Volkl Aura advice

[Teton18]

Hi-
I'm new to the forum but have been reading a lot this week at work while the Colorado snow is coming down outside Would love some powder ski advice:
I skied Rossi B3s (men's) for 2 seasons as an instructor in Aspen & JH. I just spent 2 years practically off my skis out east. Now I would love a stiffer fatter powder ski with all-mountain capabilities and have heard great great things about the Aura.

I am 5'4", 115-120 lbs depending, and I demo'd the Aura 163s last week. My Rossis are 160s. The Volkls felt REALLY heavy and I had a bit of trouble keeping my stance wide (which is probably to be expected after skiing B3s). Overall they were pretty uncomfortable and I'm wondering if I should try to go shorter (156s). Do other people find them cumbersome and heavy? Or have I just gotten soft skiing Rossis?

From the reviews the Auras are exactly what I'm looking for and much lighter than other Volkls. Not set on women's skis by any means (this would be my first pair). Any suggestions on what else I should look at? Or any advice on sizing would be great.

Thanks!

 

[altagirl]

I'd guess that part of it is that Volkls and Rossi's are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum for feel.

If your narrower stance is an issue, I believe the width is the same on all the lengths of the Aura. I think you'd either have to work on making an adjustment to your stance or fatter skis are just not going to feel comfortable. Have you tried other similarly wide skis and liked them or is this wider than you've tried before?

I think Auras are light, but I'm more of a Volkl person, and that's comparing them to my old G4's, G41s, Gotamas, Mantras, etc. If you are used to (and happy with) the feel of your B3s, maybe a K2 would be an easier transition. You may also want to look at skis marketed as Randonee or AT (alpine touring) skis, because those will definitely be lighter. Black Diamond, Karhu, etc. are all good brands to look at there.

Now if you weren't totally happy with the B3's or feel they're lacking in stability or anything, then you might want to experiment with stiffer, wood-core skis. Not that there wouldn't be an adjustment. However, if you like the feel of what you're on, you just need to find a fat ski with similar characteristics and construction.

 

[IttyBittyBetty]

I LOVE my Auras

I demo'd a whole bunch of skis before I bought my Auras (actually, my BF gave them to me for my birthday). I'm only 5'1' and 110 pounds so I went for the 156cm Auras. Anyway, although they were not the lightest in the group of skis I tried, the Auras felt light to me.

By demoing, I was able to determine what I liked and what I disliked about each ski. I highly recommend that you try to demo a few different skis so you can decide which ones work the best for you.

 

[Lori_K]

I have the Aura in a 163. I'm 5'3", 135 pounds, advanced skier.
I love these skis in everything from soft groomers to deep powder. It really is a versatile all-mountain ski.

The Aura feels lighter than my previous fat ski, the Salomon Pocket Rocket. The Aura is also stiffer than the PR, which I like.

I can't speak for the Rossi B3, but since the Auras you tried were demos, it could be that the demo binding is heavier than the regular binding you would put on it.

It's always worth it to try different lengths of the same model ski. There are other options for women-specific fat skis, including the K2 Phat Luv and the Salomon Scarlet. You may prefer the feel of one of those skis, but keep in mind that any 90mm+ ski may be a bit awkward underfoot at first!

 

[Teton18]

Thanks everyone- I actually just found some '07 Auras in 163s Craig's list for half price and decided to go for it! They came without bindings, and you're right- they are much lighter than I expected and I think will be great with some fritschi bindings (rather than the big heavy demo bindings which I think was what threw me off).

Plus I like last years graphics better!

Thanks for the advice.

 

[pinto]

Oh man, I am so naughty. And it's your fault. ha ha

I have had my eye on those things, but something longer (which is hard to find in the women's version ... impossible to demo). I couldn't find last year's Auras anywhere -- I agree, I like last year's graphics better, mostly because I'm not too excited about losing a white ski on a powder day.

Anyway, you inspired me to look on ebay again (which I've done repeatedly, but nada) -- and there they were, 06/07 Auras in a 177 length, for $359 shipped.

Click.

Bought.

We're going to Utah in February, so I really need something longer than my 164 Queen Attivas (well, I HOPE I will). I thought I'd demo when I get there, but that price was too good to pass up.

Enjoy! I know I will.

 

[lil mountain girl]

more Aura advice needed!!!!

i just demoed the Auras this weekend . . .
in a length, too short, i might add (but it was the only size they were demoing in them . . . my size was sold out!)

i demoed the 163's . . .

love/hate relationship here . . .

LOVED the spring and energy in the ski!
they were a super fun and floaty ski . . . perfect for steep tree lines on a powder day!
I also found them INCREDIBLY light!!!
. . . and they made me feel like a giddy 5 yr old!!! wheeee!!!

:Cry: HATED the fact that they felt really unstable! . . . almost scared myself a few times (and they did not like speed, especially in crud!)!!!
too soft maybe . . . definately too short.
they tended to skid out on me in the crud and toss me around . . . really unpredictable as soon as i tried to push them in the harder/crustier snow!

i guess i was expecting a more aggressive ski . . . or maybe more stablility?
any thoughts here?

thanks!

lil mtn girl

 

[altagirl]

i just demoed the Auras this weekend . . .
in a length, too short, i might add (but it was the only size they were demoing in them . . . my size was sold out!)

i demoed the 163's . . .

love/hate relationship here . . .

LOVED the spring and energy in the ski!
they were a super fun and floaty ski . . . perfect for steep tree lines on a powder day!
I also found them INCREDIBLY light!!!
. . . and they made me feel like a giddy 5 yr old!!! wheeee!!!

:Cry: HATED the fact that they felt really unstable! . . . almost scared myself a few times (and they did not like speed, especially in crud!)!!!
too soft maybe . . . definately too short.
they tended to skid out on me in the crud and toss me around . . . really unpredictable as soon as i tried to push them in the harder/crustier snow!

i guess i was expecting a more aggressive ski . . . or maybe more stablility?
any thoughts here?

thanks!

lil mtn girl

I would think the fact that they were so short would cause all of those negative traits.

I was trying to explain it recently - how women get in this catch-22 with short skis. They get on a super short ski, which feels unstable at speed and washes out and they think "I don't like to go fast". "Longer skis go faster, therefore I want the shortest skis I can get to stay slow". When the reality is that if they were on a longer ski, the speed wouldn't be scary because the ski would feel stable... (all within reason of course, but you get what I mean.)

I haven't skied the Aura because the only demos last year were 160-ish in length. So I demoed 178 Mantras, which were amazing. I don't know that I'd want them softer, so maybe the Auras are a little soft for my size, but I'd guess the too-short length is a much bigger issue than them being a little softer than a Mantra. Though it's really impossible to know for sure unless you can demo the longer ones to compare.

 

[sibhusky]

Both I and my daughter demo'd the 163's this weekend. We're totally different skiers, so we had different reactions to the ski, but we both liked it. AND we both still want to demo it on a day where we can push it, which wasn't the case this weekend due to crowds, dense fog, and iffy conditions.

Daughter is a former ski racer, 5'3", 115 pounds, 20 years old, been skiing since she was three. She has been skiing Volkl race skis for the last four years, so wants a Volkl powder ski. She found the ski to feel heavy, no surprise given the demo binding and the width compared to her race skis. She LOVED the float they gave her in powder. But, she felt like the arc of the ski was different from tip to heel than it was from heel to tail. She wasn't sure if this was a tuning issue or what and discussed it with the rep when she turned it in. She then tried another ski, the Elan Free Spice, which was in a longer length. She felt the additional length was noticeable and that the ski wanted to do a different kind of turning and was not as nimble as the Aura. On the Aura, she did notice the longer time it took to get the ski on edge compared to her race skis. She preferred the Aura by a landslide and turned in the FreeSpice after one run. She wants to try the Aura again on a day where she can fly down the hill, as being a former racer she's still got that speed fix she's got to address occasionally. She also would like to try it in more powder, although she did take it onto Good Medicine and loved it compared to what she is normally on.

I didn't start skiing until college, but have been at it 35 years. I like to say that I've accumulated bad habits from many styles of skiing and that they're all just part of "the way I ski". I'm 56, pretty much out of shape after a few months of healing. For the past 4 years, I've been skiing K2's, first the XP's, then the Recons. I've been looking for a ski just like the Recon only wider, so I bought some Outlaws without demo'ing. The day we demo'd skis was also my first day skiing the Outlaws. I found them to be heavy and tiring for me since it's the beginning of the season, but by about 4 runs was at least handling the wider shape. When I took over the Auras from my daughter, I had quite a few runs in on the Outlaws. I found the Auras, which were 163 instead of the 167 of the Outlaw, to be quite a bit lighter compared to what I had on AND compared to what I am used to. But, I enjoyed them and felt like after the Outlaw I was skiing the ski instead of the ski skiing me. They were really easy to turn. They did NOT roll over the crud as easy as the Recons or the Outlaws (but my daughter thought they were great for this compared to her race skis), but they were not limp noodles either. I did wonder if they would be stable at speed and I felt that they were a bit too short for me. I think as the season wears on and my stamina comes back, I would be less happy with them, but I still wish they had a demo ski in a 167 length. I had a LOT of fun on this ski. I did not take them off piste however, as everyone is on my case telling me to hold off a while before I do that. I promised I'd hold off anything tricky until January.

 

[pinto]

I would think the fact that they were so short would cause all of those negative traits.

I was trying to explain it recently - how women get in this catch-22 with short skis. They get on a super short ski, which feels unstable at speed and washes out and they think "I don't like to go fast". "Longer skis go faster, therefore I want the shortest skis I can get to stay slow". When the reality is that if they were on a longer ski, the speed wouldn't be scary because the ski would feel stable... (all within reason of course, but you get what I mean.)

I haven't skied the Aura because the only demos last year were 160-ish in length. So I demoed 178 Mantras, which were amazing. I don't know that I'd want them softer, so maybe the Auras are a little soft for my size, but I'd guess the too-short length is a much bigger issue than them being a little softer than a Mantra. Though it's really impossible to know for sure unless you can demo the longer ones to compare.

And I've never found a place that had the long sizes of women's skis as demos. As I wrote up above, I bought the 177 Auras without demoing -- I hope it works out, and I'm pretty sure it will. I've read many many reviews, and skied many Volkl skis, and I know that the 164s (Queens) are too short to make much difference in deep snow. The 177 is high forehead height, I think, on me. That seems about right.

 

[lil mountain girl]

I would think the fact that they were so short would cause all of those negative traits.

I was trying to explain it recently - how women get in this catch-22 with short skis. They get on a super short ski, which feels unstable at speed and washes out and they think "I don't like to go fast". "Longer skis go faster, therefore I want the shortest skis I can get to stay slow". When the reality is that if they were on a longer ski, the speed wouldn't be scary because the ski would feel stable... (all within reason of course, but you get what I mean.)

I haven't skied the Aura because the only demos last year were 160-ish in length. So I demoed 178 Mantras, which were amazing. I don't know that I'd want them softer, so maybe the Auras are a little soft for my size, but I'd guess the too-short length is a much bigger issue than them being a little softer than a Mantra. Though it's really impossible to know for sure unless you can demo the longer ones to compare.

i definately agree here!

after talking with the shop guys and a knowledgeable friend (who skied with me whilst i demoed my heart out) we thought that although length was a LARGE factor, some of the instability could have been due to the nature of the ski itself.

unfourtnately i couldn't demo a longer pair of Volkls (any Volkls!) . . . i really wanted to try the Mantras (and after volklgirls raving, Karmas!) but the shop hosting the demo was sold out (go figure!).

of the 4 skis i demoed, the Volkls were an exciting ski (having never skied them before) but i tended to enjoyed the stiffer skis i tried overall (LOVED the Stocklis . . . but the price . . . yikes ).

how are the Mantras in terms of stiffness and energy?
are they the kind of ski that make your legs burn?

are they as "poppy" as the Auras?
(maybe volklgirl can answer that?)

cheerio,

lil mtn girl

 

[altagirl]

Yeah, it's hard for me to compare because I've not skied the Aura's.

But the Mantras are fairly stiff, and are supposed to be stiffer than the Aura. Probably a hair stiffer than my Head im88's, but softer than the old G4's. And I'd say they're stiffer than my old black Gotamas, but I've heard the newer white/beige Gotamas have gotten stiffer.

They just had that great feel to me - lively, but very stable and easy to turn. I loved them. They just didn't make as much sense in my quiver as the im88. And they do tend to sell out everywhere early every year.

 

[volklgirl]

unfourtnately i couldn't demo a longer pair of Volkls (any Volkls!) . . . i really wanted to try the Mantras (and after volklgirls raving, Karmas!) but the shop hosting the demo was sold out (go figure!).

You'll probably have a heck of a time finding a Karma to demo since they've been discontinued and most places were sold out of last year's model. :mad: The Wall is the closest thing Volkl has for a replacement, but the Bridge may be more versatile.

how are the Mantras in terms of stiffness and energy?
are they the kind of ski that make your legs burn?

are they as "poppy" as the Auras?
(maybe volklgirl can answer that?)

Would love to but no one in flat-land-ville has either of these to demo. We just don't have big enough hills to make either of them a logical choice except as a vacation ski, so no one wants to carry them as demos.

 

[Gloria]

I am starting to think that this ski is one where skier weight and ski length etc really really need to be taken into consideration. Obviously it does on all skis, but it seems that this one either performs beautifully or lackluster for women. It's almost all or nothing, it's also funny how many of us die-hard volkl skiers didn't care for it, yet a die-hard K2 skier such as sibhusky and a couple of others, really enjoyed it. When I look back at my experience, I think weight was an issue for me. I skied it in 2-3 feet of fresh powder and felt like it was alot of work to keep it afloat, I skied it alot in the backseat or found the tips just wanted to auger in. The other women I was skiing with that enjoyed it were probably 20 pounds heavier and had no problems, it was myself and another woman smaller than me that switched off this ski for similiar reasons. I was starting to think that we didn't have enough weight to arc the ski without sinking it and were perhaps manking down harder on it and effectively sinking it. But then again, another poster is very similiar to my size and loved it. Of course, the conditions may have been different and bearing down a little harder on the ski may have been more optimum. Any thoughts on skier weight and ski flex for a powder ski? I am finding at #115 that I prefer a really stiff ski for everyday, yet am completely the opposite direction for a powder ski? How does this compare to other experiences on the Aura? Volkls tend to perform better arced do they not?

 

[pinto]

I am starting to think that this ski is one where skier weight and ski length etc really really need to be taken into consideration. Obviously it does on all skis, but it seems that this one either performs beautifully or lackluster for women. It's almost all or nothing, it's also funny how many of us die-hard volkl skiers didn't care for it, yet a die-hard K2 skier such as sibhusky and a couple of others, really enjoyed it. When I look back at my experience, I think weight was an issue for me. I skied it in 2-3 feet of fresh powder and felt like it was alot of work to keep it afloat, I skied it alot in the backseat or found the tips just wanted to auger in. The other women I was skiing with that enjoyed it were probably 20 pounds heavier and had no problems, it was myself and another woman smaller than me that switched off this ski for similiar reasons. I was starting to think that we didn't have enough weight to arc the ski without sinking it and were perhaps manking down harder on it and effectively sinking it. But then again, another poster is very similiar to my size and loved it. Of course, the conditions may have been different and bearing down a little harder on the ski may have been more optimum. Any thoughts on skier weight and ski flex for a powder ski? I am finding at #115 that I prefer a really stiff ski for everyday, yet am completely the opposite direction for a powder ski? How does this compare to other experiences on the Aura? Volkls tend to perform better arced do they not?

I might look at the binding mount. I had this trouble on the Queen Attivas (164 length, 87 wide) at first. Volkl sets the women's mount a little bit forward, which IMO is dumb on a powder ski.

I was disappointed in the Queens until I remounted the binding about 2 cm back. Since then they've been awesome! A little short for my height in deep snow, but that's a different story.

 

[altagirl]

That's very true. I'm not a fan of forward mounting at all.

And the thing is when you're demoing, the bindings can get moved forward or back from the recommended mounting point and that would make a big difference. For example if the others skiing the same ski have bigger feet, but they didn't move the toepiece back as well as the heel piece up, you'd effectively be farther forward on the ski and that would make the tips dive in powder.

Just something to keep in mind when demoing - if something feels weird like that it would be worth having the bindings adjusted back a bit to see if it helps. (And then write down where your boot center was - how far back from the tip) so you know if you buy them where to have them mounted.

 

[lil mountain girl]

You'll probably have a heck of a time finding a Karma to demo since they've been discontinued and most places were sold out of last year's model. :mad: The Wall is the closest thing Volkl has for a replacement, but the Bridge may be more versatile.

Would love to but no one in flat-land-ville has either of these to demo. We just don't have big enough hills to make either of them a logical choice except as a vacation ski, so no one wants to carry them as demos.

double bummer!!

thanks for the response anyway!

well the good news is that i have a few friends on volkls . . . maybe they have similar foot size?!

one can only hope!

cheers!

 

[volklgirl]

If you ever get over this way, we have access to the Karma in 169, 177, and 185. The 169 and 185 are mounted for 295 sole length and the 177 is mounted for 283 (not that you would want to come here just for that ).

 

[lil mountain girl]

while i don't know if i'll make it out your way, thank you for the invite anyway!!!

and thanks again for the insight into the skis a bit . . . i'll let you know what i can get my hands on (i think one of the other patrollers has some Gotamas maybe i can sweet talk and/or bribe him with chocolate ) and how they skied!

 

[sibhusky]

That's very true. I'm not a fan of forward mounting at all.

And the thing is when you're demoing, the bindings can get moved forward or back from the recommended mounting point and that would make a big difference. For example if the others skiing the same ski have bigger feet, but they didn't move the toepiece back as well as the heel piece up, you'd effectively be farther forward on the ski and that would make the tips dive in powder.

Just something to keep in mind when demoing - if something feels weird like that it would be worth having the bindings adjusted back a bit to see if it helps. (And then write down where your boot center was - how far back from the tip) so you know if you buy them where to have them mounted.

Wow, I think you're right. I'll have to have my daughter experiment a bit with that if I can get the shop to let us demo again.