or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Nordica Infinite vs. Wild Belle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Infinite vs. Wild Belle

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

I am deciding between two pairs of used skis - the 2011/12 Nordica Infinite and the 2014 (I think) Wild Belle. 

 

I can buy the Infinites for around $200 and the Wild Belles for around $300. The Wild Belles are of questionable cosmetic condition (disclaimer in the ad says they are a "value ski" that hasn't been touched up), which is why they are a reasonable all-in price. I'm not sure that matters since I ski in NY/VT where skis get destroyed anyway.

 

I am an advanced skier - my favorite run is an ungroomed mogul run (Mad River!), but being in the Northeast I am usually skiing icy groomers, moguls, trees where I can, etc. I would think that if I end up skiing out west, I would probably just rent some powder skis, but I still need something that can cut through the variable conditions of Killington, Hunter, etc.

 

I am 5'3 and weigh around 125 - not fat - all muscle!

 

Infinites are 127/80/111

 

Belle - 121/84/112

 

Both are 154 cm

 

Is a 2011/12 ski too old at this point? 

 

Does anyone have experience with either?

 

Thanks for your help!

 

R

post #2 of 18

Hey, check out http://www.skiessentials.com/ see what they have for new skis from those years. You can search by year.

 

I have a buddy who's wife is small like you, she loved her Volkl Kenja's. She tried the Wild Belles but didn't enjoy them. The Black Pearl may be a good ski for you too. She did enjoy them, until I kind of made her demo the Kenja. She fell in love with it on the first turn. We ski everything the mountain has. She's a good bump skier.


Edited by Max Capacity - 1/6/16 at 10:37am
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thanks for your reply! What did she not like about the Wild Belles? 

post #4 of 18

I own the Black Pearls and have skied on demo Wild Belles at 154cm.  For the northeast, I would pick the Wild Belles.

 

At 5'4", 154cm seems on the short side.  I'm an older advanced skier, a few inches shorter, about the same weight.  My BPs are 159cm.  I demo'd the Wild Belle at 154cm. Skied them at MRG and Sugarbush last season, but lucked out and was in powder even on bump runs so had a very good time.  Have also skied them at Whiteface and Stowe in icy conditions, which is not their strong suit.

 

For what it's worth, I like any Rossi and haven't really found a Volkl that was fun for me.  Know of quite a few women in the northeast who love their Kenjas.

 

Personally, I wouldn't buy skis that are more than 2-3 years out of date.

post #5 of 18

I think they didn't feel precise enough. That was two years ago.

 

I also skied with a late 20y/o Masters Racers on New Years Day. She was awesome on her 4y/o Kenja's.

 

 

Kind of have to agree with marznc about buying older skis, unless you can see they haven't changed much and were one of the top skis which is what your looking at.

 

I bought my 2011 Volkl Shiro's off that site two years ago and love them. They are still one of the top skis in its category. Great skis don't change much.

 

These high end skis come down to personal feel. I'm a Volkl guy and love the feel of there skis. I have demoed other skis and have found some that I really enjoy.

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 

How did the Belle's do in the ice? 

 

I agree 154 might be on the short side...I was actually skiing on 144's that had been purchased for me, and I was wondering why I felt wobbly. Rented skis at a shop in Killington last year and the sales guy told me I was crazy and gave me the 154s. I would think a little longer would be ok, but I know I was able to tear it up on the 154s. 

 

Maybe best bet is to rent a couple of times and see how 156-159 feels. Just sucks to spend hundreds of dollars on rentals, and I don't ski enough to drop a ton of money on a pair of skis. I wish I did!

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post
 

How did the Belle's do in the ice? 

 

I agree 154 might be on the short side...I was actually skiing on 144's that had been purchased for me, and I was wondering why I felt wobbly. Rented skis at a shop in Killington last year and the sales guy told me I was crazy and gave me the 154s. I would think a little longer would be ok, but I know I was able to tear it up on the 154s. 

 

Maybe best bet is to rent a couple of times and see how 156-159 feels. Just sucks to spend hundreds of dollars on rentals, and I don't ski enough to drop a ton of money on a pair of skis. I wish I did!


No ice when I was demo'ing the Belles, at least not in the NE sense.

 

Certainly no reason to spend a lot on skis once you know what is going to work well.  But investing a day to rent demo skis on mountain may be worthwhile if you can't get to a free demo day.  The first pair of skis I bought were former rental fleet skis that were extra short because I was mainly skiing with my daughter as she was learning.  Only $100 bucks and worth it for a couple seasons of 5-10 ski days until I knew enough to make it worth buying new skis from a previous model year during late season sales.  By then I knew what length made sense for the type of skiing I was likely to be doing.

 

If you haven't demo'd much, might learn something from this thread about the process even though it's geared towards intermediates.

http://www.epicski.com/t/142999/what-is-a-demo-day-for-skis-a-beginner-zone-thread

post #8 of 18

FWIW, You can trust that a Volkl is going to hold on ice.

 

You can also read the reviews on line.

 

Last season one of the ski house mates bought a pair of Blizzard 80ti or something like  that, a high end women's ski for teaching, because it got high ratings in the Magazines. After her first day on them she complained about the lack of edge hold. She has been a longtime Volkl Girl. When I had a chance, I grabbed them at could twist the ski by grabbing the tip and just in front of the binding.

 

It was easy to see why she didn't like them. She bought another pair of Kenja's for this season.

post #9 of 18

My wife is your size and skis the 166 Wild Bell.  It's an ok ski, but not her favorite.

She got new Blems w/bindings from Start Haus for under $300 shipped.

 

I would not pay that much for a used ski right now, unless I was going to be skiing a whole lot in the next month.

Next month,  the shops in the NE are going to start blowing out this years stock.

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 

What do you think about a Volkl Aura (96mm waist) in icy Northeast? Too wide?

post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post
 

What do you think about a Volkl Aura (96mm waist) in icy Northeast? Too wide?


IMO yes. Too wide. Has anybody here told you to get a Kenja yet...Hint Hint Hint.

post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post
 

What do you think about a Volkl Aura (96mm waist) in icy Northeast? Too wide?


Yes, too wide.  Remember that my Black Pearls are 88mm and I wouldn't get them for NE skiing.

 

Demo'd the Wild Belle today.  Short groomed runs only at Whitetail in PA.  Not really icy conditions since temps were in the mid-30s.  Liked them.  I was demo'ing skis that were all under 85 underfoot, mostly in the 70s.  There are a lot of options.

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the replies. 

 

It's now down to the Wild Belles or some Blizzard Cheyennes I saw on sale. Prices are right for gently used, and I need to just make a decision because this is getting silly. Kenjas are still hundreds too much, even for used.

 

Northeast, moguls, some trees, whatever else comes my way. 

 

Anyone???

post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post

 
What do you think about a Volkl Aura (96mm waist) in icy Northeast? Too wide?


Yes, too wide.  Remember that my Black Pearls are 88mm and I wouldn't get them for NE skiing.

Demo'd the Wild Belle today.  Short groomed runs only at Whitetail in PA.  Not really icy conditions since temps were in the mid-30s.  Liked them.  I was demo'ing skis that were all under 85 underfoot, mostly in the 70s.  There are a lot of options.

Marz, flowers was looking at a 5yo wild belle. Probably apples and oranges with what you demoed. (I think the new ones are essentially the NRGy line with different graphics and nominally different widths.)

What does "mostly in the 70s" mean?
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 

There are actually a newer pair of Wild Belles...they are 2014-2015, so are 153 cm....now deciding between these and a 2014-15 Blizzard Cheyenne which are 156 cm. 

 

I skied on some 154s last year and like them so maybe 153 wouldn't be too short.

post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post

 
What do you think about a Volkl Aura (96mm waist) in icy Northeast? Too wide?


Yes, too wide.  Remember that my Black Pearls are 88mm and I wouldn't get them for NE skiing.

Demo'd the Wild Belle today.  Short groomed runs only at Whitetail in PA.  Not really icy conditions since temps were in the mid-30s.  Liked them.  I was demo'ing skis that were all under 85 underfoot, mostly in the 70s.  There are a lot of options.

Marz, flowers was looking at a 5yo wild belle. Probably apples and oranges with what you demoed. (I think the new ones are essentially the NRGy line with different graphics and nominally different widths.)

What does "mostly in the 70s" mean?

The widths of the skis I demo'd were mostly between 72 and 78.  The Wild Belle was an outlier at 88 underfoot.  Didn't feel that wide, but then I'm used to the BPs at the same width.

 

Turned out that what I liked best at Whitetail were the Wild Belle and the Stockli Laser SC, 122-72-103.  The new Dynastar Glory 84 was pretty fun for me too.  Now I know why my coach at Massanutten likes his Laser SC so much.  Definitely not for someone on a tight budget though. ;) 

post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowersrg10 View Post
 

There are actually a newer pair of Wild Belles...they are 2014-2015, so are 153 cm....now deciding between these and a 2014-15 Blizzard Cheyenne which are 156 cm. 

 

I skied on some 154s last year and like them so maybe 153 wouldn't be too short.


Hmm, you are 5'3", 125 lbs.  I liked the Wild Belles at 153cm and I'm 5'0", 120 lbs.  Wish I could tell you it doesn't make a difference which you pick.  The length difference of 3cm is not really the main consideration.  For whatever reason, I didn't like the Cheyenne when I demo'd it last year at Massanutten in very good snow conditions.  Tried both 151 and 156.  I expected to like the Cheyenne since the BP is my all-mountain, so it was a bit confusing.

post #18 of 18
The Cheyennes will be a lot more useful in the Northeast than the Nordicas. Stop overthinking it and just buy them.
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 › Nordica Infinite vs. Wild Belle