EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What is the men's equivalent of the Volkl Aurora?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the men's equivalent of the Volkl Aurora?

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

After some grief and a couple of injuries, I've decided to get out of the rental racket and into some serious skis.  Last season I wound up on a pair of Volkl Aurora Attivas in a 156cm w/ a 128-85-112 sidecut (nothing my size in men's) and could rip through almost anything - groomed, ungroomed, crud and some awful stuff.  I've never performed better or had a more enjoyable experience in my 12 years of skiing.  Just unstoppable! (and I've had my share of stops-)  I know the difference between the men's and women's skis, so I'm wondering what an equivalent men's ski might be, from Volkl or otherwise. 

I primarily ski hard and very fast through groomed and ungroomed blues (50%), tackle some single diamonds (25%) and some powder - trees and otherwise (25%) in all kinds of conditions.  I'm an advanced intermediate skier according to most of the info I can find and am very agressive. 

Places like Aspen Highlands, Snowmass, Durango and Wolf Creek are my haunts and I go from 6 - 12 days a year when I can find the time, whatever the weather.

Build is 5'7", 165lbs and athletic. 

 

Any suggestions for skis, boots and bindings?  160cm seems to be the outer edge of length for me.  I will be buying used so is there anything from which I should stay away? 

Thanks much.  I look forward to joining the fray -

post #2 of 9
If you like Auroras why not get Auroras? My friend fell in love with my K2 Lotta Luvs and now he has his own Lottas.
post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

My understanding is that the Aurora, being a women's ski, has the bindings mounted in a more forward position and I believe they are integrated, and not moveable.  They're also made for a lighter weight skier.  I'm a man and man's stance put's more of his weight forward than a woman, hence the more rearward position of a man's bindings.  I did like the weight, stiffness and sidecut of the ski, but I'm thinking the men's equivalent would be worth a try, as they're made for someone of my weight.  I will probably find myself on some men's skis at times if I find some deep powder and have to rent, so I don't want to have to make that adjustment, if it's much of anything at all. 

post #4 of 9

Unless I'm mistaken they don't make the Aurora anymore, so no clue what it's intended male equivalent is if it has one, but I'd try the RTM 84. I think the shortest length for that is 166, which still shouldn't be a problem for you, especially as you've mentioned making an adjustment to powder skis every now and then, which will be considerably longer than what you're used to anyway.

Concerning boots, find a decent boot fitter in your area and they'll set you up.




Lukas

post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 

The Auroras aren't made anymore, but there are plenty of demos and barely used sets out there.  I've seen a lot of rant and rave about the

AC-50, but don't know that I've ever seen a pair.  I generally look for something as stiff as the Auroras with that same or approximate side cut. Based on the placement of the bindings, I think the Auroras could be a problem in some deeper powder, hence the search for a mens "all mountain" ski.  I'm thinking I may just have to go to a local shop and pick some Volkl brains about it. 

 

166s are a problem.  I just can't maintain the control needed on the uncut trails.  That may be more a function of my lack of skill than length, but nonetheless, anything over 160 has been hell for me.  For very deep powder on a flatter fall, I usually go with the fatter skis of the same approximate length. 

post #6 of 9

What longer skis have you skied? If they were from a different manufacturer to Volkl then it could be that you didn't feel in control because the construction of those skis weren't anything like the Auras (sometimes a slight difference in flex and camber can make a huge difference).
So if I were you I'd still try and demo some men's Volkls like the RTMs even if they are a little too long, because you might not have any of the problems experienced with other longer skis you've skied as they're more likely to feel like the Auras, being from the same manufacturer and all. As you get better you'll have less problems with longer skis anyway, so it might just be a matter of growing into them.



Lukas

post #7 of 9
I think AC50 was the equivalent, but if the max length is 160 cm, then those are probably too long also.
post #8 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by skijack View Post

could rip through almost anything - groomed, ungroomed, crud and some awful stuff.  I've never performed better or had a more enjoyable experience in my 12 years of skiing.  

 

So after using these skis that by your own admission were apparently awesome, you want something else?  If those skis in that length performed that well for you, quit trying to overthink this, just buy a pair and have more fun.

post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 

Agreed, Lukas.  I'll be looking for some RTMs on the next trip.  I have skied longer Volkls, but its been a couple of years at least.  Thanks much for your input.  I do appreciate your insight.

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 › What is the men's equivalent of the Volkl Aurora?