Sheeva 9 for intermediate skier

[FayGoneAstray]

Thoughts on Sheeva 9 for an intermediate skier? Whistler's variable conditions - looking for a light fun, playful, energetic easy (non tiring on my legs) ski that turns easily and is a bit forgiving. But can grip a bit when gets a bit west coast icy/hard and deal with heavy west coast crud. Only 5 foot 1 - 110 pounds. Cautious (slow), intermediate looking for ski that will enable confidence and ability to progress. Is this too much ski?
And which length 150 or 156cm? I heard it skis short but 150 is more what I'm used to skiing on ie. not as tall as me! Thanks!

 

[FayGoneAstray]

ps. I HATED Blizzard Black Pearl 88s from a few years ago (probably 2 iterations ago). guy at the ski shop was talking about the Sheevas and it sounded awesome to me and a ski that might suit me. My hatred of the Black Pearls haunt me a bit! LOL. They were not fun. He told me Sheevas were fun and easy to initiate turns.

 

[Verve]

It’s a great ski for those who want to venture into bumps and even trees. If you’re looking primarily to improve your form and have a nice time on mostly groomed conditions, and in particular icy conditions, I think there may be better options for you. I’ll let @lisamamot comment on sizing for the Sheeva 9s (or one of the many other divas who own this ski personally

 

[SarahXC]

@TNtoTaos has this ski in a shorter length and can maybe provide insight too

 

[santacruz skier]

I’m 5’1 mostly Tahoe skier, lightweight and have this ski in a 157. I personally would not go shorter but am more of an advanced skier so there’s that to consider.

 

[MissySki]

I’m 5’1 mostly Tahoe skier, lightweight and have this ski in a 157. I personally would not go shorter but am more of an advanced skier so there’s that to consider.

You have the older version like me, right? The new version is longer in every length than the old one.. like I have the 164 for the older one and the new one I demoed the option was a 168. The new one has more rocker and skis shorter, so agreed I definitely wouldn’t go too short especially in the newer one.

 

[santacruz skier]

You have the older version like me, right? The new version is longer in every length than the old one.. like I have the 164 for the older one and the new one I demoed the option was a 168. The new one has more rocker and skis shorter, so agreed I definitely wouldn’t go too short especially in the newer one.

Yes older version! Good point ! Isn’t newer version also wider?

 

[lisamamot]

It’s a great ski for those who want to venture into bumps and even trees. If you’re looking primarily to improve your form and have a nice time on mostly groomed conditions, and in particular icy conditions, I think there may be better options for you. I’ll let @lisamamot comment on sizing for the Sheeva 9s (or one of the many other divas who own this ski personally

I have not been on the newly redesigned model (96mm), but know they played with the lengths. I don’t find the older model skis any shorter than other similar skis with rocker. I ski the 172 in the Sheeva 9 and Santa Ana 93. In the new Sheeva 9 I would be on the 174 which is 1 cm shorter than me.

@FayGoneAstray - are you able to demo to see what length feels right to you? 150 seems short, but the 156 would be a cm taller than you so it’s a tough call.

 

[MissySki]

Yes older version! Good point ! Isn’t newer version also wider?

It is indeed wider! Instead of 92 it’s 96 underfoot.

 

[TiffAlt]

I'm 5'2, 110 and consider myself an intermediate - so close stats to you. I demoed this years version of the Sheeva 9 at Mt Bachelor last month. I was on 162 and they didn't feel too long at all.

I liked them, but didn't love them or find them any better than my Volkl Yumis (84 waist, 154 length) for the conditions. I got there after a storm petered out a couple of days before. There was some untouched powder in the trees, but most of the runs were tracked out and parts had set up to our beloved Cascade Concrete. The horrible visibility meant that the crud, usually punishing anyway, was likely to take you down cause you could see it.

I did find them very easy to turn and I really felt the increased rocker as the Yumis have a flatish tail and I had a bad habit of sometimes using them as a bit of a brake by sitting back when I'm cruising. LOL, can't do that on the Sheevas.

BTW - not a BP 88 fan either. I felt they really locked me in to a turn shape while my Yumis let me change much easier. I felt the Sheevas were even more "pivot-y", but still preferred my Yumis for edge grip and ease of turning over the edges.

 

[FayGoneAstray]

It’s a great ski for those who want to venture into bumps and even trees. If you’re looking primarily to improve your form and have a nice time on mostly groomed conditions, and in particular icy conditions, I think there may be better options for you. I’ll let @lisamamot comment on sizing for the Sheeva 9s (or one of the many other divas who own this ski personally

I'd love to hear of the options for better form and nice time on groomed or icier/harder conditions! Thanks in advance!

 

[TNtoTaos]

I'm 5'0, 115 lbs, and I love my 2023 Sheeva 9s in a 149 length. At that length they are 89 underfoot. I've skied them on groomed snow, powder, bumps, and trees -- they're really fun in the bumps -- they turn on a dime.They're not great in icy conditions and crud, or at high speeds, but I don't like to ski really fast, so they're fine for me.

 

[Skiing2BFreeInYYC]

I’m 5’3” about 123lbs. Advanced intermediate I guess, I can do blacks moguls and tree runs but still really working on technique. I have the 2023 Sheeva 9 in 157 and the 2024 in 162. I felt the 157 was too short for me and had the chance to demo the 162 this year and noticed a positive difference from the extra length. Also felt the 2024 was better in firm and icey conditions, but I still really like the 2023. (i’m keeping them for our son as he’s almost ready for them.). I also demoed the new Santa Ana 92 the same day and chose the Sheeva as I felt it was more forgiving. I liked the dampness of the Santa Ana, but felt a little bit like it was gonna punish me for my bad habits haha

I have gotten more into skiing bumps and tree runs this year and have enjoyed these skis a lot. I also find they handle the super variable conditions at Lake Louise (home hill) great. That being said, if someone was sticking to groomers maybe there is better for you (sorry I dont have a specific recommendation).

 

[Verve]

I'd love to hear of the options for better form and nice time on groomed or icier/harder conditions! Thanks in advance!

I bet other divas will have more to recommend from personal experience but I can start us off with some thoughts for an icy groomer form skis. Fortunately, most major brands have something to offer in this category (and even the Black Pearl will do a major change next year).

I would think something in the high 70s to high 80s underfoot and a little softer but not a beginner noodle ski bc we’re thinking about crud conditions - my guess is that maybe the BP88 was no fun because you don’t like something that’s quite that stiff. You’re a lighter person and you’re probably not flying down the hill. The narrow waist makes these skis quicker edge to edge and I think promote good turn form. They’ll also be the best ice day options so if you get one you like, even if you add something like a Sheeva down the road you’ll still ski it some days when the conditions make sense.

The Volkl Yumi - which @TiffAlt mentioned - comes to mind. The Nordica Santa Ana 84. This one is a true frontside carver rather than a narrow all mountain ski but I also wonder if you’d like the Nordica Wild Belle. My coworker is a progressing intermediate and declared it felt “like riding a wild stallion” on our demo day and meant that in a good way, lol!

 

[TiffAlt]

The Volkl Yumi - which @TiffAlt mentioned - comes to mind. The Nordica Santa Ana 84. This one is a true frontside carver rather than a narrow all mountain ski but I also wonder if you’d like the Nordica Wild Belle.

I really do love my Yumis for the various conditions and I'm as you described - lighter skier, not looking to go fast by anyone's standards. They are better in crud than the Rossi Experience's I learned on, but they are still a lighter ski, not a crud crusher. They also aren't the best in deep powder, but that's to be expected.

I've demoed a few other skis, most with larger waists since it's hard to find "true narrow" to demo here in the PNW and I keep going back to my Yumis. Love the versatility in turn form - I can have a great time on the groomers both cruising and practicing my form and it can still handle off-piste and some fresh snow well as long as a huge boot-height dump.

I believe @leia1979 has the Wild Belle - she might be able to give a review of how it handles in the various conditions!

 

[leia1979]

I believe @leia1979 has the Wild Belle - she might be able to give a review of how it handles in the various conditions!

Indeed I do! The Wild Belle 84 is very damp and stable and mows through crud but is also easy to turn and holds well in firm conditions. The only downside is it’s a bit heavy. I’m 5’5” (165cm) and have the 156, which has become too short for me. I decided to go for the lighter Elan Wildcat 82C in 164 rather than size up the Wild Belle.

I also demoed this year’s Sheeva 9 a couple months ago. They only had 156, which was way too short for me. I want to try 168 if I ever find it. I’d recommend 156 for the OP. I found it easy enough to turn but need some extra length for stability.

 

[Scribble]

If you like the Shiva 9, check out the Atomic Maven 93. I tried them at a demo day last week and was pleasantly surprised. They were stable, zoomy, and easy to maneuver, preferring short to medium sized turns.

 

[tinymoose]

I'm not sure if I have a lot to contribute, but here goes... I'm a 5'1", 95 lbs. advanced-ish skier, so similar to you but a bit lighter. I'm a former Yumi skier (skied two iterations of the Yumis both with and w/o titanal over 6ish yrs?). Anyhow, I've tried the Sheeva 9, and it wasn't my cup of tea, but I'm a very groomer oriented skier so I've keyed into racing/carving b/c of where I live (SE PA). Anyhow, of the Wild Belle and the Yumi, of which I've tried both iterations within the last 2-3 yrs... the Wild Belle is turnier, but both ski very similarly. I still preferred the Yumi to the Wild Belle b/c while it's was a bit less turny, but felt more versatile? BUT if you hated the BP88, which I liked, I think of the two the Yumi feels closer to the BP88 than the Wild Belle. Wild Belle is a bit more forgiving.

All that side bit being said, back to your OG question... you can probably ski the Sheeva 9 as an intermediate. Wouldn't be my preference at a similar size and as an intermediate because of the width, but maybe it will work better for you. The issue I've run into with most 90+ skis and maybe my hips are just too narrow, but they force my legs too wide for my hips. Your mileage will vary; my hips are only 33 in. on measurement, so pretty narrow.

(disclaimer: the yumi and and wild belle i tried were two year's ago models, and the sheeva 9 and BP 88 were last year's models.

 

[AJM]

I'm sure you can ski the Sheeva 9 as an intermediate, I have the 2023 model so its the previous one which is narrower and I love them. Sadly I can no longer ski them as I had a bit of a crash and need a narrower ski from here on in.
As far as I know the current model is suitable for intermediates and even though you didnt like the BPs you could also give the new 2025 model a try as its quite different from the one you tried. Good luck on your search x

 

[FayGoneAstray]

Thanks all for the input. I'm now thinking I need to go narrower - I'm now considering Volkl Blaze 86w but will look into some options. May leave until next season unless I can snag an end of season sale.
Blaze comes in 146 and 152 - any ideas of lenght for my size? 155cm (5 foot 1 at my best!) and around 110 pounds give or take.