EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2010 Volkl Nanuq -- Anyone Skied This?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 Volkl Nanuq -- Anyone Skied This?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Hey I'm looking to get a nice backcountry setup.  Probably will go with Fritschi Freeride Plus so I can ride on the resort when I want to, but just looking for some good skis to go along with it.

I have a hard time believing that anything beyond 95 underfoot is necessary, so I was looking for 90-95 mm.  Volkl has a new ski called the Nanuq which seems to be a Mantra with a lot less weight.  Here's the Skiing Mag review, but I cannot find other reviews out there:

http://www.skinet.com/skiing/gear/volkl/volkl-nanuq-2010

Has anyone skied this?  Thoughts?

FYI, I'm 5'10" and weight ranges from 170 -- 185 lbs, depending on how far we are from Thanksgiving hahaa.  :)
post #2 of 25
Aura without the metal.

or, if you prefer, the 'old Mantra' with the Sensorwood Light (Aura) core and no metal...
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Alright.... so translation? 
post #4 of 25
Sounds like Volkl traders made the traditional early man migration from the Siberian East and Mongolia (where they learned to worship, meditate, wrestle, and eat with little sticks) across the Aleutian Island chain, and into the Arctic Territory where while fishing and designing skis one day they encountered a friendly indigenous man called Nanuq and decided then and there to name a ski after him in about 2 million years .

Gotama, Mantra, Sumo, Chopsticks, NANUQ. I guess it's more interesting and fantasy inducing than RX-11
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by agustaf2 View Post

Alright.... so translation? 

Well, they took their woman's ski and castrated it.

Do you want a superlight touring ski for touring, that you might take to a ski area (but probably not) or do you want a ski for lift access that you can tour with once in a while?

What is your expected use, Lift/ Tour? 50/50, 70/30, 20/80 ?

The Nanuq is a pretty good touring ski.
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post




Well, they took their woman's ski and castrated it.

 
that's a pretty sketchy procedure, isn't it?
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post




Well, they took their woman's ski and castrated it.

Do you want a superlight touring ski for touring, that you might take to a ski area (but probably not) or do you want a ski for lift access that you can tour with once in a while?

What is your expected use, Lift/ Tour? 50/50, 70/30, 20/80 ?

The Nanuq is a pretty good touring ski.
 

If you're insinuating that a woman's ski is necessarily soft/weak, is that really a fair assessment?  Upon doing some research, it seems the largest the Aura comes in is 170, whereas the smallest the Mantra comes in is at 170. Both have wood cores, with a metal topsheet.  It may just be that the Aura is a shorter version of the Mantra.

Skiing mag had a good review of the Nanuq in which they complemented its stability and hard-snow grip:
http://www.skinet.com/skiing/gear/volkl/volkl-nanuq-2010

Point being, I like to make pretty short turns and ski the trees, so I think this will be a good ski in that regard, but wanted to get feedback from people who've skied it or are very familiar with it.  I don't want to sacrafice much stability, but do keep in mind that I'm 180 lbs or under, so I don't necessarily need a stiff ski for stability.

Lift/Tour: I'd say 50/50.  Would want to use these on the slopes when the snow is really good.  Otherwise, I can use my Legend 8000s (80 underfoot I think) which I like quite a bit.
post #8 of 25
I read the reviews on this ski as well and wouldn't mind checking it out for my touring only setup.  I think you'll have a tough time finding someone that's actually skied it at this point though.  (now that I've said that, one will materialize)  I've heard that the Atomic Snoop was supposed to be a pretty good ski to split between touring and all mountain duty so you may want to have a look at it.
post #9 of 25
My everyday driver is a tele-mounted Volkl M-Rock, which has the same dimensions as the Nanuq and the first Mantra iteration.  FWIW I figured the Nanuq would ski like those, only somewhat more forgiving.  I tried to order some for myself but my source was sold out in my size.  
post #10 of 25
Thread Starter 
bump
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by agustaf2 View Post




If you're insinuating that a woman's ski is necessarily soft/weak, is that really a fair assessment?  Upon doing some research, it seems the largest the Aura comes in is 170, whereas the smallest the Mantra comes in is at 170. Both have wood cores, with a metal topsheet.  It may just be that the Aura is a shorter version of the Mantra.

Skiing mag had a good review of the Nanuq in which they complemented its stability and hard-snow grip:
http://www.skinet.com/skiing/gear/volkl/volkl-nanuq-2010

Point being, I like to make pretty short turns and ski the trees, so I think this will be a good ski in that regard, but wanted to get feedback from people who've skied it or are very familiar with it.  I don't want to sacrafice much stability, but do keep in mind that I'm 180 lbs or under, so I don't necessarily need a stiff ski for stability.

Lift/Tour: I'd say 50/50.  Would want to use these on the slopes when the snow is really good.  Otherwise, I can use my Legend 8000s (80 underfoot I think) which I like quite a bit.
 

I have tuned both for friends. the Aura is about 1/3 less stiff than the Mantra of comparable size.  weak is a weak term to describe a ski, so I would not find it a useful descriptive.

That's the ability of Volkl at its best in Germany. Same construction, as you say, but they can come up with completely different specs on performance as needed for a designated application.

I think that your emphasis on stability is in contradiction to your interest in shedding weight for the BC. I'd imagine a person is satisfied if their BC ski is light, nimble, versatile, dependable. Stability may be a resort ski attribute.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by agustaf2 View Post

Upon doing some research, it seems the largest the Aura comes in is 170, whereas the smallest the Mantra comes in is at 170. Both have wood cores, with a metal topsheet.  It may just be that the Aura is a shorter version of the Mantra.
Not exactly. Both the Aura and the Nanuq have the Sensorwood Light core meaning they have Balsa wood stringers, making them both lighter and softer (supposedly 20% on both counts). Then, the Nanuq sheds the layer of metal, as well.

In addition, the newer Mantras are actually wider than both the Aura and the Nanuq.....3mm tip and tail, 2mm underfoot.

When the Aura was first introduced, they offered it in a 177 which was significantly softer than the 170 Mantra.
post #14 of 25
The idea behind the Nanuq sounds similar to the Volkl Polar Bear which I think was marketed as a tele ski. Same dimensions as some older era Mantras but with a wood core. You might look up reviews for the Polar Bear--ithey may be the same ski with different top sheets--or ask a Volkl rep about it.

I would toss three other skis in the mix based on your stated criteria, the Liberty Hazmat in a 171 or 181 (~95 in the waist, and sliglhtly lighter than the Nanuq I think), the High Society Freeride FR 179 (3320g/pair; 124-92-114, 21.7r; the 171 drops to an 82 waist), and the Head Monster O.B. 171 or 181 (which is the lightest of those mentioned, ~7lbs in 181). You can  find all of these skis including the Polar Bear for a lot less than the Nanuq ($200-300).

One caveat: out of the above group I have only skied the High Society. I am 5'10", 170lbs (I note this b/c it matches your profile) and am currently using the FR 179 as my every day ski in Tahoe and really enjoy it. I plan on mounting it with Dynafits and using it as my primary touring rig later this year. I will try to get a review up once I have some days on it in the backcountry.
post #15 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post




I have tuned both for friends. the Aura is about 1/3 less stiff than the Mantra of comparable size.  weak is a weak term to describe a ski, so I would not find it a useful descriptive.

That's the ability of Volkl at its best in Germany. Same construction, as you say, but they can come up with completely different specs on performance as needed for a designated application.

I think that your emphasis on stability is in contradiction to your interest in shedding weight for the BC. I'd imagine a person is satisfied if their BC ski is light, nimble, versatile, dependable. Stability may be a resort ski attribute.

It's not really so much of a contraction as it is a tradeoff, and a weak one at that I think.  Light does not necessarily imply unstable, though the general trend may be in that direction. Flex and weight are generally two different beasts, as are torsional stability and weight.
Edited by agustaf2 - 1/2/10 at 1:14am
post #16 of 25
Thread Starter 
Specs do indeed look to be the exact same, and also "Nanuq" is the Intuit word for polar bear.  I think this is the same ski.  Thanks I'm gonna check those other ones out.

I just got a pair of Dynafit ZZeus boots which I want to use for my one boot for both b/c and resort.  I also have some Fritschi Freerides to use if I want a ski that will perform on the resort as well, but might consider just getting two new rigs ... one for b/c and one for resort (likely mounting Marker Baron on the resort ski and Dynafit on the b/c).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkashkooli View Post

The idea behind the Nanuq sounds similar to the Volkl Polar Bear which I think was marketed as a tele ski. Same dimensions as some older era Mantras but with a wood core. You might look up reviews for the Polar Bear--ithey may be the same ski with different top sheets--or ask a Volkl rep about it.

I would toss three other skis in the mix based on your stated criteria, the Liberty Hazmat in a 171 or 181 (~95 in the waist, and sliglhtly lighter than the Nanuq I think), the High Society Freeride FR 179 (3320g/pair; 124-92-114, 21.7r; the 171 drops to an 82 waist), and the Head Monster O.B. 171 or 181 (which is the lightest of those mentioned, ~7lbs in 181). You can  find all of these skis including the Polar Bear for a lot less than the Nanuq ($200-300).

One caveat: out of the above group I have only skied the High Society. I am 5'10", 170lbs (I note this b/c it matches your profile) and am currently using the FR 179 as my every day ski in Tahoe and really enjoy it. I plan on mounting it with Dynafits and using it as my primary touring rig later this year. I will try to get a review up once I have some days on it in the backcountry.

 
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by agustaf2 View Post

Specs do indeed look to be the exact same, and also "Nanuq" is the Intuit word for polar bear.
 


 


post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
Whoops, that was supposed to read Inuit.


Quote: Originally Posted by agustaf2 View Post

Specs do indeed look to be the exact same, and also "Nanuq" is the Intuit word for polar bear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowfan View Post





post #19 of 25
I have the Nanuqs (177cm with a Fritschi AT+ binding) and took them out for their inaugural run over the weekend.  The shakedown day was at a resort (Heavenly Valley), followed by a backcountry day (Castle Peak area, north of Lake Tahoe).  Since it hadn't snowed in a while, it was nowhere near a powder day in either case so my experience so far with these has been on skier pack, in-the-trees chop, and groomers at the resort and untracked but thick mashed potatoes in the backcountry.  In both cases the skis performed like a champ.  As noted in the Ski mag review, the Nanuqs cut through the crud and floated nicely even in the thick stuff without swimming all over or tracking erratically.  The width of these skis seems to be just about right.  I have demoed other wider planks in the past but, maybe because of my stride, kept tripping over the trailing ski while hiking due to the skis catching on each other.  I didn't experience that with the Nanuqs. 

Looking forward to some fresh powder to really check their potential but they were outstanding performers in less than ideal conditions.  I'd highly recommend.

FWIW, I'm 6-1, 175.
post #20 of 25
I have a pair with Twenty-Two design Axl's.  Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to ski powder, and mostly have skied variable spring-like conditions at Tahoe as well as used on a recent Ostrander back-country tour.  For spring conditions they are excellent, plenty wide floatation, nice and stable to power through any variable patches , nice shovel width in front for getting up, yet can stay down if you choose.  The flex and rebound is nicely smooth and graduated as you would expect from a wood core.  It fails on firm conditions i.e. ice/ hard pack, as it just can't set a hard edge with any authority. Also struggled with break thru crust, it really wanted to stay down and turn back uphill. Touring was comfortable and their relatively lightweight makes a big difference and the wide profile makes a big difference going downhill with a pack on.  Caveat: i'm relatively new to Telemark, lots of prior Alpine.

Link to video at Squaw (packed powder) and Sugar Bowl (slush).
post #21 of 25

Any idea how the Nanuq compares to the Sanouk?  Both Volkl.

post #22 of 25

Nanuq and Sanouk are both sister Tundra Wookies. Nanuq is a little prettier, Sanouk is better at women's rugby.

post #23 of 25

Could someone have a look and check where their 177s are mounted?  Mine are unmarked.  Going to be mounted with Dynafit STs.

Cheers.


Edited by spanisharmada - 3/4/11 at 2:25pm
post #24 of 25

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanisharmada View Post

Could someone have a look and check where their 177s are mounted?  Mine are unmarked.  Going to be mounted with Dynafit STs.

Cheers.


Look at the left sidewall of the skis.  There should be a capital "I" to the left of the 177.  That's the boot-center mark  I mounted right on that and they ski great.  

 

I do love those skis.  Better edge hold and snap than I expected and they are nice and light.  Great all around ski for me in the Rockies.  Mounted with NTN bindings, they tele and parallel equally well.   


Quote:
Originally Posted by kvd23 View Post

Any idea how the Nanuq compares to the Sanouk?  Both Volkl.


No valid comparison - apples and oranges.  Nanuqs are a lot closer to the Mantra than the Sanouk.  The Sanouk was a 110mm waist swallow-tailed powder ski and the Nanuq is a 94mm waist all-around ski.  

 

post #25 of 25

Thanks Bob.  Looking forward to getting on 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 › 2010 Volkl Nanuq -- Anyone Skied This?