New skis for Intermediate skier - Santa Ana 88 vs 93 lengths

[SnoFlake61]

I started skiing again last winter after an ~20 yr hiatus. I got in about 6 days in last year and a bit less this year due to the virus shutting down Crystal here in the PNW. I bought a pair of boots at the end of the season last year and was hoping to buy a pair of skis this year, so have been demoing a number of the Santa Ana models in various sizes. I really needed a couple of more demos to narrow/finalize a choice; but as the season has, for all practical purposes, come to an end, I am looking for some guidance/advice. I have read all of the existing threads, but thought posting my own situation may garner a few more useful opinions.

I am 58 yr old, 5'10", 170 lbs intermediate skier hoping to move to advanced next year. I currently feel most comfortable on groomers although I have skied a bit off-piste in deeper snow with my fiance, who is an expert skier. I hope to advance more next year and spend more time on un-groomed slopes so we can ski together, but with the caveat that I have to be careful in moguls and more difficult conditions due to my spinal fusion (lower lumbar region) forcing me to avoid twisting at the hip. In reality, I will probably spend 70-80% of my time on groomed slopes with the rest venturing with him off-piste a bit.

I have demoed a number of Santa Ana skis between last year and this year, including the 93 and 100 (too short in 161, better in 169) and, more recently, the 165 cm Santa Ana 88. The 88's were demo'd about 1.5 months ago at Squaw Valley where everyone was sticking to the groomers due to the cold frozen conditions. I really loved the skis and felt I made real progress in technique. Since I returned to PNW with my improved technique, I wanted to try 93 and the 100s again for a comparison, but only got a chance to do one pair in 169 in mixed snow conditions, but I don't recall for sure if it was the 93 or 100 width. Regardless I felt more confident on the 88's (165 cm) but that might have been due to more consistent, although primarily hard, conditions at Squaw.

I am thinking that the 88 or 93 would still be best for me for the location (PNW) and slopes (more groomers than not) I will frequent for the near future. But I also want to advance and spend adventuring a bit off piste, so a more versatile ski might be best. Can any of you Divas make any suggestions on which one and the appropriate length for an intermediate hoping to improve advance next year? Thanks.

 

[newboots]

I'll leave the recommendations to people who know the answers, but suffice to say -

 

[SarahXC]

Welcome @SnoFlake61! I am a few inches shorter but within a few pounds of your weight. I think for the Santa Ana it is worth being careful in considering the model year you are are considering. I have not skied them but 2021 I read (maybe here even?) ski longer than previous versions.

If it were me I would go for an end of year sale pre changes model in 93 for what you are describing in the 169. In fact I almost did before being lured into a DPS Cassiar 94 by DH who raves about his pair.

 

[SarahXC]

Adding I am not an expert on such things and dont ski in the pnw so hopefully some more experienced in your neck of the woods will speak up. I also ski a little shorter ski than many divas as I am building my skills still and would rather err toward a ski that feels a little unstable at speed (I’ll just go slower) than one that feels cumbersome and slows down my learning curve.

 

[LauraVa]

I recommend going with the 88 if you're skiing mostly groomers for now. I have this ski and absolutely love it. I ski primarily on groomers in the East, but based on other Diva's reviews, these will still give you some versatility for off piste. And you can always buy the 100s in a year or so for deeper days......

 

[SarahXC]

I will say I have enjoyed a 88 underfoot ski (older Nordica model) on hard groomers as a go to for the last couple years. Soft groomers like I have enjoyed in the Rockies I find a wider ski does just fine but I really don’t like my 99 underfoot on east coast hardpack/ice. What are your groomed conditions like usually where you are skiing most? Do you see yourself adding another ski down the road? I’d agree the 88+100 later proposed by @LauraVa is a good idea if you do. So many of the choices are driven by individual factors.

 

[contesstant]

I recommend going with the 88 if you're skiing mostly groomers for now. I have this ski and absolutely love it. I ski primarily on groomers in the East, but based on other Diva's reviews, these will still give you some versatility for off piste. And you can always buy the 100s in a year or so for deeper days......

Yep. I ski the 88s almost daily here in Utah. Off piste, powder, doesn't matter. I have found that unless it's super deep untracked powder, I'll take my versatile 88 all day long over anything wider. Even in deep untracked, they are a blast, just require more physical strength than a wider ski.

I will say that a 165 in the 88 seems a tad short for someone who is 5'10" and weighs 170 lbs. I'm 5 inches shorter and weigh 125 and ski the 165, and there are days I wish for more length.

 

[bsskier]

The 2020-2021 SA 88 is a really great ski! I’m an athletic 5’4 and got on the 158 during demo day and enjoyed it immensely on blue steeps and black bumps. I would have liked to take it (and some others I demo’d) on more runs, but from my experience in a sunny beautiful Big Sky day, these are super fun skis. Note they do indeed ski longer than the (SA 93) 161 I rode in January and I welcomed it.

 

[UtahLuvr]

I am having a hard time deciding the same, but have a similar story to you. It seems there is very little advice for people who ski just one type of conditions and the terminology is so advanced you have a hard time following if not an expert.

 

[marzNC]

I am having a hard time deciding the same, but have a similar story to you. It seems there is very little advice for people who ski just one type of conditions and the terminology is so advanced you have a hard time following if not an expert.

Welcome! What exactly to you mean about "one type of conditions"? Even at my small home hill in northern VA, the snow conditions can vary quite a bit depending on the weather even though it's essentially all manmade snow and there is no off-piste terrain.

I think if you read threads about choosing skis around here that are for women of about the same size and ability level, you can get ideas of which models are popular. For an intermediate while there are differences, there are many models that can be quite fun. No need to worry about finding the "ideal" pair of skis.

Are you only skiing in Utah?

 

[lisamamot]

@SnoFlake61 If you like the Santa Ana 88, get the 172; I am 5’9”/140ish and that would be my length of choice.

 

[SnoFlake61]

Hi Divas,

Thank you so much for all of your replies!! I found them all very helpful. I do apologize profusely for not thanking you earlier, with all the COVID-19 gyrations and changes in my work and personal life, I got distracted from important things....like picking up some skis. Just kidding, everyone, life in this age should not be taken lightly and I hope all of you are staying healthy and safe.

Anyways, to answer some of the previous questions, the conditions in the PNW tend to be fairly heavy, wet snow when it is deep and can can be crusty to sticky when not. It is rare that we get really light snow here.

I think the suggestions of getting the Santa Ana 88 (thanks LauraV, Contesstant, Lisamamot!) in a 172 cm to start off with and then add to that with a wider ski (e.g. 100) as I progress in technique and venture more frequently off-piste and/or into deeper snow conditions is probably a good idea. I am also realistic that while it might not be the best ski for me overall, groomers or not, my initial favorable impressions of it when I skied the shorter 165 length for a few days at Squaw will do a lot for my confidence when I do get back on the snow, whenever that may happen.

I am just wondering though if the changes in the 20/21 model vs 19/20 model in the max 172 cm length would make a difference for my 5'10" 170-175 lb frame and one would be better for me at my current intermediate level and being slightly hampered (lower lumbar fusion). Any of you with the 19/20 or earlier model try out the 20/21 version? Thoughts?

Thanks again for all your recommendations.

 

[contesstant]

Hi Divas,

Thank you so much for all of your replies!! I found them all very helpful. I do apologize profusely for not thanking you earlier, with all the COVID-19 gyrations and changes in my work and personal life, I got distracted from important things....like picking up some skis. Just kidding, everyone, life in this age should not be taken lightly and I hope all of you are staying healthy and safe.

Anyways, to answer some of the previous questions, the conditions in the PNW tend to be fairly heavy, wet snow when it is deep and can can be crusty to sticky when not. It is rare that we get really light snow here.

I think the suggestions of getting the Santa Ana 88 (thanks LauraV, Contesstant, Lisamamot!) in a 172 cm to start off with and then add to that with a wider ski (e.g. 100) as I progress in technique and venture more frequently off-piste and/or into deeper snow conditions is probably a good idea. I am also realistic that while it might not be the best ski for me overall, groomers or not, my initial favorable impressions of it when I skied the shorter 165 length for a few days at Squaw will do a lot for my confidence when I do get back on the snow, whenever that may happen.

I am just wondering though if the changes in the 20/21 model vs 19/20 model in the max 172 cm length would make a difference for my 5'10" 170-175 lb frame and one would be better for me at my current intermediate level and being slightly hampered (lower lumbar fusion). Any of you with the 19/20 or earlier model try out the 20/21 version? Thoughts?

Thanks again for all your recommendations.

I skied the 20/21 version and honestly, it felt the same to me. Home, that ski is just home to me. That being said, supposedly it is a tad less stiff than the previous version, and a bit "easier" as a result. Again, I found it as fun and playful and stable as the 19/20 version. (And has me thinking I need to sell mine and get the 19/20 version since I tend to get a new pair every season.)

 

[SnoFlake61]

Thanks Contesstant! That is good to know about the limited difference. I am really thinking about buying a 172 in the 19/20 version now while they are still available and the price is better, unless anyone else pipes in with additional differences. I just hope the COVID situation improves enough next winter to allow us to ski. If it doesn't, I will be depressed for many reasons.

Any binding suggestions? My partner swears by the standard Look SPX 12 bindings for both reliability and multidirection (upward) toe release, but I struggle getting clipped in in deep snow which is compounded by my lower back limitations for twisting/bending. I am thinking of maybe going with the Tyrolia Attack2 series (e.g. 11 GW, 12 GW, or 13 GW) as they are supposed to be easier to get into then the Look SPX series. Any associated binding recommendations?

 

[SqueakySnow]

I've had the Look SPX 12 on my last 2 pair of skis (current ski being the Santa Ana 93). I've been very pleased with them and haven't had difficulty getting in. But, the Tyrolia Attack are even easier to get into. I had the pleasure of skiing them on a demo last year and they were an absolute breeze.

 

[SnoFlake61]

Thanks SqueakySnow. That is great info. I realize that you only had a chance to do the Attack demo binding the one time, but did you also find it easier/harder to clear the snow off? Which bindings did you feel are more sensitive in terms of getting the exact right entry angle and snow off? Sorry about all the questions; it is just hard for me at times to position myself properly. Thanks.

 

[SqueakySnow]

Entry angle and clearing snow specifically from the bindings seemed equally easy for both brands. Personally, I find 2 problematic scenarios when it comes to getting my boot in the binding. One is when I've been walking and snow collects on the bottom of my boot. Everything looks clear on the binding, but boot buildup blocks the binding from engaging. I'm almost always on hard-packed areas when this happens, so a light scrape of the boot sole over the front binding ejects the offending snow cake. I've got more than enough leverage here to easily snap into either brand. The second scenario, that you've mentioned above, is when I'm in softer snow and don't have enough leverage to snap in because it's squishy under my ski. In this case, the binding that takes less force to engage will be better, and I think that is the Tyrolia Attack. Hopefully, someone can jump in here with more Tyrolia experience to let us know if this benefit comes at a cost in some other area of performance. Does that help?

 

[SnoFlake61]

@SqueakySnow - Yes it does help alot! So Tyrolia is definitely better in the engagement part as I suspected. I will wait a bit for others to chime in on the cons, as you have also suggested, before moving forward.

 

[Patronainthe801]

At 5'10", I would definitely go with the longer length. I'm 5'8" on my best day, and 165, and find myself very comfortable on 168, but recently am thinking of jumping up to 171. I personally find the longer ski's to be more stable. At 5'10", your ski level, and someone who spends the majority of time on groomers, I would think you could easily do 168-172.

As far as underfoot, I would go with the 88 or 93. Granted I'm in Utah, where you can get away with a little narrower ski in powder, than you would on a heaver, wetter snow, but I think the 93 would be a nice middle ground. I don't venture into the 100+ because I'm a sucker for a fresh groomer, and anything in the low 90's would be plenty sufficient.

That said, I am a loyal Volkl gal. However, @contesstant has been doing an excellent job of selling me on the SA's for the last year, and I am now considering moving it above my wish list of Volkl's Secret 92 and Deacon 74-76. The Santa Ana's seem to an all-around great choice for most of the owners on here.