Liquid Yellow
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I have finally had a proper chance to test some skis, and it was REALLY good fun. On my recent trip with a ski club, a ski shop brought along some 80 pairs of skis for the group to try out. They had a huge range from proper GS race skis to giant fat White Dot skis.
About me: I'm 5'7, pretty heavy and have approx 35 weeks skiing behind me. I should be a lot better than I am, and I enjoy fast on-piste cruising the most. I'm not very experienced at off-piste.
Most, if not all of the skis I tried were next season's skis. So here we go.
First up was the 2014 Black Pearls, I grabbed them as soon as I saw them, I've been wanting to try these babies for months!
https://www.peakskishop.com/thumbna..._black_pearl_2013-14 vert.jpg&maxx=300&maxy=0
I think the stats are very well known but anyway:
TECH SPEC:-
Dimensions 125-88-110
Radius 18m @ 173cm length
Weight 1700gms per ski @ 173cm length
Sandwich Sidewall Quadrax
Light wood core with bamboo
ISO Core
Tip and tail Rocker
Flip core 3D
They only had the 159s and the 173s to try, which was a shame - I'd have liked to try the 166s. I took out the 159s first and WOW. I am firmly in the Black Pearl lover's club. These skis do anything! They were quick, light, turned on a sixpence, and felt lively and simply fun. However, the 159 is definitely slightly too short for me, and I felt I needed a tiny bit more stability. They do ski very short. I was skiing them on hard snow in the morning, and they had stacks of grip. I had no doubt they'd be even better in softer snow.
I tried the 173s the following day to see the difference. This time the conditions were afternoon heavy slush and they were fantastic! The extra length meant they just powered through the slush and crud, and had a wonderful turn of speed. BUT I think the 173s were a smidge too long, as I couldn't turn them as easily as the 159s and had to work them a bit more. I would buy these skis in a heartbeat, and 166 would be my perfect length. Just a shame I didn't get to try them.
Next up, the 2014 Nordica Wild Belles in a 162. Here's a link to how they look:
https://skiblog.powder7.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nordica-sidecountry-skis.jpg
TECHNICAL SPECS:
Construction: ENERGY Ca wi-core
Cam Rock: Early Rise
Sizes (cm) 162
Sidecut 126-84-112
Radius (m) 15
I took these out on hard snow, and I really liked them. They're simply a solid, all-round performer. 162 felt the perfect length for me. They carved and gripped well, turned easily and were happy to go fast or slow. They weren't as lively as the Black Pearls, but would simply do whatever is required. There's not much else to say really. I didn't try them on softer or heavier snow, but with the 84 waist I have no doubt they'd be just fine. They didn't feel as wide as they are - I highly recommend them.
So, then it was onto some off-piste bad boys.
I took out the DPS Nina 99 in a 169.
https://www.dpsskis.com/ski/nina99
Lengths 169cm, 176cm
Dimensions 121/99/108
Turn Radius 17M@176cm
Construction tip / tail rocker
Core Material
Bamboo, Carbon, Fiberglass
I've never skied anything this wide before and they took some getting used to. I took them out in heavy slush, but I think they needed a different wax on them because they kept sticking in the snow, it's like the bases had cheese on them. The snow WAS sticky, but I can't really give them an honest review because they felt like they were trying to kill me! I think they're marketed as a daily driver, but really I think they're mostly for off-piste as they are quite soft. I wouldn't buy them anyway, too gnarly for me.
Lastly I tried the 2014 Armada TSTw in a 174. Now these skis looked COOL. (they're ones third from the left, and that is both skis in the pic)
Specs
Tip Width (mm) 129 130 131
Waist Width (mm) 99 100 101
Tail Width (mm) 120 121 122
Turning Radius (m) 11.5 12.6 14.7
I felt like a cool ski dude wearing these, I must say. Again, these are really an off-piste ski, so I wasn't trying them in ideal conditions. It was deep slush on piste.
These skis were really a bit too much for me to handle. They liked to go fast and they certainly flew through the slush, but I think they'd be a handful on bumps and steeps - certainly in the 174 length anyway, which was really too long for me. Maybe I'd have got on better with 165s. They were what I think would be a 'damp' ski - they felt very stiff, and not really for short turns. On the long, sweeping turns they were ideal - but they did feel wide.
If you're an off-piste Diva, I think you'd like these, but as I'm mainly a piste skier, these aren't for me.
So of all the skis I tried, I loved the BPs best and would buy them, followed by the Wild Belles. (They did have the Hell's Belles too, but I didn't have time to try them, I think I would have liked them.)
There was a full range of Kneissl skis available too. I didn't have a chance to buy them but they were getting a LOT of love and a few people bought them. Definitely worth trying if you get the chance, everyone was raving about them.
https://www.kneissl-uk.com/skis/
About me: I'm 5'7, pretty heavy and have approx 35 weeks skiing behind me. I should be a lot better than I am, and I enjoy fast on-piste cruising the most. I'm not very experienced at off-piste.
Most, if not all of the skis I tried were next season's skis. So here we go.
First up was the 2014 Black Pearls, I grabbed them as soon as I saw them, I've been wanting to try these babies for months!
https://www.peakskishop.com/thumbna..._black_pearl_2013-14 vert.jpg&maxx=300&maxy=0
I think the stats are very well known but anyway:
TECH SPEC:-
Dimensions 125-88-110
Radius 18m @ 173cm length
Weight 1700gms per ski @ 173cm length
Sandwich Sidewall Quadrax
Light wood core with bamboo
ISO Core
Tip and tail Rocker
Flip core 3D
They only had the 159s and the 173s to try, which was a shame - I'd have liked to try the 166s. I took out the 159s first and WOW. I am firmly in the Black Pearl lover's club. These skis do anything! They were quick, light, turned on a sixpence, and felt lively and simply fun. However, the 159 is definitely slightly too short for me, and I felt I needed a tiny bit more stability. They do ski very short. I was skiing them on hard snow in the morning, and they had stacks of grip. I had no doubt they'd be even better in softer snow.
I tried the 173s the following day to see the difference. This time the conditions were afternoon heavy slush and they were fantastic! The extra length meant they just powered through the slush and crud, and had a wonderful turn of speed. BUT I think the 173s were a smidge too long, as I couldn't turn them as easily as the 159s and had to work them a bit more. I would buy these skis in a heartbeat, and 166 would be my perfect length. Just a shame I didn't get to try them.
Next up, the 2014 Nordica Wild Belles in a 162. Here's a link to how they look:
https://skiblog.powder7.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nordica-sidecountry-skis.jpg
TECHNICAL SPECS:
Construction: ENERGY Ca wi-core
Cam Rock: Early Rise
Sizes (cm) 162
Sidecut 126-84-112
Radius (m) 15
I took these out on hard snow, and I really liked them. They're simply a solid, all-round performer. 162 felt the perfect length for me. They carved and gripped well, turned easily and were happy to go fast or slow. They weren't as lively as the Black Pearls, but would simply do whatever is required. There's not much else to say really. I didn't try them on softer or heavier snow, but with the 84 waist I have no doubt they'd be just fine. They didn't feel as wide as they are - I highly recommend them.
So, then it was onto some off-piste bad boys.
I took out the DPS Nina 99 in a 169.
https://www.dpsskis.com/ski/nina99
Lengths 169cm, 176cm
Dimensions 121/99/108
Turn Radius 17M@176cm
Construction tip / tail rocker
Core Material
Bamboo, Carbon, Fiberglass
I've never skied anything this wide before and they took some getting used to. I took them out in heavy slush, but I think they needed a different wax on them because they kept sticking in the snow, it's like the bases had cheese on them. The snow WAS sticky, but I can't really give them an honest review because they felt like they were trying to kill me! I think they're marketed as a daily driver, but really I think they're mostly for off-piste as they are quite soft. I wouldn't buy them anyway, too gnarly for me.
Lastly I tried the 2014 Armada TSTw in a 174. Now these skis looked COOL. (they're ones third from the left, and that is both skis in the pic)
Specs
- Ability Level: Intermediate-Advanced
- Rocker Type: Rocker/Camber
- Core/Laminates: Wood
- Tail Type: Full Twin Tip
Tip Width (mm) 129 130 131
Waist Width (mm) 99 100 101
Tail Width (mm) 120 121 122
Turning Radius (m) 11.5 12.6 14.7
I felt like a cool ski dude wearing these, I must say. Again, these are really an off-piste ski, so I wasn't trying them in ideal conditions. It was deep slush on piste.
These skis were really a bit too much for me to handle. They liked to go fast and they certainly flew through the slush, but I think they'd be a handful on bumps and steeps - certainly in the 174 length anyway, which was really too long for me. Maybe I'd have got on better with 165s. They were what I think would be a 'damp' ski - they felt very stiff, and not really for short turns. On the long, sweeping turns they were ideal - but they did feel wide.
If you're an off-piste Diva, I think you'd like these, but as I'm mainly a piste skier, these aren't for me.
So of all the skis I tried, I loved the BPs best and would buy them, followed by the Wild Belles. (They did have the Hell's Belles too, but I didn't have time to try them, I think I would have liked them.)
There was a full range of Kneissl skis available too. I didn't have a chance to buy them but they were getting a LOT of love and a few people bought them. Definitely worth trying if you get the chance, everyone was raving about them.
https://www.kneissl-uk.com/skis/