the Santa Ana has an edge.

improve on my carving (Pearls)
venture more off-piste (Santa Ana 98)
be more carefree and dynamic on moguls (either Santa Ana)
Plus, it was your preference while testing, which is worth a lot.

View attachment 23016

If you felt really good about the the 151 during demoing, trust that. (Esp. for $200!). If there's part of you craving more stability at speed (related - what ski / size are you replacing?), the best way to get a longer Santa Ana is to get a longer Santa Ana, not switch to a ski less aligned with your goals.

Thank you so much for all this information! I’m definitely feeling better about my purchase - I just wanted to make sure I didn’t make a mistake before I got bindings. Sounds like I made a good choice so I appreciate all the help!

 

[Trailside Trixie]

I think Nordica hit the ball out of the park with the Santa Ana 93 and I've heard such great things about the 98. I have the 93s and have been skiing them more and more lately. They are shaping up to be my primary spring ski. So versatile, so turney, so fun.

 

[Suzy Fairweather]

I’ll be watching for a ski in the width range of 98-106 and Santa Ana will be one of them. Thanks for the feedback.