Nordica Santa Ana

[elemmac]

Anyway, curious of the Santa Ana's, being more playful, would fit that bill? Or should I just go for a more powder-centric ski?

The Santa Ana has a much smaller turning radius than the Samba's making them more turning-friendly. Going to a more powder-centric ski will probably put you at the same radius or even larger. generally making turning more laborious.

Even though I do think the Santa Ana is a fairly playful ski, I think labeling it as "playful" doesn't do it justice on how strong of a ski it can be. I think of a very playful ski like a labrador puppy, but I would think of the Santa Ana more of a boxer. I've never compared skis to dogs before, but I think that it gets my point across decently?

I just remembered that the Nordica Rep (former ski racer) uses the Santa Ana's in 169s for his touring ski. He's probably about 5'10" give or take. So maybe more for north east crud (@surfsnowgirl) than powder?

I'm not too surprised at these being used as a touring ski. They're really light, and are great in the north east crud...at least what I've seen thus far. However, I am kinda surprised that a male would be skiing them just cause they are a fairly soft ski.

 

[bounceswoosh]

The Santa Ana has a much smaller turning radius than the Samba's making them more turning-friendly. Going to a more powder-centric ski will probably put you at the same radius or even larger. generally making turning more laborious.

Even though I do think the Santa Ana is a fairly playful ski, I think labeling it as "playful" doesn't do it justice on how strong of a ski it can be. I think of a very playful ski like a labrador puppy, but I would think of the Santa Ana more of a boxer. I've never compared skis to dogs before, but I think that it gets my point across decently?



I'm not too surprised at these being used as a touring ski. They're really light, and are great in the north east crud...at least what I've seen thus far. However, I am kinda surprised that a male would be skiing them just cause they are a fairly soft ski.

Also 5'10 and skiing a 169.

I don't consider the Santa Ana playful, but I agree with your analogy. Mostly if you picture someone with boxing gloves, not the dog ;-) In other words, a serious contender that gets the job done.

 

[elemmac]

Also 5'10 and skiing a 169.

Yea...that's surprising too. But I guess it gets the point across that whether you consider this a playful ski or not...it's still a very strong ski to have someone that size skiing a 169

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I am completely fascinated by a "fat" ski by east coast standards having such a small turning radius. I love this fact.

 

[contesstant]

The Santa Ana has a much smaller turning radius than the Samba's making them more turning-friendly. Going to a more powder-centric ski will probably put you at the same radius or even larger. generally making turning more laborious.

Even though I do think the Santa Ana is a fairly playful ski, I think labeling it as "playful" doesn't do it justice on how strong of a ski it can be. I think of a very playful ski like a labrador puppy, but I would think of the Santa Ana more of a boxer. I've never compared skis to dogs before, but I think that it gets my point across decently?



I'm not too surprised at these being used as a touring ski. They're really light, and are great in the north east crud...at least what I've seen thus far. However, I am kinda surprised that a male would be skiing them just cause they are a fairly soft ski.

Depends on the ski and the length. The Savory 7's turning radius for the 170 is 17m. Smaller than the Samba at 166. I might actually go with a low-160's powder oriented ski. I've got some demoing to do!

 

[snow addict]

JJs/VJJs have a tight radius, as do DPS; S7 had a tight radius, not sure about skis that replaced them.

 

[elemmac]

Depends on the ski and the length. The Savory 7's turning radius for the 170 is 17m. Smaller than the Samba at 166. I might actually go with a low-160's powder oriented ski. I've got some demoing to do!

Agreed, it does vary between different skis and sometimes different lengths in the same ski will change the radius. I was referring to more full on powder skis just in general, like the Star 7, or the La Nina, but there definitely are exceptions. Smaller lengths in a fatter ski can be A LOT of fun. I own a Koa 110, in a 166. Not your "typical" powder length ski, but boy is she fun.

I've always been intrigued by the Head Freeski line...the Venturi 95 comes in a 161 but with a 12m radius, than the 105 Collective in a 171, with a 15m radius

 

[contesstant]

Agreed, it does vary between different skis and sometimes different lengths in the same ski will change the radius. I was referring to more full on powder skis just in general, like the Star 7, or the La Nina, but there definitely are exceptions. Smaller lengths in a fatter ski can be A LOT of fun. I own a Koa 110, in a 166. Not your "typical" powder length ski, but boy is she fun.

I've always been intrigued by the Head Freeski line...the Venturi 95 comes in a 161 but with a 12m radius, than the 105 Collective in a 171, with a 15m radius

Tell me more about the KOA 110 in a 166...I demoed a KOA 84 a couple years ago and LOVED it on crappy chopped up snow, but hated it on steep hard pack. What I loved was how smoooooooooth it was. Yet still energetic. 166 is about as long as I'd like to go, to be honest with you.

 

[elemmac]

Tell me more about the KOA 110 in a 166...I demoed a KOA 84 a couple years ago and LOVED it on crappy chopped up snow, but hated it on steep hard pack. What I loved was how smoooooooooth it was. Yet still energetic. 166 is about as long as I'd like to go, to be honest with you.

I owned the Koa 88s, and loved them in pretty much every type of snow...as you said, like the 84s they didn't do great on hardpack though. So when I saw they made a fat Koa too, I figured why not cause I love the 88s so much.

They do have a fairly large radius (maybe 20ish meters), but being so short I've never had an issue turning them. Being from the east coast I use them as my powder skis...anything above about 6 inches they come out. They're perfect for east coast trees in soft snow or chopped up snow. They are so incredibly awful on rock hard bumps when powder gets skied off (although nothing's really good on that stuff); Also very manageable on groomed soft snow, and can hold an edge with a little extra work on the harder pack.

Unfortunately they discontinued the Koa line (except for the 84). But they added the Ranger line in it's place. I have only skied the men's 90, and in a 178ish...too big for me, but they were SOOOO light, and completely manageable because of that. I've been itching to jump on the women's new Rangers.

I believe they've also kept the Big Stix, although I'm not sure in what widths and lengths. When they dropped the Koa 110, they made the Big Stix in a shorter length to accommodate.

 

[contesstant]

Thanks, @elemmac ! It's unfortunate the Fischer skis are very hard to find to demo as I've heard more than once they have a remarkable "smoothness" to them, and I loved that feeling. Maybe I'll have to look into the new Ranger series.

 

[WaterGirl]

I've always been intrigued by the Head Freeski line...the Venturi 95 comes in a 161 but with a 12m radius, than the 105 Collective in a 171, with a 15m radius

I think you would like them.
While I haven't demo'd the Venturi, I have the Collective on a speed demo day which allowed me to feel comfortable on the Cyclic on a powder dump day.... both in 171.
All I can say is I really enjoyed the feel of the Collective - it was one of those skis similar to the Samba, that for me could be driven so many ways.
The employee who suggested I take it for a spin had the same thoughts. It was whispering steeps and chutes..... Its overlap for my quiver and a bit heavier than the Samba but if I wanted a fun easy ski for the top of the mountain it would be on my short list.... its in its second or third year so you can find at a discount.... just saying......

 

[surfsnowgirl]

Had a dream about the Santa Ana last night. Was "somewhere" and a demo truck passed me that was open on the side with all the skis on display. A ton of skis and I specifically remember in my dream going oooh there is the Santa Ana...............

 

[elemmac]

I think you would like them.

I don't need any extra enabling....but it's working and now I'm even more intrigued, sounds like something I'd really enjoy. My fiance just got the Venturi in a 171, which is pretty short for him, but he wanted a good New England tree ski. Unfortunately, I have small feet, so I can't adjust his bindings enough to fit my boots. Next time I demo skis, those two are on my must ski list though.

Either way, I already have 2 skis with 100 underfoot, and one with 110...not sure if I can justify a 95 or 105, but I'm going to work on coming up with a justification.

 

[bounceswoosh]

I had the Griffons on my Santa Anas replaced with Attack 13s this week. The tech, who turned out to be a friend, called to tell me the drill patterns would conflict, so I needed to choose either 1cm forward (more turny) or 6mm back (better float). I'm pretty sure in either case the difference would be pretty minor. I agonized and then decided on the forward mount because I have fatter skis for real powder days, and while they turn fine I am sure they could be even more turny and fun.

Then woke up repeatedly last night freaking out about the decision and thinking I really should have gone for more float. Honestly, I will be surprised if I notice a difference. But my brain really wanted something to spin about last night.

The good news is that he says the new binding is much easier to get into. It apparently has to do with the type of plastic in the heel piece, the position, and the rubber of my boot sole all interacting.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Either way, I already have 2 skis with 100 underfoot, and one with 110...not sure if I can justify a 95 or 105, but I'm going to work on coming up with a justification.

"Because I want it."

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I have Attack 13s on my Kenjas and its the smoothest binding. When you click into the bindings it is smooth just like butter. I love these bindings and would put them on all my skis.

 

[elemmac]

@bounceswoosh - I would've had a had such a hard time with deciding which way to go...especially after already skiing and liking them centered. Should've told him to just choose one and not tell you..that way you can't over analyze if you feel the difference.

 

[bounceswoosh]

@bounceswoosh - I would've had a had such a hard time with deciding which way to go...especially after already skiing and liking them centered. Should've told him to just choose one and not tell you..that way you can't over analyze if you feel the difference.

LOL. I tried to make him decide, but he wouldn't do it!

 

[contesstant]

I had the Griffons on my Santa Anas replaced with Attack 13s this week. The tech, who turned out to be a friend, called to tell me the drill patterns would conflict, so I needed to choose either 1cm forward (more turny) or 6mm back (better float). I'm pretty sure in either case the difference would be pretty minor. I agonized and then decided on the forward mount because I have fatter skis for real powder days, and while they turn fine I am sure they could be even more turny and fun.

Then woke up repeatedly last night freaking out about the decision and thinking I really should have gone for more float. Honestly, I will be surprised if I notice a difference. But my brain really wanted something to spin about last night.

The good news is that he says the new binding is much easier to get into. It apparently has to do with the type of plastic in the heel piece, the position, and the rubber of my boot sole all interacting.

Oh, you do that too?

FYI my husband has AAAttack 13's on his new Fischer Motives and was commenting today on how easy they are to click into.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Oh, you do that too?

Long-lost sisters, right?

To be honest it's been pretty good lately (on the right dose of meds (not kidding)), but I guess messing with my favorite skis is enough to keep me awake at night!