2021-2022 Nordica Santa Ana 104 Free

19 comments on “2021-2022 Nordica Santa Ana 104 Free”

1. Would love to get on this ski to see what it’s like firsthand, but kind of bummed to hear it sounds like work. I think the La Nina is a GOAT ski and wish Nordica came back to make a ski more in that vein. I ski front range Colorado and so the more challenging terrain requires the ability to pivot and make quick turns (at least for me). Sheeva 10 has been great in that regard, just wish I went a little longer.

   • Agree! I would definitely recommend firsthand experience on this ski! It was a great ski and I loved skiing it although it was demanding. I am thinking the 165 cm maybe a bit easier for me to pivot and maneuver so hopefully I will be able to A/B at some point and report back in. That said, I do tend to prefer longer skis than what is typical for my height. Even at the 172 cm, this ski was a total blast to ski and even replaced the Line Pandora 104 for my one ski quiver this last fall. Would love to hear your thoughts on it!

     • That’s quite an endorsement then. I’d definitely go for the 158 or 165 as I’m a short person too

2. The tester is 5’1” (155 cm) and skiing a 172 length ski. I would think the 158 cm length would be a more appropriate choice. My impression of the ski based on this review is that it is too demanding… I suspect the review would have been very different if standard height-based ski selection were followed.

   • In my experince, when going down in ski length (i.e something under 165 cm), I have lost a fair amount of stability, making the overall ski feel very different and not as stable as I personally would like. So that said, I prefer to ski a length more in the upper 160 cm in length (and as we noted in the review, I did not have trouble with the 172 cm Rossignol Soul 7, which is similar in weight). The thing I enjoyed most about the Santa Ana 104 Free is it’s stability even though I had to ski it aggressively. The only place I really felt a shorter ski would have been advantageous was in the moguls or tight terrain-but so long as a shorter length wouldn’t give up stability. So I guess the question here is does one really just rely entirely on a standardized ski length chart based on height, or does skier preference and style play a larger role? As I mentioned in The Bottom Line, we are planning on adding additional perspectives form other reviewers so stay tuned to see what they say about this ski.

3. Pretty crazy you skied a ski 7 inches taller than you in fairly wide width. Not surprising at all it was not playful for you. Even the 158 would be taller than you. Of course with tail rocker they ski shorter but your light weight would make even the 165 more work. Hard to take a lot out of this since the skis were way too long no matter how good a skier you are. Would be nice to know what some of the other Blister gals think of this ski. Have been waiting a long time for a thorough review of this ski and its kind of disappointing. BTW I know you have to ski the length they send but it would have been nice to have the right length.

   • See above comment. As above, I am really excited to see what the other reviewers think and hope that can offer some more information for you so we can see how much length/width plays a role in how this ski performs.

4. Peter this comment is very unnecessary. The reviewer noted that the pair she was on was probably one size too big.
   But who are you to recommend ski lengths for others as it’s up to personal preference and ability, neither of which you would be familiar with for this reviewer.

   • I am but a humble consumer of ski-related gear who spends his hard-earned money on a Blister membership in order to read reviews and make informed purchasing decisions. All reviews are subjective, but the more generalizable the results, the more useful the information to a potential consumer. I simply pointed out that the decision to review a ski two lengths above what an average consumer would ski makes the review less generalizable.

     To Jon: most ski manufactures use height and skill levels to generate recommendations for ski length selection. I agree, who am I to recommend anything? Feel free to ski on whatever length you fancy, but the reviewer was on two lengths too big per Nordica’s recommendation (https://www.nordica.com/themes/Nordica19/downloads/nordica-adult-sizer.pdf).

5. Hey Sascha, how would you rate this against the K2 Mindbender 98ti? Commenting on behalf of my wife (Stacy) here. She’s 5’5″ 140lb. Currently riding the MB 98ti 161cm out here in the front range CO. She likes everything about the ski in terms of weight, flex, edgehold, powder performance, etc. But is finding that it’s letting her down in stability now that she’s charging harder down steeps (in particular East wall – A Basin and our most recent trip to Alta/Bird). I’m thinking the 168cm Mindbender would be much better for her than the 161cm that she has, but she’s also eyeing the 172 Santa Ana 104 Free. She doesn’t like a super stiff ski (but doesn’t want a noodle either – i.e. something like the Icelantic Maiden 101s she used to have). Her biggest worry would be that she’d have to be holding much more speed to get the 104 Free to “come alive”. However, given the 40 odd lbs and extra few inches she has over you, I think that might even it out a bit vs your experience with this ski? Thoughts?

6. Ski Length, Height, Weight, terrain and mount point:

   I thought I would add some comments in regards to ski length selection in regards to height and weight of the athlete.

   Certainly length selection is also a matter of personal preference of the type of performance an athlete desires out of the ski ,,,,, as well as skill set, skiing style used, muscle density and fitness and strength. These considerations are inconveniently complex but nevertheless require consideration when evaluating reviews and considering ones own selection.

   For ski companies providing length recommendations based on height, it is obviously an over simplification of the selection process. The Blister Review process is one of the best I have seen at maintaining an authentic reporting process without inflicting bias.

   However, I think it is important to maintain the perspective of the physical nature of the testers and the style of skiing they employ. For example, would a 5’ 7” 145 lb female with racing background that likes to charge faster lines find the Santa Ana 104 in 172 lacking in playfulness? Unlikely, and may much prefer the 179, and still find it light and playful, and the other skis mentioned lacking in stability.

   Despite whatever the physical specifications are of the athlete, the mountain remains the same size in moguls ruts tree spacing chutes etc, and as such ski length that needs to span over the ruggedness of terrain can only go so short before it simply is giving away stability inflicted upon it by terrain, so despite height and weight of an athlete, going shorter in ski length is not always a solution for playfulness as at a certain point a shorter ski cannot span the variance in terrain shape and the ski is deflected by the terrain rather than directed by the skier.

   Fortunately the ski industry has a plethora of product so whether you are a shorter powerful adult skier or an unusually tall light skier there are excellent products to be found that will provide excellent results to your unique physical form and desires, the trick of course is the selection for yourself abd the terrain and conditions you ski

7. Hi Sascha!

   I’m on the hunt to find a better daily driver that suits my sweet spot. For reference I’m 5”7, 165 lbs and ski in the Pacific Northwest most days. My 100 underfoot daily driver is the Salomon Rocker2 100 178. I first got this ski used in spring last year and loved it because I mostly skied steeps and slushy groomers. The rocker2 is a Slush machine and I enjoy it so much in those conditions. It’s also the most stable ski I own and has gotten me comfortable asking high speeds.

   This season that ski has really humbled me once I tried in soft snow and tight terrain. I have it mounted more center and I find that the amount of effective edge in the tail has punished me too many times, especially when I like to take more short and responsive turns. The ski demands to be driven very forward at all times, but in the soft snow I’m very fearful of nose diving. I’m a more than competent, aggressive skier, but the rocker2 shook a lot of my confidence out of me.

   However, as soon as I switch to my softer daily driver (the armada zero stranger 172) I immediately wish I had a more stable ski when I’m off piste or in crud/shop (which is where I ski most). I’m just a sucker for this ski cause I like to have fun a play around as much as I like to bust through chop. I know the rocker2 100 is no longer made and I am not sure if you have had any experience on that ski or the rockette, but would you recommend the Santa Ana 104 free for a replacement? If so, based on my experience with the rocker2 100, would you recommend the 178 or 172? I’d love to flex these two skis side by side to see how they compare.

8. And to all the dudes here commenting about the ski size compared to the reviewer size, sit down and lower your voices. Engage in reviews that pertain to you instead of telling women (who probably know more than you) they don’t know how skis work. Ty!

9. Hi! Thanks for the review! I was wondering if you have any idea about performance of this ski for men? I’m 5’10, 155 lbs. I’ve tried Enforcer 104 free and overall liked it. However, would prefer something more playful and lighter. Fischer Ranger 102 fr sounds like perfect fit to me but I cannot get it where I live. Thanks for your time!

10. Hi! Your review validated my demo experience on the 104s – I definitely felt like I had to be fully present and when I was they gave me so much energy. The 98s in comparison didn’t need as much work to get the same feedback (but less playful and felt super stable overall). I ended up getting the 104s (I’m 5’4, got the 165cm) to complement my BP 88s (2016) which are much lighter and nimble.
    I do think the weight information presented might be incorrect – Nordica says the 98s are lighter than the 104s – unless they’re sharing misleading info. The 104s are likely lighter than past years’ 100s with more metal. This is what Nordica stated (although not sure what length this is for)
    SA 104: 4.25 KG per pair without bindings
    SA 98: 3.68 KG per pair without bindings.

11. Great review Sascha! One of our daugthers is similar height as you and we had been wondering about this ski, so it’s good to get your take on it. She is not skiing at your level so would definitely go 165.

12. Great review!! Hate to be the typo police, but you’ve got Kara Williard’s weight listed as 75 g in multiple places… making her the world’s lightest adult human at 0.165 lbs.

13. First of all to you who think Sascha skied to long skis for her size, you can just read Karas review.
    @Sascha I am thinking of buying this to my daughter soon 18 years old 158cm/52kg, pretty strong legs (figure skater) skied since she was 3 years old and pretty advanced skier
    She skis völkl Kanjo now in 154cm, skis quite fast and pretty straight lines. But she likes going off pist and in tight terrain/trees (Moste skiing in Scandinavia)
    Latest seasons she most did snowboarding though (freeride/allmountain)
    From your experience and your weight and level on the 172cm ski length, would you recomend158cm or 165cm for the her?
    Or would you say the Sheeva 10 would be a better choice maybe?

14. I am a man, around 76 kg. I have no clue about skis. Can I ride these skis or is there a big difference the way they behave? Too soft or what else should I consider? I can get them for a good price that is why I ask. Thank you and sorry for a dumb question :)