Powder skis for petite women

[scandium]

Most women stop trusting a partner or retail sales clerk and starts owning her purchasing decisions around the high-80's to mid-90's ski that skews a bit more advanced and is a solid all mountain ski with off-piste potential. It's all the models we tend to talk about here - Secrets, Pandoras, women's Black Crows, Santa Anas. No formal review site is fully serving that reader. Some good ones skew wider and strictly advanced-expert, some skew more frontside technical. But if I'm deciding between a Pandora 94 and Blaze 94 as a 50/50 ski, no one has captured that they're super similar with the Blaze being a bit more flexy and easy to steer.

This speaks so much to my experience. I was a lurker here for ages just to read reviews because hardly anyone talked about any of the skis I was thinking about, and the press releases and store descriptions about what "skill level" a ski was for didn't help me understand why I hated and loved certain things when I was demoing.

 

[fgor]

Fat skis were a game changer for me to get forward on my skis without worrying that I was going to bury a tip. Past skinnier models I was wayyy in the backseat making sure I wouldn't go over the handlebars.

In fact this is how I once sprained my knee skiing - the first couple of times I encountered powder was around 12" on my 88mm skis which love to tip dive. (perhaps the skis would be fine if I was a confident fast skier with more speed and skill - but I'm not). After tip diving and losing one or both skis at least ten times I started leaning back, got stuck in the fall line with a stationery skier below me, got scared and tried to wrench my skis sideways from an awkward, very back seat position, and ended up yet again losing both skis only this time with a knee sprain and an expensive trip to the on-mountain medical center.

After that I was prepared to just swear off powder forever, until some friends encouraged me to just buy a wider ski to make learning powder skiing easier.

 

[MelissaAnn]

Depends a bit on how deep you are thinking about and exactly what type of "powder."

I also have a petite woman powder ski question. I am replacing my Rossi S7's from 2013. I am 47 years old, weight 117lbs and am 5'3" and ski mostly in Tahoe (used to live in Steamboat, skiied 80 days a year) now I'm happy if I get 15. BUT. I firmly believe if you love being on the mtn than I deserve great gear .

I am replacing my powder skis the Rossi S7's 2013 and I got talked into a pair of Faction Prodigy 3.0's and the rep that sold them to me didn't give me the right specs
I am thinking it is a mistake if that is going to be my powder ski
don't know if you are familiar with them but thy are 133-106-125
where the Line Pandora are I think 144-110-130 and I'm thinking maybe the Line is the better way to go. I have an all mtn ski Stokli Storm rider 85 so I want a true powder ski.

Thoughts??

 

[Analisa]

I’ll respond in the main thread once I’m back from the gym I wouldn’t panic yet!

 

[Analisa]

@MelissaAnn - Alrighty, I always start off with construction if there's a ski you love.

The S7's got a 110 waist. Taper is very rockered and tapered for easy powder skiing without catching an edge. Tight turn radius. Mount point's not published, but the first Soul 7 mounted at -5.9cm and the S3 mounted at -7.2cm. Either way, slightly progressive, but not near center nor super directional. Moderately soft flex. Weight's not published either, but the men's 188 was ~200g heavier than the Soul 7 HD. Based on that, I'd ballpark the S7 W was in the 1800-1825 range in a 172ish size. Pretty in-line with a Sheeva 11 or Mindbender 115 W. Both are on the heftier side for a women's pow ski. Not heavy enough to wear out advanced-expert riders, but also burly enough to hold up when things get cruddy or skied out. The Stockli's more traditional with very little rocker in the tails and I'd ballpark the mount at -8ish.

The Prodigies are a 106 waist. 4mm can be really negligible. I've skied a DPS Pagoda 100 that floated better than my Santa Ana 110s because the tip rocker, taper, mount point, and weight made the tips unsinkable. The Prodigy has some nice deep rocker in the tips and should still float fine. The tails are still a partial twin, but not as pronounced as the S7. The mount point is also further back at -8.5. These'll ski with a more traditional feel vs the pivot-y, slash-y, surfy feel of the S7. If you much prefer the feeling of the Stormriders and feel like the S7 feels too loose sometimes, that might all be a good thing. Radius is 17m in a 172 and flex seems to be a touch poppier. That radius shortens as the ski flexes. I own an Atris 108 in my personal quiver and I feel like the Prodigy 3x could be a close relative. Kinda traditional, but with the twin tail and a bouncy, energetic flex profile. Weight is 1840g in a 172, in line with what you're used to.

For the Pandora, I'd first call out that the 110 is completely different than the slimmer models. The narrower ones are based on the old Sick Day. The 110 is built on the Vision 108. I've met a number of disappointed women who bought one based on the reviews of the other. So getting into the 110, the trademark of this ski is that it's so light. It's 1440g in a 170. That makes its peers more like the Backland 107 W. If you like the crud performance of the S7, you won't find it here. If the S7s are taxing, the Pandora will be easier to whip around. The mount point is at -5.6cm and it's almost a true twin tip. If you like the loose feel of the S7 and want a little more of it, the Pandora 110 can deliver. On the flip side, that playful, progressive feel doesn't provide as much stability in poor conditions (blister rates it dead last many years in a row for variable snow performance), nor does it handle very well on hardpack.

The answer could also be neither. The old Sheeva 11 comes to mind at 1810g, -7.5cm mount, and deep rocker lines. New version is a smidgen lighter, but not a dramatic departure.

 

[marzNC]

Thoughts??

Welcome! Since you are skiing Tahoe, paging @santacruz skier .

Personally I like to have powder skis that is also decent on groomers. My all-mountain skis out west are the Stöckli Stormrider 85. I've been quite happy with DPS Zelda skis that are 106 underfoot. Since I do a late season trip in April at Alta, I've had a fair amount of experience demo'ing various DPS models as well as renting demo skis before I bought the Zeldas. The wider Yvette @112 underfoot that was available at the same time were no fun on groomers at all.

As has been mentioned by someone who knows a lot more about ski construction than I care to take the time to learn, there is more to how skis perform than width.

For deep fluffy powder, I've gained just enough experience in recent years to have fun even on the Stormriders. So I don't worry as much whether or not I have powder skis. Of course, denser snow is a different story. YMMV

 

[tinymoose]

@Analisa is that -8.5 on the Prodigy at the recommended Progressive mounting point? The Prodigy should have 3 different mounting points you can select from: https://us.factionskis.com/pages/mounting-my-skis

My Agents are mounted at the Progressive line.

 

[Analisa]

It was the only one reported, so I’m gonna assume the middle. Reviewer arbitrarily mounted -2 from true center, but didn’t seem to reference any other marks

 

[MelissaAnn]

@MelissaAnn - Alrighty, I always start off with construction if there's a ski you love.

The S7's got a 110 waist. Taper is very rockered and tapered for easy powder skiing without catching an edge. Tight turn radius. Mount point's not published, but the first Soul 7 mounted at -5.9cm and the S3 mounted at -7.2cm. Either way, slightly progressive, but not near center nor super directional. Moderately soft flex. Weight's not published either, but the men's 188 was ~200g heavier than the Soul 7 HD. Based on that, I'd ballpark the S7 W was in the 1800-1825 range in a 172ish size. Pretty in-line with a Sheeva 11 or Mindbender 115 W. Both are on the heftier side for a women's pow ski. Not heavy enough to wear out advanced-expert riders, but also burly enough to hold up when things get cruddy or skied out. The Stockli's more traditional with very little rocker in the tails and I'd ballpark the mount at -8ish.

The Prodigies are a 106 waist. 4mm can be really negligible. I've skied a DPS Pagoda 100 that floated better than my Santa Ana 110s because the tip rocker, taper, mount point, and weight made the tips unsinkable. The Prodigy has some nice deep rocker in the tips and should still float fine. The tails are still a partial twin, but not as pronounced as the S7. The mount point is also further back at -8.5. These'll ski with a more traditional feel vs the pivot-y, slash-y, surfy feel of the S7. If you much prefer the feeling of the Stormriders and feel like the S7 feels too loose sometimes, that might all be a good thing. Radius is 17m in a 172 and flex seems to be a touch poppier. That radius shortens as the ski flexes. I own an Atris 108 in my personal quiver and I feel like the Prodigy 3x could be a close relative. Kinda traditional, but with the twin tail and a bouncy, energetic flex profile. Weight is 1840g in a 172, in line with what you're used to.

For the Pandora, I'd first call out that the 110 is completely different than the slimmer models. The narrower ones are based on the old Sick Day. The 110 is built on the Vision 108. I've met a number of disappointed women who bought one based on the reviews of the other. So getting into the 110, the trademark of this ski is that it's so light. It's 1440g in a 170. That makes its peers more like the Backland 107 W. If you like the crud performance of the S7, you won't find it here. If the S7s are taxing, the Pandora will be easier to whip around. The mount point is at -5.6cm and it's almost a true twin tip. If you like the loose feel of the S7 and want a little more of it, the Pandora 110 can deliver. On the flip side, that playful, progressive feel doesn't provide as much stability in poor conditions (blister rates it dead last many years in a row for variable snow performance), nor does it handle very well on hardpack.

The answer could also be neither. The old Sheeva 11 comes to mind at 1810g, -7.5cm mount, and deep rocker lines. New version is a smidgen lighter, but not a dramatic departure.

This is great info, and feel free to tell me that you've given me enough info already ;). But here is what I am thinking post the info you just gave and still wondering the direction I should go. So, I like my Stokli Storm Riders, 85 underfoot for my all mountain ski. The are amazing carvers, a bit heavier than I would like but when I'm ready to replace I will figure that out. My S7's need replacing and the replacement I'd want would be very similar in style. I love the poppy slashy turns you can make, and the float is why I love them... so I don't want more of an all mountain ski, I want to stick with a similar style, but I do like how the S7's can deal with crud etc... especially when bumps get skied out. I have 168, which with the rocker are fine, but through skied out bumps on a powder day a little shorter if I wouldn't lose the float would be great. Also my body ain't 20 so a lighter ski for a smaller person is also nice. I don't want to be squirrely all over the mountain if I'm cutting onto groomers etc... but the ski I want would be pretty close to my S7's. I do find I have to put a bit more pressure on my heels (but haven't looked at the exact mount point which might have changed that a little) to get them to do exactly what I want in powder, but outside of that I have always really liked them. Just figured technology has probably changed in 10 yrs. So with that said... what would you recommend?

 

[santacruz skier]

Welcome! Since you are skiing Tahoe, paging @santacruz skier .

Personally I like to have powder skis that is also decent on groomers. My all-mountain skis out west are the Stöckli Stormrider 85. I've been quite happy with DPS Zelda skis that are 106 underfoot. Since I do a late season trip in April at Alta, I've had a fair amount of experience demo'ing various DPS models as well as renting demo skis before I bought the Zeldas. The wider Yvette @112 underfoot that was available at the same time were no fun on groomers at all.

As has been mentioned by someone who knows a lot more about ski construction than I care to take the time to learn, there is more to how skis perform than width.

For deep fluffy powder, I've gained just enough experience in recent years to have fun even on the Stormriders. So I don't worry as much whether or not I have powder skis. Of course, denser snow is a different story. YMMV

I have the Sheeva 10’s and are great in Tahoe powder.. I’m 5’1 and 105 and have the 156.

 

[MrsPlow]

As I can't skip a powder ski thread without mentioning the JJ....

If you like the S7, I went from that to the Armada JJ (now the ARV or ARW 116) - similar feel but the JJ is more balanced and playful as it doesn't have the pin tail on the S7. They ski short so just a question of the whether the 165 (which I think is the shortest) is going to be too long for you. The ARW is the ultralight version btw.

 

[MelissaAnn]

As I can't skip a powder ski thread without mentioning the JJ....

If you like the S7, I went from that to the Armada JJ (now the ARV or ARW 116) - similar feel but the JJ is more balanced and playful as it doesn't have the pin tail on the S7. They ski short so just a question of the whether the 165 (which I think is the shortest) is going to be too long for you. The ARW is the ultralight version btw.

Thx this is great info.... I am thinking 116 underfoot is maybe a bit much but will look at both the ARV and ARW.... I have 168's in the old women's S7 so I feel like the 165 might be prefect

 

[marzNC]

As I can't skip a powder ski thread without mentioning the JJ....

If you like the S7, I went from that to the Armada JJ (now the ARV or ARW 116) - similar feel but the JJ is more balanced and playful as it doesn't have the pin tail on the S7. They ski short so just a question of the whether the 165 (which I think is the shortest) is going to be too long for you. The ARW is the ultralight version btw.

Interesting.

Back in 2015 I rented the Armada VJJ, 115 underfoot, @165cm for a deep powder day at Alta (late season surprise). Meaning 25+ inches overnight and still snowing in the morning. I had the Rossi Savory 7, 106 underfoot, @162cm for the morning and back then I wanted wider skis due to lack of experience skiing powder. I liked the Armada skis enough after lunch that I kept them for the next day. I'm 5'0", 110 lbs, became a solid advanced skier after age 55.

For more context, I like any Rossi skis. Rented the 2017 Soul 7 (136-106-126, R17) @162cm for a few days at Big Sky when there was a dump of relatively heavy powder. Since I fly to ski in the Rockies, I didn't feel like buying powder skis until a Ski Diva offered a deal on her lightly used DPS Zeldas. They stay with my ski buddy who lives in NM and drives to meet up for ski trips, so I don't have to deal with them in airports.

 

[ski diva]

Have you looked at the Santa Ana 110? A fabulous ski.

 

[badger]

This thread has me curious about the mounting point issue. This summer I purchased a pair of DPS Grom Foundation skis in a 158 /99 waist. They have significant rocker and the length seemed perfect for me given my size. 5'1 95lbs. I had some conversation with @Analisa prior to my decision to go with these skis. Not about brands and models, but utility.

I am NOT a powder skier. At this point powder scares me, and I am trying to not give up on it entirely. Hence the purchase of a nice tool to assist me through the struggle. I 've done one or two powder lessons and they were meh. The DPS skis were on sale and for the price point were the best option for a ski I may not use often...unless I gain some success and a change of attitude. I'm game for the challenge.

Last week I took them out for the first time. Snow was mostly chopped up morning powder. WOW, these skis are smooth and quite damp. Absolutely lovely. Very impressive.
With regard to the mount point: DPS suggested -9. I did not do that, but still can should that be better.
It seemed so weird to do that and the owner of a great shop mounted them at the only line on the ski because he didn't feel comfortable with the -9 and my size. But from what I am reading in this thread, you guys have done those neg numbers and are as petite as I am. Should I re-mount? Half a day on them hasn't given me any trouble, but they are new to me and widest I've skied.

 

[Analisa]

@MelissaAnn

I'd cut the Pandora. They'd require you to pull even more weight into your heels. And cutting 400g / 22% of the ski's weight is substantial. The Blaze 106 at 1600 and the Pandora 104 at 1635 are more of a 50/50 weight with solid resort chops. I have friends who like the 110, but almost exclusively for touring, have a quiver & ski style that leans more park, and ski it really long for more stability (like 5'1 on a 170 length).

Then I'd pull skis that are directional, but with enough progressive design to make it slashy. None of these will feel exactly the same, but they'll be a small adjustment and at a high level, cater to the same type of customer base.

1. The Prodigies. They'll get a little more weight out of your heels, and you can always bump the mount point forward like .5-1cm if you want to err on the side of a little more loose-ness.

2. Old Sheeva 11s. Deep rocker lines, very slashy and poppy. Heavier, but low swing weight makes them feel lighter. There's a partial titanal sheet that's wall-to-wall underfoot / under the bindings and tapers to a point in the tips and tails of the ski. And because of leverage, it's easier to carry weight close to the body and harder to control weight away from the body. That weight isn't as taxing. I wrote a review of the 10s and have sold a ton of women in the PNW on them because they really shine in tight trees and powder that quickly turns into crud, while being really versatile on the rest of the mountain. I own a sizable personal quiver, but every time I go on vacation I wish I had that versatile 1-ski quiver that did everything well. If you already have a solid hard-pack bias all mountain ski, I think the 11 is such a good companion. Mount's at -7.5xm

3. New Sheeva 11s. They moved the titanal around. Now it's more of a frame that goes around the exterior of the ski, and they beefed up the fiberglass laminate underfoot. It cuts about 30g of weight out of the ski.

4. Nordica Unleashed 108 W. Really similar to the Sheevas, but splits the difference really nicely on waist width. Metal covers the tips and tails. Middle, it whittles in with a narrower strip to make it easy to flex and more pop. Little less mass than the 112 wide sheeva. Mounted at -7.7

5. Liberty Genesis 106. Similar shape to the Sheevas/Unleashed, but a lot lighter. Instead of a metal sheet, they use a few metal stringers. -7.6 mount. Weighs in at 1650g for a 165. If you're wanting to depart a bit from the S7 feel to something a little more directional and a little lighter, this checks both boxes.

6. Moment Bella. Very deep rocker lines. -5cm mount. 1705g in a 172. 19m radius. Just triax fiberglass in the core (S7 uses a bit of carbon). I think this could be in the running if you're looking for the closest dupe you can get compared to the S7.

7. DPS Pagoda 112. These are very directional with a mount point around -10, but part of the reason that they're so far back is that the tip rocker takes up a huge portion of the ski while the tails are only kinda rockered. The middle of the effective edge is already substantially set back from true center. Surfy, pivoty, can handle plenty of forward pressure. 1670g in a 168. A lot of colorways and special edition topsheets have been on clearance on Sierra

8. The JJ totally wasn't on my radar @MrsPlow! totally missed that they added a 165! 2 mount points at -2.5 and -6. Weight sits pretty in line with the OG Rustler series, so the it'll probably have a few grams on the equivalent sized Sheeva.

Happy to deep dive more thoroughly for any where you're leaning towards a certain subset, but differentiation feels a little like splitting hairs (like Sheevas vs. Unleashed). But overall, I feel like there are a lot of options to either match the vibe of the S7 or make some little tweaks to make your new ski an even better match.

 

[Chuyi]

This thread has me curious about the mounting point issue. This summer I purchased a pair of DPS Grom Foundation skis in a 158 /99 waist. They have significant rocker and the length seemed perfect for me given my size. 5'1 95lbs. I had some conversation with @Analisa prior to my decision to go with these skis. Not about brands and models, but utility.

I am NOT a powder skier. At this point powder scares me, and I am trying to not give up on it entirely. Hence the purchase of a nice tool to assist me through the struggle. I 've done one or two powder lessons and they were meh. The DPS skis were on sale and for the price point were the best option for a ski I may not use often...unless I gain some success and a change of attitude. I'm game for the challenge.

Last week I took them out for the first time. Snow was mostly chopped up morning powder. WOW, these skis are smooth and quite damp. Absolutely lovely. Very impressive.

Idk where u ski. Come 2 Utah. U will be converted to a Powderhound️. Nothing like floating on a cloud of fluffy champagne pow. Yes the wider skis help u float/crush (sinking is work)

 

[MrsPlow]

Thx this is great info.... I am thinking 116 underfoot is maybe a bit much but will look at both the ARV and ARW.... I have 168's in the old women's S7 so I feel like the 165 might be prefect

I had the 178 in the S7 and ski the 175 in the JJ. I think the S7 was the length of the ski flat, so with the rocker it was actually 176; got a shock when I tried some true 180s, thinking well I can ski a 178 no problem based on the S7...

 

[MrsPlow]

Interesting.

Back in 2015 I rented the Armada VJJ, 115 underfoot, @165cm for a deep powder day at Alta (late season surprise). Meaning 25+ inches overnight and still snowing in the morning. I had the Rossi Savory 7, 106 underfoot, @162cm for the morning and back then I wanted wider skis due to lack of experience skiing powder. I liked the Armada skis enough after lunch that I kept them for the next day. I'm 5'0", 110 lbs, became a solid advanced skier after age 55.

I like the JJs for pretty much anything where there's fresh or close to fresh snow - they're too wide for firmer conditions and I feel the width on harder snow. But they're so damn fun, so I tend to get out of them whenever I can.

 

[Analisa]

@badger If they're working for you and you're happy with them, I wouldn't remount. In my experience, DPS has a huge sweet spot and oblige whether I'm skiing super cautious in the backseat or charging with my weight forward. A scooch up with the mount point is like a golf handicap for getting your weight forward. This could be a good fit if you're apprehensive about powder skiing. I'd only look at a remount if you feel like you're going "over the handlebars" or experiencing a lot of tip dive in the front of your skis.

Do I agree with the shop nudging you forward on a ski based on your size? No. They're a kids ski. Most kids & teens weigh less than or equal to adults of equal height. And the DPS mount is relatively far back for most skis, they also have a lot of tip rocker and not a lot of tail. If we lobbed off the rockered tips & tails where they lost contact on firm snow, they'd still be directional, but less of an outlier compared to others on the market. And ski brands put a lot of time into testing finding the right mount that matches the flex pattern & shape of the ski, across sizes and genders, but there's definitely room to adjust based on skier preference. (My partner really likes the playful flex of the old Backland FR line and the Black Crows Atris, but scooched the mounts forward for a little more nimble maneuverability and balance in the air). Unless skiers diverge dramatically from the recommended line, it shouldn't make the ski feel weird or off.

Overall, I feel like it's one of those cases where the shop got a little creative with their math but still seems to have landed on the right answer.