Nordica Santa Ana

[luliski]

Also the current Samba is a much better ski (I think) than the version I have. I like it a lot but many think it's a lot of work. Maybe it is, but I like it a lot better than the Rossi Saffron 7 in 162 that I just sold.

I definitely felt like I had to stay on top of it (the Samba) and it felt heavier than the Great Joy, but it was fun to go fast on. Yes, we should ski together. I am debating getting the Epic pass for next year, so I may be at NStar even more next season.

 

[laine]

What bindings are folks using on their 100s?

 

[Ringrat]

I figured it was about time I posted an update about my Santa Anas. Last time I posted in this thread I'd just had my first full touring day on them. Since then, I took them on a 4-day hut-based touring trip, another hut trip that turned into 1 day of skiing in the rain, some quick evening tours, and a skiied a full day on-resort at Castle Mountain on them to try and get more of a feel for how they ski.

Touring:
Through the 4-day trip we had progressively more snow. Started off with some thin crust that broke easily. The next day we had highly variable conditions while touring but somehow picked a ski line that was soft. The third day we had a few inches of fresh hero snow. And the 4th day we had rapid accumulation of very wet snow that we were skiing on very mellow slopes. The skis handled the first 3 days well but didn't like skiing the wet junk on the 4th day. More slope angle might have been helpful. I still felt in the backseat through this trip, though on hero snow day I was able to focus on getting myself forward. I was cranking the top 2 buckles on my boots in an effort to keep myself back in them. I was very much in the backseat on that last day in the muck, after a fall on turn 2 thanks to a diving tip.



Then I took them on what was supposed to be a 2-day/2-night hut trip. We skiied in at night and then woke to pouring rain. So up we went, finally getting above the snow line. The slope we skiied at the top was not bad...hard to turn but manageable. And then we got down into the trees and rain again, and eventually I actually gave up turning and was just traversing/kick turning to get down. I didn't trust the combination of myself, skis, and boots to actually turn before the approaching trees.

I spent the weekend at Castle Mountain after the touring in the rain disaster, and although it had rained & then re-frozen low on the mountain, the upper mountain was soft and on day 2 we got some fresh. I decided to take the Santa Anas up for the day with no pack and see how this new set-up actually skis in a variety of conditions. The morning snow was a bit wind slabby, and fresh turns were actually quite a lot of work. The skis broke through the crust ok, though it took quite a lot of focus to stay mostly out of the backseat and anywhere near balanced. It was much easier to stay forward on steeper slopes where my uphill knee ends up quite near my torso anyway. As soon as I got on mellower slopes I crept towards the back again.



So, I think the conclusion of that novel is that I don't like how much I feel in the backseat with this Santa Ana/Fischer Transalp combo and mounting point. I felt a bit more stable with my old Garmont Zena/Atomic Century setup. But, I can make it work.

 

[bounceswoosh]

@Ringrat : boo =/ That's unfortunate. Maybe a hint that I shouldn't try to turn my Santa Anas into BC skis?

 

[Ringrat]

@Ringrat : boo =/ That's unfortunate. Maybe a hint that I shouldn't try to turn my Santa Anas into BC skis?

Hard to say. My main issue right now is getting off my tails, and I don't know in what proportions the skis, boots, and mount point are contributing to that issue. The skis themselves seem fine, and I had some awesome runs where I did click with them at Castle, as long as it was steep enough and I was carrying enough speed. If you're not having that issue in either your AT boots or your skis independently then putting them together shouldn't suddenly yield that result.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Hard to say. My main issue right now is getting off my tails, and I don't know in what proportions the skis, boots, and mount point are contributing to that issue. The skis themselves seem fine, and I had some awesome runs where I did click with them at Castle, as long as it was steep enough and I was carrying enough speed. If you're not having that issue in either your AT boots or your skis independently then putting them together shouldn't suddenly yield that result.

Yeah, that's frustrating. Anyway, I've had some work done on my AT boots. It's helped a lot, but my forefeet still go frustratingly numb after skinning for a while. Someone pointed out to me that, duh, skinning puts a lot more pressure on the forefoot than just skiing does. So, need to figure out how to mitigate that effect.

 

[Ringrat]

Yeah, that's frustrating. Anyway, I've had some work done on my AT boots. It's helped a lot, but my forefeet still go frustratingly numb after skinning for a while. Someone pointed out to me that, duh, skinning puts a lot more pressure on the forefoot than just skiing does. So, need to figure out how to mitigate that effect.

Finding boots that work for both skiing and walking seems a monumental task. The first time I did it I sacrificed some straght skiing performance but they were more than fine for skiing while touring. This time I was so happy to find a boot that wasn't too narrow or too shallow in height without going a size up that I jumped on them. And they're great while touring, but there's still plenty of forefoot slop while I'm skiing. Adjustment period required...and I think now that I have a fully dedicated touring setup it will take longer to adjust 'cause I'm always switching boots.

 

[lisamamot]

What bindings are folks using on their 100s?

Tyrolia Attack 12 110

 

[contesstant]

I also have the Tyrolia Attack 12s.

 

[Albertan ski girl]

What bindings are folks using on their 100s?

Look NX 12

 

[Albertan ski girl]

Hard to say. My main issue right now is getting off my tails, and I don't know in what proportions the skis, boots, and mount point are contributing to that issue. The skis themselves seem fine, and I had some awesome runs where I did click with them at Castle, as long as it was steep enough and I was carrying enough speed. If you're not having that issue in either your AT boots or your skis independently then putting them together shouldn't suddenly yield that result.

Hope it gets better :(

 

[RVAskis]

As @tinymoose said, I did switch out from the Kikus on our trip to Aspen when we had a powder day some years ago right along with her (I remember it being WAY more than 6 inches though?!?!?! haha). Even now as I've progressed I have found that anything over 100 underfoot just seems to be too much work for me to want to deal with, and I'm still trying to hone my "powder skills" as an east coast skier and it seems that too much width and/or length just tires out my legs more than necessary (For me I think it's more due to my lack of technique in this area than my size but who knows, I still fight the snow too much in those conditions and that's easier on a smaller ski..). I'm 5'4 ~125lbs and would describe my skiing as more finesse than power. Skis I own range from low 80s underfoot to high 90s and lengths are usually somewhere in the mid to high 160s. I also LOVED the Santa Ana 93 I demoed, and that's on my list as a new powder/tree/trips west ski (I ski mostly in Maine at Sunday River), my current ski most often used for these purposes is a pair of old Rossignol S3w skis that are awesome but will need to be replaced eventually and aren't made anymore. I am tempted to try the 100 underfoot Santa Anas, but haven't found them available for demo around me yet..

How did the Santa Ana 93 compare to your S3Ws. Do they handle hardpack or crud better? I have S3Ws that I'm looking to upgrade. The Sky 7 Ws were the winners among the skis I was able to demo, but the Santa Anas are intriguing to me.

 

[Gloria]

How did the Santa Ana 93 compare to your S3Ws. Do they handle hardpack or crud better? I have S3Ws that I'm looking to upgrade. The Sky 7 Ws were the winners among the skis I was able to demo, but the Santa Anas are intriguing to me.

I swapped the soul 7 for the S.A. 93 today. No comparison IMO, 2 totally different yet likeable skis. The Santa Ana is a very loose, forgiving ski that seems to like being ridden as opposed to driven. The soul is tighter, more precise and performs better being driven. The S.A. has a huge sweet spot, and the friendliness of a softer ski with the strength of a much stiffer one. Felt good in bumps, slush, heavier deeper snow and on harder groomed. It was a nice ski. After one run we were both content trading back. The S.A. owner said mine skied like semitrucks, which made me chuckle but also perhaps makes the Santa Ana a safer bet as we both at least liked that one.
The sky is of course a narrower, softer version but does share the same outline. The Sky is much different from the old s3 as well.

 

[RVAskis]

Thanks for this @Gloria! I liked the Sky a lot but I didn't get to try the S.A. when I demoed in Winter Park and I wish I had. The shop that carried them was totally booked up for spring break. ☹ I'd wait and try a few more next year but they've changed the S.A. and I don't think I'd like the new version.

 

[Gloria]

Thanks for this @Gloria! I liked the Sky a lot but I didn't get to try the S.A. when I demoed in Winter Park and I wish I had. The shop that carried them was totally booked up for spring break. ☹ I'd wait and try a few more next year but they've changed the S.A. and I don't think I'd like the new version.

If you liked the sky, I think you might like the S.A. with the metal. The S.A. I felt like I had to back off the tips a bit and ski in a more neutral stance, the tip on the Rossi will let you ski in a more aggressive forward position. I tend to think the metal may beef it up just enough without ruining the ski entirely.