or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkyl 2013 for Utah lady-What length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkyl 2013 for Utah lady-What length

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi..a Utah gal here...getting back into Alta after some off years (back stuff) anyway, I am an advanced skier, and 5'81/2. Coming off the Apached Ricon's...so a little wider ski...so how long? Im thinking 163 cm-can you tell me why I would go longer?

post #2 of 13

Hi. Welcome to EpicSki. We don't know much about you, but given what we DO know - you are 5' 8+" and will be skiing at Alta - I'd say 163 is too short. Now, if you are a very skinny 5' 8" and/or you plan to stick strictly to groomed terrain and have a strong preference for short turns, then 163 is plausible. It would be nice, however, to think that with Alta at your disposal you would be skiing ungroomed snow at least a fair bit of the time. In that case you'll probably want to be on something with a bit of rocker and length to it. For example, I am 5' 7" 135lbs. If I skied at Alta regularly and had to pick one pair of skis, I would probably be on something in the mid 170s for length and around 100mm for width, give or take 5cm length and 5mm width. (Here in the east, a 163cm skinny carver would be a great ski for me on hard groomers. But I would never take it to Utah.)

 

Tell us more about your skiing history, terrain preferences, weight, and ability level, and someone will chime in with more info, I'm sure.

post #3 of 13

Hi Susie - Agree you're maybe thinking too short. My wife is your size, minus a half inch, and her softer snow skis run from 168 to 176. In softer snow, the length will give you stability, and modern designs make them easy to turn. What I'd avoid are stiffer models that need a lot of speed at your size to bend. 

post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 

Well, I love that new Volkyl, the Aura, this year-it matches up to my ability, and the terrain I ski on (historically that is).

Quickly, skied Alta and  Snowbird for the last 20 years. So, fast forward, a back surgery, and not much skiing for the last 5 years. I have an old pair of  K2 Apache Recons (170's) that I skied on a bunch last year; as Im back in decent shape.

So, would just like an all-mountain ski, that holds the hardback, and gets thru the crud, we get out here in the West.

So, I'm 55 years old, weigh about 145, 5' 8 1/2. Im ski about 20 times a year.

So, not sure of the size-the 163 or the 170cm.

post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 

Good point...just want a little-tiny stiffness, but maybe the Volkyl is too "beefy"-even at the 170cm.

164cm seems and looks fairly short-Im an old style skier coming into these wider, shorter skiis.

post #6 of 13

My two cents worth:  The Aura is the female equivalent of the Mantra.  The former is made in three lenghts: 156, 163 and 170.  The latter is available in 5 lengths, starting at 163.  You are very tall for a woman, and your weight tells me that you are relatively athletic.  Given your height, weight and experience, I would surmise that the longer Women's length (170 cm) or second shortest men's length (also 170 cm) would suit you.  163 cm sounds short.  That is especially true since the ski has tip rocker and will likely ski short.

post #7 of 13

On theskidiva.com I read the Mantra is much stiffer than the Aura, the Aura is "20%" softer and lighter than the Mantra by virtue of a different core. In addition, the current version is actually dimensionally different from the Mantra as well: Mantra = 132-98-118, Aura = 131-96-114. I would go with the 170 with your length and weight.

post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post
 

My two cents worth:  The Aura is the female equivalent of the Mantra.  The former is made in three lenghts: 156, 163 and 170.  The latter is available in 5 lengths, starting at 163.  You are very tall for a woman, and your weight tells me that you are relatively athletic.  Given your height, weight and experience, I would surmise that the longer Women's length (170 cm) or second shortest men's length (also 170 cm) would suit you.  163 cm sounds short.  That is especially true since the ski has tip rocker and will likely ski short.

 

NOOOOOO! This is very poor advice that really should be edited out, Paco. The Aura is NOT as stiff as the Mantra. Unless she's a very strong skier, she most certainly doesn't want to go with the Mantra. There are other men's skis that would be much more appropriate if she needs to go that route.

post #9 of 13
You'll be fine with a 170 Aura. Or a 170 Mantra. Both will be on the skinny side for Altabird.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

 

NOOOOOO! This is very poor advice that really should be edited out, Paco. The Aura is NOT as stiff as the Mantra. Unless she's a very strong skier, she most certainly doesn't want to go with the Mantra. There are other men's skis that would be much more appropriate if she needs to go that route.

 

You may be correct.  

I based myself on what Volkl says on its website about the the Aura being the female version of the Mantra.  OTOH, the member who posted right after you seems to agree with me.  As I am not familiar with either ski, I will not take position in that debate.  Nevertheless, given her size, I see no reason she could not handle one of the shorter lengths of a man's ski model.

post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post
 

 

You may be correct.  

I based myself on what Volkl says on its website about the the Aura being the female version of the Mantra.  OTOH, the member who posted right after you seems to agree with me.  As I am not familiar with either ski, I will not take position in that debate.  Nevertheless, given her size, I see no reason she could not handle one of the shorter lengths of a man's ski model.

 

It is the female version of the Mantra.  They make the chick sticks a little bit lighter and softer versions of the guys' skis. 

post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlyboogy View Post
 

On theskidiva.com I read the Mantra is much stiffer than the Aura, the Aura is "20%" softer and lighter than the Mantra by virtue of a different core. In addition, the current version is actually dimensionally different from the Mantra as well: Mantra = 132-98-118, Aura = 131-96-114." I would go with the 170 with your length and weight.

The quote in the above paragraph is from me. I HAVE skied both the Mantra and the Aura in the 170 (both the same year, in fact), and the Mantra is significantly stiffer, feeling very planky by comparison. I ended up on the 177 Aura (very sadly no longer made in that length) and have been thrilled with it for years. In the case of the Aura, do not be afraid to go longer than you'd expect with this ski, especially with the newer ELP (tip rocker) version.

 

A slightly wider option that's very similar in temperament to the Aura is the Kiku (go with the longest 160 or shortest 170 in this one). OR, go fatter yet and take a look at the Shiro for your locale (173 is the length you want for this one). I've graduated to the Shiro even here in the midwest and have had nothing but grins and giggles since. The metal-less construction makes that ski super light and lively while the subtle rocker makes it a breeze in any and all versions of soft snow . Of course, like almost all Volkls, it's a carving machine given good technique and sufficient patience and dedication to an edge.

 

Good luck in your search and welcome back to the slopes!

post #13 of 13

Susie,

 

Why Only Volkyl ???

 

Did You consider the Blizzard Samba 

 

And yeah for your height 170, 163 will feel short

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 › Volkyl 2013 for Utah lady-What length