vanhoskier
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
There are have been several threads about Auras on this site, but I felt compelled to post this new one after skiing my Auras for the first time today. I purchased my Auras (2007 model, in 177cm length) after reading so much about them here. I didn't really NEED them at all.....
My purchase was somewhat serendipitous. I had posted that I was looking for the 177's in the 2007 graphic, because I really liked that one (the chick with the sword, with the wood-look to the skis). I couldn't find them anywhere. Then, out of the blue, I got an email from a ski shop in Arizona that had a pair! I think somebody there saw my post, because I still can't figure out how this shop (unknown to me) knew about my search for the Auras.
Anyway, they arrived in April, so I couldn't ski them till now. Today was my third day on skis this year. I took them to Blue Mountain, my local hill. It was all man-made snow, as we here in PA are "blessed" with, especially this time of year. Conditions varied from about 4-5 inches of powder, to ice cookies to hardpack to chop. The Auras handled it all superbly. I noticed immediately their willingness to grip the hardpack and carve with ease, which is amazing for such a wide ski. They plowed through the chop and ice cookies with nary a complaint.
My regular all-mountain ski is the Line Celebrity, a ski on which I've waxed poetically on this forum! I was curious to compare the Auras to the Celebrity, because both are wide (Aura at 94mm and Celebrity at 90mm) and both are similar in actual length to about a cm.....although the Celebrity's advertised length is 172 and the Aura is 177. The Celebrities are twin tips and the Auras aren't, although their tails are rounded a bit.
What I noticed is that the Auras, compared to the Celebrities, require a bit more skilled input. If you get sloppy and slide to the back seat, the Auras will spank you a bit, whereas for the Celebrities it's no big deal. Smeared and skidded turns are way easier on the Celebrities than the Auras, but the Auras carve better, holding the edge like a rail through the turn. Because the Celebrities can be skidded, they are easier to do very short radius turns....whereas the Auras like big honking wide arcs, especially at speed.
I would love the chance to take these babies on some really long, wide runs where I can just let them run. Here on my local hill, it can get crowded, and I'm constantly navigating human slalom gates.
In short, I love both skis. They have different personalities and therefore different purposes. In a lesson/clinic situation, I'd use my Celebrities, simply for their ability to do shorter-radius turns, but, for times when I just want to carve big turns with a big stupid grin on my face, or for skiing out West, I'll use the Auras.
So, the Aura love-fest that has occurred on this forum is well-deserved. They are one GREAT ski. I am disappointed and somewhat confused by Volkl's removal of the 177cm length for the Aura, because for me, at 5'10" and 160lb, it's perfect. There ARE tall/athletically built women out there that need longer skis!!!!
My purchase was somewhat serendipitous. I had posted that I was looking for the 177's in the 2007 graphic, because I really liked that one (the chick with the sword, with the wood-look to the skis). I couldn't find them anywhere. Then, out of the blue, I got an email from a ski shop in Arizona that had a pair! I think somebody there saw my post, because I still can't figure out how this shop (unknown to me) knew about my search for the Auras.
Anyway, they arrived in April, so I couldn't ski them till now. Today was my third day on skis this year. I took them to Blue Mountain, my local hill. It was all man-made snow, as we here in PA are "blessed" with, especially this time of year. Conditions varied from about 4-5 inches of powder, to ice cookies to hardpack to chop. The Auras handled it all superbly. I noticed immediately their willingness to grip the hardpack and carve with ease, which is amazing for such a wide ski. They plowed through the chop and ice cookies with nary a complaint.
My regular all-mountain ski is the Line Celebrity, a ski on which I've waxed poetically on this forum! I was curious to compare the Auras to the Celebrity, because both are wide (Aura at 94mm and Celebrity at 90mm) and both are similar in actual length to about a cm.....although the Celebrity's advertised length is 172 and the Aura is 177. The Celebrities are twin tips and the Auras aren't, although their tails are rounded a bit.
What I noticed is that the Auras, compared to the Celebrities, require a bit more skilled input. If you get sloppy and slide to the back seat, the Auras will spank you a bit, whereas for the Celebrities it's no big deal. Smeared and skidded turns are way easier on the Celebrities than the Auras, but the Auras carve better, holding the edge like a rail through the turn. Because the Celebrities can be skidded, they are easier to do very short radius turns....whereas the Auras like big honking wide arcs, especially at speed.
I would love the chance to take these babies on some really long, wide runs where I can just let them run. Here on my local hill, it can get crowded, and I'm constantly navigating human slalom gates.In short, I love both skis. They have different personalities and therefore different purposes. In a lesson/clinic situation, I'd use my Celebrities, simply for their ability to do shorter-radius turns, but, for times when I just want to carve big turns with a big stupid grin on my face, or for skiing out West, I'll use the Auras.
So, the Aura love-fest that has occurred on this forum is well-deserved. They are one GREAT ski. I am disappointed and somewhat confused by Volkl's removal of the 177cm length for the Aura, because for me, at 5'10" and 160lb, it's perfect. There ARE tall/athletically built women out there that need longer skis!!!!
. Gosh it sucks to be me 
I mounted them with Marker MC 11 bindings and they are sitting at my house calling to me. I'm taking them to Steamboat this weekend and absolutely cannot wait!
