Question: Another "returning skier" needs advice on skis

[Kayakgirl]

Hey Divas,

I need your expertise and advice. I've been off of skis for several years (through the shaped ski revolution, pretty much). I'm now 55, have skied since I was 13, and counted myself (at the time my hiatus began) as an aggressive, go anywhere, ski most of anything skier. If the west coast gets it, I've skied it, although I'm no powder expert. Most of my skiing has been in the Sierras around Tahoe, and Oregon. So more than anything, I've skied hard pack, heavy wet new snow and crud, some light powder, west coast ice, moguls, bowls, chutes, etc (and of course, a few rocks). All that said, I don't expect to be as aggressive and as speed oriented as I used to be (although it is tough to remember, whenever I get on skis, that I'm not 25 anymore). I just want back on skis and to enjoy.

Ski selection seems more challenging than ever before for me. Skis are more highly specialized, plus I'm at sea on sizing. I've been reading and lurking here and on Epic ski to try to get as much info as possible. At this point, I'm inclined to go for an all-mountain ski, something that's about 70 piste and 30 off piste. Not sure, though, because so many skis, in actual use, seem to have more versatility than numbers like that suggest. Complicating it for me is that ski length seems to alter the character of the ski so significantly.

I know, I know. I should demo. If I can, I will. If nothing else, some advice from y'all might make my demo-ing more focused, if I get a chance to do it.

Here are the skis I'm thinking about right now (in no particular order)

- K2 Lotta Luv
- Volkl Exclusive Legend or Tierra
- Rossi Voodoo 80
- Nordica Olympia Victory

Length: sheesh. I dunno. I'm between 5'5" and 5'6", and weigh about 145 (probably a bit less by the time I get on the skis). Looks to me like that, plus my skiing ability, might on most charts put me around a 160cm. Then go longer or shorter based on how and what I'll be skiing, plus the characteristics of the particular ski.

So here's the advice I'm seeking: thoughts on the skis on my list, or ones that outta be there? And for the skis on the list (or others), thoughts about best ski length based on what I've told you so far?

Thanks -- glad I found this forum!

Oh, and a P.S. - I sport some old knee injuries, but nothing too limiting. A "knee-kindly" ski, which I hear the shaped skis are, might be wise for me.

 

[jaydog]

With your height/weight, the 160 range sounds right. Again, demo to find out exactly which one works. Whether you want to go slightly higher or slightly lower depends on how aggressive you ski and whether stability (longer) or manueverability (shorter) is more important for you.

I've skied the Victory, the Exclusive Legend, and the Lotta Luv, and they're all good skis, definitely worth demoing. Can't weigh in on the other two. Here's a few other skis to think about: Fischer Vision Vapor, Elan Pure Spice, Atomic Seventh Heaven.

 

[Kayakgirl]

Good advice. I've continued reading around, and the Fischer's and Pure Spice you mention both have caught my eye. The Atomic's did too, based on reviews and specs. It must be my age or something, though, I find the graphics on that ski something hard to abide.

Jaydog, since you've skied the Victory, the Legend, and the Lotta Luv, I'd be very interested in your comparisons of the three. As I've continued my "research", I've begun to conclude that: (1) the K2 may be a bit on the damp, unenergetic, but predictable side; (2) the legend has a lot to commend it, but may be less beefy and slightly nondescript; and (3) the Victory may be more beefy, and perhaps the most demanding of the three in terms of technique and skiing it with authority. But that's just me reading . . . if you have some comparisons based on skiing them, do say. Thanks!!

 

[Kayakgirl]

I thought I'd add a thought to my own thread.

For reasons I'm unsure of, I've been concentrating on women-specific skis. In my many years of skiing until my hiatus, I never skied a woman-specific ski. They didn't exist for many years, and the first ones weren't aggressive enough for me. But I followed them, and have continued to do so over the years. I know many of the women on this forum have not liked the women-specific skis.

Not sure why I've focused on them, other than perhaps I trust the reviews of them more, since women provide the reviews.

But I'm open to "unisex" skis if anyone thinks there is something outside the women's specific genre that I should be considering. So do say so! I've got time to think it all through, since my first step has to be boots (which will take a couple of weeks, but at least, with them, I have a solid idea of what I want and where to find it).

Thanks.

 

[Kano]

For what it's worth, I've skied Lotta Luv, the Victory, and the Atomic Sugar Mama (I think last year's 7th Heaven?) I've only just begun to feel pretty confident on the mountain in 2008 -- my eighth season.

I "grew up" on K2's True Luvs, which made the Lotta seem like a pretty natural transition when I decided I wanted an "all mountain" ski that I could take off trail more than I can the True Luv. (we go there, but the True Luv isn't real good about powder and other off trail stuff with it's 69mm waist). I like the Lotta Luv, and would have bought a pair - used, for budgetary concerns - if I could have found a pair that didn't look terribly un-luv'd!

I did NOT like the Victory. I tried last year's model -- didn't like the graphics, and just plain couldn't ski them. They were too much for me.

I bought the Sugar Mama's untried, based on a review I read here -- almost on impulse at a ski swap this fall. (I was looking for Lotta's, found these instead) They're lighter and zippier than the Lotta Luv, and they're challenging me some. I can tell that I'm going to love them, once I figure out how to stop falling down! That needs some discussion in its own thread.

Karen in Boise

 

[oragejuice]

Hmmmmmmmm, halfway off topic... but Volkl doesn't make the Exclusive Legend. Dynastar does. FWIW. =)

 

[MaineSkiLady]

I have demo'd a number of these skis, in this length - K2 Lotta Luv, Dynastar Exclusive Legend (which I now own and is a great performer, hardly non-descript), Volkl Attiva Tierra, Atomic Heaven's Gate -- though I regrettably have not been able to find any Nordicas (will in Feb).

While all are considered "all-mountain" and target a similar level of female skier, all feel and ski differently. What appeals to one skier will not to the next. (i.e., yes, the K2 is damp, but for how it was designed/intended to ski, this is a GOOD thing)

The differences are subtle. It really is a matter of personal preference. I'm sure that if you could take your time and demo at least a few of these, one would be a stand-out for you! Good luck, hope you find what you're looking for!

 

[Kayakgirl]

oragejuice, yes, absolutely right. The EL is a Dynastar, which I knew. Not sure why I threw it onto the list as a Volkl.

Hmmm. You are all giving great advice, but not making the decision any easier! Having options is a good thing, I keep reminding myself.

 

[jaydog]

Here's my brief impressions of aforesaid skis, in the chronological order I skied them along with my ability level at the time: (I'm 5'5", 135lbs)
Exclusive Legend, my previous skis: (158cm) light and maneuverable, good in a few inches of pow, but not stable at speed after I went from int to int-advanced.
Victory: (154cm) very stable, very maneuverable. I did not hit the limit on these. Could make any radius turn. I was int-advanced at the time. I tried the 162cm Victory when I was an intermediate and had a hard time with it.
Sugar Mama: (157cm) Overall, just not comfortable. (int-advanced)
Lotta Luv: (160cm) Turn on a dime, dance through moguls, good grip on icy steeps, not very stable at speed. (advanced)
Fischer Vision 76, my current skis, precursor to the Vapor: (164cm) Love them! Strong, stable, and manueverable. They can handle anything except truly deep powder. 164 cm, however, is about the upper limit of what I would ski- doesn't always want to make short-radius turns.

 

[Kayakgirl]

jaydog, were those '09 models? The Victory for this year is wider than in previous years. The EL seems unchanged for the last several years, so I assume that prior years' tests are accurate for the current mode. Not sure how to compare the Fischer Vapor to what you have, except that the more I read about the Vapor, the more it interests me . . .

Thanks for the post.

 

[Slidergirl]

Nordica Olympia Victory - OK for me

I'll add in my brief encounter with my Nordica Victorys. I'm 54, 5'8" and around 185 lbs. In my "young and stupid" days, I'd ski anything at Mammoth, even the Drop Off chutes. I'm now older and wiser and knee and leg problems have turned me into a "I could ski anything, but I prefer not to" skier.

Today was my first try with the Nordicas. They are last year's model (I got a great deal on them new and $150 less than this year's model, so I'll deal with the graphics) and 162s in length. They accepted my first tentative turns with some skids, totally my issue, since I was trying to see how my newly healed leg would fare. As I got going more, the Victorys responded great. No problems whatsoever with them. I was actually smiling and telling them "good skis" (like you tell a dog) as I was finishing up today. They didn't seem overpowering and I didn't feel like I would overpower them. I can tell that I'm going to enjoy them all this year.

Definitely give them a demo. I was a little afraid after hearing some call them "too much ski". But, they feel just right to me.

 

[Kayakgirl]

Spent some time today in a shop about an hour away from me that is one of Oregon's best established (Berg's -- also on the internet). They had the Nordica Victorys, Dynastar ELs, Volkl Tierra, K2 Lotta Luvs. Rossi Voodos. The more I talked with the guy, the more I found myself focusing on the Nordicas and Dynastars. His opinion: he believes the Nordicas are the ski for me. I came away thinking I might like both a lot. If I can do some demo'ing, they might be my focus.

Length is still a quandry. He kept pushing for the shorter lengths. The 154 in the Nordica (next up would be the 162) and the 158 in the Dynastar.

I see tons of posts on length, but I'm really having a tough time assessing this. Demo'ing may not solve the issue, since if I can demo them at all, I'll likely only get a chance to try whatever is the most popular length, or the reference length.

If anyone has ideas on length on both skis, I'm all ears. Especially anyone who has skied this years Nordica Victory. It seems dramatically changed from prior years . . . The Dynastar hasn't changed much since its introduction, so any and all experience with it would benefit me. The fact that jaydog had the 158 ELs become too unstable at intermediate-adv speeds is almost a deal breaker for me, unless the longer Dynastar (165?) would be a good answer to that. But then, would it be getting too long? I outweigh jaydog by about 10lbs, but we're the same height.

Thoughts?

 

[Jilly]

Length has to do alot with a group of parameters.

1. Height
2. Weight
3. Skiing ability
4. Where you're skiing.

You're 5'5-6 and 145 lbs. So I would put you at 154 as a minimum. Longer skis can be faster and stiffer. Longer skis will perform better off piste, but may be fast or stiff on piste. If you can try the different lengths go for it. I did this at a demo day and could not believe the difference in the same ski at different lengths. It's really the only way!

 

[volklgirl]

I, too, have tried different lengths in the same ski and have found that changes of only 1 size difference (i.e. 154 to 161), the skis have very similar characteristics in turn shape and size, but the shorter one tends to be slightly more maneuverable and the longer one is significantly more stable at speed and in cruddy snow. Otherwise, a 1 size jump is pretty much a wash. A 2 size difference is an entirely different story, however. In that case, you may as well be on 2 entirely different skis!

Also keep in mind that different manufacturers measure their skis differently, so Volkls and Salomons tend to ski "shorter", while K2s and Nordicas tend to ski "longer" (not really familiar with the feel of other manufacturers). I found I really prefered the 161cm over the 154cm in the Volkl Fuego, but was enthralled with the 154cm in the Nordica Firefox.

 

[Kayakgirl]

volklgirl,

your post really has me thinking . . . slightly more maneuverable doesn't seem like a big gain; significantly more stable at speed is worth something to me. Not sure how much I'll be bombing the hill anymore. At my age, I should be relaxing and slowing down (my knees and back will thank me). But . . . BUT, when the rubber hits the road, I don't like to be unstable at speed - after all, you can't do much to calm down a ski at speed other than slow down. But I do know I can muscle a ski when I need more manueverability than it might otherwise offer. Don't want to do it all day or run after run, but I sure can do it (even as I age and my knees complain) in the pinches.

But your comment about how much you liked the 154 Conquer really has me intrigued. "Enthralled" seems like high praise. Did you ski the next size up? What made the 154 so appealing?

My thinking is that I want to stay as short as I can, without losing stability at speed. I'm not entirely sure how the Conquer compares to the Victory, but was the stability of the 154 one of the things that impressed you?

 

[volklgirl]

Actually, I didn't ski the Conquer, I skied the Firefox. However, I was amazed that the 154 had the same stability at speed as the Fuego in the 161, while the Fuego in the 154 felt a little squirrelly.

If you spend most of your time on the groomers, in cut-up snow, or at higher speeds, go for the 162. If you prefer bumps and trees or tons of short turns, go for the 154. Chances are, you'll be able to make the longer length work no matter what you're doing, so buy for the majority of your skiing.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

If anyone has ideas on length on both skis, I'm all ears. Especially anyone who has skied this years Nordica Victory. It seems dramatically changed from prior years . . . The Dynastar hasn't changed much since its introduction, so any and all experience with it would benefit me. The fact that jaydog had the 158 ELs become too unstable at intermediate-adv speeds is almost a deal breaker for me, unless the longer Dynastar (165?) would be a good answer to that. But then, would it be getting too long? I outweigh jaydog by about 10lbs, but we're the same height.

Thoughts?

Okay. I have the Exclusive Legends in 158 and the Exclusive Legend Powders (wider) in 165. I'm 5'6" 125+-. Differences: 158 EL's are more maneuverable, slightly slower, but a ton of fun/rebound. EL Powder in a 165 is probably a bit of a stretch for me for length, but I can crank 'em, and I wanted a ski that would deal with our (admittedly infrequent) eastern "powder" (*IN QUOTES*). Have had them in widely mixed conditions, and they PERFORM, will hold on hard pack, no issues. Slightly more stable at speed than the 158 EL. I'll call it slight. For throwing off the quick turns on run edges (something we easterners do, or learn to do!), the 158 EL's are sublime.

I continue to scratch my head at others' impression of their instability at speed. With this thought in mind today, I cranked them up, really fast. I guess if 40+- is your speed limit? I was certainly going about as fast as I'm comfortable skiing (at an eastern resort on a weekend). Yes, the 165's would have gone faster. But I sensed no chatter or loss of edge. Not a bit.

Anyway, sounds like you are leaning more toward the Nordica anyway, a brand which I HOPE to demo in February - those and Fischers.

Wishing you tons of luck in this rather complex and often befuddling decision! Sounds like you've narrowed it down to several VERY WORTHWHILE skis! I think you'll ultimately be very pleased. I picked up the key words, "just want to get back on skis and enjoy."

You shall!

 

[Kayakgirl]

MaineSkiLady,

Still pondering the options -- wringing my hands might be the more apt description. Began to really question the idea of a 154 Victory, so I called the shop today and spent about a half hour on the phone with one of their most experienced ski guys. He tends to agree that is a bit short. But he swears that, for all the magic of ski length picking, "the nose knows" -- he no longer puts ANYONE who isn't racing on anything over mid forehead, and feels strongly that good skiers find their spot with something at about the bridge of their nose to their eyebrows. He poo-poos the rest of the guesswork and goes with that, when push comes to shove.

Anyway, he really pushed me towards the Dynastar EL Limited, which he thinks would be perfect for me at a 163. It might be a great transition ski for me, but I'm not sold on the idea that it is what I want. I'm looking for a long term relationship (although we all know that sometimes you have to go through a few relationships to get there).

The Nordica keeps seeming problematic for me because it has such a sizing gap - 154 versus 162. In most lines, that would be a two size jump. Still it interests me.

Meanwhile, I've grown increasingly interested in the Fischer Vapor. I can get it in a 155 or 160, for $629 (versus $859 on the Nordica).

And the fact that you can't find the limit on your Dynstar EL is interesting to me too. 40+ is NOT where I plan to find myself anymore. I found myself very drawn to the ski as I flexed it, etc. It does flatten out a bit in the middle, where I got a much more round flex on the Nordica under the binding. But there was something in the flex that still felt , well, right. I could go 158 in it, which seem almost perfect to me. Or if I was worried about over skiing it, I could go 165, but that seems long (hitting my height at that point -- for an old long board skier, that doesn't seem bad, but I've convinced myself to think of it that way).

Yes, as you say, all of this is "complex and befuddling" in a compelling way. Because I do want to just get back on and enjoy, I feel sure I will. But until then, it is my nature to want to make a perfect (90% at least) decision. Especially given the cost of skis today. OMG have things gotten expensive. Sticker shock has worn off, but still . . .

If anyone has skied the Vapors and hasn't posted about them, please do! Among other things, I do like the bindings on them.

Yes, complex and befuddling, and MaineSkiLady so aptly said. But I'm thriving on it in a perverse kind of way.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

MaineSkiLady,

And the fact that you can't find the limit on your Dynstar EL is interesting to me too. 40+ is NOT where I plan to find myself anymore. I found myself very drawn to the ski as I flexed it, etc. It does flatten out a bit in the middle, where I got a much more round flex on the Nordica under the binding. But there was something in the flex that still felt , well, right. I could go 158 in it, which seem almost perfect to me. Or if I was worried about over skiing it, I could go 165, but that seems long (hitting my height at that point -- for an old long board skier, that doesn't seem bad, but I've convinced myself to think of it that way).

About that "flat" middle: the EL is a completely flat ski - and by that, I mean that it does not have either a system binding or an elevated binding mount area, as do most skis now. It's as flat as the old-school skis were - binding is mounted to the ski, not an elevated mount section. This was cause for concern for me, even though I had already demo'd the ski. Dynastar claims this is weight-saving in addition to providing much closer contact/"feel" to the snow, which is helpful in the kinds of conditions the ski is designed to handle. (mixed/variable) It changes the feel of the ski much as a different suspension would change the feel/drive of a car. The claim is that the snow feedback is quicker, therefore your response to it can be quicker. Whether this theory happens in practice is ? But yes, you would definitely not feel this spot on a ski with a system binding. Ther are pluses and minuses to each.

Do a Fischer search here - I believe Ski Diva - and perhaps a few others - posted reviews of the Vision Vapor (among other Fischers).

You are so pointed in the right direction, and I have no doubt that you will be delighted with any of these skis - all are excellent candidates!

 

[Kayakgirl]

Hmmm . . . the EL I was looking at was the "fluid" and has a binding plate on it. I guess I need to figure that out. It either comes in two versions or they've changed it. I liked the idea of the fluid system. And perhaps the flat center as I flexed it was just a function of the plate being mounted, but not loaded with a boot and binding. I confess . . . I've been busy playing catch up on ski technology and have only paid secondary attention to bindings (they all look pretty darn good anymore).

I've read most or all of what others have posted on this forum (and Epic Ski) about the Vapor, which is why I have gravitated to it. And SierraJim has a very positive review of it (video on YouTube). The odds of getting to demo it are nil . . . in fact, the only ski I think I stand a chance of demo'ing before I buy is the EL. There's a chance I'll do that this Sunday . . .

I sure appreciate all the help and encouragement I'm getting from everyone on this forum. You're all great. Thanks!!!