• 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 webmaster@theskidiva.com 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.

Attiva AC3 vs. AC3

RachelV

RachelV

Administrator
Staff member
This weekend I demo'ed the Attiva AC3 and the regular AC3. I really liked them both, but was wondering if anyone else here has tried them and can help me decide which one I liked better. :smile:

Some background: I'm about 5'7", 130lbs, upper-level intermediate skier. I can pretty much ski anything at Killington, with a lot of room for improvement on the steepest trails and bump runs. I currently have a pair of Blizzards that are 68mm underfoot. They're fine on the east coast on groomed runs, but in crud and when we go out west they really get thrown around. I'm looking to replace them (probably for next season) with something a bit more substantial, but that will still be fun on groomers and that will be able to handle ice.

So! I tried both the Attiva AC3 and the regular AC3. I thought both were a lot of fun - still easy to carve on groomed runs, while being much much better at dealing with the piles of powder/skiied off ice transition than my current skis. The Attiva's were great at every speed - easy to initiate and end turns, easy to make a turn of any size. On the regular AC3's I noticed it was harder to initiate turns at medium speeds -- there was some hesitation getting up onto the edge. I also noticed that the Attiva's didn't feel much stiffer than my current skis, which is something I'm looking for; I feel like I've started to outgrow my current skis and they're feeling a bit soft.

So, my question is really: is the Attiva less ski than the regular AC3, or is it just more forgiving? Has anyone else experienced some hesitation initiating turns with the regular AC3's? I'm wondering if this is a shortcoming of the ski, or if I just wasn't skiing it well/aggressively enough. If it's the latter I'd go with the regular AC3's, as I definitely want a ski I can grow into a bit this time around.
 
I just went from a really stiff ski to a softer/wider ski. I noticed that the stiffer ski is more difficult to turn at slower speeds unless I want to skid the turns, but it does rock at high speeds. I wasn't sure if that was due to the stiffness or the shape, probably both. I did find out that I like to softer skis in the powder, bumps and crud/slush (we were puddle dodging this weekend).

The size may make a difference. What size did you try?
 
IMO you should try the 2007 AC4.
The volkl line has changed the AC4 and AC3. They softened it up while they beefed up the AC3.
The Attiva will be too close to your current ski, while the AC4 will give you some of the softer properties and still allow you to carve on the groomers while you have the ability to go off piste and hit the powder.

I got on the AC4 and was shocked at how much I liked it........even better than the AC3:D
 
I tried the AC3 in a 156, which is the same length as my current skis. Looks like the shortest AC4 is 163, which might be a liiiiiittle long for me, but I'll give it a try next time I'm demo'ing. I feel like 82mm underfoot is kind of fat for a skis that are going to spend about 75% of their time in the northeast, but I guess the sidecut is more generous than the AC3.

Also just stumbled across this thread on epic that has some great reviews of other skis in this category.
 
You are wise to check out every option before laying out the cash.

I assure you, the AC4 will be a pleasant surprise. The 82 under waist carves quite nicely, on this ski. My brother in law has this as his only ski here in Michigan and has no regrets.

Also don't be afraid to try the Nordica Afterburner or Nitrous. I have the Nitrous with 78 under waist and really love it.

I did ski on the Victory and Conqueror and liked them but didn't find the passion for them that I found with the Nitrous.
 
Thanks so much for your thoughts SnowHot - I'll post again once I try out the AC4's and some of the other skis.
 
You might want to give the Attiva AC3 another try in a longer size - 163cm. What about the AC2 (Attiva probably too soft)?

For your size an ability, I'm not sure I would go any shorter than the 160 range in the women's skis. I'm 5'3" but much heavier and everything I have tried is always around 160ish.
 
smpayne, you hit the nail on the head. I think the industry is selling us "short".
But I am also aware of some subtle differences in the AC4 and AC3 for the 2007 models and the AC4 is actually a bit softer yet not as soft as the womens line, and those who've demoed the AC4 and AC3 back to back like the AC4 better for carving, crud and for fluff
 
Heh, yeah, I was just reading the other thread in the gear forum about ski length and was thinking I should try some longer skis. I'll try to keep it in the 160-165 range next time I demo and see how it feels.
 
SnowHot said:
smpayne, you hit the nail on the head. I think the industry is selling us "short".
But I am also aware of some subtle differences in the AC4 and AC3 for the 2007 models and the AC4 is actually a bit softer yet not as soft as the womens line, and those who've demoed the AC4 and AC3 back to back like the AC4 better for carving, crud and for fluff
Click to expand...
I'll have to keep an eye out for the AC4 to try, they sound fun. I agree that the industry is selling us "short" and "soft". I prefer the shapes and binding placements of the women's lines, but think most are too soft. This comming from someone who just bought a new pair of soft twin tips:smile: , but then I discovered I like the softer skis in the powder and crud (they were affordable). They are definitely not my rip down the mountain skis, but they carve better.

If the lighter weight men can handle the stiffer skis, why do they assume the lighter weight women can't? I also don't understand why most of the women's skis are geared toward the beginner skiier. I think most manufactures should drop their bottom 3 women's skis and add a few more at the quality of the upper end models.
 
smpayne said:
If the lighter weight men can handle the stiffer skis, why do they assume the lighter weight women can't? I also don't understand why most of the women's skis are geared toward the beginner skiier. I think most manufactures should drop their bottom 3 women's skis and add a few more at the quality of the upper end models.
Click to expand...

Add to the fact that the women of today are more athletic and far more fit than a few years ago. Add to that, the ski industry has made huge improvements from the skis of past years. Just not quite there when it comes to the woman who really does keep up with the boys.
 
Attiva AC3s East and West

Writing from Big Sky after 4 days of pounding the slopes in heavy powder, bumps, and some "groomers." I'm an intermediate skiier, fast and somewhat aggressive in Southern VT where I usually ski, but much more humble and and challenged by the mountain here (which I recommend highly).

I am 5' 6 3/4" tall, 140 lbs. and bought a 163 cm AC3 to bring out West. I wanted a ski that would be as all mountain as possible. I did find them to be a bit stiff and long to move around bumps when I took a mogul class, but since I am really just learning to ski bumps, I can't say for sure that ultimately I will not be able to use them there. I also worked so hard that my muscles were really fatigued, and I wasn't used to so many piles of powder and variable terrain (not trying to elicit sympathy here, just explaining), so while I wanted a softer, slightly wider ski, I know that back home I like the edges on the AC3 which cut through loose granular like a knife. I'm going to keep working with them after questioning first their length and then their stiffness and focus on moving my skill level to the next phase.

I think that if you buy the Attiva in the 163, you'll get more power and stability and that the ski will work well for you.
 
I demod the AC3 & AC4 and went with the AC3. They will make all sizes of turns and are good in all conditions. The AC4 was just too much work on hard pack at slower speeds. They were fine when I was in powder, crud, or highspeed cruising. But they were a bear when trying to ski slower in crowded areas.
 
Greeley said:
I demod the AC3 & AC4 and went with the AC3. They will make all sizes of turns and are good in all conditions. The AC4 was just too much work on hard pack at slower speeds. They were fine when I was in powder, crud, or highspeed cruising. But they were a bear when trying to ski slower in crowded areas.
Click to expand...

Did you demo/buy the unisex AC3s or the Attivas? I assume the former since there are no Attiva AC4s. I had a difficult time turning my Attiva AC3s in bumps and powder in Big Sky, but hopefully that is due to inexperience with those conditions, 'cause they fly down groomers with speed and stability and turn nicely.:o
 
I bought the uni-sex AC3s. I find that women's skis are too soft for me. They chatter at high speeds & don't hold an edge. But I am also about the size of a lot of the punks in the ski shops. Thye usually want to sell me a short pink flowered ski. I usually reply by asking them what they ski on...
I am 5' 9" and about 155lbs and can hold my own with the guys in the weight room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,627 (members: 3, guests: 1,624)

Forum statistics

Threads
27,669
Messages
529,452
Members
9,761
Latest member
Donna
Back
Top