Santa Ana 93's - which length to get?

[gingerskis]

I've been a perennial reader of this site but am finally getting myself some new skis after a winter of demoing and wanted to ask some input. I was stuck between the Santa Ana 93s and the Kenjas but am 90% settled on Santa Anas because they were a little bouncier and easier to ski in softer snow and bumps. I really love the Kenjas but want to do more than just rip turns - even though it's SO fun to just go fast on them! I wish I could get both haha

I'm stuck on the length - 161 vs 169. I was skiing the 163 Kenjas with no issues, but the rockered tip of the Santa Anas makes them ski shorter. I'm 5'6" and 155 lbs with an athletic build and would call myself advanced but I'm always trying to improve. I'm definitely a hard charger and spend about half my time on groomers vs. off. Both lengths had pretty good tip chatter at speed - the guy in the demo shop said it's a factor of the rocker tip and the length isn't going to get rid of it, so I guess I can slow down a bit to avoid that. I skied the 161s the day I took a lesson and was skiing really well, and the 169s the next day were still fun but I definitely was skiing better the day before. I can't tell if I was just a bit tired on the last day or if they were too much ski. I'm worried I'm going to "outgrow" the 161s if I get them. Any input is appreciated!

 

[Analisa]

What's your current setup that you're transitioning from? I've been progressing through a ski a season for the past few years, and found that jumping more than 10cm at a time can be a pretty big adjustment (give or take, with the amount of rocker from one ski to another and the fact that some manufacturers press then measure and some measure than press, they're not all apples to apples).

Otherwise, I'd err on the side of going longer, especially if you ski often. When I sized up from my 152 Chams to 162 Pandoras last year, I could generally maintain proper technique, but had a few "whoa, slow down, where did all this ski come from?" moments on steep & technical terrain. Demoing the Backland 109s in 175 on the other hand, I could really only turn right. Definitely too much ski at the time. As I've been demoing and shopping around this year, something in the 170s sounded intimidating, so I made a point to ski a pair of 172s for a few days and got more accustomed to the extra length. A lot of gal pals have mentioned the same thing where they feel like their skis are a lot to turn for the first 3-4 days out, but quickly figure out how to give it some more oomph.

 

[contesstant]

I'd push you to the 169 in that ski, especially if you like to charge down the hill often. They do ski quite short.

 

[gingerskis]

The last pair of skis that were actually mine were an old pair of Atomic race skis...I’m not even sure how long they are. I skied at Blue Mountain in PA in college and haven’t used them since I started going to Colorado a few times a year about 2 years ago. Since then I’ve been skiing demos that are all at least 160 cm. I kept coming back to the kenjas and the Santa Ana’s so I’d say the demos are what I’d be transitioning from.

I should add is the Tyrolia Attack 13 a good binding for it? It seems like a crowd favorite on here especially for the price.

 

[contesstant]

Yes, the Attack 13 is a GREAT binding choice.

 

[elemmac]

Based on your size, ability, description that you are a hard charger, and your wanting to improve further, I’d lean towards the 169.

Sometimes the best way to look at skis with different properties is to look at where they fall into the manufacturer’s lineup. For these skis:
Kenja: 149, 156, 163, 170
Santa Ana: 153, 161, 169, 177

So, generally one person will be looking at the same spot in the lineup when comparing skis, so in this instance, the 163 in the kenja is in the third place, so is the 169 Santa Ana. While this method works often, there are always exceptions, but most of the time it’s a good place to start.

 

[socalgal]

I've been a perennial reader of this site but am finally getting myself some new skis after a winter of demoing and wanted to ask some input. I was stuck between the Santa Ana 93s and the Kenjas but am 90% settled on Santa Anas because they were a little bouncier and easier to ski in softer snow and bumps. I really love the Kenjas but want to do more than just rip turns - even though it's SO fun to just go fast on them! I wish I could get both haha

I'm stuck on the length - 161 vs 169. I was skiing the 163 Kenjas with no issues, but the rockered tip of the Santa Anas makes them ski shorter. I'm 5'6" and 155 lbs with an athletic build and would call myself advanced but I'm always trying to improve. I'm definitely a hard charger and spend about half my time on groomers vs. off. Both lengths had pretty good tip chatter at speed - the guy in the demo shop said it's a factor of the rocker tip and the length isn't going to get rid of it, so I guess I can slow down a bit to avoid that. I skied the 161s the day I took a lesson and was skiing really well, and the 169s the next day were still fun but I definitely was skiing better the day before. I can't tell if I was just a bit tired on the last day or if they were too much ski. I'm worried I'm going to "outgrow" the 161s if I get them. Any input is appreciated!

I'm nearly identical to your stats, and have the 93's in 169. I too hesitated between the 161 and 169 lengths but am I glad I went longer. I didn't want to outgrow the 161s. There was a learning curve but I haven't felt overpowered unless I'm tired after a long day and my form is degrading.

 

[lisamamot]

Another vote for the 169 here! I am a few inches taller and a bit lighter, and I have the pre-titanal Santa Ana 100 177. I waffled a great deal between the 169 and the 177 on this one, and this is my first foray on a ski in this length. That said, it is very easy to ski and there have only been a couple times I wished it was shorter - tight steep trees was one, and an un-groomed steep that was out of my comfort zone was the other.

I have demoed the 2018 Santa Ana 93 169 a couple of times - with the addition of the titanal , it does not ski as short as the previous version, and the 169 is a nice length. With the way you describe your skiing, I believe you will find the 161 too short.

 

[huladiver]

I just bought the 169s. I'm 5'6" and weigh 150 lbs. You won't be disappointed. They definitely ski short! Have fun.

 

[gingerskis]

Hi everyone! Thanks for all of your input - I went with the 169s by popular opinion. Just got them and can't wait to take them out next week for our last trip of the year!!

 

[echo_VT]

hope it's awesome! if it helps i'm 5'4" and 120 lbs and the 161 is good for me. so i think you made a good choice.

 

[ski diva]

I may be getting these skis, myself, but I'm undecided to go with the 153's or the 161. I'm 5'1 and 112 lbs, and though I really like skis in the mid-150's, I'm thinking the 153's may be too short when you figure in the rocker. So I'm leaning toward the 161. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[echo_VT]

there is not a ton of rocker, i think you could go with either and be happy -

 

[santacruz skier]

Think if you're skiing trees you might like the 153's and open powder and groomers the161. Okay that doesn't help but that was my experience on the 2017's (diff ski I realize)....wait a minute unless you mean the 93? I demoed the 100's.

 

[echo_VT]

Yes i understood that as asking about the 2018-19 season 93's - definitely a totally different ski than the 100! (and yes diff. than 2017!)

 

[ski diva]

Think if you're skiing trees you might like the 153's and open powder and groomers the161. Okay that doesn't help but that was my experience on the 2017's (diff ski I realize)....wait a minute unless you mean the 93? I demoed the 100's.

That's the other issue. I'm tempted by the 100's because I don't have a ski that wide and could probably use it, especially when I go out west and on the rare Eastern powder day. And I've seen great reviews about the 100. A 93 might make more sense in the East, though I have another pair around that width.

 

[santacruz skier]

That's the other issue. I'm tempted by the 100's because I don't have a ski that wide and could probably use it, especially when I go out west and on the rare Eastern powder day. And I've seen great reviews about the 100. A 93 might make more sense in the East, though I have another pair around that width.

It seems like you do a western trip every year so the 100's would be my choice... I would probably go for the 153's for trees... btw I really wish my euro trip was at a different time than snowmass... (not that I could do both) enjoyed skiing with you all at mammoth!

 

[echo_VT]

the 100 would definitely be of use to you on the west coast, especially the cascades. i think 100 is the min. width for the cement-y snow they get (most skis i have seen there were in the 110+ range). i don't think it will be used at all on the east, even with a dump...

 

[marzNC]

That's the other issue. I'm tempted by the 100's because I don't have a ski that wide and could probably use it, especially when I go out west and on the rare Eastern powder day. And I've seen great reviews about the 100. A 93 might make more sense in the East, though I have another pair around that width.

100 underfoot is a good width for me on powder days. Would you bring two pairs of skis regularly for trips out west? I usually just bring my all-mountain skis and rent when I get lucky and catch a powder storm.

As for the length question between 153 and 161 for the Santa Ana 93, as mentioned it depends on what snow conditions they would get used for the most.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the BP98 @152 at Taos last winter in fresh powder that led to small soft bumps by the afternoon. Well, small for Taos but medium size in other places. When I rent DPS Nina 99 for a powder day, I get the 159. I demo'd the Elan Rip Stick 94 @156 and 163 on Alta groomers in 2017. Found the 163 much more stable at speed. Of course, none of those models are designed like the Santa Ana.

 

[Gloria]

I may be getting these skis, myself, but I'm undecided to go with the 153's or the 161. I'm 5'1 and 112 lbs, and though I really like skis in the mid-150's, I'm thinking the 153's may be too short when you figure in the rocker. So I'm leaning toward the 161. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

DD is about your same stats. She uses the 93 as a one ski quiver. Hers is either a 167 or 169 though. We had a ton of powder days last year and she never felt like she wanted anything wider. I have skied them and prefer something in the lower 160’s but didn’t notice the extra length on these so I think the 161 would be good for you. I skied them one day in about 18” and I also didn’t miss being on my wider skis. I think you would get plenty of mileage out of the 93 both east and west.