Black Pearl 88 vs Santa Ana 88 (Shorter Lengths)

[Delicious]

I feel this ski needs to be skied in a tall stance, and many times I find myself wanting to mount it behind center as the tip contact point seems too far back off the snow until the ski is engaged on edge in a carve.
Hope this was helpful.

VERY interesting. We did that EXACT thing with my wife's Santa Ana 93. -2cm. The stock mount-point is an obvious miscalculation. Totally neuters an otherwise friendly and capable ski.

 

[cc1]

VERY interesting. We did that EXACT thing with my wife's Santa Ana 93. -2cm. The stock mount-point is an obvious miscalculation. Totally neuters an otherwise friendly and capable ski.

Do you feel the -2cm back from center effected how the ski exits the turn?

I find myself unweighting to get that tail to get free and not track....I think the ski could use a bit more release, just a hair more with maybe more rocker or more even flex out the back.

Also there's a weird feel to it under foot when on steep, ice terrain, like the center of the ski is not gripping the snow, most likely a flex issue.

 

[AmyPJ]

^^ I don’t think the stiffness of the tail causes the SA 88 to “wash out” of turns. I think the shape of the tail allows it to do so, which is what makes it fairly easy going in crud.

 

[Delicious]

Do you feel the -2cm back from center effected how the ski exits the turn?

Yes! In reference to our 93, the tail felt more snappy and useful on turn exit. The remount turned a friendly, but unnatural feeling ski, into a balanced and intuitive ride.

 

[AlexisLD]

Do you feel the -2cm back from center effected how the ski exits the turn?

I find myself unweighting to get that tail to get free and not track....I think the ski could use a bit more release, just a hair more with maybe more rocker or more even flex out the back.

Also there's a weird feel to it under foot when on steep, ice terrain, like the center of the ski is not gripping the snow, most likely a flex issue.

@cc1, you can kind of see all that in the graphs I posted. The effective length (the part of the ski that touches the snow) of the Santa Ana is much shorter than the Black Pearl. The SA has quite a bit of front rocker which makes the front part 5-7 cm shorter than the BP. Mounting it 2cm backward will balance things back, but maybe it defeat the point of having the rocker...

The SA also has some tail taper, which is probably is what makes it wash out sometimes. I am not sure changing the mount point will change that. On harder snow, the end part of the tail will barely brush the snow...

And when you say that you need to "unweight your skis to get the tail to get free and not track", that is usually a feeling that we associate with the ski torsional stiffness which is quite high in that case (2x torsionally stiffer at the end of the tail when compared to the Astral or BP).

 

[SSSdave]

Thanks @AlexisLD for your graphs and explanations. Information about subtle differences in those similar skis I would otherwise not understand since I have no experience on any of them. I do like to ski bumps softly bouncing centered from one bump to the next landing with pressure on edges that helps grip and control in packed powder and that shows in the SA 88's tip to tail flex pattern.

 

[AlexisLD]

Thanks @AlexisLD for your graphs and explanations. Information about subtle differences in those similar skis I would otherwise not understand since I have no experience on any of them. I do like to ski bumps softly bouncing centered from one bump to the next landing with pressure on edges that helps grip and control in packed powder and that shows in the SA 88's tip to tail flex pattern.

Glad you like it. We are really trying to help and understand what each parameter of a ski does what. It is not always a straightforward (i.e., not as simple as x does y) and it gets complicated when many parameters are just slightly different between two models. However, for many comparaisons, the differences between the skis are often large and/or mostly involving only one parameter. When you think about it, when you shop for a ski you will generally compare geometries that are quite similar just given the nature of what you are looking for. For similar geometries, a lot of the differences in on-snow feels can be explained with mass as well as bending and torsional stiffness.

It is great to have these discussions. It is by looking at these curves and comparing with the on-snow feels that we will be able to figure out what does what, and maybe why/how it does that, ... We are starting to have a good feel for it, but there are still things to figure out.

 

[SSSdave]

In my style of recreational mogul skiing that is not unlike those of some other older recreational mogul skiers everywhere in The West where packed powder snow exists in most of its cold drier range of forms, the goal at least a fair amount of skiing time for many I'll suggest is...visceral fun. And conversely not so much about accomplishment of some technical goal or challenge. Ski for FUN. Old hard core bump skiers are much more likely to eventually plant their roots in colder drier packed powder slopes because the visceral enjoyment is significantly better for what I mention below.

With bump skiing that is maxing about a feeling of intense manic perceptual visceral awareness flow the bump skier gets so excited performing semi rhythmically rebounding on one's flexible with the rebound product of skiing platform/edges plus elastic body mass forces. Especially when one can do so confidently from turn to turn that has built over myriad turns over years, decades every winter, via neural plasticity into a neuromuscular and control neural system. With bump skiing is an especially developed visual occipital cortex that have built structure to control muscles fed back by visceral senses. Yeah that worm/fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal/primate creature of we bilateral bodies with a central elongated body with a segmented neural spinal cord, 4 limbs, head with brain and tail with !@#$, DNA organic entities. For my 5'6" 135# slender body size on the 165cm Santa Ana 88's it is a tool I've learned the balanced flex pattern for launching and jumping onto the predictable flex center on to provide in less exertive effort, less rowdy turn to turn, skiing long fall lines. Yes sometimes very energetic gymnastic ways of twisting my worm but then I can shift to lower gears to regain moment to moment strength because my toolbox is old and developed.

California/Nevada - Little Dipper bumps at Heavenly

I'll offer this unusual thread with images about a single run at a single resort given my SV hi tech and photography background with more information than you will likely want to know haha. Oh I know so many of you just love bumps slopes haha. This is what I've been skiing lately given the...

www.skitalk.com

So at that level, the most enjoyable visceral style for many of we old skiers is a less rowdy, confident, flow down, making it a successful style to have fun. For some that is rigidly in the what some think is the trough. Definitely often true for the comp mogul skier. Someone like this rec bump person once locked in, I may turn in multiple places because speed is within one's visual range of automatically reacting correctly fast enough to with a kind of seated balanced upper body orientation countered centered bouncing down force on the Santa Ana flex pattern. The person that has not yet spent the time building up their internal neuromuscular system to react so in bumps cannot perform so by instruction alone but rather dues must also be paid in experiential time. It takes turns, a lot of turns and time for organic structures to build in their incredible ways and that journey ought be fun above anything else .

 

[AlexisLD]

In my style of recreational mogul skiing that is not unlike those of some other older recreational mogul skiers everywhere in The West where packed powder snow exists in most of its cold drier range of forms, [...]

I miss skiing bumps year long in Tahoe!

Bump skis are really interesting. There seems to be at least to completely opposite preferences. Many seems to prefer soft flexing ski so that they don't get thrown away, with a soft torsional stiffness so that the ski doesn't catch an edge too easily and is easy/faster to release. That seems ideal for a more "relaxed" ride.

We talked a bunch with Jean-Luc Brassard (ex-olympic bump skier). He prefers a stiff flexing ski to provide a landing platform and so that he is pushed off each bump to accelerate toward the finish line. I am getting the impression that this is also what you are looking for.

I am still a little surprised that you like a relatively torsionally stiff ski like the Santa Ana when skiing in bumps. Is there a reason you like that? Have you tried something softer in torsion? Maybe it doesn't matters too much given the SA tip/tail rocker and taper (i.e., less hooky), the fact that you can find soft bumps (in Qc, we have ice bumps most of the season) and that you have finely tuned neuromuscular system!

 

[SSSdave]

Before the SA 88's, skied on 2011 Dynastar Twister classic bump skis at 168cm with 65mm at the boot that evolved from the more competition oriented Assaults. At the time, they were the top recreational bump ski in the Rockies, especially Maryjane. Softer than a comp mogul ski,so it doesn't jet one out of turns that is key for faster speed points in competition. The tail does allow flat sliding troughs while the flex pattern is noticeably less able to provide a centered rebound versus the SA 88's.

With the SA 88's, I quickly found a bit more centered edged approach to making turns in packed powder bumps that for this person allows an even more relaxed bump style. The SA 88's is also a more enjoyable, better tool on groomed slopes for all manner of turns. I don't yet have any videos of my skiing though am hoping there is still enough time during this season to work with someone else so. In the mean time...

This is a South Lake Tahoe local acquaintance, also a senior, that gets in a few runs each day and is more consistent, smoother than myself with a bit different relaxed style since he is tall, that also skis long lines since he is so efficient.

 

[johnnyvw]

To the OP, FWIW my wife has the Blizzard "Samba" skis (older version of the wider Black Pearls), which she loves and does all her skiing on. She's a terminal intermediate at this point, and only skis in the late winter/early spring as she can't stand cold weather anymore. She's always been active physically, but time and age have thrown some stumbling blocks in her way of staying active on a consistent basis. So if your wife is looking for a ski to handle ungroomed/chopped up snow, take a look at the older wide Black Pearl (I think I've read the newer ones have been re-engineered to be more oriented to expert skiers)

 

[cc1]

@cc1, you can kind of see all that in the graphs I posted. The effective length (the part of the ski that touches the snow) of the Santa Ana is much shorter than the Black Pearl. The SA has quite a bit of front rocker which makes the front part 5-7 cm shorter than the BP. Mounting it 2cm backward will balance things back, but maybe it defeat the point of having the rocker...

The SA also has some tail taper, which is probably is what makes it wash out sometimes. I am not sure changing the mount point will change that. On harder snow, the end part of the tail will barely brush the snow...

And when you say that you need to "unweight your skis to get the tail to get free and not track", that is usually a feeling that we associate with the ski torsional stiffness which is quite high in that case (2x torsionally stiffer at the end of the tail when compared to the Astral or BP).

I think I was misunderstood when discussing the tail of the SA.

The SA tail does not wash out-----what it does is track and not release, probably due to shape and stiffness, and not enough tail rocker. This causes me to slightly exaggerate an unweighting movement to help get that tail to release.
I would prefer if the ski flex and design helped and not me having to accomodate.

The SA overall has a good blend of what the average intermediate women skier needs. I am a rare exception in that I will be skiing this ski at top speeds on groomed terrain but I do not want an Enforcer 88 with thicker metal sheets, I prefer the versatility the SA offers so that I can do that mogul run, or jump into the tracked out woods.


As for the BP, that may be something to try...

 

[AmyPJ]

I think I was misunderstood when discussing the tail of the SA.

The SA tail does not wash out-----what it does is track and not release, probably due to shape and stiffness, and not enough tail rocker. This causes me to slightly exaggerate an unweighting movement to help get that tail to release.
I would prefer if the ski flex and design helped and not me having to accomodate.

The SA overall has a good blend of what the average intermediate women skier needs. I am a rare exception in that I will be skiing this ski at top speeds on groomed terrain but I do not want an Enforcer 88 with thicker metal sheets, I prefer the versatility the SA offers so that I can do that mogul run, or jump into the tracked out woods.


As for the BP, that may be something to try...

Do your SAs perhaps need a tune?

 

[AlexisLD]

The SA tail does not wash out-----what it does is track and not release, probably due to shape and stiffness, and not enough tail rocker. This causes me to slightly exaggerate an unweighting movement to help get that tail to release.
I would prefer if the ski flex and design helped and not me having to accomodate.

Do you make a difference between "wash out" and "track out of the turn"?

You saying that the ski does not wash out and having to exaggerate the unweighting movement makes more sense in term of how we normally think about torsional stiffness (i.e., for a comparable geometry). You should be looking for a lower torsional stiffness if you want to avoid that feeling.

 

[cc1]

Do you make a difference between "wash out" and "track out of the turn"?

You saying that the ski does not wash out and having to exaggerate the unweighting movement makes more sense in term of how we normally think about torsional stiffness (i.e., for a comparable geometry). You should be looking for a lower torsional stiffness if you want to avoid that feeling.

I have always preferred torsionally stiff ski that flexes longitudinally but this is when waist widths were 66 ish not 88 ish.

I find the SA has a tail that does not want to release, it likes to enter the turn fairly well when laid over on edge but it doesn't like to release you out of the turn.

My skis are tuned proper, I tune them every 2 days. The particular pair I have were railed so they needed a slight run of the flat file down the bottom of the ski and now the tune is good. It's an issue of ski design, what makes it good makes it bad and vice versa.

I guess the biggest peeve I have is the tail and the feeling of needing the ski mounted behind center.

Do you have more graphs of other skis?

 

[SSSdave]

9 straight runs down Little Dipper bumps with long fall lines, today with my 2020 SA 88's overwhelmingly on edges during most turns. With my body now at mid season bump form and strength, am making a lot more powerful turns when I choose to. Great tool for my style of turning.

 

[AlexisLD]

Do you have more graphs of other skis?

We have 2000 skis in our database. Just ask and I will see what I can do!

 

[Pequenita]

She is 5' tall and I won't put her weight on here, but she is very athletic.

I'm just going to throw it out there, as someone who is 5' tall, that at our size there's a huge difference between someone who is 95 lbs and 115 lbs, both of which are perfectly healthy, but I wouldn't put them on the same length ski. The 144 Astral would be a better tool for the 95lb skier than a 115lb skier. Scanning the options you're considering and her preference for a shorter ski, low 150s would probably work.

 

[Aquila]

@Miller I don't have the shorter length that you need in our database at Sooth Ski. However, I can compare these skis in 158 cm length. Be careful though, not all skis compagnies scale down skis the same ways.

Here is our measurements:

View attachment 124665

If you look at the first graph, representing a side view of the ski, you will see that the Santa Ana will ski slightly shorter (it has a little bit more rocker) than both Astral. The Black Pearl has much less rocker than both of these skis. It will ski 5 ish cm longer than the other two models. Tails and camber shapes are pretty close to each other.

Second graph is a top view of these skis. They have similar sidecut and tail. However, the tip of the Black Pearl is larger and will keep engaging as you edge the ski more and more.

Third graph is the bending stiffness. This is not the deflection, but the stiffness at each position along the length of the ski. Note that the SA is stiffer in the tip and tail (tip is stiffer by 60%, which is quite a lot). This mean that it will be more stable at higher speed (more tip/tail pressure). The ski will feel more stable and engaged. It will also provide more pop at the end of a turn or a trampoline effect in moguls. All of these are desirable for good/expert skier who can manage that and have enough leg motion to release the pressure at will. The BP has a stiff tip too, but the tail is as soft as the Astral.

Fourth graph is the torsional stiffness (i.e., how much the tip/tail will twist in use). Again, the SA is stiffer, everywhere, but mostly in the tip and tail (tail is about 100% stiffer, and the center section is 50% stiffer). Torsional stiffness is what give you edge grip on ice and a better vibration response. It makes for a precise ski that is harder to release. Again, great for expert/precise skier, but not ideal for intermediate or park/mogul skiers. High torsional stiffness will make your ski catch-and-go in 3D snow and you need to be able to deal with it, a little bit like a ski that is too sharp. Low torsional stiffness will make for a playful and forgiving ski. Again, the BP is as stiff in the tip, but as soft as the Astral in the tail.

Interestingly, the Astral Ti and CA are one of the rare exemple of a Ti ski that is softer in both bending and torsional stiffness than its CA construction. The Ti is also lighter. Typically, it is the other way around and the .

You can look at the manufacturers' websites, but the BP and SA are skis that are recommended for advanced/expert skiers. The Astral is marketed toward intermediate skier. I think I would look for a wider ski closer to the Astral in stiffness. Larger helps to build confidence in 3D snow by floating on top. Longer helps also with float, but longer skis are often stiffer and are harder to turn due to their length (in moguls and trees, but also on piste).

You can try this website to figure out suitable length without telling us her weight! https://www.powder7.com/downhill-ski-size-chart/sizing-guide

And it shouldn't be hard to demo any of these skis. That is always the best option. Try to find a day with 3D snow.

Hope this helps!

This is super interesting data! Do you have anything on the 2021 Santa Ana 88 vs 2021 Santa Ana 93? I demoed the 93 a while ago, loved it, have spied some deals on the 88, and wondering if I'd get a similar feeling out of it.

 

[AlexisLD]

This is super interesting data! Do you have anything on the 2021 Santa Ana 88 vs 2021 Santa Ana 93? I demoed the 93 a while ago, loved it, have spied some deals on the 88, and wondering if I'd get a similar feeling out of it.

There you go!

Beside being wider, they are almost identical skis. I zoomed on the sidecut (i.e., on only one side) to better see the [almost non-existant] differences. The longer lengths have more tip/tail taper. Sidecut radius is almost identical underfoot.

You can notice that the SA 93 stiffnesses scales a little bit more with length (the 165 is about 15-20% stiffer than the 158) than the SA88. Be careful, this might not be true for different lengths. It is very specific to a model/length and sometime happens in "step function" for some lengths.

The weights are also a bit different, although the surface-to-mass ratio are almost all identical (not listed on the graphs). This suggest very similar laminate and that the weight differences comes mostly from the wider area of the 93s.