Experience withBlizzard Black Pearl 94’s?

[tahoebunny]

Hi, I finally have time to get back into skiing. Yay! So I got the Blizzard Black Pearl 94 in 166cm. I’m 5’4”, 125 pounds, advanced skier in my 50s. I tried them for the first time this weekend. I found I’m definitely slower than I used to be. So sad. But I liked the skis, they seemed to do well on all terrain and had a nice spring coming out of turns. But I did feel they were a little heavy and hard to maneuver in tight areas. I can’t tell if it’s because I don’t have my ski legs anymore or what. Does anyone have experience with these skis?

 

[Verve]

I quite like them personally and from the experiences of women who demo at my ski shop can say most find them much more approachable than the previous iteration, the Black Pearl 97 - which was a bit of a tank. They are stiff though, especially compared to the more universally popular Black Pearl 88.

If you liked them on a first day, I think you might grow to love them. If you wanted to try something close but different to offset the demo experience, the black Pearl 88 is an obvious choice but you might also try the Atomic Maven 94. The other obvious contender is the Sheeva 9, also from Blizzard, a more loose ski, that you may not find to have the same “pop” you enjoyed but which is very maneuverable off piste.

 

[tahoebunny]

Thanks @Verve for your insights! I suspect you’re right. I will give them some time and play around with them some more. Maybe I just need to engage my legs differently with them.

 

[santacruz skier]

Where do you ski in Tahoe?

 

[Jilly]

What ski are you coming off of? Straight old skis or just older shaped skis?

 

[tahoebunny]

@santacruz skier plan on Northstar, Sugarbowl, and Palisades being my hangouts.
@Jilly i haven’t had skis for over 20 years! Tried fat skis for the first time 6 years ago, rentals, and enjoyed them. That’s what made me take the plunge and buy some now that I want to spend more time on the slopes.

 

[Jilly]

OK. 94 underfoot, is quite a difference to any of the old 2000's.

Keep skiing them. Maybe even invest in a lesson.

 

[contesstant]

Hi, I finally have time to get back into skiing. Yay! So I got the Blizzard Black Pearl 94 in 166cm. I’m 5’4”, 125 pounds, advanced skier in my 50s. I tried them for the first time this weekend. I found I’m definitely slower than I used to be. So sad. But I liked the skis, they seemed to do well on all terrain and had a nice spring coming out of turns. But I did feel they were a little heavy and hard to maneuver in tight areas. I can’t tell if it’s because I don’t have my ski legs anymore or what. Does anyone have experience with these skis?

The current Black Pearl 94 does not come in a 166. Are they 164?
Wider skis will feel slower to maneuver because, well, they are. I think you'll adapt to them.

 

[tahoebunny]

@contesstant yes, you’re right then, 164. Thanks, for helping me!

 

[tahoebunny]

OK. 94 underfoot, is quite a difference to any of the old 2000's.

Keep skiing them. Maybe even invest in a lesson.

That’s a good idea. May try a lesson next time to see what tips they have.

 

[tahoebunny]

This has been really helpful to get everyone’s thoughts on my situation. I’m so glad I found this forum. Much more helpful to hear from real people vs what AI has to say for this situation. Thanks all!

 

[contesstant]

@contesstant yes, you’re right then, 164. Thanks, for helping me!

FWIW I have the Black Pearl 88, current model, and it's pretty sporty but 6 mm narrower which can make a big difference. With that, my 88s feel pretty sluggish after I've been on a 72 under foot ski for awhile. You are on an appropriate length, I think, but they will feel their best in soft snow since that's what they're designed for. One great thing is as spring slush season approaches, they'll be a lot of fun!

 

[Puppyski]

I have the same skis and I love them. I am a couple of inches taller than you, and firmly ‘mid-size’ (US size 10/12), so I have quite a bit more body mass than you do.

I love the weight and stiffness of this ski, it is just about perfect for me as a high intermediate/ low advanced skier. In contrast, a similar waist size in the Nordica Santa Anas was too much ski for me. Just too stiff and too heavy.

I was on a terrible pair of noodles before, that chattered badly and literally slipped out from under me. They were a narrower waist, so it did take some adjustment to the width of the BPs during the two days I was demoing them.

After owning a pair of BPs for 14 days of skiing (and counting) I love how they feel so solid, stable, and like they are there to support me when I really need them. They are fantastic in mixed conditions, and in fresh snow, and on soft bumps. I have not taken them into deep powder. I do suspect a narrower (but sufficiently stiff) ski would be better on ice, though the BPs still handle it well, and better than the narrower, less stiff ski I was on before.

It did take some time to get used to doing shorter turns on them, but now they feel great on those too. And I think the most fun I had on them was a day when it was snowing and I was bouncing around soft bumps like a happy bunny rabbit. I had never enjoyed terrain like that before.

A lesson would probably really help with dialing everything in. It is a big shift from straight skis to the BPs.

 

[tahoebunny]

I have the same skis and I love them. I am a couple of inches taller than you, and firmly ‘mid-size’ (US size 10/12), so I have quite a bit more body mass than you do.

I love the weight and stiffness of this ski, it is just about perfect for me as a high intermediate/ low advanced skier. In contrast, a similar waist size in the Nordica Santa Anas was too much ski for me. Just too stiff and too heavy.

I was on a terrible pair of noodles before, that chattered badly and literally slipped out from under me. They were a narrower waist, so it did take some adjustment to the width of the BPs during the two days I was demoing them.

After owning a pair of BPs for 14 days of skiing (and counting) I love how they feel so solid, stable, and like they are there to support me when I really need them. They are fantastic in mixed conditions, and in fresh snow, and on soft bumps. I have not taken them into deep powder. I do suspect a narrower (but sufficiently stiff) ski would be better on ice, though the BPs still handle it well, and better than the narrower, less stiff ski I was on before.

It did take some time to get used to doing shorter turns on them, but now they feel great on those too. And I think the most fun I had on them was a day when it was snowing and I was bouncing around soft bumps like a happy bunny rabbit. I had never enjoyed terrain like that before.

A lesson would probably really help with dialing everything in. It is a big shift from straight skis to the BPs.

Thanks so much for sharing! This is good to know. I only got to ski a couple days on them so I look forward to giving them a real workout.

 

[santacruz skier]

paging @kkclimb ....

 

[HuntersEmma57]

I quite like them personally and from the experiences of women who demo at my ski shop can say most find them much more approachable than the previous iteration, the Black Pearl 97 - which was a bit of a tank. They are stiff though, especially compared to the more universally popular Black Pearl 88.

If you liked them on a first day, I think you might grow to love them. If you wanted to try something close but different to offset the demo experience, the black Pearl 88 is an obvious choice but you might also try the Atomic Maven 94. The other obvious contender is the Sheeva 9, also from Blizzard, a more loose ski, that you may not find to have the same “pop” you enjoyed but which is very maneuverable off piste.

I was waiting & waiting for the shuttle today and my eyes wandered down to my Black Pearls and saw the big bold 97. I thought I bought Black Pearl 94s!!! And I have been posting about what I thought were 94s for 2 years. Geez. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

I concur that the 97s are a bit of a tank and can be grabby on transitions from groomer to off piste (just playing off the sides). (I ski mostly powder skis so it could be operator error). What I find is they require an aggressive driver. I would not characterize them as playful. But if you wanna hammers soft to medium groomers and spring conditions, they do shine. Just stay on top of them. They demand respect.

 

[contesstant]

I was waiting & waiting for the shuttle today and my eyes wandered down to my Black Pearls and saw the big bold 97. I thought I bought Black Pearl 94s!!! And I have been posting about what I thought were 94s for 2 years. Geez. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

I concur that the 97s are a bit of a tank and can be grabby on transitions from groomer to off piste (just playing off the sides). (I ski mostly powder skis so it could be operator error). What I find is they require an aggressive driver. I would not characterize them as playful. But if you wanna hammers soft to medium groomers and spring conditions, they do shine. Just stay on top of them. They demand respect.

Yeah, those 97s are pretty demanding. The latest version is much more playful.

 

[MM Smith]

Hi, I finally have time to get back into skiing. Yay! So I got the Blizzard Black Pearl 94 in 166cm. I’m 5’4”, 125 pounds, advanced skier in my 50s. I tried them for the first time this weekend. I found I’m definitely slower than I used to be. So sad. But I liked the skis, they seemed to do well on all terrain and had a nice spring coming out of turns. But I did feel they were a little heavy and hard to maneuver in tight areas. I can’t tell if it’s because I don’t have my ski legs anymore or what. Does anyone have experience with these skis?

Could be a bit long for you at 5’4.

 

[Butterflier]

Could be a bit long for you at 5’4.

I concur, it's possible they're just the slightest bit on the long side for you? Since you mentioned feeling great on them outside of tight turns. I'm 5'6" 105lbs and I grabbed the 94s at 158cm after demoing the new 88s at 164 because I had a similar experience as you: felt great when I had the luxury of looking far ahead but impossibly delayed on reaction time otherwise. I'm thinking 160 or 162 would probably be the sweet spot for us; it's crazy what a difference just 1-2" length can make on turn radius considering how little mass we have to throw around and facilitate that!