edelweissmaedl
Angel Diva
I like mine better in crud than my BP's. Congrats on the new skis!
-
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.
Nela 88: Thoughts on Sizing?
- Thread starter MaryVA
- Start date
MissySki
Angel Diva
^^^ 100% agree!They are even more stable in crud.
lisamamot
Angel Diva
I agree with @contesstant and @MissySki regarding the stability. I am 5'9"/140s and an advanced New England skier. I own the Stockli Stormrider Motion 85 168 (predecessor to the Nela 88) - the 168 was the longest they made them in, and still is. They are super stable and an absolute joy to ski.
VickiK
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Continuation of the Stockli Nela 88 conversation...
I have the 160s with a Salomon DMX 11 demo binding. I've had out them twice so far in different conditions. I am not feeling the love for them. I usually ski 158-163cm skis, am a intermediate-advanced skier, 5'1", 165 lbs. They feel stable but heavy, different from feeling damp. I'm wondering if the demo binding is what is preventing me from enjoying the Nelas. What is also worrisome is that I felt twinges in both knees after a couple of hours on them.
I saw these skis as a replacement for my obsolete Black Pearls, 159cm with a 88mm waist, which while I concur they were not great in crud, were a lot more fun overall. I'm thinking I'll probably sell the Nelas.
Re: Taos, I'll take my 159cm Fischers, 79mm under foot. I have an aging pair of 152cm Dynastars too, which are a bit short for my taste. If they pass a binding check, I can take them.
@contesstant and @MissySki thoughts?
I have the 160s with a Salomon DMX 11 demo binding. I've had out them twice so far in different conditions. I am not feeling the love for them. I usually ski 158-163cm skis, am a intermediate-advanced skier, 5'1", 165 lbs. They feel stable but heavy, different from feeling damp. I'm wondering if the demo binding is what is preventing me from enjoying the Nelas. What is also worrisome is that I felt twinges in both knees after a couple of hours on them.
I saw these skis as a replacement for my obsolete Black Pearls, 159cm with a 88mm waist, which while I concur they were not great in crud, were a lot more fun overall. I'm thinking I'll probably sell the Nelas.
Re: Taos, I'll take my 159cm Fischers, 79mm under foot. I have an aging pair of 152cm Dynastars too, which are a bit short for my taste. If they pass a binding check, I can take them.
@contesstant and @MissySki thoughts?
contesstant
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Mine are definitely not heavy, in fact, they are the lightest skis I own by quite a bit. 160 is long in that ski for you, though. They ski pretty long IMO. Did you demo them prior to buying them?
edelweissmaedl
Angel Diva
I have the skinnier BP 78’s and my Nela’s are 2.25 lbs heavier than my BP’s. Part of that is due to heavier bindings, but I don’t notice the weight when skiing (just on the lift at times).
VickiK
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I didn't demo. Wish I had.
skibum4ever
Angel Diva
I'm 5'0" and 130 lb. I have always used skis in the low 160's.
That will probably change when I buy my next pair.
That will probably change when I buy my next pair.
MissySki
Angel Diva
That actually sounds so short to me, but obviously everyone has a preference that works for them with skis and sizing.
I am 5’4” 125lbs and usually like skis in the mid-160s. I have the Stockli Stormrider 85 in a 161 and those do work really well for me since they are damper than other skis I have. The other option was a 168 which felt a bit too long in that ski for me in tighter terrain. I have not demoed the Nela 88, so I can’t speak to that sizing specifically. I did try the Nela 80 in 157 (I think?) back in December and it felt extremely short to me. Perhaps because it was so light.. I’m not sure I just know I found a speed limit too quickly and really wanted more length when I was on it. Unfortunately they didn’t have anything longer at that demo, which is why I was on that size.
contesstant
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Have they been tuned?
contesstant
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Have you tried skiing with the bindings a cm or two forward, since they are demo bindings?
VickiK
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@contesstant I haven't -- I'm not sure I am qualified of doing this myself, but I'll take them up to ski shop in Mammoth next time I go and ask their advice. It's still before the Taos trip, it's worth it. Thank you!
chasinghorizons
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Sounds like they might be edge high. That can make a ski feel really locked in, heavy, and harder to turn. Might be worth just getting a base grind either way
mustski
Angel Diva
It’s always worth a tune … but, correct me if I’m wrong… you tried them out in the middle of that last heavy, wet Sierra storm? If so, try them again before deciding.
coldthrill
Angel Diva
Crossing fingers they work out for you!
marzNC
Angel Diva
You are skiing Taos. People tend to ski lots of bumps and trees, which is why most regulars have skis shorter than at other big mountains in the west.
When I demo'd during a Women's Week, I ended up with BP88 @145. My instructor was very happy. My all mountain skis are 159cm and she considered those too long. However, I have had a good time with those skis at many resorts, including Taos. Have skied groomers at speed, black bump and tree terrain, and even deep fluffy power a few times. Works in Taos double-black terrain too but I haven't skied that too much in the last couple seasons.
VickiK
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Update from a trip after posting above: per comments (thank you), I had the mounting point and the tune checked by a trusted shop, and both were deemed fine. I was the one who got the side eye. At 5'1", they would have put me on a 152cm ski, and thought that the longer length was the problem.
Day 1 - Skied my Nela 88 160cm skis and started to understand what they like and what they are. They like me keeping my weight well forward. They like an early and committed weight transfer to the new outside ski for the turn, and an active leg bring the new inside ski in. Not sure if I'm describing this clearly. Give them what they like, they are responsive, smooth, damp and powerful. They're not especially forgiving for less than good skiing, for example in completing a turn, the edge of the new inside ski felt grabby if I wasn't careful.
Day 2 - Skied my Fischer My Mtn 80. I am comfortable and familiar with this ski but this time noticed how well it too would reward good ski technique on my part, though it was more forgiving of my less-than-stellar turns.
Day 3 - Rented Nela 88 152cm demos. They felt stable, manageable, and were a lot of fun. It was a positive experience.
Now...what to do. I could:
Build on my ski conditioning, improve my ski skills, and hope that the 160cm length I own will be just fine. Realistically I'm not in great ski shape and this last ski trip was the first good test.
- or -
Sell the 160s or trade them for a 152.
contesstant
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'd sell and get the 152. I think you will fight the 160s more than would make you happy.
