or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Pro Burner

post #1 of 2
Thread Starter 

Me: 6', 165 lbs, moderately advanced ability and age. Technical, like to turn, pay silly amounts of attention to my edge angles and pressures, CM etc. Do a bit of rec racing, mediocre. 


Conditions: Killington, Vt., 11 degrees, 10-20 mph blowing snow. 3-6" fresh over hard crust, transparent ice, with lotsa death cookies from the rain two days ago. Fresh devolved into piles of chop by lunch. Many runs closed due to lack of cover. Eg, typical early winter NE day that makes us snicker at you westerners who complain about "ice" (hardpack) or "cold" (20 degrees). 


Ski: Pro Burner, 170 cm, boots and bindings at factory line. Same far as I know as this year's Jet Fuel I, but my own bindings.


Two seasons ago, demoed the Burners in 178, thought they were a nice ski, but nothing special. Then SJ had his Armada sale, and I found these by my door. Go figure. So thought it was time for a review of a different length (170 is the middle of the 3) given my Gear Discussion question about whether length is aimed at skier weight.


Verdict: Yes it is. These were not, emphatically, a wide carver to the 178's all mountain. They just fit my weight and speeds better, so more life and personality than the 178's. Ankle rolled railroad tracks securely at speed on hardpack, up to a top of about 40 mph a few times, they danced through bumps soft and hard, very easy to pivot, and they made piles of chop into velvet. Only downside were the death cookies. Too light and carbon-ish lively to really eat them. Wished for a metal ski 2 lbs heavier. But a ski of that heft wouldn't have been nearly as much fun weaving through undulating chop alongside the trees. So life's a tradeoff. This is not a ski for you if you like damp and smooth, like a Stockli. But IMO it's a way better Watea, and I've always thought that was a good ski for lighter folks. 


Similar skis to compare: These were beefier and stronger feeling than the Watea 84 or whatever it's now called, but had a very different flex pattern. Stiffer in front, softer in the tail. Better bite by far. They were lighter, stronger feeling, a bit quicker edge to edge, but not as supple or damp as the Blizzard Cronos. Similar bite. In fact, felt more like a Blizzard 8.1 172 than anything else I can think of; same magnified snow feel (and that weird dry sound) combined with fairly smooth edges, same lightness but secure at speed, a little less stiff but still substantial, a bit easier in bumps. All of which is odd, because the 8.1 has two sheets of titanium. th_dunno-1[1].gif




post #2 of 2


Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 But IMO it's a way better Watea, and I've always thought that was a good ski for lighter folks. 


Very good way of putting it. While I think the Watea 84 was quite good 3-4 years ago......the Burner, Motive 84, Sultan 85 (and others) have pretty much put the Watea on the shelf. These newer skis have improved upon the weaknesses of the Watea without giving up much at all to it's strengths. The Burner is for sure an unsung hero among many great skis in this class.



New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews