Hello all! I am a 21 year old female (5'7", 140 lbs) aggressive skier looking into purchasing a new ski that can be used for all-mountain, some powder, and have the possibility to do some short one day tours. I am currently skiing 165 Atomic Supremes which are 87 underfoot but am looking to move to a wider ski for days with more powder and I plan to head out west for the first time this year. I have also never toured before but would like to ease into it this year. I live in Vermont, so don't have any plans for any long skins at this point and plan to still stick with my supremes for icy days. From my personal online research I think the Volkl Aura 163 seems like a good fit for me but I am still unsure. I have also found little information if it is possible to throw a touring binding on the Aura, or if the ski isn't fit for the job. Any advice on the Aura/a good ski for me, and if touring is possible/what binding to get for the ski would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
-
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.
Question: Advice on skis, please? Volkl Auras?
- Thread starter smith
- Start date
elemmac
Angel Diva
As an aggressive skier, the Aura would fit the bill quite well for what you seem to be looking for. It's a burly ski, but perfectly manageable. However, I don't think I would recommend it for touring...it's heavy. If you have trunks for legs and weight is not a concern of yours, then it'll fit that bill as well.
As for bindings, any flat ski (sold without a rail for a specific binding) can be mounted with whatever binding you choose. For touring, there's basically two different types, pin bindings and frame bindings. I'm not going to get into all of the nitty gritty details but pin bindings are much lighter, but they sacrifice performance on the downhill. Frame bindings are basically a regular alpine binding built on a frame that can unlock to allow a walk mode.
As for bindings, any flat ski (sold without a rail for a specific binding) can be mounted with whatever binding you choose. For touring, there's basically two different types, pin bindings and frame bindings. I'm not going to get into all of the nitty gritty details but pin bindings are much lighter, but they sacrifice performance on the downhill. Frame bindings are basically a regular alpine binding built on a frame that can unlock to allow a walk mode.
contesstant
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Nordica Santa Ana 100 would fit the bill, particularly the versions prior to 2018, which do not have metal in them (so should be lighter.) I have the 2016 version, and they are very light, and boy oh boy, are they fun!!!!!!
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
You're 5'7, and all mountain / powder skis will have some rocker. Consider moving up in ski length. 163 seems short, especially for an aggressive skier.
mustski
Angel Diva
I will be the naysaying voice here ... the OP is tallish but quite light for her height. I am only 5'2", but weight 135. I chose the 161 -166ish range to compensate for my weight. It of course depends on the ski, but on the Aura, she should be fine. It's a burly ski. I ski the same length in my powder skis - Volkl Ones. Volkls are burly enough that you can go shorter if you want.
elemmac
Angel Diva
100% agree with this.
I'm a smidge shorter, and a smidge lighter than the OP, and could go with either the 163 or 170...and have demoed both...can't decide which I like better, which is a big reason I don't own an Aura or a Kenja. Depends on what properties you want to compromise. By going with the 163, you might sacrifice some float on powder days and some stability when you're going faster through bumped up crud. By going with the 170 you're probably going to sacrifice some of the maneuverability in bumps, and might make tree skiing a bit more work. Do you prefer more slalom-like short turns (163) or bid swooping GS style turns (170)? Do you like to float on powder days (170), or do you like to be "in" the snow (163)? New England trees are generally tight and bumped up...for these I would prefer the 163. Out west, tree runs tend to be more spaced out and big bowls come into play as well...for these I would prefer the 170.
