Size up or down: Black Pearl or Santa Ana 88

[RandomSkier]

The age old question with no perfect answer... Size up or down when between sizes? I have read all the usual pros and cons, but looking for some personal insight.

Posted earlier about new skis and got great answers! I think I am sticking with the Black Pearl 88 or the Santa Ana 88. Demo-ed both, liked both. Both highly recommended and super popular. Why make it complicated?! I give up trying to find something more interesting.

I am going to get one of them in either a 165 cm or a 171/172 cm. I need help with sizing please!

I am 5ft 9 in (175 cm) and 135 lbs. Solid intermediate to advanced skier. Current skis are 164 cm and 78 mm beginner to intermediate ski. I demo-ed the 165 cm in both BP88 and SA88 skis. Had no issues with that length; I am used to how it handles having spent the last decade on it. Never been on anything longer. That length never really held me back in terms of stability, more the softness of my ski. Aggressive carver, but not a speed demon. As for handling crud or 3D snow, it seemed the 78 mm width was likely the bigger factor. Never skied more than 6-8 inches of powder on my west coast home hills; just don't get huge dumps.

When it could easily go either way, it seems like everyone is always pushing to size up. I am feeling pressured get the 171/172 cm length just because of my height, meanwhile my weight is on the lower end of my height spectrum and I really have no complaints about the 165 cm length. I do favor more carvy, nimble skiing vs. speed, but it's only because I fear super speed so I am prone to whipping short little turns on a black in an effort to control speed. Or I prefer long lazy carves on blues, glades, and just exploring. I suck at moguls, but I don't see extra length being an advantage there. It's not like the 165 cm is *unreasonably* short or I am buying a heavily rockered ski, but it is hard to ignore the vast majority of people saying that 171/172 cm is better for my height and skill. I just fear the extra length will feel cumbersome and heavy, while not really adding a ton of benefit for me.

I am happy to get a 171/172 cm ski if I am just naively missing out on some obvious benefit that everyone else knows. I am kicking myself for not demo-ing the longer length. I just never really occurred to me because 164 cm has always been my norm. Plus, I was already going a bit wider which was new, so I worried it would take time to adapt (it didn't, 78 to 88 mm is an easy transition) and didn't want to change two variables at once.

Any comments on length recommendarion for those specific skis would be appreciated!

 

[Christy]

I think you should stick with what is working for you now--so, go with the shorter. I had a similar dilemma when I bought my first BPs in 2017 or so. I sized up because it sounded like I should size up. People tell you to size up, like you say. I couldn't control the tips. I couldn't get forward enough to control the tips. People told me, oh, it must be your technique. You must be in the back seat (never mind I'd never had this tip issue). I LOVED these long skis on powder days; they were actually the best skis I've ever had for deep snow even though they were 88s. But the rest of the time, they weren't good, and the tip wandering was a confidence buster. A couple/few years ago when I bought BP98s, I sized back down, and these skis have been perfect. I sold my 88s though I kinda wish I'd kept them for powder days.

 

[RandomSkier]

I think you should stick with what is working for you now--so, go with the shorter. I had a similar dilemma when I bought my first BPs in 2017 or so. I sized up because it sounded like I should size up. People tell you to size up, like you say. I couldn't control the tips. I couldn't get forward enough to control the tips. People told me, oh, it must be your technique. You must be in the back seat (never mind I'd never had this tip issue). I LOVED these long skis on powder days; they were actually the best skis I've ever had for deep snow even though they were 88s. But the rest of the time, they weren't good, and the tip wandering was a confidence buster. A couple/few years ago when I bought BP98s, I sized back down, and these skis have been perfect. I sold my 88s though I kinda wish I'd kept them for powder days

I almost feel like it is some sort of "badge of honor" to ride a longer ski... Like people do it for the bragging rights because they are just "that good". There are obvious reasons to size up. But I don't spend my ski days running on 110% and blasting as fast as I can everywhere I go. Since the length difference is really only a couple inches, I was just curious if either the cumbersome feel of longer, or the loss of stability at shorter would really be that noticeable against each other.

 

[Jenny]

I'm your height and about 8 lbs heavier, and I have the BP99 in the 168 length and they're just fine. I tried sizing up when I had my Kenjas and discovered that I'm just more comfortable in whatever the mid 160 size happens to be. Sounds like we'd be happy skiing together, too, as I fear too much speed, suck at moguls, and like to be able to do big lazy turns as well as shorter ones. I'm working at the moguls, though, in sort of a half-assed way.

 

[elemmac]

@RandomSkier Just curious...I read through your other thread, and from your initial post you didn't seem too stoked on either of these skis when you tried them. Why the change of heart, or did I misinterpret your original post?

As for your question on this thread specifically...this probably isn't the answer you're looking for but... you can go either way. You're going to be giving up a little stability for more maneuverability if you go with the shorter size, and you'll give up a bit of maneuverability for stability, going longer. I think you've got this concept nailed down...and really, only you can answer the question of which characteristic you would prefer to compromise on.

 

[MissySki]

I almost feel like it is some sort of "badge of honor" to ride a longer ski... Like people do it for the bragging rights because they are just "that good". There are obvious reasons to size up. But I don't spend my ski days running on 110% and blasting as fast as I can everywhere I go. Since the length difference is really only a couple inches, I was just curious if either the cumbersome feel of longer, or the loss of stability at shorter would really be that noticeable against each other.

I don't think this is the case for most women, or at least it isn't in my sphere of ski friends. I think people get the size they feel most comfortable on, and/or what works best for their desired terrain and skier style. Also, different skis will feel different in size if there is a ton of rocker for example, then you might want to go longer for the effective edge. If you are in powder often you might also need or want the additional float that a longer length can provide. If you are always in very tight trees/bumps perhaps you want the maneuverability of a shorter ski. If a ski is especially stiff you might want shorter unless you on the other hand are a very powerful skier who is going to bend and really use the additional length for fast and dynamic skiing. This type of skier might find a shorter length too unstable for their skiing style whereas a skier who skis with more finesse and less power/speed may find the longer length too much work for their style.

Point being, there are endless legitimate reasons to choose one length or the other when you might be between sizes, that have nothing to do with ego. All are valid for the individual, and it will likely vary by ski for the same individual.

Have you tried both sizes in the skis you are interested in? I can tell you that in some cases there are very big differences in the feel of those two different sizes. I just had this occur last season when I was demoing the Volkl Blaze 86. Usually I'm most comfortable in the mid 160s for ski length, but in this particular ski I tried the 159 and 166 and found that I much preferred the 159. I could ski the 166 just fine and it was fun, but they felt quite different and my biggest desire in this purchase was a narrower ski to work on my bump and tree skiing more. The 159 was significantly more maneuverable to me. Two other divas happened to purchase the same ski last season, we all have a similar ski style, they also decided to size down one from their regular length in this ski. A couple of inches made a big difference in this case, for what I wanted, felt, and was looking for.

If you feel stable on the shorter size, they perform how you'd like, and are happy with your demo, that's all that matters. If you have any doubts and will wonder how the longer size might compare, take them out for a spin and see what feels best. You might just be surprised, or you might just confirm what you already thought. Either way, you gain valuable info. If you haven't demoed something that makes you not want to get off of that ski and makes you smile while on it, I'd keep demoing. I only ever purchase a ski that I demo and then cannot stop thinking about afterward. There are so many options out there, and there is something that will do that for you. I demo plenty of skis that are "okay" and would work fine, but I don't buy those. The most popular skis doesn't necessarily mean the right ski for you, that's why there are so many options.

For reference, I am 5'4" and ~125 lbs.

 

[Jilly]

Interesting because my description of the SA 88's is no where near what you're describing. 165 in length. I consider myself an advanced skier and prefer the narrow race type skis. Current daily driver is the Rossi Hero ST Ti. It's 68 underfoot.

So for years I've wanted a wider waist ski for trips west. I got a chance to demo the Brahma 82 at Lake Louise in the early season of 19-20. I loved those skis. So the next all (2020) I got a pair of SA 88's. I've skied them maybe 4 times. Last spring was a good test day - go here for my "report".

 

[RandomSkier]

I'm your height and about 8 lbs heavier, and I have the BP99 in the 168 length and they're just fine. I tried sizing up when I had my Kenjas and discovered that I'm just more comfortable in whatever the mid 160 size happens to be. Sounds like we'd be happy skiing together, too, as I fear too much speed, suck at moguls, and like to be able to do big lazy turns as well as shorter ones. I'm working at the moguls, though, in sort of a half-assed way.

@RandomSkier Just curious...I read through your other thread, and from your initial post you didn't seem too stoked on either of these skis when you tried them. Why the change of heart, or did I misinterpret your original post?

As for your question on this thread specifically...this probably isn't the answer you're looking for but... you can go either way. You're going to be giving up a little stability for more maneuverability if you go with the shorter size, and you'll give up a bit of maneuverability for stability, going longer. I think you've got this concept nailed down...and really, only you can answer the question of which characteristic you would prefer to compromise on.

I didn't actually hate either of those skis. In fact, I thought they were great. It was just that they felt so similar to what I already owned. I barely felt a difference on the BP88. I just wanted to try something different. But there are just so many options I can't make sense of them all without demoing or learning more about what I like in a ski. I am just going to get the sure thing for now and keep looking as I progress.

 

[AJM]

I've moved from the Sheeva 9's in 164 and have previously had the BP 88's in 159 but this season I have gone for a K2 Mindbender 85 in 156 and I flippin love them !!! At first I though ok these are too short for me (165cm and around 57Kg strong intermediate) but I bought them as I'm coming out of injury and needed a shorter, narrower and softer ski.
After my initial impressions of them being too short I'm now having second thoughts and am having a blast on them and cant see me going much longer at all in the future ..... just my 10 cents worth x

 

[RandomSkier]

Interesting because my description of the SA 88's is no where near what you're describing. 165 in length. I consider myself an advanced skier and prefer the narrow race type skis. Current daily driver is the Rossi Hero ST Ti. It's 68 underfoot.

So for years I've wanted a wider waist ski for trips west. I got a chance to demo the Brahma 82 at Lake Louise in the early season of 19-20. I loved those skis. So the next all (2020) I got a pair of SA 88's. I've skied them maybe 4 times. Last spring was a good test day - go here for my "report".

I have to say, your experience on the SA88 is definitely in the minority compared to online reviews. Most people love them, but not everyone of course and I respect getting a different opinion. Personally, I spent 3 hours on that ski and had zero issue edging over on them. I have a very hard time deciding which I liked better between those and the BP88 and the BP88 is ridiculously easy to carve. Not discounting your experience, but they just sound like the wrong ski for you if you hated them that much.

 

[RandomSkier]

I don't think this is the case for most women, or at least it isn't in my sphere of ski friends. I think people get the size they feel most comfortable on, and/or what works best for their desired terrain and skier style. Also, different skis will feel different in size if there is a ton of rocker for example, then you might want to go longer for the effective edge. If you are in powder often you might also need or want the additional float that a longer length can provide. If you are always in very tight trees/bumps perhaps you want the maneuverability of a shorter ski. If a ski is especially stiff you might want shorter unless you on the other hand are a very powerful skier who is going to bend and really use the additional length for fast and dynamic skiing. This type of skier might find a shorter length too unstable for their skiing style whereas a skier who skis with more finesse and less power/speed may find the longer length too much work for their style.

Point being, there are endless legitimate reasons to choose one length or the other when you might be between sizes, that have nothing to do with ego. All are valid for the individual, and it will likely vary by ski for the same individual.

Have you tried both sizes in the skis you are interested in? I can tell you that in some cases there are very big differences in the feel of those two different sizes. I just had this occur last season when I was demoing the Volkl Blaze 86. Usually I'm most comfortable in the mid 160s for ski length, but in this particular ski I tried the 159 and 166 and found that I much preferred the 159. I could ski the 166 just fine and it was fun, but they felt quite different and my biggest desire in this purchase was a narrower ski to work on my bump and tree skiing more. The 159 was significantly more maneuverable to me. Two other divas happened to purchase the same ski last season, we all have a similar ski style, they also decided to size down one from their regular length in this ski. A couple of inches made a big difference in this case, for what I wanted, felt, and was looking for.

If you feel stable on the shorter size, they perform how you'd like, and are happy with your demo, that's all that matters. If you have any doubts and will wonder how the longer size might compare, take them out for a spin and see what feels best. You might just be surprised, or you might just confirm what you already thought. Either way, you gain valuable info. If you haven't demoed something that makes you not want to get off of that ski and makes you smile while on it, I'd keep demoing. I only ever purchase a ski that I demo and then cannot stop thinking about afterward. There are so many options out there, and there is something that will do that for you. I demo plenty of skis that are "okay" and would work fine, but I don't buy those. The most popular skis doesn't necessarily mean the right ski for you, that's why there are so many options.

For reference, I am 5'4" and ~125 lbs.

You are right about all of this. I really wanted "that ski" that just made me smile for no reason, but I have tried two great skis though that did everything I need. However, that "it" feeling and reinvigorating my love of skiing also comes from being willing to push myself and learn.

I am just being facetious about ski length and ego, haha. It just seems that sizing down is not the norm. It seems more celebrated to say, I am a fast charger, I need length! Vs. I am a pokey, casual skier who likes to cruise.

 

[tri-ski-pucker]

a male ski patroller commented to me that my skis don't know how tall i am, only how much i weigh.

 

[MissySki]

a male ski patroller commented to me that my skis don't know how tall i am, only how much i weigh.

I agree with this.. except for one point that can still be notable I think and that is leg length. The taller you are, you may also have longer legs and therefore have much more of a lever over the ski. This still might give you the ability to flex something longer more appropriately than someone of the same weight who has shorter legs.

I’m 5’4” but have long legs for my height.. this is a big factor for me with ski boots especially. I can flex much stiffer boots than some my height and weight simply because my lower leg is really long for my height. I’m not really sure if this is a factor in ski length for me, have never much thought about that piece.

 

[beane]

If you feel stable on the shorter size, they perform how you'd like, and are happy with your demo, that's all that matters. If you have any doubts and will wonder how the longer size might compare, take them out for a spin and see what feels best. You might just be surprised, or you might just confirm what you already thought. Either way, you gain valuable info.

This, 100% this.

I'm going to be coming back from ACL this year and happily going back to my narrower shorter skis. I have been doing tons of shopping and googling while rehabbing (why not) and part of me is like "go back to 170s! that's what you should be on!" but I am definitely planning to choose what feels the most fun. The more comfortable you are on the skis, the more you'll use them, and then progress. You can always size up later.

 

[AJM]

This, 100% this.

I'm going to be coming back from ACL this year and happily going back to my narrower shorter skis. I have been doing tons of shopping and googling while rehabbing (why not) and part of me is like "go back to 170s! that's what you should be on!" but I am definitely planning to choose what feels the most fun. The more comfortable you are on the skis, the more you'll use them, and then progress. You can always size up later.

Thats exactly what I have done

 

[fgor]

At 5'3 and 120lb I had the older BP88 in 159 and now I have the 2021 onwards version of the SA88 in 158... it's a comfy length for me in that width and style of ski, possibly i could go longer and i definitely have had people telling me i could go longer which made me regret not even asking if i could demo them in a different size, but meh. I don't ski super fast and i really love these skis in the length I have them. I think if you've already tried the ski in the shorter length and you know that you enjoy it for the type of skiing you enjoy doing, that's absolutely fine