Help me Compile a Demo List

[Tricia]

So, today was the perfect day to demo skis for the type of snow I struggle the most in. We received about 10" of very wet, dense snow and none of it had been groomed overnight, so it was ski that or go home. So, I skied it and did a lot of giggling at myself. The Atomic Centurys are a tad long, but to be fair, I took them out on one run and it was my first run of the day, with crap visibility. Still, I'm afraid I bought them too long. Ugh.

I had an "IOU" of sorts from the demo shop, so I took out some DPS Yvette 112s in a 168. Much easier for me to pivot and flail around on. Super fun up higher where the snow overall was a lot softer, not so much fun on the lower 1/3 of the mountain where the snow was these horrible cement piles (it had clearly rained on that part of the mountain earlier.) I am not sure any ski would be fun in that kind of snow.

Took the Kenjas out to compare, and I actually do pretty well on those things, although their stiffness does make them VERY lively on the super dense snow.

My liners have packed out so badly, my feet and ankles are just rolling around in there, even with everything cranked down. I think this is making my experience with fatter skis not-so-fun. I think I'm going to throw my old Zipfits in tomorrow and hit some off-piste stuff.

Just catching up, sound like you've found your ski!

 

[AmyPJ]

Just catching up, sound like you've found your ski!

The DPS were fun, but I have some Santa Anas on the way

 

[ski-ra]

The DPS were fun, but I have some Santa Anas on the way

Whoo-hoo indeed!

...As for boots, my fitter has added a lot of the same padding. It worked all winter but the liners are just packed too much. So, hopefully Intuitions will help. Hey, it makes me work on balancing in my boots really well....

Maybe you need to ski less or with less boot pressure...

...Here's another funny one: I was in line next to a guy with 169 Enforcers today. My 163 Kenjas are the same length. So, that might explain why I felt the Santa Anas skied a tad short. It seems I really like skis that hit just above mid-forehead on me. It's frustrating that ski lengths vary so much.

Something doesn't add up here...I've measured both the 169cm Enforcer/S.A.'s & NRGy's and, in a straight tip-to-tail line, they are about 168 & 169cm respectively. This means that my 169cm NRGy's are ~5'-6.5" in length and a bit taller than me (i.e., they don't hit my 5'5" height @ mid-forehead). So if your Kenja's hit you just above mid-forehead then they must surely be closer to 163cm and--I'm going out on a limb here--it was an optical illusion that they looked as long as the 169cm Enforcers (we're only talking 2" here). And--going further out on this limb--given the stiffness and low-rise rocker of the Kenja vs. S.A.'s I'd say that S.A's merely "ski" shorter than the Kenja's. I'm predicting that these numbers will be more or less confirmed when your new S.A.'s arrive and you hold 'em up to the Kenja's...then again I am now at the end of this limb....

 

[neonorchid]

That's odd...I've measured both the 169cm Enforcer/S.A.'s & NRGy's and, in a straight tip-to-tail line, they are 168 & 169cm respectively. Oh and the 170cm Volkl 90Eights I demo'd were also about 169cm measured in the same manner. So that must mean that either Volkl really did something odd with the Kenja's length measurement method or someone scratched out the "8" on yours to make it look like a "3".

...sounds like her husband has some explaining to do, lol, clever guy!

 

[neonorchid]

^ Ok forget that last post. I checked the Volkl site, Kenja sizing includes a 163cm to 170cm, no 168's. The mystery continues...

 

[AmyPJ]

Whoo-hoo indeed!


Maybe you need to ski less or with less boot pressure...

Something doesn't add up here...I've measured both the 169cm Enforcer/S.A.'s & NRGy's and, in a straight tip-to-tail line, they are about 168 & 169cm respectively. This means that my 169cm NRGy's are ~5'-6.5" in length and a bit taller than me (i.e., they don't hit my 5'5" height @ mid-forehead). So if your Kenja's hit you just above mid-forehead then they must surely be closer to 163cm and--I'm going out on a limb here--it was an optical illusion that they looked as long as the 169cm Enforcers (we're only talking 2" here). And--going further out on this limb--given the stiffness and low-rise rocker of the Kenja vs. S.A.'s I'd say that S.A's merely "ski" shorter than the Kenja's. I'm predicting that these numbers will be more or less confirmed when your new S.A.'s arrive and you hold 'em up to the Kenja's...then again I am now at the end of this limb....

No, I need to ski even MORE! And you could very well be right, I'll hold them side-by-side when the SA's get here. I have a feeling the Kenjas are longer than stated, since I compared them to a pair that are a few years old in the "same" length, and mine are longer.

...sounds like her husband has some explaining to do, lol, clever guy!

 

[Monique]

FWIW, they measure about right to me. By which I mean, the Santa Anas are a bit taller than I am. Super scientific.

 

[ski-ra]

FWIW, they measure about right to me. By which I mean, the Santa Anas are a bit taller than I am. Super scientific.

Yeah but at least you got to the same conclusion as I without a needless and indulgent "analysis" (after writing it I started to think: why not just say "Kenja's 163cm - to just above my mid-forehead: that's something in the low 160cm's. Nordica 169cm's - a bit taller than me: that's something in the high 160cm's"). But nooo I didn't

 

[Monique]

Yeah but at least you got to the same conclusion as I without a needless and indulgent "analysis" (after writing it I started to think: why not just say "Kenja's 163cm - to just above my mid-forehead: that's something in the low 160cm's. Nordica 169cm's - a bit taller than me: that's something in the high 160cm's"). But nooo I didn't

Overthinking things has a long and respected tradition in the ski forum world ;-)

 

[AmyPJ]

Overthinking things has a long and respected tradition in the ski forum world ;-)

Nuh uh! :0

 

[cantunamunch]

If it's fun it's not overthink. It's just right think.

 

[ski-ra]

...I have a feeling the Kenjas are longer than stated, since I compared them to a pair that are a few years old in the "same" length, and mine are longer....

I got it: measure your Kenja's in a straight line tip-to-tail (as best as you can given that the bindings are in the way...better yet hold them up to a wall, mark the wall and measure that) and I betcha they will be ~162cm (give or take a cm) which translates to ~5'-4". Lunch at Snowbasin if you lose and at Steamboat if I lose...or should it be the other way around... Then again maybe just wait for the S.A.'s to arrive....

 

[AmyPJ]

So, I come up with 163.2 cm. Non-scientific. But, I really can't wait to hold them up next to each other when the SAs arrive. When I SKIED the SAs, they felt a lot shorter, but I think the bindings are mounted quite a bit forward in comparison.

 

[ski-ra]

So, I come up with 163.2 cm. Non-scientific. But, I really can't wait to hold them up next to each other when the SAs arrive. When I SKIED the SAs, they felt a lot shorter, but I think the bindings are mounted quite a bit forward in comparison.

OK - so lunch at both Snowbasin and Steamboat.... Actually the consensus in the "Long-Term Test: 2016 Nordica Enforcer" thread seems to be that it's best to mount the bindings back a bit for the reasons you stated, though without all that metal in 'em I'm not sure how well this also applies to the S.A.'s...something more to think about (Monique, Trish...?).

 

[AmyPJ]

OK - so lunch at both Snowbasin and Steamboat.... Actually the consensus in the "Long-Term Test: 2016 Nordica Enforcer" thread seems to be that it's best to mount the bindings back a bit for the reasons you stated, though without all that metal in 'em I'm not sure how well this also applies to the S.A.'s...something more to think about (Monique, Trish...?).

I didn't have an issue with the demos I skied mounted on the line. I think for what I mostly want them for, the maneuverability of having them mounted on the line will be good. I hate these kinds of decisions!

 

[Monique]

OK - so lunch at both Snowbasin and Steamboat.... Actually the consensus in the "Long-Term Test: 2016 Nordica Enforcer" thread seems to be that it's best to mount the bindings back a bit for the reasons you stated, though without all that metal in 'em I'm not sure how well this also applies to the S.A.'s...something more to think about (Monique, Trish...?).

I really am not very aware of these subtleties when I ski. @SBrown said that the designated mount point on the Santa Ana is already quite far forward, and she definitely wouldn't want to go any farther than it already is. When I had @Doug Briggs replace the Marker Griffons I'd originally had mounted with Aaattack 13s, I had to choose between 6mm forward and 1cm back of the original mount. I chose 6mm forward because ... well, mostly because it was the smaller number, I guess. When I first got back on them, I freaked out that I had messed up with the mount, but a few days later, it became apparently that I'd just had one of those "nothing is going right" times, and the skis are just fine. It's possible that a person accustomed to the recommended mount point on men's/unisex skis would prefer the mount to be farther back.

 

[ski-ra]

I didn't have an issue with the demos I skied mounted on the line. I think for what I mostly want them for, the maneuverability of having them mounted on the line will be good. I hate these kinds of decisions!

OK - so maybe it ain't something more to think about: good! Now all that remains is that lunch bet....

 

[Guy in Shorts]

The Aura is not as easy to get on edge, but its easier to turn. The construction of the 100Eight makes it easier to turn and really rally.

My wife loves her Volkl Auras and rotates thru three different sets of 163’s she owns. She is a strong daily Killington skier that logs about 150 days a year. She gave a friend her 2009 Volkl Fuegos earlier this year and only has the Auras in her quiver. Our local shop is not ordering any Auras for next season unless she wants another pair. They gave her the Kenjas for a couple of days to demo. The Kenja got the job done but she felt the tails were a bit soft as has been the case in the past with this ski. Should I try to get her out on the 100EightW or get her another copy her favorite ski?

 

[AmyPJ]

So, I parked my Kenjas right next to a pair of 169 Santa Anas today, and they are definitely about 1.5 inches shorter. But the rocker on the Santa Anas extends back further than on the Kenjas by a lot more, which explains a lot. I'm going to have two VERY fun and VERY different skis, and I cannot wait!

 

[ski-ra]

So, I parked my Kenjas right next to a pair of 169 Santa Anas today, and they are definitely about 1.5 inches shorter. But the rocker on the Santa Anas extends back further than on the Kenjas by a lot more, which explains a lot. I'm going to have two VERY fun and VERY different skis, and I cannot wait!

Cool - as expected (including the rocker part)!