2018 Nordica Santa Ana 93 Women's Skis 2018 Nordica Santa Ana 93 Women's Skis

2018 Nordica Santa Ana 93 Women’s Skis

The Santa Ana 93 is the narrowest of three skis that Nordica classifies as their women’s all mountain freeski collection. The Santa Ana 93 shares a shape with the men’s Enforcer 93, but uses a lighter weight balsa wood core. It still has two sheets of titanal that provide vibration dampening and stability, but the overall weight remains lighter than the men’s version. This increases maneuverability and forgiveness which helps give the ski excellent ability in variable conditions and terrain. The Santa Ana 93 sure seems versatile when you look at the numbers on paper, but what did our testers think?

Well, according to Elissa DeGolyer, the Santa Ana 93 “is the perfect women’s ski.” While we understand that ski reviews are quite subjective, at least we know they’re perfect for Elissa. Elissa skied a 169 cm and gave the Santa Ana 93 5 out of 5 for flotation, quickness, playfulness, versatility, and overall impression. She described the Santa Ana as having “slightly earlier rise than some are used to, but the turning point of this ski is so neutral it’s a piece of cake to boss this ski around the mountain.”

Carly Monahan also skied the 169 cm and commented that the Santa Ana 93 felt “lively, energetic, and very playful.” She thinks it would make a “great ski for a woman who wants something that will perform all over the mountain in any condition.” Carly did admit that the ski “wouldn’t be ideal if only skiing icy, firm days, but you can set an edge and it will hold its own on firm snow.” We agree with Carly. If you’re always skiing firm snow there’s certainly an argument to go with a narrower, more groomer specific ski. The Santa Ana 93, however, allows you to explore the entire mountain while still providing good performance on those groomers.

Kristi Brown found the Santa Ana 93 to be very forgiving, but also thought it had excellent stability thanks to the metal laminates in the ski. The forgiveness and versatility comes from “a soft tip that eases you into the turn,” while the energy of the ski “surges through the tails, setting you up for the next turn.” It’s difficult to achieve a mix of stability, energy, and forgiveness, but judging by our testers’ reactions Nordica has done a commendable job. Kristi was on a 169 cm Santa Ana 93.

Ali Berlin concurs as she described the Santa Ana 93 as “a stable ski, yet soft and flexible.” She skied the 163 cm and thought it “turned easy and transitioned smoothly from edge to edge.” Ali also felt that it “held up great on steeper terrain,” so adventurous skiers who are always looking for the steeps can rest assured the Santa Ana 93 has the edge grip and stability you need to confidently ski your lines. To emphasize the skis versatility, Ali left us with a nice final comment: “overall a great ski meant for someone looking to go anywhere.”

That really hits the nail on the head. The Santa Ana 93 really does give you the ability to go anywhere. While there certainly are better powder specific skis, better carving specific skis, etc, the Santa Ana 93 offers such a great mix of performance it’s hard to be beat strictly in terms of versatility. Grab a pair and head out on the mountain with confidence that you have a tool that will handle any job you put in front of it in a fun, forgiving, and rewarding manner.

Testers

Kristi Brown Ski Tester Headshot Image

Kristi Brown

Age: 48Height: 5'9"Weight: 136 lbs.

Ski Style: Energetic, precise, very smooth and skis with a lot of finesse

Carly Monahan Ski Tester Headshot Image

Carly Monahan

Age: 32Height: 5'4"Weight: 130 lbs.

Ski Style: Athletic and active, but laid back

Elissa DeGolyer Ski Tester Headshot Image

Elissa DeGolyer

Age: 28Height: 5'8"Weight: 130 lbs.

Ski Style: Precise, aggressive, extensive ski racing background

Laura McLaughlin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Laura McLaughlin

Age: 36Height: 5'5"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: Short radius turns on the side of the trail

Katrine Wolfgang Ski Tester Headshot Image

Katrine Wolfgang

Age: 53Height: 5'5.5"Weight: 168 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth carving

Ali Berlin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Ali Berlin

Age: 40Height: 5'"Weight: 110 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast Frontside Free Spirit

65 Comments on the “2018 Nordica Santa Ana 93 Women’s Skis”

  1. Hi! I tried these skis last winter in Whistler and am ready to buy. They only had the Santa Ana demos in a 153 and I liked them a lot, but I’m curious about sizing. I’m an advanced skier and L1 instructor. I love to carve and also to play in the bumps, and overall love to ski with good technique. I’ve been skiing on an old pair of 153 Head “Everyones” for the last 15 years and I’m out-skiing them. Ready for something that I can continue to grow with. I’m just wondering if the 161s will give me a little extra “umph” I need to keep improving or if they’ll be unwieldy for me. I liked the 153 but there was something “missing” when I was digging into big turns… maybe that’s just the one-quiver nature of these skis? I’m 163cm (5’4). I live in the east but mostly ski in BC/Alberta. Thanks!

    1. Hi Lori!
      I think you’ll notice some extra strength coming out of the 161 for sure. They might be a bit more of a handful in the bumps and trees, but should offer more stability at speed. Have fun!
      SE

  2. Hi there. I am an intermediate/advanced skier who skis mostly in VT. I do very well on groomers, but am trying to explore a little more “side country”. Terrain is pretty icy and firm, but would like to use these skis on the random powder days that crop up here and there. I currently have 156 cm Vokl Kenjas which I think might be a little too much ski for me. Would the Santa Ana 93 be a good fit? Or the Blizzard Black Pearl 98? I’m 5’1 and 150 lb if you could help with sizing too.

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Liezl!
      The Santa Ana 93 isn’t terribly less demanding than the Kenja, while the Black Pearl might be a bit too far on the other end. The Santa Ana has lighter wood and thinner metal sheets than the Kenja, so it is easier to use for sure. It also comes in a 153, which is probably a better size than the 156. Also check out the Blizzard Sheeva 9 for a nice in-between model. That ski comes in either a 148 or a 156, but is lighter and quicker than the Kenja, so the same length might not feel as prohibitive, while my guess is that the 148 might be on the short side. If you find yourself in between sizing, ask yourself about your level of aggressiveness to tip you longer or shorter. Hope that helps!
      SE

  3. I’m 64; been skiing all my life. Currently use Volke Luna . I find them great on groomers , ice , soft , feels like a race ski, but dif on any kind of powder, dif to make shorter turns in ungroomed heavy terrain like Abasin. Dif in heavy powder, and harder to turn on trails or bumps. I’m 5.61/2 , 133lbs . I ski blue, black, trails, steep , soft , crunchy , slush , groomed . Ski Abasin, Beaver Creek, Vail, Breckenridge, alll mountain.

  4. My hubby has the enforcer and loves them so I’m looking at Santa Ana. I’m 5’2” 125 lbs. I have had acl surgery and my soul 7s are too much to turn confidently. Thinking of the 93 152 length. Live in Utah so ski all kinds of conditions. Recommendations?

    1. Sounds about right, Cindy!
      My wife is 5/4 and loves the 153 in the Santa Ana 100–they’re really good for all types of terrain and snow variation. I think the 161 would be a bit of a handful from time to time!
      SE

  5. I’m 5’10 155 pounds and have demo’d the Santa Ana 93s in a 169. I really like them but am wondering if I should go bigger—177 probably too big but I also tried the men’s navigator in a 172 and liked that ski a lot. I ski pretty aggressively and all over the mountain but I’m not into going super fast. Just wondering if the 169 is right or if I should go with a different ski slightly longer. I ski mostly in the east with one or two trips west a year. THANK YOU!

    1. Hi Erin!
      I agree that you seem to be in the middle of the Santa Ana sizing. Sounds to me like you’re more of a Navigator skier than a Santa Ana 93 skier anyway, so that might work out well for you. I assume you’re talking about the Navigator 90 because that would be the closest comparison to the Santa Ana 93 within the Nordica realm. Also check out the Blizzard Ruster/Sheeva 9 as a comparison. Have fun!
      SE

  6. I am an advanced skier in the east and am very interested in purchasing the Santa Anna 93’s. I am 5″ and weight 125lbs. Reviews say to size up but the online chart says 153 which is my norm. I am on the fence about purchasing the 161’s since I haven’t skied that size in years. Would the 153cm or 161cm be better for my height and weight? Thank you!

    1. Hi Ellen!
      I’d go with the 153. I think with the metal involved, you’ll appreciate the maneuverability of the skis. Have fun!
      SE

  7. Hi,
    I’d love to purchase the Nordica Santa Ana 93. However, as many here I am not sure about which size I should go for.
    I am 164 cm and about 60 kg. I skied a Roxy Dreamcatcher 85 at 164 cm and I felt very comfortable with this size (but in my opinion the edge hold in icy conditions was not that convincing and of course the 85 get a bit narrow in deeper pow). From what I read about Santa Ana, they could be a great choice. As far as I can see from earlier postings I guess the size should be 161 cm, but I kind of fear that they might be a bit short, in particular if there is some nice pow? I am an advanced skier (but no expert). Sometimes I have to go pretty fast to catch up with my friends. However the 169 cm skies seem a bit long to me. In particular if conditions get bumpy…
    I had the chance to demo the Nordica Santa Ana 100 at 169 cm, but I have to admit that they were a bit “too much” for me and the range of conditions I want to ski them. I am not sure if it was the waist, the size or simply the weight of the skies which I am not used to at all. Anyway I felt I had to work hard to turn the skies and it got pretty exhausting over the day… Unfortunately the Santa Ana 93 was not available.
    Maybe, out of the size-issue, the Nordicas are simply not the right ones for me? I also had a look at alternatives like Armada Victa 93, Line Pandora 94 and Black Pearls 88 from Blizzard. Maybe you also have some experience with these skies?
    I am happy to hear from you,
    Maria

    1. Hi Maria!
      I’d guess you as a 161 in that ski. The 100 in a 169 is a pretty burly ski, built for expert skiers who know how to drive a ski. The 93 gives you a bit more user-friendliness, and at the shorter length, you’ll be able to turn it better for sure. The Victa 93 is stiffer than the Santa Ana and the Line is a nice option for sure. We’ve sold a ton of Black Pearl 88’s over the years and have yet to hear a bad thing about them, so that’s a safe bet to be sure. Also check out the Nordica Astral 88 for comparison. Have fun!
      SE

  8. Hi! I just got back into skiing last year and looking to buy. I’m in between intermediate and intermediate advanced, and wanting to get better. I’m 5’7 and demo’d these yesterday and really enjoyed them. I’d like to get back on the blacks and get really good. I’m worried though these may be too advanced for me though based off what it says. What do you think?

    1. Hi J!
      I’d say they’re on the stiff/advanced side for you right now, but it’s certainly something that you could grow in to. The Astral 88 is the next model down in the Nordica line, but are still capable of high-performance skiing if you wanted to go that route. But if you demoed them and liked them, I’d say go for it. Happy winter!
      SE

  9. I’m looking for an all mountain twin tip to do mostly woods but also a bit of carving and park. I’m 5’7 and 135lbs, I’d say Advanced/Expert fairly aggressive skier and my skis take a beating. My parents picked out the K2 Poachers for me but they only had the 163cm length left ( I was previously on 167cm park skis) I was able to demo the marksman in 177 but they felt much to wide and also pretty heavy. Then I was steered towards the backland 102 W. I’m told it’s the same ski as the Bent Chetler which gets amazing reviews and seems to have good carving scores. Then spoke to someone else who said the Backland is a touring ski and would be too light for carving etc. Now I’m looking at the Nordica Santa Ana but can’t find the weight listed anywhere. How does it compare to the Poacher and what size ski should I be skiing? I enjoyed demoing the K2 Wayback as it was really light but landing just a small jump with them was painful. How does the payback compare to the Backland?

    Thanks!

    Gaby

    1. Hi Gabrielle!
      Both the Backland and the Wayback are considered “touring” skis although the Backland does have a turned up tail (not a true twin tip). The Santa Ana is a heavier, more all-mountain ski that does have metal and is of a higher performance level from a skiing perspective than the others on your list. Check out the Blizzard Sheeva 9 for a fun ski with a turned up tail. They do not have full metal sheets, so they’re not too stiff, but are very fun and playful for all-mountain skiing. Have fun!
      SE

  10. Hi, I’m 34, 5′ 9″ and about 135llbs. I’m an advanced intermediate skier who likes a pretty stiff, aggressive ski. I ski mostly Mammoth in CA, but do trips to Whistler, Utah, … I am ready to buy skis after a demo day but am unsure if the perfect conditions and ample fresh powder will sway me in the wrong direction. I liked Wild Joy by Head (163), and have read nothing but stellar reviews. Santa Ana by Nordica also felt really good, but I’m torn between the 161 and 169 size- I think 169 would feel too long in less than ideal conditions, but they were great that day. Volkl 100eight felt great, shockingly so, but maybe too powder-specific. Please advise as this will be the first pair I buy for myself and am nervous to make a wrong choice.

    1. Hi Carolynn!
      It’s tough testing skis in perfect conditions! I am in agreement with the Santa Ana 93 as an awesome choice. The 100Eight is fully rockered, and although you can make it carve really well on groomed slopes, the Nordica does a much better job. The Wild Joy is also great, but just not the same in terms of stiffness and construction of the Santa Ana. If you’re primarily skiing in CA, BC, and UT, chances are you’ll have more days like your demo day. If you get that 169, you’ll know it works great in those conditions. I don’t think it’s too long, and since you tried it and liked it, I see no reason to steer you shorter. Hope that helps!
      SE

  11. I’m looking to buy new ski’s and am looking at the Santa Ana 93. I am 65 years old and have been skiing for 58 years. I’m an advanced skier, love to make big swooping carves, and love skiing fast. I have been skiing on Nordica Olympia Speed 154’s (118-70-103) and love them. But they are not conducive to going off groomers, and now I want more of an all mountain ski. I am 5’6″ and weigh 135. I have been told that I should choose the 169cm based on my ability and speed. Do you think this ski is a good choice for me, and if so, what size?

    1. Hi Kris!
      My initial feeling is that the 161 would be a better length for you. They’re pretty stable skis thanks to the metal laminates. If you’re highly aggressive and know that you like longer skis, then by all means, fire up the 169. Other than that, the skis are awesome all-mountain skis! Have fun!
      SE

  12. I’m trying to decide between the Nordica Santa Ana 93 and the 100’s. I currently ski nordica nemesis which is 98 in the waist. Mostly ski groomers but love the nemesis bc I feel very stable in uneven snow conditions and i love how it feels on edge. stability on edge and in uneven snow gives me the most confidence. I lean toward the 100’s but think maybe the 93’s might give me what I want with better turning.

    Stacie

    1. Hi Stacie!

      I do think the Santa Ana 93 is more appropriate if you’re skiing mostly groomers, but 100 mm isn’t so wide that it feels radically different on firm snow, as you already know after spending time on the Nemesis. Some people just prefer wider skis, and that’s perfectly okay. So, if you’ve been enjoying your Nemesis and enjoy the ability it gives you in uneven snow conditions, stick with the Santa Ana 100. If you want a little quicker edge to edge feel, you’re not going to give up too much of that uneven snow performance with the 93.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  13. Hi there,

    I’m having a tough time making a decision between the Santa Ana (161) and the 2018 Volkl Kenja, both of which I demo’d and enjoyed last year. I’m an advanced skier (5’5″, 117lb, mid 30s), and typically ski the east for a few weekends (catskills/VT) with an annual trip out west. I love to go fast (the Kenja was very stable) but I also love the challenge of moguls when we are blessed with powder, and I’d actually like to improve my skills in that area. To add some complexity, I’ve had an ACL repair a number of years ago, and still have issues with quad/ham tone. My concern is that if I go with the Kenja, I will be limiting my ability to enjoy and practice the bumps (larger turning radius, heavier), but if I buy the Santa Ana, I will give up stability while speeding, especially in icy conditions.

    Thoughts? Binding recommendations? I also can’t remember the size of the Kenja’s, my gut would tell me to get the 163 (at one point I had 183’s!), but maybe a shorter length would be easier to handle?

    Thanks,
    Darcy

    1. Hi Darcy!

      In my opinion the Santa Ana sounds like the better option for you. Do you give up some stability and power? Sure, but not too much. The Santa Ana still has two sheets of metal and is still a ski intended for advanced skiers. It’s not quite as stiff as the Kenja, but you can still ski it fast and aggressively without it feeling outrageously unstable. Considering your ACL repair (I also have been through knee reconstruction) and that you want to improve in off-piste terrain, I’d go with the Santa Ana.

      For bindings, we currently have it paired with the Marker Griffon, which is definitely a popular choice for that ski. The Tyrolia Attack 13 would be another good one, low stand height, wide platform, performs really well on a ski like the Santa Ana 93.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  14. Hi! I was just purchased the Santa Ana 93 153 as a gift. I’m worried they will be too short, although this will be the first year with my own gear so I’m not totally sure. I’m 57kg and 5’5″. I would say I’m an advanced, but not an expert, skier and mostly stick to groomers. I definitely ski aggressively and like to move fast. Should I exchange for the 161s? Thanks!

    1. Hi Anna!

      Did you buy them from us? I would say that if you’re a fairly aggressive skier, the 153 cm might be a little bit short. If exchanging them is relatively easy, you might prefer the 161 cm length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  15. Hi there,

    Is the santa ana 93 a reasonable all-mountain touring ski for the east coast? Too heavy with the double sheets of metal? I am just getting started in the backcountry and am skiing a lot of east coast trees. I ski advanced/expert in the resort and grew up skiing out west but am now living in the northeast. I ski a black pearl 88 on resort days and love them, but am looking for something to put touring bindings on. I’m 5’11 and 160#. I was thinking of going shorter with the 169s since I have a pair of powder skis that are 180 and feel too big for me in most conditions, but I don’t want them to be too short. Would appreciate any thoughts you have!

    Thanks!

    1. Hi KM!
      I wouldn’t say it’s UNreasonable, especially if you have a focus on downhill performance. You can go as light as you want these days, although you won’t find much that will out-perform the Nordica. If you can pair a lighter binding, you should be all set. If you go with the 169, you may find it to be on the short side, but again, not unreasonable. Also, you’ll save a bit of weight with the shorter ski. Another route could be the Salomon QST 92 (Lux is the ladies version) which is lighter, but the same shape, with less downhill performance. Let me know what you think!
      SE

      1. I think I probably have a similar skiing profile, though I’m 5’5″ and 155#, and I just bought a pair of the Santa Ana 93’s in the 161, and put salomon shift bindings on them, with the intent of having one set up for resort days and the limited but fairly frequent touring I do (I live in VT). I demoed the 93s with a regular alpine binding boot and loved them; I also demoed the Black Pearl 98s and liked them a lot as well, but the shop I bought from had more experience/success with mounting the shifts on the Santa Anas so I went with that. Haven’t picked them up yet but super excited for this setup.

  16. Hi!

    About to finally buy a new pair of skiis, very excited about this! I think nordicas santa ana 93 sounds really nice but I can’t decide if I should go for the 169cm or 177cm. I am 171cm and wight 63 kg. Many thanks for your help!

    1. Hi Maja!
      I think the 177 would be too long. You’ll appreciate the maneuverability and the stability of the 169. Happy winter!
      SE

  17. Hi there,
    I am an intermediate skier from Europe, and just purchased the Santa Ana 93s, but am wondering whether I got the right size… I ordered the 161cm and am an intermediate skier, 165cm tall and weigh 55kg.
    Thanks for your help.
    Annabelle

      1. Awesome 😊 Thanks so much. Which affordable bindings would you recommend? Is 90mm brake width too small?

      2. Annabelle,
        We pair those skis with either the Marker Griffon or the Tyrolia Attack 13. We put the 90 on the 93 all the time. It’s tight, but it works. The Tyrolia’s come in a 95 which clears no problem. The Tyrolia is a bit easier to step in over the Marker, for whatever that’s worth. Both are great bindings, and are properly priced in our Killer Deals. If you don’t want a 13 DIN binding, you can also get either the Marker Squire (11) or the Tyrolia Attack 11 (which would need a 100 mm brake, the 90 is a true 90). Hope that clears up rather than confuses!
        SE

  18. Hello! Need some advice on ski size for my fiance. Planning on getting these for her for a birthday present so I can’t ask her directly. She’s going to be 27, about 5’4″ but very petite, around 105 pounds. She’s an intermediate/advanced skier that mainly sticks to blue/black diamonds. She’s torn her ACL in the past so she skis a little bit more on the cautious side. Shes having trouble controlling her current skis which I think are about her height. My question is are the 161cms going to be too long for her? 153cms seems almost too short in my opinion but I’m not sure. Any help would be great!

    1. Great gift, Colin!
      My wife is same height, but about 140 lbs and very strong. She skis the Santa Ana 100 in a 153 and loves it. We ski in the East, so there’s a lot of tight trees, and she loves how the 153 performs in these areas. She hasn’t noticed too much of an adverse effect on-piste, so my guess is that she’s happy with that length. If your lady is on the cautious side with an injury history, I’d go with the 153. It might be on the short side, but won’t be too short. Hope that helps!
      SE

  19. Hi I am a high intermediate/advanced 30yo skier. I’m 6’0″ 215lb.

    I believe the Santa Ana will be a good fit for me. I’m leaning towards the 93 over the 100 as coming from the midwest I am a destination skier likely to hit Utah, Colorado, Washington and the midwest in the same year and I think the 93 will give me better overall use than the 100.

    Trying to decide between the 169 and 177 length. I ski groomers well and am getting more comfortable skiing the back bowls and off piste.

    Any help is appreciated!

    1. Hi Lauren!
      The Santa Ana 93 is an awesome ski for you! You’ll get good float thanks to the rocker profile, so don’t worry about the width too much. I’d recommend the 177 based on your stats and the fact that said rocker profile does make the ski feel a bit shorter than advertised. I believe you’d overpower the 169. Hope that helps!
      SE

  20. Hi there,

    I’m an intermediate to advanced skier and I’m 164cm / 5’4 and 63kg. I ski quite aggressively and enjoying going fast and enjoy groomers and going off-piste when conditions allow. I love the sound of the Santa Ana 93’s but I’m not sure which length to go for – the 161cm or the 169cm.

    I’d love some advice. Because of the rockered profile I was thinking the 169cm. I’ve been skiing on some second-hand dynastars (I’m not sure what they’re called – they’re quite old) which are slightly shorter than me but much narrower (84mm) and not very exciting so I’m looking to upgrade.

    Thank you so much for you advice 🙂

    1. Hi Elizabeth!
      You’ll love the Santa Ana 93–they’re a gret all-mountain, all-conditions ski. My wife is about the same size as you and skis the Santa Ana 100 in the 153. She prefers short skis, even though I tried to nudge her to the longer length. You are correct that the rocker profile makes them ski a bit short, but I’d still steer clear of recommending the 169. I think the 161 is the right size for you. Thanks and happy winter!
      SE

  21. Hi I am a laid back, intermediate skier, 156lbs, 5’10. I am not sure what size to get, i’m between the 161 and 169. I’m afraid the 169 may be too tall but I don’t want to grow out of the 161 too fast. Any suggestions?

    1. Hi Katie!

      I would go with the 169 cm if I were you. That’s a perfectly appropriate length for your size, and the Santa Ana 93 uses quite a bit of rocker, so skis a little short compared to its listed length. Does that make sense? I would worry you’d outgrow and overpower the 161 cm a little bit. 169 cm should be approachable at first, and I think you’ll appreciate having it in the long run.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  22. Hi! I’m looking into getting the Nordica Santa Ana 93’s but I’m not sure what size to get. I’m just a hair taller than 5’3” (not quite 5’4” which according to size charts would probably put me at getting 161s) and weigh about 110lbs. I’m an advanced skier, just probably having crossed that threshold this year though, so definitely not expert. What size do you think I should get?

    1. Hi Aurora!

      Yeah, I would go with the 161 cm. That length is just about exactly as tall as you, which in my opinion is about perfect considering your ability level and weight. I expect it will have plenty of stability since you’re not exceptionally heavy, and it will definitely be more maneuverable for you than longer lengths. I think 161 cm is the way to go.

      SE

  23. Hello, I wrote earlier, I’m in my 40’s, an ex-racer, very aggressive. Ski alone and only the moguls and trees. LOVE powder, (who doesn’t?). From my last writings to you I was looking strongly at the Nordica Santa Ana 93’s. I currently ski a Salomon 115/74/110 ski and have been very happy with it. I was also checking out the Blizzard Black Pearl 78. What are your thoughts?

    1. Hey Debbie!

      If you wanted to stay with a waist width that’s closer to your current skis the Black Pearl 78 would definitely be a good option, although I think that’s a little narrow considering how much time you spend off groomers. I would at least go with the Black Pearl 88 just so you have a little more float and stability in softer snow conditions. It’s not quite as powerful and stable as the Santa Ana 93 because the Santa Ana uses metal and the Black Pearl does not, but the Black Pearl 88 is literally the most popular women’s ski in the world. Lots of women love it, that’s for sure. A little lighter weight than the Santa Ana 93 too, again because of the metal.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  24. I’m 5’5 and 115 lbs and am an intermediate skier from California (Mammoth, Tahoe), but sometimes ski in Utah and Colorado. What length would you recommend for me?

    1. Hi Kanani!

      I think the 161 cm length would have nice performance for you. The next size up is a bit taller than you, which can become a little bit challenging for intermediates. I think the 161 cm length will give you plenty of stability and be much easier to handle overall.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  25. Hi, I’m 5’10”, 140lb, advanced skier who skis in the west on all types of terrain (but enjoy moguls and off-piste the most). I liked the Santa Ana in 169cm, but they were a little short for me. I haven’t been able to demo the Santa Ana in 177cm, but I just demo’d the men’s Enforcer 93 in 177cm. They were more stable for me, but I felt a little like they were taking me for a ride and I was tending to lean backward a little (possibly because of the placement of men’s bindings, I’m guessing). Is there any difference in construction or weight between the Santa Ana and Enforcer, and do you think the Santa Ana in 177cm would perform any differently for me?

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Ali!

      There really isn’t a difference in binding placement on these skis. You’re likely just feeling the difference in construction, as yes, the Enforcer uses a denser, heavier core, which makes the ski a little bit stiffer. I would expect you’ll find the 177 cm Santa Ana is exactly what you’re looking for. Should still have that stable feel that you liked in Enforcer 93, but a slightly softer flex and a lighter swing weight overall.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  26. Hi,
    I’m currently skiing the nortica astral 84 158cm. Love them most of the time except for when going really fast on groomers which I don’t very often. I mostly ski Vail / Beaver Creek and love the back bowls.
    So my question is what size should I get. 161 or 169? 93 or 100? I’m 163cm tall and 50kgs. Would the 169cm be too long for me?
    Thank you!

    1. Hi Tian!

      169 cm might be a little bit long for you, especially since it sounds like you don’t ski super fast very often. The 161 cm Santa Ana 93, even though it’s barely longer than your Astral 84, will have better stability at speed and will perform a little better in back bowls without needing to go longer. I think you’d probably find the 169 cm to be a little bit fatiguing when you need to make quick movements on it.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  27. Hi there, I am 169 cm tall and I am looking for he right size of Santa Ana 93. I am high intermediate too. Would the 169 cm be too long? I want to use them in backcountry ski and also in ski stations. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

    1. Hi Noemie!

      Nope, I don’t think the 169 cm is too long if you’re an upper-intermediate level skier. That length might feel long to you if the ski was full camber, but with its ample tip rocker and substantial tail rocker that should be a pretty manageable length for you and will give you more stability and better float in backcountry terrain and softer snow conditions.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  28. I am 60 years old, 185 lbs and 5’5″. I have been skiing on a pair of Blizzard 146″. I don’t even know the type! I totally underestimated my skiing ability and went home with these without really knowing what I was doing. They feel way too short and have no run at all. I have been working on improving my skiing. I want to break into the next level of ability. I am a Northeast USA skier usually at Loon. I like to cruise and am usually on groomers, but I want to get more confident at skiing more of the mountain. I would classify myself as a high intermediate. I have been having fun demo-ing Blizzard Black Pearl 88 159 and Nordica’s Santa Anna 161. Im leaning toward the Santa Annas. I feel they have a little more playfulness and I like that they are a little bit longer. I have not tried both skis in same conditions. I would love any insight you might have that would help me seal my decision. My husband is encouraging me to try the next size up of the Santa Anna, but I have not yet. Thanks!

    1. Hi Laura!

      I agree that your current skis are a little bit short for you. I’m sure they feel pretty unstable when you start to pick up some speed or through choppy snow conditions. I don’t think, however, you need to go too long. Does the Santa Ana in the 161 cm length feel stable to you? Do you ever feel unbalanced? Really the only reason to go longer would be if that 161 cm length feels unstable or shaky at speed. The next size up on the Santa Ana 93 would be a little taller than you, which in my opinion is kind of the cut off for when skis start to feel a little more challenging. Granted weight plays into ski length too, but in my experience skiers perceive skis that are taller than them differently, which ultimately has an effect on how they ski. I would say if you like the Santa Ana in the 161 cm you should go for it. I agree it’s a little more playful than the Black Pearl 88 and should really help you get into some un-groomed snow conditions and improve your ability.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  29. I totally love these skis. I am 69 plus years old just had second knee replaced. 12 weeks to the day I went out on my new skis and never missed a beat. I’m short so finding my size made me make an instant decision. Ski at a tough area with little grooming so neede all mountain ski. My coach hubbie is full of praise for how Im skiing on the beauties

  30. Hey there!
    I’ve been doing a bit of research into a new all mountain ski as my current Salomon Q-88 Lux’s are getting a bit tired. I am a high intermediate – advanced skier and I love skiing the entire mountain, from groomers to trees and off-piste especially. I am looking for a ski that will perform well North American winters as well as something I can ride all season at my home mountain in Australia where the snow is quite varied. I’m loving the Santa Ana range but was wondering whether the Santa Ana 93 or 100 would be a better choice?

    Thank-you!

    1. Hi Tess!

      It’s definitely a toss up between the two and it is for a lot of people. I’m thinking the 93 will give you a slightly more versatile or appropriate ski for the range of conditions you ski. On firm snow it’s a little quicker edge to edge, and it can certainly still hold its own in deeper snow. How did you like the width of your Q-88s? Jumping up to 100 mm will be a little bit more of an adjustment than going to 93. It’s not like it will feel super wide, but that’s another thing to consider.

      What do you think?

      SE

  31. Hi there,

    I’m really liking the sound of the Nordica Santa Ana 93’s for the type of skiing I enjoy. I’m high intermediate to advanced level, and enjoy the groomers, but look to hop off into the trees and through bumps whenever I can. I ski mostly Australia (Perisher) which can vary a lot in conditions, but is generally a little heavy.

    Just wanting a bit of advice on ski length for this type of ski. I’ve been skiing on 163cm K2 Lottaluvs (2011)… think I’m ready for an upgrade and wanting to try something different to enhance my abilities in different conditions.

    I’m 173cm tall and about 72kg.. not sure weather to go the 161cm or 169cm with the Santa Ana’s.

    Thanks 🙂

    1. Hi Rachel!

      The Santa Ana 93 is a great ski and is going to be really fun for your style of skiing, I agree. Because it has such a different rocker profile than your Lotta Luvs I’d bump up to the 169 cm. They’re known for being relatively forgiving, considering their high performance nature, and usually skiers who are between two sizes are happiest going with the longer of the two.

      Should be a whole lot of fun! They handle that heavier, wet snow really well.

      SE

Comments are closed.