Results 1 to 15 of 15
04-12-2012, 01:19 PM #1
Volkl Aura - Too Much Ski for 13-Yo Daughter?
So, it's time for my 13-yo daughter to get a new pair of skis. She has been skiing 150 Roxy Shazam all-mtn twins (90-mm waist, wood core) as her every day ski. They are super light and palyful, but she needs to bump up to a longer size and perhaps a bit more ski overall. From a physical attribute perspective, she is ~5' tall and 120-125 lbs. and a low-level advanced skier. She can rip anything "blue", but tends to slow it down a good bit on more challenging "black" runs. She does enjoy pow and skiing off-trail.
She played with some demo's a few weeks ago at Stevens Pass and really liked the 159 Atomic Elysian and 162 Line Pandora. I'd love to grab her some of the Atomic's, but they are gone everywhere in that size. While I love the idea of the Pandora's, a 115-mm waisted ski is a little much for her as a OSQ.
So...now to the question at hand - Could she handle a Volkl Aura? REI has them for a crazy cheap price, so I'm tempted by the caliber of ski and value. By the numbers and build, they make a solid PNW all-mtn ski. However, based on my personal experiece with Mantra's, I'm concerned that they'll be too much ski. I know they are built different, but always had the impression this was a ski for a more hard charger gal and I'm not sure my daughter is quite there yet.
Anyone, especially Maggot ladies, have any input?In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...
04-12-2012, 01:34 PM #2
What length? Aura is a great ski, forgiving, easy to turn, low swing weigh. GF Anita (5'9", 135, fit, very athletic, level 8 skier) is on 163cm Auras for non-pow days. She loves them.
04-12-2012, 02:42 PM #3
If she loved the Pandora, and you think the Aura may be too much ski, maybe look at the Line Celebrity 100? Just a thought.
04-12-2012, 03:15 PM #4
I'm a bit confused. If she liked the Elysian (dimensions similar to the Aura) and the Pandora (19mm wider than the Aura), why would the Aura be "too much ski?"
Oh, I see:
Speaking of the Line Celebrity, GF Anita also has those (branded Karhu Bertha -- same ski) with Dynafits as her soft snow touring rig. Nice ski for soft snow -- and about as wide as I'd go for a 125 lb. low advanced skier -- but not a great daily driver because the tail is too soft.
Last edited by Big Steve; 04-12-2012 at 03:27 PM.
04-12-2012, 05:56 PM #5
156 Aura sounds like a great option. She can grow into this ski for several years.
04-12-2012, 07:45 PM #6
I'd go 163 if you think she's going to get stronger. My 13 year old daughter sounds a bit stronger than yours, as she liked the 168 women's S7, but thought it was a bit cumbersome in the trees. I'm leaning towards a Praxis Mountain Jib 163 for next year."I think next week I'll be able to send some more money as I may have extra work. My friend Patty promised me a blow job"
04-12-2012, 08:28 PM #7
Not sure what year's on sale at REI, but this year's Aura (with the bird) has tip rocker and per my wife skis easier than the previous non-rockered version. My wife is about 5'5" 125# and thought the 163 worked best for her. I don't think it would be too much ski for your daughter based on your description. You will want to make sure she has a boot that can drive that ski and not a 60 flexer.
04-13-2012, 07:49 AM #8
My wife's 5'4". 115 and loves her 156 Auras. Not a really aggressive skier, either.
If you get the 156s, just make sure they mount with the litte riser supplied by Volkl under the binding (make REI get them for you if not attached) Otherwise, the ski profile is so thin that the mounting screws may dimple the bases.
04-13-2012, 09:57 AM #9
The Auras on sale at REI are 2010-11, with the traditional (non-rockered) tip.
Most stock bindings screws should work fine for the toe binding. The ski is quite thin where the rear binding screws down. You can either shim it, use shorter screws or grind down stock screws. It's not a big deal.
04-13-2012, 10:24 AM #10
I appreciate the responses. They have all been very helpful. Something around a 100-mm waist is about as wide as I want to go for her. She really liked the Pandora's since there was a log of pow to be had, but she did mention her knees started to bother her.
I'm really tempted by last year's Aura due to the quality for the price and that it gives her something that will handle the conditions she is apt to encounter up here in the PNW on any given day. Now the debate becomes on size, 156 vs. 163. No concern about her being able to handle the 156, but want to make sure that my own feeling about preferring longer skis for myself doesn't enter in too much.In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...
04-13-2012, 10:57 AM #11
My sister is 5'2 120# and on older generation 163s
sent from the future using my mind powersBest Skier on the Mountain
1992 - 2012
Squaw Valley, USA
04-13-2012, 11:52 AM #12
My daughter skied the kid's S7 160 cm this year. She only didn't like them, (for example), at the bottom of the Hobacks at Jackson in deep slop. That's where she liked the wider, longer women's S7 168 better. I was always amazed she could ski those kid's 160s so fast on the groomers. Like you, I would have wanted to be on a longer ski. Your daughter may ski better on the 156 because she'll be able to maneuver them better in tight spots."I think next week I'll be able to send some more money as I may have extra work. My friend Patty promised me a blow job"
05-02-2012, 04:49 PM #13
Reporting back - Picked up some 159 K2 Missdemeanor's after all the debate. Still only 90-mm in the waist, but slight rocker and good all-mtn abilities. Hopefully they'll keep her on the skill-building path and I can augment with a wider, more dedicated powder ski next season.
I kept looking at the Aura's, but they just seem too stiff for how my kid skis.In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...
05-03-2012, 08:32 PM #14
05-03-2012, 10:03 PM #15
A buddy's 13 y/o daughter has those and likes them a lot.