2016-2017 Blizzard Sheeva

While I completely trusted the Sheeva to hold an edge through the completion of a turn, the ski never felt particularly lively or poppy transitioning from carve to carve. That is not to say the Sheeva didn’t feel responsive or capable of getting up on edge, I just never felt the fun rebound out of the turn that the Savory 7 and Pandora seem to generate.

Julia Van Raalte reviews the Blizzard Sheeva, Blister Gear Review
Julia Van Raalte on the Blizzard Sheeva, Alta Ski Area.

Even though I usually prefer a ski closer to 180cm in length, the Sheeva worked well for me in a 172. I was able to make fast, long radius turns on the Sheeva comfortably, but still enjoyed a good amount of maneuverability when the terrain demanded tighter, quick turns. Though it might not have quite the top-end speed limit of a longer ski with more effective edge, the Sheeva can easily execute small, medium, and large radius turns at a range of speeds. And for those who think a 172cm length might be too short, Blizzard will be offering a 179cm Sheeva, too.

Some Additional Comparisons

Since I initially reviewed the Sheeva last spring, I’ve spent time on some other all-mountain skis with similar waist widths. Volkl redesigned the Aura for the 2014-2015 season, giving it a fully rockered profile and a slightly wider, 100mm waist. I put some days on the Aura in New Zealand, as well as the new light and playful Scott Vanisher, which is 106mm underfoot.

The Aura is designed as a more directional, slightly less playful ski than the Sheeva. The Aura’s fully rockered profile is quite subtle, and the ski is actually flat underfoot. The Aura’s tails are much flatter than the Sheeva’s twinned, more heavily rockered tails, and the Aura is reinforced with two sheets of titanium, while the Sheeva has a only a full wood core.

However, despite these differences, the two skis still reminded me a bit of each other. In particular, I found both to handle chop pretty similarly; both provide just enough float to stay on top and power through deep, chopped-up snow without the tips folding or chattering too much. And at the same time, without feeling too heavy or damp, both skis can be driven quite hard through softer variable snow.

In firmer, hardpack conditions, I found I could ski the Aura a little more aggressively than the Sheeva. Occasionally the Sheeva felt unstable when driving it over firm crud, but I was always pretty impressed by how hard I could push the Aura in firmer, more demanding conditions. This isn’t too surprising, considering the Aura is reinforced with two sheets of metal.

I still need to spend some time on the Aura in fresh powder to see how they compare, but I predict the Sheeva’s more heavily rockered tip and tail will allow it to float a little more easily. I think the Aura’s flatter tail will make it a better option on groomers, however, as the Aura seems to provide more rebound through a carve than the Sheeva.

Overall, the Sheeva has a slightly surfier feel, while the Aura feels a bit more stable on hardpack, but I think both do quite well in variable conditions.

The Sheeva feels quite a bit different than the Scott Vanisher, even though they both have a similar camber/rocker profile. The Vanisher is very light and playful, which makes it an excellent, predictable ski in consistent snow. The Sheeva also has a bit of a playful quality to it, but it’s stiffer and a little heavier, so it can be skied much harder than the Vanisher on the whole, especially in variable conditions. If playfulness and a light swing weight is what you’re most interested in, then the Vanisher would be a better choice than the Sheeva.

Bottom Line

The Sheeva isn’t difficult to ski, but it requires a bit more input to maneuver than a light, decidedly forgiving ski like the Savory 7. For those reasons I think the Sheeva would be manageable for intermediate skiers, though advanced and expert ladies are more likely to really enjoy it.

Though it’s more forgiving than the burly, directional Dakota, the Sheeva would be a very good choice for those interested in a more playful, tail-rockered, all-mountain ski that can still be skied hard.


2 comments on “2016-2017 Blizzard Sheeva”

  1. Love your reviews.

    My wife is thinking of buying a twin tipped ski to ski backwards with our daughters and spin around. She also wants to be able to ski in the kids trees area. She kind of wants a park ski – that isn’t a park ski. She also wants a ski that can charge/ski powder the days where she is skiing half the day with our daughter – so she doesn’t actually want a park ski. She comes from a racing background and hates soft skis – I’ve struck out quite severely with a few xmas and birthday gifts over the years. She currently skis a nordica 169 which she absolutely loves and for powder days, she is on a La Niña at 177 cm. twin tipped, but a bit long for skiing with the kids. She actually was on a nemesis 161 and had fun, but found she had a speed limit and is happier on the big mountain on a nemesis 169. The La Niña is on the long side for her but seemed better than the 169 for big powder days.

    We ski out west – big mountain British Columbia in an area that gets dumps. (Fernie)

    She has considered the soul rider, volkl bridge and peacemaker/sheeva. She thinks the sheeva is quite a bit prettier than the peacemaker. She has demoed the peacemaker, but not the bridge or soul rider. Soul rider seems soft for her. Bridge could be an option. She has skied the kiku, loved it, but seemed like quiver overlap with her nemesis and not really a bidirectional twintip.

    She actually demoed the peacemaker 172 last year and loved it – but found it a lot like her nemesis (quiver overlap) and is a bit worried that length is a bit long for tight tree skiing (ie kids tree skiing). My memory was that the 172 peacemaker was a good length to on the long side.

    So 2 questions:

    1). How different is the peacemaker 172 from the sheeva 172? Does the prettier sheeva ski significantly different from the peacemaker?

    2). For regular skiing she would go 172 but is considering 165 for tree skiing, backward skiing, and park skiing. Based on what I’ve written above would 165 be too short or just right for her intentions, with enough length to ski the upper mountain when not with our daughters?

    • Hi JR,

      Thanks for reading!! As for your questions:

      1) The Sheeva and the Peacemaker are exactly the same in respect to dimensions, rocker, and camber profile, but they have a slightly different core. So, the Sheeva has a slightly softer flex than the Peacemaker, but I certainly didn’t find it to be overly soft. And the graphics are much prettier…

      2) What is her height / weight? I didn’t find the Sheeva to be too overwhelming for me in tight trees and chutes. I’m 5’6″ and 125lbs and ski aggressively – so I felt that it was easy for me to make quick turns on the 172 Sheeva, and occasionally would want the 179 in powder and for more open terrain. Still, the 172 could be skied fairly hard. So if your wife is a bit smaller/lighter and/or doesn’t ski as aggressively, she may want to drop down to the 165 for tighter tree skiing (and should still be able to push the ski hard on the upper mountain). However, if she sounds more similar to me, I think she’d be fine on the 172. I hope this helps and let me know if you have any additional questions!


Leave a Comment