• 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.

Blizzard Sheeva 11 and Black Pearl 88

PamGoodley

Certified Ski Diva
I've been on the Blizzard Black Pearl 88, skis for a couple of years now and love them. I'm almost 5'1" and weight ~118. Will be 65 when next season starts (and given the snow in California this year, will be 65 before this season ends!). Intermediate skier. Black Pearls are length 147 and that length feels great for me.
I've been considering the Sheeva 11 ski, 112 width. Shortest length is 156. Some other recommended skis (e.g., Line) are even longer.

Two questions: How much of a difference will it be to use a ski like the Sheeva 11 on a powder day (recognizing what's called "powder" can sometimes vary) versus the Black Pearls? And if the ski is wider and it is truly light powder or maybe skied out powder on groomers, will a longer length feel manageable given the conditions and ski width?
 

Moonrocket

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I have not tried those but I ski the rustler (men’s Sheeva equiv) 10s which are 102 underfoot. I’m 5’6” 140ish and have not ever really felt like I needed more under foot in powder. I usually see fairly big dudes on the 11s. My husband who is 6’5” 195 was just talking about if he should get a pair of Rustler 11s for more float over his 10s.
I really like the 10s as a one ski western quiver- just got back from Revelstoke and Banff and they did great on hard pack and slush- no powder - but blue skies and views like I have never seen. But they are also amazing in a foot of fresh.

ETA my 5’9” 120 lb teenager also skis 100 under foot and has no problem on big powder days. When she went from 88ish to 100 underfoot it did make a huge difference though.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
Intermediate skier. Black Pearls are length 147 and that length feels great for me.
I've been considering the Sheeva 11 ski, 112 width. Shortest length is 156. Some other recommended skis (e.g., Line) are even longer.
When I started renting demo skis at Alta during what became an annual late season trip, the powder skis I would take out were 5-10cm longer than the all-mountain skis I owned. I'm petite and have become a solid advanced skier in the last decade, thanks to more regular lessons after age 55. For powder skiing, my Alta instructor didn't want me on skis wider than 100 underfoot. Definitely feels different and easier compared to mid-80s all-mountain skis, especially if the powder is on the heavier side.

Two questions: How much of a difference will it be to use a ski like the Sheeva 11 on a powder day (recognizing what's called "powder" can sometimes vary) versus the Black Pearls? And if the ski is wider and it is truly light powder or maybe skied out powder on groomers, will a longer length feel manageable given the conditions and ski width?
The longer length shouldn't feel that awkward given the shorter amount of edge actually on the snow given a longer tip and tail rocker design. When I owned the original Black Pearls (2011 model), I had a good time on various powder skis that were 105-112mm underfoot and 160-166cm long. I would rent demo skis at Alta when I got lucky and caught a powder storm. It was hard to find powder skis that were shorter than 159-160cm.
 

SarahXC

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I have the Sheeva 11s in 180 cm. I am 5’6” and 175 lb and at my size definitely like the extra width and length for the float. They have a lot of tip and tail rocker and definitely ski shorter so I would not worry about the 156 feeling too long. They are pivoty and easy, with that said I do feel like with the bit of metal underfoot they don’t get tossed around in the chopped up crud like my lighter (shorter) carbon DPS alchemist build skis do.
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
That’s a really wide ski for someone of your size. Wider skis are hard on the knees, hips, back especially for us “older” gals. I’d strongly consider a Sheeva 10 at most for you.
 

santacruz skier

Angel Diva
I have the Sheeva 10's in a 156 and just skied them in beautiful powder conditions at Heavenly last week. @PamGoodley I'm your height but lighter (105) and absolutely love the skis. At 102 underfoot, i like it that they do have some metal as I don't get tossed around at all. All the snow off piste was beautiful light powder (not the usual sierra cement) and I was having a blast on those skis. I also have the Sheeva 9's for groomers that are also good off piste but honestly, I like the 10's better as good on groomers and excel in the powder/bumps.
I'm not a spring chicken and yes, sometimes my knees do hurt. But they also hurt if I run too far or too often or put weird stress on them while working out with weights/balancing on bosu ball, etc. And sometimes cycling....
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I've been on the Blizzard Black Pearl 88, skis for a couple of years now and love them. I'm almost 5'1" and weight ~118. Will be 65 when next season starts (and given the snow in California this year, will be 65 before this season ends!). Intermediate skier. Black Pearls are length 147 and that length feels great for me.
I've been considering the Sheeva 11 ski, 112 width. Shortest length is 156. Some other recommended skis (e.g., Line) are even longer.

Two questions: How much of a difference will it be to use a ski like the Sheeva 11 on a powder day (recognizing what's called "powder" can sometimes vary) versus the Black Pearls? And if the ski is wider and it is truly light powder or maybe skied out powder on groomers, will a longer length feel manageable given the conditions and ski width?
I'm revisiting this...can you demo before buying?

As to length--it depends. The Sheeva series do indeed have quite a lot of tip and tail rocker, but my experience has been that some skis, even with a lot of rocker, still feel too long to the point of feeling cumbersome.

I have also found that wider skis for someone like me who likes to turn, are a hindrance once the powder gets skied out. And they.hurt.my.knees.

I picked up a pair of Salomon Stella 106s early this season. I skied them for the second time yesterday at Powder Mountain, in a LOT of powder. I swapped out after 4 runs for my Santa Ana 93s as the Stellas were like skiing on boats. My left knee, which has not bothered me all season, was very unhappy last night and it's still unhappy this morning. I have almost 80 days this season, so it's not because I'm no skiing a lot. I'm 5'5" 130 lbs. and was on the 165. I'm 53. I have owned the Sheeva 9s and 10s in the past. They are SUPER fun skis, but the lengths particularly for the 10s, were just off for me. 164 was too short for deep powder, 172 was too long. Stupid fun skis, though. I'm kind of excited for the changes they've made for the new versions.

112 under foot is a LOT of ski for a small person. Demo if you can. Or go for a softer ski that is closer to 100 under foot at MOST. FWIW when I demoed DPS a few years back, I was able to ski a 172 with zero issues. They are softer and definitely geared towards powder and only powder. After skiing so many powder days this year, I have determined that a softer ski overall is better in it unless you are an expert (like my husband, who blasts through it all on his 84 under foot stiff Stockli's!) I'm kicking myself for selling my Santa Ana 100s from 2016, which made powder easy peasy but were pretty rough once things got skied out.

Just my silly opinion; I just really caution you from going so wide.
 

PamGoodley

Certified Ski Diva
I'm revisiting this...can you demo before buying?

As to length--it depends. The Sheeva series do indeed have quite a lot of tip and tail rocker, but my experience has been that some skis, even with a lot of rocker, still feel too long to the point of feeling cumbersome.

I have also found that wider skis for someone like me who likes to turn, are a hindrance once the powder gets skied out. And they.hurt.my.knees.

I picked up a pair of Salomon Stella 106s early this season. I skied them for the second time yesterday at Powder Mountain, in a LOT of powder. I swapped out after 4 runs for my Santa Ana 93s as the Stellas were like skiing on boats. My left knee, which has not bothered me all season, was very unhappy last night and it's still unhappy this morning. I have almost 80 days this season, so it's not because I'm no skiing a lot. I'm 5'5" 130 lbs. and was on the 165. I'm 53. I have owned the Sheeva 9s and 10s in the past. They are SUPER fun skis, but the lengths particularly for the 10s, were just off for me. 164 was too short for deep powder, 172 was too long. Stupid fun skis, though. I'm kind of excited for the changes they've made for the new versions.

112 under foot is a LOT of ski for a small person. Demo if you can. Or go for a softer ski that is closer to 100 under foot at MOST. FWIW when I demoed DPS a few years back, I was able to ski a 172 with zero issues. They are softer and definitely geared towards powder and only powder. After skiing so many powder days this year, I have determined that a softer ski overall is better in it unless you are an expert (like my husband, who blasts through it all on his 84 under foot stiff Stockli's!) I'm kicking myself for selling my Santa Ana 100s from 2016, which made powder easy peasy but were pretty rough once things got skied out.

Just my silly opinion; I just really caution you from going so wide.
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful feedback! Yes, I can demo. My season pass is for Sugar Bowl (it's a few minutes down the road from me), and I'm considering getting an Ikon pass also which I would use at Palisades Tahoe on weekdays (too busy on weekends). Yesterday I called them and also checked their online demo inventory. They have a lot to offer (Including the Sheeva 11 in a 156) , so I will try to demo soon. The way it keeps snowing in California, I might have a few good opportunities the remainder of this season to demo in conditions similar to what I want the skis for.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful feedback! Yes, I can demo. My season pass is for Sugar Bowl (it's a few minutes down the road from me), and I'm considering getting an Ikon pass also which I would use at Palisades Tahoe on weekdays (too busy on weekends). Yesterday I called them and also checked their online demo inventory. They have a lot to offer (Including the Sheeva 11 in a 156) , so I will try to demo soon. The way it keeps snowing in California, I might have a few good opportunities the remainder of this season to demo in conditions similar to what I want the skis for.
If you have a chance to demo a potential model at two different lengths, you'll learn a lot about what works better for you. Doesn't matter if the second choice length is what could be considered too long or too short.
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful feedback! Yes, I can demo. My season pass is for Sugar Bowl (it's a few minutes down the road from me), and I'm considering getting an Ikon pass also which I would use at Palisades Tahoe on weekdays (too busy on weekends). Yesterday I called them and also checked their online demo inventory. They have a lot to offer (Including the Sheeva 11 in a 156) , so I will try to demo soon. The way it keeps snowing in California, I might have a few good opportunities the remainder of this season to demo in conditions similar to what I want the skis for.
Yeah, we keep getting your "leftovers" here in Utah, to the tune of 22" at Snowbasin in 12 hours overnight! Insane. Take out some Santa Ana 93s and 98s if you get the chance. I sold my 98s a few weeks ago thinking the Stella 106s would fill their spot. But that width is just so stinkin' cumbersome. They start out feeling fun, but after a few runs, my body just says "NO!" I'd get tired on the 98s after a day, but nothing like the 106s. It's amazing what a few mm does. The Santa Ana series has remained the same for 3 or 4 seasons now and I've owned a few iterations of the 88, 98, and now 93. The shape of them combined with a bit of stiffness makes them feel like magic skis in so many conditions. They just don't get caught up on stuff, both in the tips and tails.
 

Laroken

Certified Ski Diva
I am barely 5’2”, and only a few pounds heavier than you. My current ski is the BP 82 in a 147. When I demoed powder skis, I demoed 106 underfoot, in a 155 length. I was also nervous about the length (I thought it would be WAY too much ski for me to turn and that I would very quickly tire out), but was pleasantly surprised. I think it’s because your question 1 and 2 are related, at least for me … I found the DPS powder ski so much better than my BP in these conditions that the enhanced performance more than compensated for the “extra ski” I was carrying around. I actually had other skis on the racks at the bottom of the mountain anticipating that I might get tired and would want to switch, but did not for a second get to that point once I was out there!
 

bsskier

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I've been on the Blizzard Black Pearl 88, skis for a couple of years now and love them. I'm almost 5'1" and weight ~118. Will be 65 when next season starts (and given the snow in California this year, will be 65 before this season ends!). Intermediate skier. Black Pearls are length 147 and that length feels great for me.
I've been considering the Sheeva 11 ski, 112 width. Shortest length is 156. Some other recommended skis (e.g., Line) are even longer.

Two questions: How much of a difference will it be to use a ski like the Sheeva 11 on a powder day (recognizing what's called "powder" can sometimes vary) versus the Black Pearls? And if the ski is wider and it is truly light powder or maybe skied out powder on groomers, will a longer length feel manageable given the conditions and ski width?
There will be a difference. I skied the Sheeva 11 in incredible moderately light powder conditions Monday. I’m 5’4 and rode the 164’s in avi crud and medium bumps. My regular drivers are 85 and 97 and the Sheeva’s 112 width was perfect for the phenomenal conditions, but for me, I’d not have them as my primary tool.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,204
Messages
497,004
Members
8,482
Latest member
Gilly1965
Top