Ok, does anyone NOT love the Aura?

[sheeha35]

Still searching for my true love.

I just bought a pair of last year's Atomic Sugar Mamas for my "all mountain" (and east coast crap) ski and am demoting my old skis to "rock ski". I'd also like to get something a little fatter (you guys have convinced me that I need a quiver), since I'm going to be in Telluride until the middle of March.

I was leaning towards the Roxy Broomstix, but I had a chance to demo them and they don't hold an edge on "hardpack" to save their life. There seem to be so many Aura fanatics on here, and the guys at the shop were talking big about them. Would you order Aura's without trying them? Does anyone not love them? Can someone give me an honest assessment of what they are not good for? Thanks Divas!!

 

[Swamp Dog]

ok, remember that this is just MY opinion.

I had a chance to demo them last weekend on Saturday and did not. It was hard pack, no fresh snow, not what I would want them for so I passed. Then it snowed that night, tons of fresh snow on Sunday, and the rep did not have them on Sunday! I was so bummed.

Based on where I ski, the conditions here, what I like to do, and my own abilities, I would not buy them without demoing. You should probably consider those factors as they apply to you and the Aura and then make your decision.

There are so many great skis out there that it's tough to narrow it down to which one to buy!

 

[PNWSkier]

I LOVE my Auras and purchased without demoing. Would I again...YES!

But...last week at Whistler I did go back to my Luna's for a day. The Aura's were not as good at holding an edge on icy steep runs. They did perform ok on the icy steep runs but I think the Luna's were better. It could have been me as I have been skiing my Luna's for two seasons and am more comfortable with them. I am skiing tomorrow and if conditions are still icy I will probably not take the Auras. Now, for any day other than really icy...Auras will be my preferred ski. They did do really well on a little ice and crud. I am just getting into bumps and I think the Luna will be better in them than the Aura since it is softer.

It is really a personal preference but they are a BIG purchase to get without demoing. Could you demo from your local shop?

 

[ski now work later]

The Aura's were not as good at holding an edge on icy steep runs. They did perform ok on the icy steep runs but I think the Luna's were better. It could have been me as I have been skiing my Luna's for two seasons and am more comfortable with them.

Good call PNWSkier. I own the Auras and used to have the Luna (prior season) and I think you are right. I prefer my Fuegos for fast hardpack and ice and would also prefer the Luna for those conditions to the Aura. I prefer to ski the Auras when there's fresh snow and the Pearls when it's soft packed powder. There's a Volkl for every mood! :p

 

[marge]

There's a Volkl for every mood! :p

Oh GREAT! I SO did not need to hear that. :mad:

 

[SkiNurse]

K2 girl here!

 

[volklgirl]

The Aura is not designed to do well on ice, and indeed, very, very few of the skis over 85mm wide will do it well. That said, the Aura will more than hold its own when the hard stuff shows up. Are there others better suited for ice? Yup. Are there others more versatile or more comfortable in more conditions? Nope.

JMHO and YMMV, of course.

To answer your real question - the only condition I've found where they don't outshine everything else I've demoed is on true ice. They're awesome carvers on groomed and hardpack, they're soft enough to do moguls fairly well, they're light enough and fat enough to float in pow yet stiff enough to plow through manky crud. Buy up at least 1 size from your groomer zoomers and be happy.......very, very happy.

 

[altagirl]

I haven't been able to demo them because they only ever seem to have demos in the 160 length which is way too short for me. I have demoed the Mantra (the unisex version of the same ski) and think it's just the best all around ski I've ever tried... So to be honest, unless I could find a longer Aura to try, I'd probably buy the Mantra. I haven't just because I've never found Mantras cheap, and I already own Gotamas, so the i.M88 filled the hole in my ski quiver better than the Mantra would.

And I concur that if you're typical snow conditions are ice - this isn't the ski for you. Not that it can't handle it when you run into those conditions on occasion, but that's definintely not meant to be it's strength.

 

[sheeha35]

So... so if I already have an "ice" ski and want a fatty... would you get the Aura? I really liked the Broom Stix, my only complaint was performance on ice. So, if no fatty is going to do well on ice... what is the difference between Broom Stix an Aura (except for price)?

Another random question... since I prefer my skis short.... what is the difference between the junior version of the Mantra or Bridge and the "Senior" version? Do you think the construction or performance is that different? I mean the juniors are practically in comparison, and they have the lengths I'm looking for.

 

[sheeha35]

On the demo question - my shop has most of the demo skis in long lengths only (about 10 cms bigger than I like to ski). So, I can try them... but I don't really know how they will do for me... because they are really too big. I'm getting tired of demoing skis that are too long... because my conclusion at the end of each run is always "Boy, that ski is too long." and I can't drive them enough to be able to tell the nuances between skis. So frustrating.

 

[volklgirl]

Typically, the junior version of a ski is a very different animal. Often it has a much softer core, a different sidecut, and at least 1 less layer of metal.

Don't chicken out on this one. Buy the Aura and buy it at least 1 size longer than you think you're comfortable with. They really are easy to ski and they ski "short".

 

[SkiGAP]

Last Saturday I posted that I was not overwhelmed with the Auras on the steep, icy World Cup Kandahar run in Garmisch. I was on it again today with the Burnin's, and I think they held much better. The conditions were slightly more favorable though. That said, I'd take the Auras on that run again, whereas I now would not so much want to use my BLs in deeper or crappier conditions. I find the Auras much better all-around ski. I think they make a very complimentary match, a carver, and the Auras.

 

[amanda]

I would agree with the ladies above, the Auras are not ideal on ice, however I've used mine on hardpack and scraped off groomers and if you ski them agressively they will definitely hold an edge. My caveat here is that I ski in CO and have no experience with east coast ice. If you're looking for a true powder ski it seems like the Aura may be more suited for that than the Broom Stix since the Auras have a wider waste. The Auras are really amazing in the powder and once the powder gets tracked up and choppy they still just plow right through it. I also really enjoy skiing bumps on my Auras even though they are pretty stiff. In fact I did a 6 hour bump clinic on them and had a great time.

 

[oragejuice]

I think it's really up to you. I seriously would not rather ski any other ski, no matter the conditions (unless its suuuuper deep/heavy, then I want FATTIES). They Aura comes in a 156, if you really want a shorter ski... But I would encourage you to try learning to ski longer ones. It really is a LOT of fun, once you get the hang of a longer stick. FWIW, I just got rid of my other skis, which technically should hold an edge on ice better than the Auras, because I love them so much that I don't want to ski anything else. It's a wonder ski, I swear. (I've been on too many pairs of skis in the last couple years, that I hated, and never got the hang of skiing, the Auras were perfect in one day.)

 

[Robyn]

I think the key here is to remember that every ski is going to have it's strengths and weaknesses. Expecting a ski to be awesome in all conditions is just setting yourself up for disappointment. If your biggest concern in hold on ice then I don't think the Auras are the answer. For example I my Sweet Fats. Really, really love them. But a couple weekends ago I knew the conditions would be icy so I took my Rossis and was quite happy with that. But, it sounds like you've got an ice ski so if you remember that your Auras are not meant for that then I'd say go for it.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

Another consideration is how many truly usable days they will have for you in the east. This is not a small amount of $ to dish out for a ski that will sit, esp when the Atomics will do 90% of your terrain and days. (Have not seen Auras for less than $600 w/o bindings, which aren't cheap either.) () This is no small chunk a change, and I don't have it. By the same token, I'm sure BMW's are terrific cars, but that doesn't mean I can afford one. I got my 85 underfoot occasional powder day skis for $200 (including bindings), and they've already done 5+ days and hold their own on the hard stuff....but that's quite a cost difference. I'm a bargain shopper...by necessity...

 

[sheeha35]

Thanks for the persepective... i keep thinking that there is a "perfect" ski out there. I do 95% of my skiing in Telluride, because we are lucky enough to come out for a few months each winter. I just need to make a decision!

 

[ski now work later]

I think that the Aura would be a perfect 1-ski quiver for Telluride.

Here in Southern New England, these skis are really a luxury. I ski them when it's snowing or just finished, 4 days so far this season which isn't bad considering it's still January! And I plan to ski them in Colorado when I'm there in March.

 

[PNWSkier]

FWIW, I have the Aura's in 156. I am 5'1" and 120lbs. As Volklgirl said, they ski short. They have me wanting my everyday ski (149) in this length and I may eventually want the 163 Aura.

 

[Acadia07]

I'd just like to say...I want them. Like, now.

But my husband would