or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ladies All Mountain Ski's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ladies All Mountain Ski's

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
Female, 152cms, 65kgs ( ) Upper Intermediate (I think!) currently skiing on K2 Burning Luvs 154cms (bought in the US at ESA, Snowbird and love them) but I am looking to try and do/get a bit more instruction into going into the off-piste next season.
I ski in Europe so conditions can range from skiing on powder/groomed/ice and slush.
Skied on Islandic Pilgrims in April with a 105cms underfoot which were a great solid ski in 151 and were great in the slush. This had made me think that I should be looking to go for an all mountain ski, only problem is which one :
Have any of you Epic ladies (or guy's) got any recomendations or advice?
post #2 of 82
My wife really enjoys her K2 Phat Luvs. She's found them to be an all around great ski for soft snow conditions with exceptional float, and they are very user friendly and easy to ski. Not so good in icy conditions though. Also, take a look at the Dynastar Exclusive Powder, a women's specific powder ski. I would think the Dynastar would fit a wider range of conditions than the Phat Luv.
post #3 of 82
The Exclusive Powder is a great choice for a ski on the wider side of the everyday models. Skis like the Icelantic, Phat Luv, Sollie Scarlett, and others can be skied everyday, but they are more suitable as special purpose tools. Another very good choice in the wider but still everyday category is the Volkl Queen Attiva. I mention this one in particular because I have it available in 156 at a great price with bindings (see the link)

Of course there are many other very good choices available within this width range including the Nordica Conquer and the Rossi B3-W.

http://shop.sierrasnowboard.com/browse.cfm/4,2774.htm

SJ
post #4 of 82
If you're looking to add to the quiver and keeping your BL's, which is what I'd recommend, I'd consider going with something like the phat luv or the Volkl Aura. Between the two I'd say the Aura.
IF you're looking for something in a mid fat range, you may consider the Queen attiva, which can usually be found at a bargain price.

One women's ski I demoed and enjoyed was the Nordica Olympia Conqueror which is 84 under foot, and may be a good female specific ski to add to your demo list.

Of these skis, I'd grab the QA first if you want a Midfat
Aura if you want something fat.
post #5 of 82
My wife skis her Phat Luvs as her everyday ski, although she's planning to use them less this year, now that she's added the Exclusive Legend (not Powder) to her quiver.

StormDay's wife sold her Phat Luvs and switched to Volkl Auras last season. I don't think I've seen her on anything else since. She absolutely loves those skis.

And Jim's deal on the Queen Attivas is really, really good, although if it were me, I'd consider opting for the ski only and putting something other than Markers on them.
post #6 of 82
me and wife both ski phat luvs....loved them"both of us" i skied on everything with them "not really to smart kinda wimpy on ice" at end of season.I skied 167 she skied 160 i think.Were great on crud...never got a chance in powder
post #7 of 82
Check the Volkl Tierra, you might like it.
post #8 of 82
The Tierra is too similar to the Burnin luv and you'll have too much over lap.
Quote:
specs: Tierra
motion system Motion iPT
sizes 149, 156, 163, 170 cm
sidecut 118-76-104 mm
radii 13.2 @ 149, 14.8 @ 156, 16.5 @ 163, 18.1 @ 170
construction Extended Double Grip
core 20/20 Extended Wood
I'd go with the 88 under waist of the QA or 94 under the waist of the Aura.

If you're interested in some of the reviews of the Aura, look here
post #9 of 82
I'm on a Queen Attiva (bought from Sierra Jim, in fat) with Sollies ... love them in everything but deep, heavy crud, where they are too light and short. But that's not even really a nitpick ... no ski will do everything, and I'm in Colorado, so heavy snow isn't really a problem.
post #10 of 82
Madeline ended up going with the iM88 in a 164. She was raving about it and she tells me it beat the pants off her other skis atomic R9 and Exclsuive Carve for both on groomed and especially off. Its amazing when a ski that wide does better at carving than your carvers do. Those are destined to be her every day rig for next season and she is light enough she won't need another powder ski imo (unless its a reverse camber :P).
post #11 of 82
There's a bunch of raving review of the Auras at theskidiva.com you might want to read about...
post #12 of 82
K-2 has a new ski called the Tough Luv (88mm waist) that you might want to check out. Hope this link works.

http://www.ski-depot.com/miva/mercha...roduct_Count=1
post #13 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post

I'd go with the 88 under waist of the QA or 94 under the waist of the Aura.

If you're interested in some of the reviews of the Aura, look here
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
There's a bunch of raving review of the Auras at theskidiva.com you might want to read about...
The link in my post will take you to the primary review on SkiDiva of the Volkl Aura. If you look a bit you'll see a few more reviews of fat skis, including the Pontoon, by Cloudpeak.
post #14 of 82
It seems that I may have misunderstood the OP's stated goals. My take was that she was looking for an everyday ski on the wider side of the spectrum. It seems that others interperet this to mean a fatter ski than the ones I suggested. This is simply a priority question. If she does in fact want to ski it much or most of the time.....I'd still suggest something in the range of 84-88mm. Skis that are wider than this can of course be an everyday tool although I personally don't think it appropriate for a level 5-6 (maybe) skier.

My pal Katherine is a perfect example. She is early 20's, 5-9/150, and a college level athlete (solid L-7 skier). She absolutely RIPS the groomers and owns a ski for that. She is working on powder and owns a Sollie Scarlett for that. However, most of the time when she skis with me or the boys from the shop, she takes out an EP, Conquer, Sollie Fury, or something similar. Unless it has put down 18" or so, she says she has more fun on the mid 80's skis and as a day in day out sort of thing, she wouldn't even consider her fat skis.

Realistically, most skiers that don't live in the mountains may only encounter a day or three all year where the fattie is really a benefit. The rest of the time, the more versatile AM ski is simply the better, more versatile choice.

Naturally, if the OP is totally prioritizing DEEP snow, then the fattie is the way and the kind (although I do think there may be some better choices for this level skier than the Aura).

SJ
post #15 of 82
SJ, I got the impression that Linds is looking for a second ski to compliment her BL. If I'm wrong then certainly you are correct. But if she is looking for a ski that is going to take her places the BL won't when she makes a trip, then I'd still suggest the QA, in this group. Certainly versatile and wide enough for powder, yet not so fat that she'll struggle.

This may come as a huge shock, but I've been wrong before!:
post #16 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
SJ, I got the impression that Linds is looking for a second ski to compliment her BL. If I'm wrong then certainly you are correct. But if she is looking for a ski that is going to take her places the BL won't when she makes a trip, then I'd still suggest the QA, in this group. Certainly versatile and wide enough for powder, yet not so fat that she'll struggle.

This may come as a huge shock, but I've been wrong before!:
You've been wrong???..............No!!!

Your impression matches mine, hence my suggestions. It seemed as if the thread was drifting off the deep (wide) end a bit and I started thinking maybe I'd misinterperted the question.

Carnac says......."what she really means is"......................

SJ
post #17 of 82
Thread Starter 
Many thanks to you all for your comments
I'm not sure I could manage to carry 2 sets of ski's and do the conditions in Europe and my skiing ability warrants me trying to carry 2 sets of ski's around (we also have to pay for ski carrige in Europe
So I am really looking for one ski does all. I have looked on Skidiva site and found lots of great info on there.
Nobody has mentioned K2 Lotta Luvs, any reason why?
If sticking with just one ski what sort of width should I be looking at?

Sierra Jim I bought my Burning Luv's from you!
post #18 of 82
linds:

Aha!!......I remember when those went out, thanks..........

So it is more of an everyday ski than a specialty tool. I didn't suggest the Lotta because I was thinking on the wider end of the everyday spectrum and the Lotta fits sort of in the middle. IMO the everyday ski spectrum ranges from approximately 68mm or so to about 88mm or so.

I break everyday skis down this way (and this is VERRRRY approximate)

68mm.........90% groomed with little appetite for deep snow
78mm.........70% groomed with mild appetite for deep snow
88mm.........50% groomed with hunger for deep snow but a realistic view of how often you'll find it

Niche:

98mm.........Priority for deep snow and a willingness to deal with a ski that is not real great the rest of the time.



This is a spectrum rather than a finite set of definitions. There are tons of variations, increments, and stops along the way. My opinion is that the fat ski (~~98mm) is not the best tool for an intermediate to learn off trail skiing (powder yes, but general off piste skiing does not usually involve that much powder) Therefore I suggested something in the middle to wider side of that 50/50 grouping.

Yes, Yes, Yes...........:.......some skiers ski fat skis all day everyday. But they fit into category #4 and are probably significantly more confident in the off trail than you are at this point.

I get this request from customers all the time......(parphrase) "I want something for all mountain use both on and off the trails and I want it to handle some powder when I get it.......but I don't want a pure powder ski or anything really fat"

I think that I understand my customers pretty well and I think that for the most part, they really don't live for the off trail. They go there....they just don't live there.

So......as a replacement for the Burnin' the Lotta or the B2W or the Exclusive Legend make a lot of sense.

As a supplement (or replacement) that still holds everyday capabilities, then the Exclusive Powder or the Queen Attiva or the B3-W. All make good sense.

IMO the fattie skis are supplements only.

SJ
post #19 of 82
Linds!
You're not building a quiver of skis?
Say it ain't so!!!!:
Someone get me the smelling salts
post #20 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by linds View Post
Nobody has mentioned K2 Lotta Luvs, any reason why?
Because you already got the Burning Luv!

Sorry, it's not easy for us to remember you have to pay for ski carriage within Europe, however many times you mention it. So most of us would simply assume you'll take both skis with you!

The trouble with the do-everything ski is it does everything half as good as the more specialized ski. So, the Burning Luv + Auras will cover more condition better than a single Lotta Luv. So for us from the other side of the pond, we WILL lug around both skis! Whether you want to have a quiver and carry both ski to the Alps, or accept the slight limitation of a single "all mountain" ski, only you can decide.
post #21 of 82
I suggest the Nordica Olympia Victory. I skied them in every condition this winter and except for really deep pow, they performed great. I tried the Lotta Luvs but the Victorys seem better overall. I have a pair of Phat Luvs but only use them on powder days. I am not a fan of the Phats for everyday conditions.
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
Because you already got the Burning Luv!


The trouble with the do-everything ski is it does everything half as good as the more specialized ski. So, the Burning Luv + Auras will cover more condition better than a single Lotta Luv. So for us from the other side of the pond, we WILL lug around both skis! Whether you want to have a quiver and carry both ski to the Alps, or accept the slight limitation of a single "all mountain" ski, only you can decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier31 View Post
I suggest the Nordica Olympia Victory. I skied them in every condition this winter and except for really deep pow, they performed great. I tried the Lotta Luvs but the Victorys seem better overall. I have a pair of Phat Luvs but only use them on powder days. I am not a fan of the Phats for everyday conditions.
The NO Victory is very similar in performance to the BL: Victory 116/74/104mm with a 12.6 m radius (BL=115-68-99 mm, 12 m radius)
The NO Conqueror is: 126/84/111mm with a 15.8 radius

I demoed both of these, own the Burnin luv and thought the victory was fun, but far too similar to the BL. The conqueror, however was a completely different ski and installed an extra kick of the whoo hoo factor.
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

IMO the fattie skis are supplements only.

SJ
I suppose that depends on what you consider a "fattie". And more and more people are adopting a different opinion. My spouse skied one day last season on 76 waisted MB5s. About 10 soft/deep snow days all-in on Prior Dough Boys & Pontoons. And roughly 45-50 days on her Auras - both on and off piste in a broad range of conditions. I believe she plans to unload anything left that is skinnier than the Auras this fall.

Also, last season I noticed more and more women skiing things like Auras and Scarlets and even older PRs as everyday skis - as in even on pure groomer days. At least in my neck of the woods...

Unless someone is unusually tiny, or just prefers skinnier skis "just because", I do not understand why they'd start their off piste adventures on skinnier skis.
post #24 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Unless someone is unusually tiny, or just prefers skinnier skis "just because", I do not understand why they'd start their off piste adventures on skinnier skis.
Probably because it takes more to make a good soft snow ski than just a wide waist.
post #25 of 82
As I have mentioned literally DOZENS of times, one can ski a fat ski everyday if one chooses to. However a (say) 98mm wide ski is markedly inferior to say an 78mm ski in most conditions except deepish snow. A skier can to some extent compensate for the negatives that the width imposes and get to a place where the fatter ski is acceptable everyday. However, the narrower ski will be more nimble, more exciting, and more fun in the type of conditions that most skiers encounter most of the time. This is simply a matter of the skier prioritizing what they do most often rather than what they do least often (or almost never in many cases).

IF, IF, IF.....a skier want to prioritize deep snow performance at the expense of performance in other conditions....fine....so be it, a fat ski can make sense as an everyday choice. They will after all be able to slide those skis around on the hardpack or muscle them through the off trail conditions when it hasn't snowed lately. HOWEVER, they would have more fun on something else and for most skiers, the priority should be a choice that gives them big grins on the average day they get on the hill. The degree of exposure and commitment they have to and for deep snow should regulate their width choices.

Katherine is the perfect example, and I am yet another. I own three pr. of skis from 95mm to 105mm. For various things I like them all. If I am going skiing and it hasn't snowed in 4-5 days, I know I could take those big skis out and spend the day. However, I also know that if I take something narrower, (and of course something with more versatile performance in mind) I'll get more excitement from every turn on the groomers and more manuverability in the off trail runs. Certainly if it snowed yesterday or the day before, I'd probably make a different choice, but the fact is that in shallow "dumps" the wider mid fats are just fine as well and the fatties offer little or no advantage.

This is why I suggest wideish mid fats for those that are off trail skiers but maybe not as fanatical about it as some.

SJ
post #26 of 82
I agree with SJ for one main reason and that is because I don't believe linds will be skiing deep powder on an everyday basis. She will benefit from having a ski added to her quiver that will compliment her BL and chose which she wants to take with her based on the snow conditions.

A mid fat will be perfectly great for her in this case.

The link to ski diva that I posted has a great review of the Aura posted by Spindrifts wife.

I ski my Karmas most of the time, but when I get on my Race Tigers I grin from ear to ear and wonder why I don't jump on them more often.
Fat skis are fun but so are skinny skis!!!
post #27 of 82
And of course, your Karmas at 87mm are right in the wheelhouse of what most of us are suggesting for linds.

SJ
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
And of course, your Karmas at 87mm are right in the wheelhouse of what most of us are suggesting for linds.

SJ
This is why I thought of the QA first, but its a bit soft for some of the crud she is describing. IF the QA is a compliment to her BL, then it will be a great addition.
post #29 of 82
IMO, the Aura or the Scarlett are great skis for someone who wants to expand the kinds of skiing they do. As spindrift noted, I skiied the Auras for about 50 days this year. They carve well on groomers, they're speedy on groomers, they bust through crud with ease, and they float well in deeper snow. I had great fun on these skis skis this year and give them a big .

BTW, I'm 5'7" and 150 pounds.
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by linds View Post
Many thanks to you all for your comments
I'm not sure I could manage to carry 2 sets of ski's and do the conditions in Europe and my skiing ability warrants me trying to carry 2 sets of ski's around (we also have to pay for ski carrige in Europe
So I am really looking for one ski does all. I have looked on Skidiva site and found lots of great info on there.
Nobody has mentioned K2 Lotta Luvs, any reason why?
If sticking with just one ski what sort of width should I be looking at?

Sierra Jim I bought my Burning Luv's from you!
linds, I know exactly where you are coming from because I am/have been in the same situation, not able to travel with multiple skis, so wanting one ski that 'does it all'. I have a pair of Burnin' Luvs which I adore, so I bought a pair of Lottas, without demoing (breaking my cardinal rule) for my recent trip to Europe, thinking that whatever the Burnin's do, the Lottas would do better in the deeper snow.

Well, I hate them. On paper, they do seem like a good 'do anything' ski, but demo them first if you can. I am going to try to work with them this southern season to see if I can overcome whatever the problem is before I toss them into the nearest dumpster.

They would be a little long for you, otherwise I would be tempted to give them to you if you would pay for the shipping!
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 › Ladies All Mountain Ski's