(hover to zoom, click to enlarge)

La Sportiva Vapor Nano Ski

Brand: La Sportiva
Model: Vapor Nano
Shipping: FREE*
Availability: In Stock
Price: $1199.95 $699.94
    - or add to package
* Ski Length:
Qty:  
 - OR - 

Nanotubes! Now in skis! La Sportiva has raised the bar significantly with the jump in technology found in the new Vapor Nano ski. We are so impressed we made it our first ski wider than 100mm underfoot!

A pre-preg resin matrix reinforced with carbon nanotubes (the strongest and stiffest fibers yet discovered) allows for a revolutionary weight to surface area. The skis are literally cooked until they harden into powder blasting weapons. Weapons that will fire for a long time; the nanotube hardening process ensures the ski will retain the same flex and rebound over time, unlike skis with wood cores that are susceptible to deadening.

The Nanos feature an insatiable rocker evolved from the five series of skis (Hi5, Lo5, Hang5). Also evolved is the positive camber underfoot and easy turning 20.5m radius [180cm]. When combined with the crazy weight, it’s almost as if the skiing is being done for you since your legs won’t tire. If you’re looking to lap powder over and over for years to come, think Vapo Nano from La Sportiva.

  • Carbon nanotube construction is state of the art American technology; made in the U.S.A.
  • The torsional stiffness of the ski is unmatched in category due to the materials and process.
  • Downright silly weight of 1215 grams (2lbs 13oz) for a 103mm waisted ski.
  • Manufactured for a long lifespan, with no wood core to break or deaden.
  • Very hard and durable P-Tex 6000 bases will help keep the rocks away from your nanotubes.
  • Typical La Sportiva flat notched tail for cutting blocks and tip/tail holes for building anchors & sleds.
  • Matching skins available.

PLEASE NOTE: When mounting bindings on this ski, you may need to shorten the screws since the ski is so thin. This is especially true with the shorter lengths. Epoxy is recommended.

Specifications
Lengths (cm) 164, 172, 180, 188
Weight
-> ounces
1140g [164]
1180g [172]
1245g [180]
1325g [188]
Weight (pair) 2280g [164]
2360g [172]
2490g [180]
2650g [188]
Dimensions 129-103-120 [164]
129-103-120 [172]
130-103-120 [180]
130-103-120 [188]
Turn Radius 17m [164]
19m [172]
21m [180]
23m [188]
Skin Fix Z-Clip tip and tail holes, flat notched tail
Specs Verified Yes
Design
Profile Generous tip rocker, camber underfoot, gentle tail rocker
Shape Spoon tip, medium radius, flat tail
Construction Revolutionary carbon nanotube process
Core Kevlar weave composite
Skimo Co Says
Usage Powder, powder, & more powder
Notes State of the art manufacturing in the USA
Bottom Line Mind blowing weight for a powder plank
2/25/2018
by Becky (used product a few times)
 
I recently began skiing the Vapors and while I can tell just how fun they are in pretty much any condition, I am frustrated by how much I get thrown forward. Is this just something I need to suck up and get used to?
I am 5'4" skiing the 172cm (Scarpa Gea RS boots), I had these skis mounted with Solomon tech bindings which are centered on the mounting marks... I have seen in the comments above, that some people were given advice to move their bindings back. Would this be a suggestion for me? I am nervous to drill more holes into my ski, which probably sounds funny but I have never had carbon skis before. In fact, on the first day, I torn a small chunk out of the front of one of my skis, it looks to be just cosmetic, but that was a bummer, and evidence that these skis are a bit more fragile, maybe(?). Thanks for your help.
2/26/2018
Reply from jbo
 
Hi Becky, a number of things could be going on. What bindings do you have? Were the mounting marks checked against the actual mounting location (they are part of the topsheet so not reliable)? Extra holes in this ski aren't awesome (but not because of carbon). I'd reach out to help@skimo.co to help diagnose your particular situation.
Comment on this review:

1/10/2018
by Pete (used product a few times)
 
I've been skiing these for a few months now with edited RC1 gignoux bindings, and TLT5 Performances. These paired together creates an almost laughably lightweight powder setup. Ski and binding combination comes in at 1295 grams a piece. These shred powder, powder laps are exactly what this ski was designed for.

Breakable, ice, and other variable conditions are where these skis are lacking, part of my hesitation to push these skis on variable conditions may stem from my choice of bindings, but in my experience I wouldn't push these hard on anything but powder. They are also an extremely loud ski, which sounds odd, but on anything other than soft they chatter so loudly I want earplugs.
Comment on this review:

12/17/2016
by jake (downright abused product)
 
Me: 5'9 170lbs. Aggressive skier with extensive background on 130flex alpine boots and heavy metal skis/high din bindings. Suffice it to say I am used to driving skis hard.

Used a pair of 180 Nanos for 20 plus days and really liked the ski. As would be obvious going uphill was a revelation. Even riding a lift with these on my feet at a resort demo was a surreal experience. The low swing weight made these skis so much fun in tight trees or little chutes where it felt like I could just flick my hips and both skis came around instantaneously. But with the forward mounting location and the fact that the skis do ski very short I found myself plowing under any snow more than 6" deep. I didn't want to mount a 180 further back cause I didn't want to lose tail power on a ski that already skied short. So I made the call for a pair of 188cm.

The 188s are a truly strong ski. The extra length and edge provided a HUGE boost in performance at speed, providing a bit of a longer radius feel, but without losing very much of that quick pivot/swing that make these skis really unique. The extra length provided a good bit of extra float, and I never felt bogged down except on the absolute deepest days.

As for materials and durability that is a bit more nuanced. The bases and edges are top notch. The factory structure is as good as I have seen out of the packaging. These things hold wax very well and can take some abuse. Downsides on durability are that the mostly hollow core (vertically stacked kevlar honeycomb) means that if you take a hard impact on the base you may not "core shot" but you'll sort of dent the base a little. So it's easy to take your base out of flat (even mounting can do this a little, I had small concavities under my screws) if that is something that matters to you at all. The topsheet is not very durable. Granted it is mostly cosmetic, but it is pretty easy to chip and scratch the topsheet. I somehow managed to put a small hole in mine that I needed to fill up with epoxy.

I put a good 80+ days on mine over 2 seasons (skied with TLT6P and Vertical FT12) before passing them on to new home. These are being replaced by a new pair of 189cm Vapor Floats!


NOTE TO SPORTIVA:
Please, space your ski widths a little better. Sveltes, Nanos, and (I hope) Floats are awesome. But with the Svelte at 96mm, and the Float at 117mm, the Nano really should be 106-107mm. If it was I would not be going to the wider Float (which will really be a lot wider than I need and will reduce my total days on the ski as I will opt for my 95-100mm on anything sub 12".
Comment on this review:

3/25/2016
by Jonathan S (used product a few times)
 
Overall: Five Stars for an amazing expanse of width for its weight (or rather, lack thereof) with downhill performance in soft snow just as excellent as would be expected from its dimensions in all regards. But definitely not even close to a quiver-of-one (even if your narrower skis for firmer conditions might save hardly any weight over the Nano). Also Five Stars for Skimo Co’s free mounting, as DIY’ers are in for some extra challenge.

Background on product familiarity: I’ve used the 2014-15 version for just a single outing so far. (Yes, our 2015-16 New England “winter” was almost that bad, although with hindsight I should have used the Nano for several other fleeting powder days.) I mounted the 172cm length with Plum Race 145 bindings for Dynafit RC1 boots (size 26). Closest ski I have is the Dynafit Denali (168cm).

First, the first impressions out of the box: Width, weight, rocker – even just checking out this ski off snow creates quite the first impression!
Mounting entails some challenges. The suggested mounting position is so far in front of any other ski in my quiver. My version had four additional mounting marks for +/- 1 or 2cm. I went a full 2cm back, especially given how short my race boot bsl is relative to my foot size (i.e., my foot is much further forward on the ski than it would be with even a lightweight touring boot).

And in the shorter sizes, you need to drill with a shorter junior mounting bit and grind down all your screws by a couple mm. La Sportiva also recommends a somewhat obscure epoxy, although I used my favorite G/flex 650. Still though, with all these caveats, mounting was (eventually) fine.

Second impressions, in use: Delightful float and general skiability in powder, even more so for the lack of weight on the up. I also survived okay through some necessary jump turns in tightly treed skied-off very steep terrain. So any sort of decent winter backcountry conditions, sure.

Springtime though, or even just difficult winter ski mountaineering, the Nano is not for that kind of versatility, despite a weight spec light enough for anything other than racing. Returning back to the resort via an end-of-the-day scraped-off moderately pitched groomer was a borderline ordeal. Truly steep backcountry terrain covered in all sorts of oddly frozen substances would most likely be an epic in a really bad sense.

Third impressions, for long-term durability: Insufficient basis for far for that.
7/23/2016
Reply from Nate
 
I can't find anything online about these skis needing a specialty bit and screw length for these. JBo can you comment? Is mounting these going to be any different from backcountry skis I've done in the past? Thanks for the help!
7/23/2016
Reply from jbo
 
Hi Nate, the two shorter lengths (164 & 172) call for a 7.5mm drill bit, a couple mm shallower than most adult alpine skis. You also likely need to shorten your screws.
11/3/2017
Reply from Jonathan S
 
Update after the 2017 season: still only a relatively modest ~69,000' vertical, but still in pristine condition, and still absolutely loving the amazing float:weight ratio! The revamped version for the 2017-18 season does sound more versatile, but if you want a ski for only soft snow, the Skimo Co sales price (as of early Nov 2017) sets some sort of new record of "float:weight ratio":price ratio!
Comment on this review:

1/27/2016
Comment from stephen o
 
I have had the V Nano for almost a year. Great ski as others have said. I was a little discouraged as it was easy to get too far forward on this ski. After doing some research I decided to move the bindings back 2 cm. They ski much better now in all conditions. I have the 180s and I'm 210 lbs so I am probably pushing the max on this length.
Reply to this comment

1/2/2016
Question from Vman
 
155# 6'2 ski (and love) 182 Stokes. Ski and don't love 176 denalis. Want a lighter ski than the stokes for powder. 180 or 188?????
1/2/2016
Answer from jbo
 
Hi Vman, they ski short so I'm sure you could handle and enjoy the 188s, but I still have to vote 180 if you're carrying them uphill through switchbacks and such.
Answer this question:

9/24/2015
by Alex N. (used product regularly)
 
These are amazing skis- you will pay through the nose for them, but they are amazing. I have skied them on everything from bottomless blower to refrozen death crust, and while they are clearly meant for the former they do pretty well in the latter as well, although they are a chattery due to lack of mass. The carbon "nano-tubes" do their job in making an uber-light powder board that is absurdly fun on both the way up and the way down. Pair with mohair skins and you will simply fly up the skintrack.

For the record, I have skied these with TLT5 and TLT6, which I think pairs perfectly, along with plum race 185 bindings. No complaints so far. This season I will try them out with the Alien 1.0. Anything less stiff than these will probably suffer a bit in terms of performance (if you ski them in TLT5/6 without the tongues you will notice the difference, of course.)

Weight-wise, the ski is clearly as good as it gets, that's a given- so I won't dwell on this. I do have a few comments on the performance:

1) They ski short. Size up, for sure. Don't hesitate.
2) They like to turn and if you're cruising they will pull you into a particular shape pretty strongly for a rocker tail/tip ski. This took me some getting used to.

and, of course 3), you'd better have friends with light gear too, or really fit friends, as you'll be half as tired at the end of each lap and want to ski twice as much.

For me, my touring quiver consists at all times of these and a pair of skis in the low-mid eighties for days when the snow isn't as heavy or for steeper mountaineering. In a pinch, these could do both- you will come up against the fundamental limitations of such a lightweight ski that is 100+ under foot, but within that category they are pretty dan versatile.

Overall, fantastic ski and worth the $$$ if you're into non-stop powder laps.
Comment on this review:

12/24/2014
by Eric (used product regularly)
 
I normally don't write reviews, but these skis deserve the praise. Can't say enough. Super light, responsive and fast. I've had them in waist deep powder, bullet-proof ice fields, ski resort packed ice groomers, moguls, etc. Would buy again. I am 6'2" and chose the 180 and am happy with the weight to performance ratio. Also MADE IN THE USA.
Comment on this review:

12/3/2014
Question from Adam
 
I want to buy this ski for my wife for Christmas (which makes me feel less guilty for getting nice skis for myself). She is 170cm tall. With the rocker, I'm not sure whether to go for the 164 or 172. She will mostly use it in the bc but occasionally on the resort in the right conditions. I'm thinking 164 would be best. Your thoughts?
12/3/2014
Answer from jbo
 
Best husband ever! They ski a little short on hard snow with the rocker, but that isn't the sweet spot for this ski anyway. These have a decent sidecut and are fairly easy to turn so I'm thinking she would like the 172 at the resort. Of course shorter is always more manageable on the up, and the 164 should do OK float wise at this width for her. Send an e-mail with some more details about her skiing & what she skis now for a more accurate reading.
Answer this question:

11/24/2014
Question from Brent
 
I am interested in the Nano - is there someone who has skied them can respond to the review from Wildsnow and Backcountry w/ regard to the mounting point being too far forward. Also, I currently have the Manaslu 184 which I am happy with; wondering with the significant rocker in the tip if the 180 would feel too short?
11/24/2014
Answer from jbo
 
Hi Brent. I skied them and didn't think they were too far forward, though mounting them back a little isn't a terrible idea either. For the most flexibility you can use a toe adjustment plate. The rocker is big which does shorten the effective length on hard snow. I like the 180 at 6'1" 165, though I'd get the 188 if it were a resort ski.
Answer this question:

Write a Review Ask a Question Post a Comment


Your name: (or )

Your e-mail:



Overall rating:
1 star 5 stars
Familiarity:


Your review:

What is 6 + 0?

Your website (optional):



Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
» Compare to other High-fat Skis 
© 2018 Skimo Co
View Full Screen Version