Nordica SA 98, Blizzard Black Pearl 97 or...?

[J_fromCA]

Hi,
I am looking for a long overdue upgrade to all-mountain skis to better handle west-coast (Tahoe area) conditions. For the past 10years (yes, that long overdue!) I have been surviving on Volk Attiva's (76 waist, 153length) out here but want something around the mid-to-high 90's width.. nothing too narrow but nothing too wide that it tips to big-mountain. I mostly ski on-piste/groomers, probably because my narrow/stiff skis aren't that fun on crud, bumps, etc. but there is plenty of ungrommed terrain here in Tahoe that I find myself on. (Grew up skiing strictly east coast, so I am most familiar with ice and that a ski needs to have a descent edge..ha)

Winter 2018/2019 season I demoed Volkl Secrets 92 and Nordica SA 93 and while I liked them both and was very interested in buying one of the two, I actually ended up completely blowing out my ACL after a wee tumble. So there went the rest of that season and last, or the thought of buying skis that I injured myself on (I can't remember which skis I was on at the time of the fall)

This season I was gently suggested by my boyfriend (a big-time advanced-expert skier who lead me down that fateful trail.. haha) to try a wider waist. So far I have demoed Blizzard Black Pearl 97s (159) and Nordica SA 98s (158 and 165). I understand they have made some changes from last year's model (I didn't try them back in 2018-'19 bc they came in 98/100 and I didn't want to go that wide then). I liked them both, maybe the 165length SAs the most but wondering if anyone else has tried them and/or any other suggestions I should demo before making the plunge at the end of the year when they go on demo-sale? Should I try the narrower 92/93's again?

I am just shy of 5'-5" about 117lbs. Before my accident I would consider myself a Type III skier, but with a reconstructed ACL I am probably taking it more cautious this year until I get comfortable/confident that my knee is in fact okay. All is to say that I hope to get back to being an aggressive skier, actually enjoy Tahoe conditions with proper skis, and being able to occasionally go off-piste.

thanks so much in advanced (and reading my saga..lols)

 

[mustski]

Hi and welcome. I live in SoCal and ski both Mammoth and the Tahoe area as well. It is a big jump from a 73 waist to a high 90's waist, but I did it years ago and adjusted to it pretty quickly. I am wondering why you want to go that wide now when you didn't want to after demoing?

Anyhow, here are some thoughts.
1. Not all high 90 skis do well on groomers or rock hard coral reef. Some are sloppy and don't hold an edge well on scraped off hardback. They are more designed for off piste and have a softer snow bias. I nearly died in my Volkl 98's on rock hard coral reef on "the Oregon Trail" at Squaw.
2. Wider skis ( generally ) have a much larger turn radius so they are not as nimble in trees and bumps.
3. A lot of folks find skiing a wide waist ski is really hard on their knees. I personally don't have that problem.
4. If you can't demo, stick to what you know you like as far as ski brand goes. I have always liked Volkl and Nordica and can't count on that. I discovered that I am not a huge Renoun fan and that was a costly discovery.
5. Try demoing a ski in the 85-92 range and see how you like it. I discovered that range is much more versatile and handles a lot of terrain more effectively than the wider skis.

Try the Volkl Secret, Stockli Stormrider 85 W, The BP 88 - they are all quite different and will give you a feel for different skis. Also, the Liberty woman's line is getting some great reviews but I haven't tried them myself so I don't know.

 

[J_fromCA]

Thanks @mustski for your insight! Much appreciated.

I initially (back in 2018/19 season) didn't want to go that wide (>95) because I was a bit afraid that I wasn't going to be able to easily adjust from my 76's and felt like anything high 90's was going to limit me from having any sort of edge or be able to carve.

I have since been proven wrong after trying the BP 97's and SA98's. In early season conditions of hardpack, grommers, and even some icy spots, I was pleasantly surprised how well both held an edge.

I decided this season to start off demo'ing high 90's only because my boyfriend strongly suggested it. (He practically skis with sleds on his feet 108 &118s LOL). However, I am a Volkl fan so I think I will give the Secret 92s a try again, and the SA 93s- thanks for the nudge! I just want something versatile; can handle ripping down groomers with enough edge and limited chatter, but also be able to cut through and/or float above crud and those ungroomed packed powder bumps.. does that at all make sense or did I just through out a bunch of buzzwords?? ha.

If only I could be extra and have many multiple pairs of skis for any and all conditions!

 

[MissySki]

Thanks @mustski

If only I could be extra and have many multiple pairs of skis for any and all conditions!

If you stick around here long enough that is extremely likely to happen. Haha. I won’t even tell you how very extra I am based on the number of skis I own.

I’d add the Sheeva 9 and Santa Ana 93 to your list for demo.

 

[elemmac]

I am just shy of 5'-5" about 117lbs

You didn't mention your boyfriend's size, but keep in mind that a 108 or 118 ski skis very different for someone your size compared to the "typical" male size. Your boots are probably smaller and narrower, as well as you don't need nearly as much ski width in order to produce the same float for your weight. If you had demoed in the low 90's, and really enjoyed them, I wouldn't discount continuing down that path. Lots of skis in the upper 90's/low 100's will give you some decent versatility too.

Mustski posted some excellent feedback. I will throw out an additional opinion on #2

2. Wider skis ( generally ) have a much larger turn radius so they are not as nimble in trees and bumps.

While they may not be as nimble to go edge to edge...I almost always appreciate the additional stability and forgiveness a wider ski offers in uneven terrain...Just some food for thought.

 

[marzNC]

I decided this season to start off demo'ing high 90's only because my boyfriend strongly suggested it. (He practically skis with sleds on his feet 108 &118s LOL). However, I am a Volkl fan so I think I will give the Secret 92s a try again, and the SA 93s- thanks for the nudge! I just want something versatile; can handle ripping down groomers with enough edge and limited chatter, but also be able to cut through and/or float above crud and those ungroomed packed powder bumps.. does that at all make sense or did I just through out a bunch of buzzwords?? ha.

Definitely worth looking at skis from mid-80s to mid-90s given that what you want is versatility. I've had the chance to demo fairly often during the late season demo day at Alta in early April. I learned in recent years that I can have fun on skis that are mid-80s to ski in fresh powder a foot deep, but on days when off-piste is frozen after a thaw-freeze period being on skis that are 100+ underfoot that are designed for soft snow aren't that much fun. My current all-mountain skis that I fly with are 85 underfoot. I don't always bother to rent powder skis any more when I get lucky and catch a powder day.

Untracked powder turns just below the trees, at least boot deep, Grand Targhee Feb 2019

I am just shy of 5'-5" about 117lbs. Before my accident I would consider myself a Type III skier, but with a reconstructed ACL I am probably taking it more cautious this year until I get comfortable/confident that my knee is in fact okay. All is to say that I hope to get back to being an aggressive skier, actually enjoy Tahoe conditions with proper skis, and being able to occasionally go off-piste.

I'm petite, several inches shorter, slightly lighter, quite a bit older, and a coper without an ACL in one knee. My instructor at Alta doesn't want me to go wider than 100mm for a powder lesson. When I rent skis on a powder day, I usually go for 95-105 underfoot depending on how heavy the snow is. I've become a much better skier (after age 50) with the help of lessons and a lot of mileage on trips out west with great ski buddies who also value lessons as advanced skiers. I've gone from 80/20 to 30/70 when it comes to groomed/ungroomed terrain at big mountains since knee rehab.

@mustski makes a good point about paying attention to Turn Radius in addition to width and length. Took me quite a while to really register that TR varies by length for the same model. Here's an example for the Rossi Temptation from several years ago from a catalog I picked up at a ski show.

2017 Rossignol Temptation 88

172cm, R15.0m, 140+ lbs
164cm, R13.0m, 120-139 lbs
156cm, R12.0m, 100-119 lbs

 

[mustski]

I will say that Volkl skis are particularly versatile - even at wide lengths. I have been skiing my Volkl 90eights as my daily driver for a few years now. On coral reef the tails washed out on me but otherwise, they do well. My Volkl Ones are my piwder skus and they do just fine on the groomer ski out on the way home. Unless the powder is deep though, I don’t grab the 116s because they are unwieldy in cut up, chopped up crud.

In the end, what I like may not be what you like. That’s why demoing helps. I own a lot of Volkls because I never met a Volkl I didn’t like and I don’t always have demo opportunities.

 

[Christy]

You and I are exactly the same size @J_fromCA. I am also cautious and ski in the PNW which isn't too terribly different than Tahoe. I LOVE my BP 98s (in the 159 cm length). They are the 2019-2020 model and I don't know how different that is from what is offered now. I bought them for snowy days but these are my daily drivers too. Caveat, we don't get a lot of ice and I wouldn't ski if it were truly icy anyway. But I still like them on slightly firmer slopes, like, when it hasn't snowed for a few days, and I think they are really easy to turn. But like others said, it's so personal! Demoing is the best way to know if a ski is right for you.

 

[J_fromCA]

Wow, thanks for all the replies and insight. Greatly appreciated! Looks like I'll be demoing a few more times and include the high80's/low 90's range.

If anyone ends up trying out the 2021 SA 98 or the BP 97, I'd love to hear what you think of them.

 

[contesstant]

You and I are exactly the same size @J_fromCA. I am also cautious and ski in the PNW which isn't too terribly different than Tahoe. I LOVE my BP 98s (in the 159 cm length). They are the 2019-2020 model and I don't know how different that is from what is offered now. I bought them for snowy days but these are my daily drivers too. Caveat, we don't get a lot of ice and I wouldn't ski if it were truly icy anyway. But I still like them on slightly firmer slopes, like, when it hasn't snowed for a few days, and I think they are really easy to turn. But like others said, it's so personal! Demoing is the best way to know if a ski is right for you.

The 2021 model is vastly different. I skied them last year and they were more work than I care for, even at 165, which is actually short for me for a ski of that width. The 2019/20 model is a fantastic ski.

Funny thing is late last winter, I picked up a pair of Salomon Lumen 99 in a 174 by mistake (don't ask) and they are super easy to ski, even in that crazy long length.

 

[J_fromCA]

Funny thing is late last winter, I picked up a pair of Salomon Lumen 99 in a 174 by mistake (don't ask) and they are super easy to ski, even in that crazy long length.

Actually, now that you mention it (and after googling what they look like) I think I did give those a try one morning but didn't like how they were feeling on the groomers- like they were a little too light and playful for me. I felt like I couldn't go too fast and turn or else they'd slip out under me.. but that's just me. That said, I am glad the shop gave them to me to try because it was good to have something to compare to.

Knowing what I don't like is just as important as what knowing what I do, right?

Speaking of length, remember the days when skis were practically only one width (narrow) and were predominately measured to be one's height or longer?? I think I used to ski 170s when I was in middle school/high school! (...nearly 20 years ago - and I digress)

 

[MissySki]

Knowing what I don't like is just as important as what knowing what I do, right?

Absolutely!!

 

[scandium]

Knowing what you like is really important! I also value my edge grip and as a consequence have two pairs of skis (2019 Volkl Flair SC as my groomer ski and 2019 Yumi as my all-mountain, bumps and soft snow ski) with my eye on a third (which will hopefully be the new version of the Nordica Santa Ana 93) for days where I would like a bit more width.

With the Santa Anas, my understanding in the the newest model has less metal in it and skis more similarly to the first or second year without metal, whereas the 2019 version has two sheets of metal in. So definitely try this year's Santa Ana 93 - it's different from the one you may have injured yourself on!
I think both the Black Pearl and Sheeva line (disclaimer: I've only tried the older BP 88 and the Sheeva 9) are a bit more 'playful' and less solid overall for ripping groomers and cutting crud, but will float more and get around bumps and tight corners a bit more easily vs. the Santa Ana which tends to go "through" everything and is damper, but possibly less forgiving if you need to get around a corner quickly.
Judging by my own experience and review, the offerings in a similar width from Volkl such as the Secret or Kenja (there's a couple of older Kenjas with the 90mm waist, or the newer/slightly softer one with 88mm waist) need a bit more driving and if you're worried about your knees, then maybe they aren't going to be what you want to rebuild your confidence but possibly your next pair after you're ripping down the hills again!

 

[MrsPlow]

I'd give the Sheevas a try if you can, if you're wanting something that's fun off piste but can still hold up on a groomer. I've got the Rustler 10 (same as the older Sheeva 10) and I love the way it grips on groomers here in interior BC. I'm taller and heavier than you so the 9 would probably make more sense, but maybe also try the 10 just out of interest if you can? I'd like to try the 9 at some point as I hear great things about it.

Regarding the nimbleness or not of fat skis - I find my 116 underfoot JJs and 110 underfoot S7s very nimble and easy to turn in soft conditions. Both are fairly soft, lots of rocker and have a pretty small turn radius. With both, but most especially the JJs, I can kind of heel-steer them, so you can wipe off speed really easily and change direction by smearing.

 

[Patronainthe801]

Knowing what you like is really important! I also value my edge grip and as a consequence have two pairs of skis (2019 Volkl Flair SC as my groomer ski and 2019 Yumi as my all-mountain, bumps and soft snow ski) with my eye on a third (which will hopefully be the new version of the Nordica Santa Ana 93) for days where I would like a bit more width.

With the Santa Anas, my understanding in the the newest model has less metal in it and skis more similarly to the first or second year without metal, whereas the 2019 version has two sheets of metal in. So definitely try this year's Santa Ana 93 - it's different from the one you may have injured yourself on!
I think both the Black Pearl and Sheeva line (disclaimer: I've only tried the older BP 88 and the Sheeva 9) are a bit more 'playful' and less solid overall for ripping groomers and cutting crud, but will float more and get around bumps and tight corners a bit more easily vs. the Santa Ana which tends to go "through" everything and is damper, but possibly less forgiving if you need to get around a corner quickly.
Judging by my own experience and review, the offerings in a similar width from Volkl such as the Secret or Kenja (there's a couple of older Kenjas with the 90mm waist, or the newer/slightly softer one with 88mm waist) need a bit more driving and if you're worried about your knees, then maybe they aren't going to be what you want to rebuild your confidence but possibly your next pair after you're ripping down the hills again!

I think you might be my long list twin. We own two pairs of the exact same skis and are both considering the Santa Ana’s for a little bit more width. Spirit animal for sure!

 

[Patronainthe801]

Knowing what you like is really important! I also value my edge grip and as a consequence have two pairs of skis (2019 Volkl Flair SC as my groomer ski and 2019 Yumi as my all-mountain, bumps and soft snow ski) with my eye on a third (which will hopefully be the new version of the Nordica Santa Ana 93) for days where I would like a bit more width.

With the Santa Anas, my understanding in the the newest model has less metal in it and skis more similarly to the first or second year without metal, whereas the 2019 version has two sheets of metal in. So definitely try this year's Santa Ana 93 - it's different from the one you may have injured yourself on!
I think both the Black Pearl and Sheeva line (disclaimer: I've only tried the older BP 88 and the Sheeva 9) are a bit more 'playful' and less solid overall for ripping groomers and cutting crud, but will float more and get around bumps and tight corners a bit more easily vs. the Santa Ana which tends to go "through" everything and is damper, but possibly less forgiving if you need to get around a corner quickly.
Judging by my own experience and review, the offerings in a similar width from Volkl such as the Secret or Kenja (there's a couple of older Kenjas with the 90mm waist, or the newer/slightly softer one with 88mm waist) need a bit more driving and if you're worried about your knees, then maybe they aren't going to be what you want to rebuild your confidence but possibly your next pair after you're ripping down the hills again!

This!

 

[contesstant]

I feel that the 2021 Santa Ana 98 still skis more similarly to the 2019/2020 version. I owned the 2016 version with no metal, and man was it playful and super light, but once things got tracked out, it was a rough ride. The 2021 version, which I now own, still has more of the crud-busting feel of the 2020 and prior, but it's got a surprisingly quick/short turn radius when you want it to. I feel that the 2021 version skis more like its immediate predecessor than it does the 2016 version. That being said, I also feel that the change in length ended up making this newest version more accessible to me. I owned the 2016 in a 169 and it skied shorter IMO than this newest iteration in a 165. I LIKE it. It's still not my favorite on groomers (and some 100mm or so skis I actually like on groomers--Sheeva 10, Fischer Ranger 102 FR) but I didn't buy this ski for groomers. I also think part of my dislike on groomers is that I need to get my fore/aft dialed on the stupid Squire bindings I put on, which are flatter than the Warden 11s I have on my other skis. Why I keep using Squires even though I loathe the heel pieces and have gotten everything set up in my boots to ski with the ramp of my Warden's is beyond me. As to groomers, firm groomers suck on a wider ski, full stop. Talk about torque on the knees.

The Santa Ana 88 is my current daily ski. The BP 88 was my prior daily ski until last season. The Santa Ana is a much easier ride in powder and crud for me due to the shape. It also gets the nod in crud due to the shape and added metal layer which smooths things out. But I vastly prefer a "damp" ski partly due to my age (51) and the fact that the older I get, the less tolerant I am of having to absorb so much of the terrain with my knees and body. I want the ski to do more of that for me. (The Fischer's were AWESOME for this, but the length at 170 plus fairly stiff tips made them a bit of a handful in powder for me. I was constantly fighting very hard to stay forward, which is already a challenge in powder.)

There are so many variables that will make a ski feel differently for different people. Boots, age, fitness level, overall pure athleticism. This is why demoing is so very important. And demoing in the conditions you want the ski for AND if possible, at your home mountain. I demoed the Secret 92 two seasons ago in a foot of powder at Targhee (Targhee powder tends to be pure awesomeness.) I just HAD to have them. Bought them, got them on my home mountain where conditions tend to be a lot more variable, a lot more dense crud AND firm spots on groomers, etc. and they kicked my butt! Of course, demoing can be hindered by a poor tune. One easy way to test the tune is to do some sideslips into turns (something like a pivot slip.) If you can normally do this easily, but can't on the demo ski, it might very well be a tune issue.

Anyway, I'm rambling. To the OP, the SA 98 vs. BP 97--my thoughts on the BP97 last year was "man, these are making me work harder than I want." I'd love to ski them again, back-to-back with my SA 98s.

 

[lisamamot]

I feel that the 2021 Santa Ana 98 still skis more similarly to the 2019/2020 version. I owned the 2016 version with no metal, and man was it playful and super light, but once things got tracked out, it was a rough ride. The 2021 version, which I now own, still has more of the crud-busting feel of the 2020 and prior, but it's got a surprisingly quick/short turn radius when you want it to. I feel that the 2021 version skis more like its immediate predecessor than it does the 2016 version. That being said, I also feel that the change in length ended up making this newest version more accessible to me. I owned the 2016 in a 169 and it skied shorter IMO than this newest iteration in a 165. I LIKE it.

I can’t wait to demo the 2022 Santa Ana 98 172 back-to-back with my 2016 Santa Ana 100 177. If it still has that same playful attitude, but comes in a bit shorter and a little damper package, that is one for the list.

 

[contesstant]

I can’t wait to demo the 2022 Santa Ana 98 172 back-to-back with my 2016 Santa Ana 100 177. If it still has that same playful attitude, but comes in a bit shorter and a little damper package, that is one for the list.

I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on it! It definitely doesn’t have quite the lightning quickness of the 2016 version, but the stability is worth it. I can still fire off short radius turns on it, and bumble and pick my way through crud and cut up powder. It holds my hand in those conditions, I swear.

 

[enk319]

Hi @J_fromCA,

I am the same size as you (well, +8lbs. ), also ski out in Tahoe, and literally just replaced my old 156cm Volkl Attivas this week!

Here are my demo notes from Squaw/Alpine earlier this month as well as input from some other more knowledgeable divas than myself: https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/i...ment-for-volkl-attiva-ac2s.25389/#post-429379. I tried the Volkl Secret 92 (163cm), Salomon Stance 88 (161cm), BP 97 (165cm), and Atomic Vantage 86 (165cm). I have also skiied by brother's Elan Ripstick 96 (167cm) -- which come in 88 and 94 for women -- and found them to be super fun and poppy off-piste while still able to maintain a nice edge on groomers. In the end (and upon finding the best deal, haha), I went with the Secrets and will be here obsessively refreshing the UPS tracking site until they arrive tomorrow!