Yep, another Aura question.

[oragejuice]

It seems to be the trend around here, but since I'm new to the board, I don't know if asking this in another thread will step on someones toes, so here we go.

I demoed a pair of Volkl Auras yesterday, in a 156. I'm trying to convince myself that buying them now is a better idea than waiting for next year's model. (I'm a student, and money is not a commodity... by the time I will be able to afford them next year, it wont be worth it... again)

My question is this, what length should I be getting?

I am 5'5", about 175 lbs (currently working off the 30 that I've gained since I quit swimming ) I have only been skiing for three years, but with the exception of cliffs, huge kickers, rails and extremely steep chutes, there isn't much that I cant/wont ski. I'm currently on a pair of 150 Salomon Verse. I bought them the first year I learned, they've been an amazing ski to progress on, but I need something new. I know I want something longer, and fatter, but how long? I'm a fairly aggressive skiier when the snow is good, I can keep up with my dad, who has been ripping since he was 12, and my brother, who has no concept of fear.

So I jumped on the 156 yesterday, because I don't want to go too long. I bought the Salomon Mynx in a 166 last year, and couldnt ski it in anything other than a foot of fresh. It was a combination of many things, but I know the length was a factor.

For my height and weight, should I be thinking about the 163? What will the length do for me? I liked the way the 156 skiied, but they look so damn short when I look down at my feet....

Anything helps!! Thaaank you!

 

[Lori_K]

Do you have the chance to demo the Aura in a 163 or 170? I would always recommend demo'ing the same size you plan on buying.

That said, you probably already noticed I have the Aura in a 163cm and I'm a bit shorter/lighter than you. So, I'd say the 163 would be the smallest you'd want to consider.

 

[oragejuice]

Thats what I'm thinking, but I'm not sure what the extra length will do for me.

 

[astridhj]

I'm 5'7" and I have the Auras in 170. For my length I wouldn't have gone for anything shorter than that. If I could have demo'ed them in 177, I would have, but since they only had 163 and 170 when I demo'ed, I decided on the 170.

Good luck with the Aura. It's a wonderful ski.

 

[ski now work later]

I have the Mynx and the Aura. I am 5'7", 145 lbs., and a strong intermediate skier. I have the Mynx in the 158 because I use them mostly for park stuff and I love the length. There is a big difference between the softer Mynx and the wood core Auras. After I demoed them in Montana last month, I bought the Auras in a 163 to use out West and in deeper conditions here in the East. I haven't been able to use them since I came back East as conditions have been Eastern hardpack when I've been able to get out to ski, but am hoping to get the chance to ski on them before my season ends.

Based on what you have written below, I would go with the 163. If the 156 was ok, then the 163 should feel good. I found them to be very stable. If you were an advanced skier who spent time mostly in deep pow, you might prefer a longer length, but for a variety of PNW conditions, the 163s should take you from groomers to crud to pow effortlessly.

Good luck finding them in 163 length. They are sold out in most parts of the country. On www.epicski.com there are threads that will show you the pic of the '09 Auras -- lots of hot pink and wilder graphics. For me (at my age), I liked the '08 graphics better despite the idiocy of having them be white since they are a powder ski and I found the skis 25% off. If I lose them in the pow, I'm hoping they wind up upside down so the pink underneath shows!

Hope this helps.

 

[oragejuice]

Are they going to be more stable if they are longer? I'm worried about getting them to turn when I want them to.

As for the graphics, I really don't like the '09 graphics. Blegh. Thanks for mentioning losing them though, I never thought about that.... Thankfully, I haven't had a problem with that sort of thing yet.

 

[ski now work later]

I found them to be very stable at 163. If I were a very fast skier in powder, I would probably want them longer, but I want to use them as an all mountain ski so I want them short enough to do shorter radius turns in bumps and trees too.

 

[oragejuice]

Like I mentioned above, I had alot of trouble with the length of the 166 Mynx. If I can find a pair, we'll see.

Thanks!

 

[IdahoSkiGirl]

I bought the Auras at the beginning of season this year because I could not find a pair at the end of last season. They do not drop in price very much. My local ski shop had a great deal in October on the Auras. I only paid $80 more than what most of the websites are still asking.

I'm 5'8" and weigh about 138lbs (my weight fluctuates by 5lbs during the winter). I ski a 163 and have really liked this length. They are long enough that I still have enough float in the REALLY deep powder and they are short enough that I can make quick turns in the trees - which was really important to me because I do a lot of tree skiing.

 

[oragejuice]

I found a pair for like 400 bucks. But then there are bindings, and I'm not sure I want to spend the money right now. Someone convince me?

 

[SnowHot]

I ski on the Bluehouse MR171, which is 171 in length, and similar dimensions to the Aura. I wouldn't suggest you go any shorter than the 163, and really think you'd do better with the 170. (I'm 5'6" and 125ish lbs)

If you find a deal on the skis, the bindings are an easy jump.
I can check but I think I have some marker fat brakes yet, that I'd sell you, and possibly some solly bindings with fat brakes, but I'd have to look.
As always a diva likes to help another out with a bargain when she can.

Take the leap!

 

[sibhusky]

I have the Mynx and the Aura. I am 5'7", 145 lbs., and a strong intermediate skier. I have the Mynx in the 158 because I use them mostly for park stuff and I love the length. There is a big difference between the softer Mynx and the wood core Auras. After I demoed them in Montana last month, I bought the Auras in a 163 to use out West and in deeper conditions here in the East. I haven't been able to use them since I came back East as conditions have been Eastern hardpack when I've been able to get out to ski, but am hoping to get the chance to ski on them before my season ends.

Based on what you have written below, I would go with the 163. If the 156 was ok, then the 163 should feel good. I found them to be very stable. If you were an advanced skier who spent time mostly in deep pow, you might prefer a longer length, but for a variety of PNW conditions, the 163s should take you from groomers to crud to pow effortlessly.

Good luck finding them in 163 length. They are sold out in most parts of the country. On www.epicski.com there are threads that will show you the pic of the '09 Auras -- lots of hot pink and wilder graphics. For me (at my age), I liked the '08 graphics better despite the idiocy of having them be white since they are a powder ski and I found the skis 25% off. If I lose them in the pow, I'm hoping they wind up upside down so the pink underneath shows!

Hope this helps.

Call "Snowghost Outfitters" here at the mountain (406-862-1996, you might have to be connected via a switchboard). They had ONE PAIR of Auras left in a 163 yesterday and today the price went down to 40% off $699. Don't wait. They might even be sold as I type.