• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Nordica Santa Ana 100 v Nordica Santa Ana 98

surfsnowgirl

Instructor
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2016
Posts
5,679
Location
Magic Mountain, Vermont
If there's a comparision on here and I missed it please let me know and this thread can be deleted.

I have a pair of Nordica Santa 100. They are likely 3 or so years old. I've had good days on them but the last couple of times I've taken them out they felt heavy to me. This could just be me having an off day. They have demo bindings on them. I am one who doesn't normally care if a ski has demo bindings or not. Other skis were demo skis so the bindings don't normally bother me.

Not getting rid of my santa anas but do have thoughts of selling them and picking up a pair of 98s instead. Other option is to swap out the demo bindings.

When I had the SA 100's out last time and they felt heavy that got me thinking about the 98s. Are they lighter, what is the construction differences. I do like a ski with metal but was just curious how the 98 compared.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,106
Location
Reno
I'd have to check the actual weight differences but I do know that they changed the metal and the 98 is a bit more responsive. I didn't necessarily find the 100 to be sluggish, but it is more so than the newer version of the SA
 
Thread Starter
TS
surfsnowgirl

surfsnowgirl

Instructor
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2016
Posts
5,679
Location
Magic Mountain, Vermont
I'd have to check the actual weight differences but I do know that they changed the metal and the 98 is a bit more responsive. I didn't necessarily find the 100 to be sluggish, but it is more so than the newer version of the SA

Thanks. No rush. Hope you guys are having a good weekend at the ski expo.
 

Lauren

AKA elemmac
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Posts
2,561
Location
The Granite State
When I had the SA 100's out last time and they felt heavy that got me thinking about the 98s. Are they lighter, what is the construction differences. I do like a ski with metal but was just curious how the 98 compared.
I’ve owned two versions of the Santa Ana 100, both in 169, a version with no Titanal (when it was just the Santa Ana, before Nordica made multiple width options), and the year that they made it with two sheets of Titanal (only made it this way for 1 year). I’ve demoed the 98 in a 172.

My initial opinion was that it’s not as lively and maneuverable as its predecessor (especially in bumps). The 98 has more camber…making it more versatile for groomers while keeping a soft-snow bias. The 98 also has more rise in the tip, which makes it better than the 100 in fresh snow. I’ve always been a bit annoyed by the lack of float in the 100…great for light, fluffy snow but a struggle to keep the tips up in heavy, wet stuff.

As for weight…I would guess that they’re similar based on how they feel on snow. But unsure on actual measured weight.

I will note that I wish I tried the 166 as well. I always felt like the 169 was my perfect size, so wasn’t sure if I should go up to the 172, or down to the 166…I think the 166 would have probably been closer. For a reference, I ski most other “freeride” style skis in a 170 +/-.
 
Thread Starter
TS
surfsnowgirl

surfsnowgirl

Instructor
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2016
Posts
5,679
Location
Magic Mountain, Vermont
I’ve owned two versions of the Santa Ana 100, both in 169, a version with no Titanal (when it was just the Santa Ana, before Nordica made multiple width options), and the year that they made it with two sheets of Titanal (only made it this way for 1 year). I’ve demoed the 98 in a 172.

My initial opinion was that it’s not as lively and maneuverable as its predecessor (especially in bumps). The 98 has more camber…making it more versatile for groomers while keeping a soft-snow bias. The 98 also has more rise in the tip, which makes it better than the 100 in fresh snow. I’ve always been a bit annoyed by the lack of float in the 100…great for light, fluffy snow but a struggle to keep the tips up in heavy, wet stuff.

As for weight…I would guess that they’re similar based on how they feel on snow. But unsure on actual measured weight.

I will note that I wish I tried the 166 as well. I always felt like the 169 was my perfect size, so wasn’t sure if I should go up to the 172, or down to the 166…I think the 166 would have probably been closer. For a reference, I ski most other “freeride” style skis in a 170 +/-.

Thank you.

When I first got these I had them out in light and fluffy snow and soft packed powder and I had so much fun. High stoke factor.

Another day a few weeks later I took them out and the conditions were heavy wet snow. I was expecting the same fun as the soft and fluffy snow day and that wasn't the case.

Your explanation was super helpful.
 
Last edited:

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,343
Location
Maine
When I first got these I had them out in light and fluffy snow and soft packed powder and I had so much fun. High stoke factor.

Another day a few weeks later I took turn out and the conditions were heavy wet snow. I was expecting the same fun as the soft and fluffy snow day and that wasn't the case.
Well yeah. The problem may have been your expectations as much as the ski.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top