SA 93 (2024 version) lengths

[brewski]

Hi ladies -

I currently ski the 2019 version of the Santa Ana 93s in the 169 length.
I love the ski so much, I want to replace with their new model.
With that, they recently changed their ski design & length options and am torn between the 163 & 172.
Anyone have the same dilemma?

5’7; weight varies between 135-140; advance intermediate - expert.

enjoy speed on groomers, long & short turns having fun wherever the day takes me.
Thanks!

 

[contesstant]

I own the 2023 SA 93. I’d go 172 if I were you since you’re on a 169 currently and are 5’7”. The current version of this ski is more maneuverable and lighter.

 

[brewski]

Hi ladies -

I currently ski the 2019 version of the Santa Ana 93s in the 169 length.
I love the ski so much, I want to replace with their new model.
With that, they recently changed their ski design & length options and am torn between the 163 & 172.
Anyone have the same dilemma?

5’7; weight varies between 135-140; advance intermediate - expert.

enjoy speed on groomers, long & short turns having fun wherever the day takes me.
Thanks!

**165 or 172 are the correct new model lengths.

 

[contesstant]

**165 or 172 are the correct new model lengths.

Yes. I'm on the 165 at 5'5" 130.

 

[lisamamot]

Hi ladies -

I currently ski the 2019 version of the Santa Ana 93s in the 169 length.
I love the ski so much, I want to replace with their new model.
With that, they recently changed their ski design & length options and am torn between the 163 & 172.
Anyone have the same dilemma?

5’7; weight varies between 135-140; advance intermediate - expert.

enjoy speed on groomers, long & short turns having fun wherever the day takes me.
Thanks!

The 2019 had two sheets of titanal + carbon and that has been scaled back; while I haven't been on the new model, Nordica specifies the 2024 has "terrain specific metal" and carbon.

I am 5'9" and have 10# on you and I ski the 2022 Santa Ana 93 172...I generally ski the longest length in a women's ski, but did not do the 179 here as it would have been too much for me. Most don't realize they even make it in 179 as most shops/online stores stop at 172.

I think you could be happy on either length, but you did note you enjoy speed on groomers so that makes me lean towards the 172 for you, but overall:
-If you are completely comfortable on the 2019 169 you will be good on the new 172.
-If you value quickness in bumps/trees over stability at high speeds, go with the 165.

 

[RachelV]

I'm the same size as you and would pick the 172 for myself, but I do think @lisamamot nails it with:

...
-If you are completely comfortable on the 2019 169 you will be good on the new 172.
-If you value quickness in bumps/trees over stability at high speeds, go with the 165.

 

[elemmac]

Hi ladies -

I currently ski the 2019 version of the Santa Ana 93s in the 169 length.
I love the ski so much, I want to replace with their new model.
With that, they recently changed their ski design & length options and am torn between the 163 & 172.
Anyone have the same dilemma?

5’7; weight varies between 135-140; advance intermediate - expert.

enjoy speed on groomers, long & short turns having fun wherever the day takes me.
Thanks!

I’ve owned two versions of Santa Ana 100s (2016 and 2019), both in 169. I still use the 2016s as a touring ski, and just sold the 2019s (due to going to a shorter boot and I didn't want to remount the bindings). They are still my all-time favorite. I use them as a baseline for any other ski I try. I’m slightly shorter, and about the same weight as you.

I have since tried the SA98 in a 172. I found them to be a bit more demanding than my old ones, and they felt less playful and maneuverable…which is contrary to what most people think about those skis.

Given the context above, your best course of action would be to try to demo them before you buy…as you might find yourself in between sizes (as I feel like I am).

If your only option is to buy blindly, I think you could go either way…165 for more maneuverability, 172 for more stability at speed. You could also try the 165 Enforcer 94, which gives you a stiffer platform for more stability, but it’ll offer more maneuverability with the shorter length.

 

[Chuyi]

Hi ladies -

I currently ski the 2019 version of the Santa Ana 93s in the 169 length.
I love the ski so much, I want to replace with their new model.
With that, they recently changed their ski design & length options and am torn between the 163 & 172.
Anyone have the same dilemma?

5’7; weight varies between 135-140; advance intermediate - expert.

enjoy speed on groomers, long & short turns having fun wherever the day takes me.
Thanks!

Can't you rent/demo the skis in each length?

 

[ceestan]

I'm 155 cm tall (5'1") and ski the current SA 93 in 158 cm length. I also enjoy speed on groomers and the stability of a longer ski. My vote is also for the 172 cm length. For what it's worth, I noticed a big difference in how maneauverable/manageable my skis felt after I switched to a stiffer boot. I feel the length a lot less now, going from 85 to 115 flex boots.

 

[brewski]

Can't you rent/demo the skis in each length?

Demos they have only had available 165 & unable to compare.

 

[brewski]

Demo update - out at Big Sky and tried the Nordica SA 93’s in 165 again and felt a bit squirrelly. For fun tried the Fischer Ranger 96s in a 174 and man were they fun.

Interested if anyone has or has demoed in the past the newer Ranger 96s for their honest feedback?

Looking for a hard charging ski, that is still playful, yet provides a stable ride and is damp through crud.