SkiEssentials

Slashing Turns and Prices
Pugski Sponsor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
784
I honestly forget. I will see the 2019's on Tuesday if you can wait that long. If not, maybe @SkiEssentials can give a quick flex to both.
You'll see it, but it might not be called the Brahma Ca anymore ;)

I'll do a flex comparison later today and let you know what I think. I expect the actual flex to be similar; it's the rebound and damping that I expect to feel different having skied both quite a bit.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
23,331
Location
Reno, eNVy
You'll see it, but it might not be called the Brahma Ca anymore ;)

I'll do a flex comparison later today and let you know what I think. I expect the actual flex to be similar; it's the rebound and damping that I expect to feel different having skied both quite a bit.
You aren't Bushwacking me are you? ;)
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
831
I thought I'd add my thoughts on the Sheeva 10s. I've been skiing a Line Pandora as my daily driver, and decided to get something dedicated to inbounds. I wanted something that kept all the perks of the Pandora - super fun in the trees and the bumps - but with a thicker waist and a little burlier since I didn't have to worry about uphill weight.

The Sheevas definitely delivered. They felt familiar from the first run. They performed well in all sorts of snow - fresh powder up high, a little manky below, and all over a terrible layer of bulletproof rain crust. They wowed me with how stable and versatile they were.

The turn radius and stiffness were an interesting mix. They were so easy to slarve, but harder to flex. The skis seemed to want to turn before I did. They'd pivot, when I'd want them to stay pointed downhill and build enough speed to flex them. It could be user error & spending a bit more time on them to get used to them. But it could be the fact that they ski short. I caught @Tricia's advice about sizing up in between, but figured since I'm on a Pandora (which also skis short) at 162, the 164 would be best. They have the same turn radius, but they felt even shorter. I'd be interested in trying out them again in 172 (even though that sounds massive to me) to find something that skis similarly, but that turns longer.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
14,161
Location
Tahoe
I'm on a Pandora (which also skis short) at 162, the 164 would be best. They have the same turn radius, but they felt even shorter. I'd be interested in trying out them again in 172 (even though that sounds massive to me) to find something that skis similarly, but that turns longer.
For starters, you're used to the Pandora which doesn't have much of a turn shape to it (even though the stated TR is similar), where the ski you've chosen for your dedicated inbounds ski has some turn shape, as it should. After all, that's why you get a dedicated in bounds ski, right?
Also, 172 is probably going to ski more like you want it to, but its still going to turn more than the Pandora.
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
831
For starters, you're used to the Pandora which doesn't have much of a turn shape to it
My interest is piqued - mind sharing a little more on the turn shape and how that compares vs. the basic sidecut & turn radius?
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
14,161
Location
Tahoe
My interest is piqued - mind sharing a little more on the turn shape and how that compares vs. the basic sidecut & turn radius?
The published numbers for TR have to do more with the shape of the ski not the way the ski bends. How you flex the ski when initiating a turn factors into the actual turn shape.

I've skied the Pandora and the Sheeva 10, although not back to back.
Even though they have a 14.0/14.5 published TR, I felt that the Pandora took a bit more to get over on edge. The Sheeva 10 is quicker to get on edge and easier maneuver, maybe in part from the rocker/camber profile or maybe because of the construction.
You've found this in your description of how the Sheeva skis.

I try really hard to not get hung up in the published numbers because they don't always tell the full story of how a ski feels. Again, you've just experienced this with two skis that are different but have similar published numbers.

I'll try to get on the Pandora and Sheeva back to back at Copper next week and report back.

*Out of curiosity, you said you wanted a narrower ski for in bounds but you were looking for something with a similar TR. Why were you looking for something similar if you were looking for something different? Just curious.
 

AmyPJ

No longer on the single track.
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,409
Location
Ogden, UT
I thought I'd add my thoughts on the Sheeva 10s. I've been skiing a Line Pandora as my daily driver, and decided to get something dedicated to inbounds. I wanted something that kept all the perks of the Pandora - super fun in the trees and the bumps - but with a thicker waist and a little burlier since I didn't have to worry about uphill weight.

The Sheevas definitely delivered. They felt familiar from the first run. They performed well in all sorts of snow - fresh powder up high, a little manky below, and all over a terrible layer of bulletproof rain crust. They wowed me with how stable and versatile they were.

The turn radius and stiffness were an interesting mix. They were so easy to slarve, but harder to flex. The skis seemed to want to turn before I did. They'd pivot, when I'd want them to stay pointed downhill and build enough speed to flex them. It could be user error & spending a bit more time on them to get used to them. But it could be the fact that they ski short. I caught @Tricia's advice about sizing up in between, but figured since I'm on a Pandora (which also skis short) at 162, the 164 would be best. They have the same turn radius, but they felt even shorter. I'd be interested in trying out them again in 172 (even though that sounds massive to me) to find something that skis similarly, but that turns longer.
I'd ski them some more. They are a VERY turny ski (I just took mine out for their true maiden voyage in powder and chop) to the point of I felt like I could whip out some 360s on them easily. FUN! Yet they were plenty stable when I'd let them run a bit. Talk about an awesome tree and bump ski. Also, if you haven't had them tuned, consider doing so. Mine needed a tune out of the box, and there were a few other new Blizzards that came from the factory that needed a tune.Not uncommon at all.

On the subject of Blizzard-I still love the Black Pearl 88s in just about everything but deeper powder (which I really didn't even test them out in.) I got to ski them in legit crud and chop yesterday--about 10 inches of leftover powder, and they were AWESOME in it. The Sheevas (and any wider skis) are just too hard on my knees. I'm saving them for true powder days.
 
Last edited:

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
831
How you flex the ski when initiating a turn factors into the actual turn shape.
Gotcha - I noticed that with the Vantage 95 a few years ago. Could mount point also have something to do with it? I felt like I had less too in front of me too.

In terms of the different vs. similar to the Pandora 95s, I mean, ideally I'd love a Pandora 102 with titanal laminates. Everything I love about my current pair, but with a little extra oomph for powder days and crud. But I'm also trying to be open minded. The Pandoras felt tough to turn based on the first few days, but it pushed me to arc a little longer and build speed, and I feel like I progressed a lot.

I started with the Sheevas since they seemed safe. I think I want something more aggressive than the Pandoras, but I'm also intimidated by most of the skis on that list. My usual ski partners are quite strong, and it doesn't seem quite right to be looking at the same skis when I'm not straightlining chutes or getting air. I sometimes wonder if I'm not giving myself enough credit - like this weekend I went out with a coworker and some of his friends and let them know as we started off that I could totally do my own thing if I held people up (I'm pretty consistently last skier down), but I ended up being the one hanging out at the lift lines. I may need to tap into my inner dude-who-pizzaed-down-a-black-diamond-and-immediately-bought-some-Wailers-and-booked-a-heli-trip. Anyways, I figured the Sheevas and the Santa Ana 100 would be the best place to start, and to move on to options like Auras, the Jessies, or the Coalition SOS if the first few demos were within my comfort zone.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
14,161
Location
Tahoe
Gotcha - I noticed that with the Vantage 95 a few years ago. Could mount point also have something to do with it? I felt like I had less too in front of me too.
Yes. Mount point plays a role as well.

In terms of the different vs. similar to the Pandora 95s, I mean, ideally I'd love a Pandora 102
I was talking about the Pandora 110. My mistake?
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
831
@Tricia - thank you thank you for your reco on the longer length! The 172s were amazing. So much happier in the fall line. Now I know what you, @AmyPJ and all the ski award judges have been seeing this whole time. Only problem now is that I like them as much as the Atris Birdies and it's going to make decision making that much harder.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
14,161
Location
Tahoe
@Tricia - thank you thank you for your reco on the longer length! The 172s were amazing. So much happier in the fall line. Now I know what you, @AmyPJ and all the ski award judges have been seeing this whole time. Only problem now is that I like them as much as the Atris Birdies and it's going to make decision making that much harder.
Size matters ;)
 
Top