EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › AT Ski Advice for a (Female) Friend
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT Ski Advice for a (Female) Friend

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

 

Apparently my new hobby is tracking down skis for friends -- but I know nothing (zero) about AT, so I'm hoping somebody here would be kind enough to help -- and I apologize for, like, any abject stupidity my post displays.

 

The friend is a longtime alpine skier who wants to get into AT.  She says she can ski anything in the East -- a Mad River skier.  Loves bumps, wants to do more off piste.  She's (barely) five feet tall, weighs 117.  More finesse than power, but good power, too.

 

Cost is an issue.  She'd consider last (or earlier) season's new (or lightly used), but not this season's skis (unless at steep, profound discount).

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks.

 

post #2 of 11

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.

 

The K2 Phat Luv is right up there as well and older models should be available pretty cheap.

post #3 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.


Everyone loves their Auras, including me. I've bought and/or skied several other skis in the past few years, but keep returning to the Aura. I don't have AT bindings on them, but they are definitely my go-to hiking skis (they are quite light, and ski all conditions well).

 

BTW, I don't think the 2011s had rocker; I think it's just the 2012s. But if you are looking for older ones, that isn't an issue anyway. My understanding is that every year until this/next was exactly the same except for topsheet.

post #4 of 11

The aura is pain in the ass for east coast skiers skiing true BC runs.

 

Not enough float and to stiff, me and epic have friend that sadly we are saying told you so to her Aura purchase.

 

To the OP you want a ski about 100 underfoot, with some camber for skinning, but at least tip rocker if not tail rocker as well. If she plans to just tour on them mount with dynafits, if she wants to ski resort days on them get the Marker Tour10.

 

Some thoughts on skis

 

156cm or 163cm Blizzard Crush - amazing versatile ski, alittle heavy, can be mounted for alpine and at and tele using different plates. can be had pretty cheap if someone has a PSIA hookup

 

163cm Volkl Bridge - lighter than the crush, might even be better in trees than the crush, the Volkl ELP rocker profile doesnt skin uphills as nicely as the crush camber profile

 

162cm Volkl Kiku - lightish, best tree ski I am mentioning here, probably not as much fun in corn as the narrow skis. volkl rocker profile doesnt skin well but it sure does ski nice.

 

156cm Icelandtic Nomad SFT - light and the strongest most durable ski mentioned. Only non rockered ski that really works well for EC BC skiing.

 

155cm Icelandtic Oracle -  light tip rocker and even ligher construction than the Nomad could be a good thing.

 

whether you listen to me or not I know I am right. Skinny stiffer ski with no rocker have no place in the east coast BC.

 

 

 

post #5 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.


Everyone loves their Auras, including me. I've bought and/or skied several other skis in the past few years, but keep returning to the Aura. I don't have AT bindings on them, but they are definitely my go-to hiking skis (they are quite light, and ski all conditions well).

 

BTW, I don't think the 2011s had rocker; I think it's just the 2012s. But if you are looking for older ones, that isn't an issue anyway. My understanding is that every year until this/next was exactly the same except for topsheet.


but out west you dont need rocker as much as what is BC skiing here....

post #6 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.


Everyone loves their Auras, including me. I've bought and/or skied several other skis in the past few years, but keep returning to the Aura. I don't have AT bindings on them, but they are definitely my go-to hiking skis (they are quite light, and ski all conditions well).

 

BTW, I don't think the 2011s had rocker; I think it's just the 2012s. But if you are looking for older ones, that isn't an issue anyway. My understanding is that every year until this/next was exactly the same except for topsheet.


but out west you dont need rocker as much as what is BC skiing here....


I absolutely defer to your expertise on East Coast BC, because I've never been there. Yet ... I'm pretty sure people enjoyed skiing it even before rocker was introduced?  ie, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...

post #7 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.


Everyone loves their Auras, including me. I've bought and/or skied several other skis in the past few years, but keep returning to the Aura. I don't have AT bindings on them, but they are definitely my go-to hiking skis (they are quite light, and ski all conditions well).

 

BTW, I don't think the 2011s had rocker; I think it's just the 2012s. But if you are looking for older ones, that isn't an issue anyway. My understanding is that every year until this/next was exactly the same except for topsheet.


but out west you dont need rocker as much as what is BC skiing here....


I absolutely defer to your expertise on East Coast BC, because I've never been there. Yet ... I'm pretty sure people enjoyed skiing it even before rocker was introduced?  ie, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...


people did enjoy it mostly on softer fatter than the aura twins and still can but if given the option go rockered.

 

I have never skied the aura but can safely say that any size mantra kinda of sucks.around here for me. take a look at the helmet cam videos I just posted to get an idea of what the terrain is like.  Tight trees(tighter than anything people ski in out west trust me) with lots of soft powder.

 

 

post #8 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Any pair of Volkl Auras from the last five years or so.  That should help with the cost because she should be able to find older pairs fairly cheap.

 

It's probably the most successful women's ski for soft snow that I know of here at Jackson Hole, but it also skis groomers and bumps moderately well.  I guess the newer models (this year and last) have some rocker but none of the women I know seem to feel it's a huge difference one way or the other.


Everyone loves their Auras, including me. I've bought and/or skied several other skis in the past few years, but keep returning to the Aura. I don't have AT bindings on them, but they are definitely my go-to hiking skis (they are quite light, and ski all conditions well).

 

BTW, I don't think the 2011s had rocker; I think it's just the 2012s. But if you are looking for older ones, that isn't an issue anyway. My understanding is that every year until this/next was exactly the same except for topsheet.


but out west you dont need rocker as much as what is BC skiing here....


I absolutely defer to your expertise on East Coast BC, because I've never been there. Yet ... I'm pretty sure people enjoyed skiing it even before rocker was introduced?  ie, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...


people did enjoy it mostly on softer fatter than the aura twins and still can but if given the option go rockered.

 

I have never skied the aura but can safely say that any size mantra kinda of sucks.around here for me. take a look at the helmet cam videos I just posted to get an idea of what the terrain is like.  Tight trees(tighter than anything people ski in out west trust me) with lots of soft powder.

 

 

 

No, I get that. Aura is softer than Mantra, apparently, by a purported 20%. I haven't skied Mantra, but I've always been curious about those complaining about Mantra being too stiff for soft snow. Would be interested in hearing from people who have skied both. That's a different thread, though.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you have great suggestions. I just am not sure it means the Aura is necessarily bad, as I've heard from many who love it on both coasts. If you are on a budget, rocker might not be down there yet, I don't know.
 

post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 

 

Thanks guys.  Crash course on BC & AT.  I'm passing this on.

post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

....

 

whether you listen to me or not I know I am right. Skinny stiffer ski with no rocker have no place in the east coast BC.

 

 

 

That quote reminds me of an old saying... "Seldom right but NEVER in doubt."

 

94mm underfoot is "skinny" for a 117# skier?  Please. 

 

If the OP's friend can actually ski (as I know that segbrown can), she would love the Aura.  Best of all, she ought to be able to find a deal on a ski that's been essentially unchanged for several model years. 

 

These might help:  http://www.buzzillions.com/reviews/women-volkl-aura-skis-reviews#bz-model-review-tabs-list

post #11 of 11


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

....

 

whether you listen to me or not I know I am right. Skinny stiffer ski with no rocker have no place in the east coast BC.

 

 

 

That quote reminds me of an old saying... "Seldom right but NEVER in doubt."

 

94mm underfoot is "skinny" for a 117# skier?  Please. 

 

If the OP's friend can actually ski (as I know that segbrown can), she would love the Aura.  Best of all, she ought to be able to find a deal on a ski that's been essentially unchanged for several model years. 

 

These might help:  http://www.buzzillions.com/reviews/women-volkl-aura-skis-reviews#bz-model-review-tabs-list

 

Bob it has more to the manners of the aura than the waist width. Their are skinnier skis out there that I think would be better.

 


 There is not a single person at stowe that has skied both the Aura and anything rockered IE the Bridge or Kiku that would actually think their aura were better skis for here. We have good friend that weighs about 115 lb and bought some 163 Aura's and absolute hates their off trail manners. She went back on to her old Phat Loves and like those alot more for what we have off trail wise. Now she is regretting her aura purchase and me and epic are like told ya so.  Strong skier has passed her L3 skiing it just that the aura is west coast crud buster and really nothing more. We have nothing resembling wide open west coast crud skiing here except end of the day groomers on a powder day.

 

to segbrown the mantra here is either to stiff or to short  for anyone skiing untracked woods. It requires to much thought and doesnt have the ability to smear at all.

 

 

 

the first line is very similar to what you will see touring around here. Bigger is better to get though this stuff.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › AT Ski Advice for a (Female) Friend