Know something about the Kiku?

[mollmeister]

I am curious since my dealer of choice has basically replaced the Aura in their lineup with the Kiku. And I have noticed very few dealers stocking the 08/09 Aura, and more with the Kiku.

I loved the Aura last year. It was zippy and snappy and relatively stiff and the shovel just blasted through crud. BLASTED, I say. And obviously it provided plenty of float for little ol' me.

So what is it with the Kiku?

I gather it's the women's specific Gotama. Therefore wider. But I also gather it's maybe a bit softer than the Aura/Mantra?

And long? I think the shortest length is 168cm (which is surprising to me, since that's also the shortest length on the Got-- you think they'd go one step shorter for the ladies). I am only 5'2", 110-115lbs, so I would generally think shorter than 168cm unless I was using this as a truly dedicated steep and deep ski. Unless it skis short? (The 156cm and 173cm Aura seemed to have slightly shorter on-snow surface area, so maybe it's a Volkl thing?)

I don't know. I am second-guessing myself, since I would have to special order the Aura. And because *everyone* seems so hot on the Kiku.

 

[vanhoskier]

Excellent question. No idea. Maybe they figure it's a better ski for western conditions?

When I make it over to my ski shop, which is a Volkl dealer, I'll have to check out what they have. I'd predict I'll see the Aurora, but not the Aura OR the Kiku.

When do the ski reviews for this year's stuff come out? That may give some insight, too.

 

[RachelV]

The Skiing gear guide had quick review of the Kiku in it, but I forget what they said. If no one's posted the details by the end of the day, I'll copy it up when I get home.

 

[RachelV]

Forgot to post this the other day...

Skiing has the Kiku in the "big mountain expert" category, and it they rated it the best women's ski in that category. 133/105/124, in 168 and 176 lengths.

"The women-specific version of the Gotama, the Kiku plowed through powder and crud better than any other ski in the category. On chalky, steep terrain, testers praised its control and precision. Plus: Handles speed like a bobsled. Minus: Planklike feel makes it slow to react on short-radius turns. Tester's take: Finally, a real big-mountain ski for women."

Definitely seems like a different ski than the Aura -- less versatile. Seems like more of a "ski big lines on powder days" ski than an all around west-coast ski.

 

[PowDiva85]

so the kiku is going to be replacing the aura in most shops this year because of the graphics on the aura...volkl really screwed it up this time...but what can you do? so far i have heard really good things about the kiku and that it is going to be a great powder ski for the expert level skiers however possibly not as forgiving as the aura. If you want a powder ski but dont quite consider yourself at the expert level I would look into the phat luv from K2 or the sweet one from head.

 

[altagirl]

so the kiku is going to be replacing the aura in most shops this year because of the graphics on the aura...volkl really screwed it up this time...but what can you do? so far i have heard really good things about the kiku and that it is going to be a great powder ski for the expert level skiers however possibly not as forgiving as the aura. If you want a powder ski but dont quite consider yourself at the expert level I would look into the phat luv from K2 or the sweet one from head.

Hmmm..

Well - from a graphics only perspective - I would certainly purchase the 2009 Aura over the Kiku. I LOVE the new Aura graphics - probably my favorite of anything I've seen this season (edit: okay after further review I'd put the new Phat Luvs at #1 and the new Aura at #2, but they're actually somewhat similar at first glance... but I like the Aura better as a ski...). Anyway - much, much improved from last year - which I thought was too white/washed out.

And I do concur the Aura is a much more versatile ski.

That said - as popular as they are here, I don't actually know (in the sense of regularly skiing with) any women who own them. And I know a lot of women who own Gotamas. (Myself included...)

I think the trend is to buy skis for the conditions you want to ski in the most even if they are not the most practical everyday skis and it means you struggle on them on hardpack days. Whether this is good or bad - I can't say. But I can't tell you how many chairlifts I've ridden at Alta where everyone on the chair is skiing Gotamas - or everyone is skiing on Praxis (which dwarf the Gotamas and are even LESS practical for daily use). They're a hugely popular ski among both men and women and I can understand why shops would want to carry the new women's version.

I can't really understand why they would carry it INSTEAD of the Aura, but if you had to pick one to carry - I would probably choose the new model for this year rather than one that's been around for several years - just because it seems like it would inherently attract more interest.

 

[ski now work later]

As an East Coast skier who gets out West once a season, the Auras are a better choice for me. I love how versatile the Auras are, but then again, I'm not skiing in deep powder on a regular basis, so it all depends on where you ski and what your skill level is. I need a ski that can handle wind-blown hardpack (which sometimes happens out West) and hold an edge, and I need to make short radius turns in dicey situtations since I'm an intermediate skier, so no Kiku for me (though I'd love to demo them and the Auroras, just for kicks).

I'll be bringing my Auras to the Diva Summit in March, and they should take me through all conditions that I might encounter!

BTW, I saw a pair of '08 Auras in Stowe VT at the Pinnacle Shop when I was there in late July, probably 163 length, maybe 170. They were marked down to about $560 and might still be available for shipping Mollmeister!

 

[ski now work later]

I am curious since my dealer of choice has basically replaced the Aura in their lineup with the Kiku. And I have noticed very few dealers stocking the 08/09 Aura, and more with the Kiku.

I loved the Aura last year. It was zippy and snappy and relatively stiff and the shovel just blasted through crud. BLASTED, I say. And obviously it provided plenty of float for little ol' me.

So what is it with the Kiku?

I gather it's the women's specific Gotama. Therefore wider. But I also gather it's maybe a bit softer than the Aura/Mantra?

And long? I think the shortest length is 168cm (which is surprising to me, since that's also the shortest length on the Got-- you think they'd go one step shorter for the ladies). I am only 5'2", 110-115lbs, so I would generally think shorter than 168cm unless I was using this as a truly dedicated steep and deep ski. Unless it skis short? (The 156cm and 173cm Aura seemed to have slightly shorter on-snow surface area, so maybe it's a Volkl thing?)

I don't know. I am second-guessing myself, since I would have to special order the Aura. And because *everyone* seems so hot on the Kiku.

Mollmeister, a couple more thoughts.

The 163 Aura is a "short 163" so you might like that length even at your height and weight, especially for the float. Certainly a 156 would give you a nimble all mountain ski.

I think that the Kiku is going to be more popular in your area because it's the new thing for pow skiing for women from Volkl and you're out in CO. I doubt it will be seen in many ski shops here in the Northeast.

And finally, I demod the Aura at Big Sky for kicks, and fell in love with it. Blasting through crud describes the ski perfectly. It made transitions from hard pack to crud to pow smoothly, bombproof. And I had a lot of fun skiing groomers with it back home.

Happy shopping!

 

[Kriss240]

I have both aura's and gots and the auras are a more versatile ski (it's my everyday ski out east) - but the gots really are a lot of fun (note: they ski short) and would probably be a good everyday ski out west.

I haven't flexed the Kiku's, but I would imagine they would be stiffer than the auras.

Either way, you'll have a lot of fun. Both are awesome skis.

 

[ski now work later]

I have both aura's and gots and the auras are a more versatile ski (it's my everyday ski out east)

Hey Kriss, welcome to New England! I was in Burlington last month, loved it, grew up in NYC and yup, Northern VT is the bomb. And Stowe? Can't get any better.

My Auras are my east coast ski too. I'm surprised as how versatile they are but admittedly haven't yet skied them on boilerplate or death cookies (two New England specialities) of which Stowe didn't see much last season. How have you found them to perform in those conditions?

Yup, would love to ski the Kikus out West. Maybe I'll get the chance when I'm in CO in March.

 

[altagirl]

I haven't flexed the Kiku's, but I would imagine they would be stiffer than the auras.

Yeah - I'm wondering about that.

Because it used to be that Mantras were much stiffer than Gotamas.

Then the Gotamas stiffened up some and got more sidecut....

So now I'm not really certain what the difference would be between the two of them in terms of stiffness - so I'm also wondering what the stiffness difference is in the women's versions...

 

[volklgirl]

My Auras are my east coast ski too. I'm surprised as how versatile they are but admittedly haven't yet skied them on boilerplate or death cookies (two New England specialities) of which Stowe didn't see much last season. How have you found them to perform in those conditions?

We get the same crap here.....that's the only conditions I've found the Aura to get sketchy in. They're stiff and light enough that they vibrate quite annoyingly, sometimes to the point where the bounce right out of the turn, and they get tossed around by the death cookies. Yuck.

Otherwise, hubby has had a very difficult time getting me off mine, even here in 400' hill-ville.

 

[Kriss240]

Hey Kriss, welcome to New England! I was in Burlington last month, loved it, grew up in NYC and yup, Northern VT is the bomb. And Stowe? Can't get any better.

My Auras are my east coast ski too. I'm surprised as how versatile they are but admittedly haven't yet skied them on boilerplate or death cookies (two New England specialities) of which Stowe didn't see much last season. How have you found them to perform in those conditions?

Yup, would love to ski the Kikus out West. Maybe I'll get the chance when I'm in CO in March.

Awesome, I'm from NJ used to work in NYC. I moved a year ago. Now I work right by Stowe so that's where I am most of the winter.

As for the Auras, Death cookies = death. and just straightline the boilerplate and you'll be fine

 

[skigrl27]

I think Volkl screwed up with LAST year's Aura graphics...white??

I'm also loving this year's graphics. Anyway - If the Kiku is softer than the Aura, it's definitely not for me. I'm skiing the super burly Mantras and I love them - and I'm glad that my new Aura's will be here in a few weeks. A super fat ski like the Kiku in a soft flex seems a bit like an oxymoron - but I'm a bigger girl, so maybe the Kiku would be perfect for a smaller-framed woman looking to ski big lines in deep soft snow.