Are women's specific skis necessary?

[ski diva]

Interesting article about this in Backcountry.

https://backcountrymagazine.com/stories/womens-specific-female-focused-skis-necessity-preference/

What do you think?

 

[abc]

Necessity.

But not so much for women specifically, just good for smaller and less aggressive skiers, men or women.

There had been a relatively sparse choices for smaller skier of skis that aren't just beginner skis. This "women specific" movement filled that gap. I've seen quite a few small guys skiing the women version (typically lighter, less tiff) of whatever the popular model that fits their need.

 

[DanniAB]

I've tried both mens & womens - the biggest (and really, the only difference) I noticed is the weight.

 

[bounceswoosh]

I think so many different things ...

I think there will be some number of women who won't feel comfortable on unisex or (let's be real) men's gear ... they're not going to get into skiing if they can't have gear "engineered" for them.

I think there will be some number of women who want cute graphics ... they're not going to get into skiing if they can't have it.

I think there will be some number of men who would benefit from a lighter, easier to turn ski. They're unlikely to buy a ski with overtly feminine graphics, or a popular women's ski that "everyone knows" is for women.

I think that if manufacturers didn't have women-specific lines, they would tend to neglect the shorter lengths that are best for short and light women.

I think I would prefer more clarity about the design of the ski and its intent, but even if all skis were unisex, marketing would still make that difficult.

You know what maybe *would* be really helpful to me? Publish suggested skier weight and height ranges on each ski. It could be sort of like those graphs on pantyhose packages (and maybe about as useful? Hopefully more useful).

 

[sibhusky]

There is a need for skis for shorter skiers, lighter skiers, less aggressive skiers, etc. Just as there is a need for skis for linebackers and world cup racers. Labeling them or putting graphics on them that attach a stigma to the user or prevent the ski from being considered is what drives me crazy.

And I'm pretty sure that after 43 years any improvement that a woman's ski could give a woman who is taller than average and weighs more than most of the men I know is likely to be minuscule. I'm sure I've adapted years ago.

 

[volklgirl]

A good ski is a good ski, regardless of who it's marketed for. I HATE that some of the slightly softer "women's" skis only come in short lengths.

Realistically, there should be height and weight ranges for each model and flex pattern, as a woman may be the same weight as a man, but likely won't have the same muscle mass so really does need a lighter flex pattern.

For instance, DH and I both ski the Gotama/Kiku and Mantra/Aura in the same length, but I don't have his muscle mass even though we are similar in weight, so the softer flex pattern of the "women's" version suits my less muscly and more finessey technique. Simply going with a shorter length of the same ski doesn't have the same effect although that's the way it has to be with skis that don't offer a softer version, like the Shiro and Kuro - I ski them 10 cm shorter than he does, but I really have to hammer on them to make them flex appropriately. Admittedly, I have the weight, power, and technique to do so, but not every woman does.

 

[num]

Like I often wish in various realms outside of skiing, I'd like to see unisex mean unisex and be expanded to truly be unisex. That's just for the principle of it, and to make things more accessible for people who don't fit into their expected demographic.

As for my own experience, I'm short-ish, heavy, and strong (muscule-wise) but am an intermediate Midwestern skier. Demoing around taught me that I often prefer women's skis, but I like stiffer, snappier skis in shorter lengths (158-161ish) and am not a fan of longer skis or softer skis. I've found that the more forward mounting point did make a difference for the better for me.

 

[mustski]

A good ski is a good ski, regardless of who it's marketed for. I HATE that some of the slightly softer "women's" skis only come in short lengths.

Realistically, there should be height and weight ranges for each model and flex pattern, as a woman may be the same weight as a man, but likely won't have the same muscle mass so really does need a lighter flex pattern.

Admittedly, I have the weight, power, and technique to do so, but not every woman does.

This is the exact reason that women specific skis fill a niche in the market place. I am short - though not necessarily light weight- and when I was younger, I was able to ski the "unisex" skis with no issues. I hated the early version of women's skis because they were too soft and chattery. In fact, I have a barely skied K2 model from around 1996 in my ski closet! Now that ski companies seem to have worked out the whole level of "softness" issue, I really appreciate the softer flex of the women's models. I am a Volkl lover and tend to like a stiffer ski in general, but the women's lines are just perfect for me. I suspect that flexing the Shiro and the Kuro might be a struggle for me. I will have to demo them just to satisfy my curiosity.

 

[jellyflake]

This is sooo difficult!

There are still a lot of shops offering skis in those categories: beginner-alround-race-freeride-allmountain-woman.
Come on, are they serious??


Maybe it was easier to not make a distinction between woman and unisex but to review the prototypes of customers.... it looks like it was a young, male, athletic charging racer-type for ages for a lot of companies. So they had developed their top-ski to suit this. And they also produced lighter versions of this ski to sell it to intermediate and advanced skiers.
That has changed a bit - over the past years other prototypes came along. Park-skiers, freeriders, ... and a certain prototype of the skiing woman. That is a start but not more.

I agree to most of the stuff said here.
I like seeing less male more female stuff and skis.
It is a good idea to also offer softer skis. And shorter. And lighter.
BUT I really hate to see a lot of woman skis with just one layer less in it or with foam instead of wood or so.

Phew, when I think of it - I mostly have unisex skis but I also own two pairs of woman skis which I really like (it is the K2 MissDirected and the BD Element). I don't like both top sheets, though, but this is second priority only.

Hm, overall I'd say that the general idea of also and naturally include women into product and marketing strategy was long overdue but most manufacturers seem to be still in their learning process....

 

[snow addict]

Well, I am not sure about "women specific", but there should be a good variety of models and lengths since people differ in the physical characteristics. I've skied plenty unisex models and as long as they are in correct length and not way above my skills I can't see what would make them women-specific - flowers on top sheets? Lot of unisex models in fact only differ from female-specific by the top sheet design. TST, JJ, Bushwackers, Rossi S3, Soul 7. Soul 7 even use different indicated lengths but physical lengths are absolutely the same. I suspect lot of this "women-specific" stuff is just a basic marketing. TST while being identical skis for men and women bar top sheets have very different descriptions. For men - to convince them that the ski is aggressive, for women - to convince the ski is nimble. Blah-Blah. There is no real difference. Actually with a suitable unisex model it's easier to get a good deal as shorter lengths are less likely to be sold out and more likely to get heavily discounted.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

I feel very fortunate to have observed all this evolve over the course of the last 20+- years - and have watched (and participated!) with great interest.

It was Jeannie Thoren, then working in conjunction with Dynastar-Lange, on a traveling “mission” with her 2-day women’s clinics at many resorts all over the country, who first proposed and demonstrated theories of why women had different ski requirements - and what changes benefitted women the most. I attended one of her clinics (can’t remember year! early>mid-90's?); it was fascinating - we changed skis every run. There were differing binding mount positions, different degrees of heel lift.

From this, Dynastar developed one of its first women-specific models: the Intuitiv “L” series - to little fanfare. Having participated in this clinic, however, I did procure a pair. Viva la difference. From there came the first two full lines of women-specific skis: the venerable K2 T-9 series, featuring the “Love” (luv?) models (First, True, One, Burning, Phat, etc etc); and the Dynastar Exclusive series, which were mostly designated by number - until they hit one out of the park - the Exclusive Legend, which topped the charts for several years (mid 2000's).

These were the first of many dedicated lines to follow - but clearly have their place in history now. They were not “de-tuned” men’s skis; they were built from the ground up.

I say – Stand Up and Cheer. As a lightweight, reasonably competent but increasingly <cough> age-challenged female, I all the more appreciate that skis are now made for my requirements. The “shrink-it-pink it” phase went out the window (bye bye). We now have choices - lots of them, lots of GOOD ones. Hallelujah.

Hats off to Jeannie Thoren, K2 and Dynastar for leading that charge.
**********
Follow-up: a bit of research, Jeannie is still at it, in full force - has a dedicated website, shop at Vail, still does clinics.
https://www.jeanniethoren.com/
https://www.jeanniethoren.com/events.html
https://www.jeanniethoren.com/ski_shop.html
Love the leader on her home page:
"WOMEN ARE NOT SMALL MEN"

 

[bounceswoosh]

@MaineSkiLady - fact check. I owned k2 Powers - they were women's skis before the luv series, and I remember they had a full line-up, not just one ski.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

Distinction:
First heavily marketed, widely distributed, well-known, successful and long-lived lines of women-specific skis.

 

[Jilly]

I got to agree with MSL. I attended a seminar lead by the Canadian Jeanne Thoren rep. I was finally able to get rid of my sore feet with her heel wedges! She was the "great" promoter.

So for years I skied the next version down from the top ski as I couldn't muscle it around. Ie. Rossi made the Z series. I skied the Z5, I couldn't bend the Z9. The 9S oversized was too stiff as well, so I ended up with the 8S (Attraxion12).

So I have 3 pairs of skis in my quiver...all are women's. In the case of the Attraxion 12's - they are the 8S with a pretty blue colour. The Termptation 88's are not the same as the Experience 88. They are lighter. And then my Attraxion8's. Which I really think are the Z5's but lighter still.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Distinction:
First heavily marketed, widely distributed, well-known, successful and long-lived lines of women-specific skis.

Mine lived a long time! In fact they're still in my garage as I couldn't get anyone to take them off my hands ;-)

If I could find a super cheap binding, I've been thinking about replacing their non-indemnified bindings and using them as a "carver." I wonder if that even makes sense with the technology changes in the meantime. They're 178s - the longest ski currently in my possession!

 

[pinto]

Mine lived a long time! In fact they're still in my garage as I couldn't get anyone to take them off my hands ;-)

If I could find a super cheap binding, I've been thinking about replacing their non-indemnified bindings and using them as a "carver." I wonder if that even makes sense with the technology changes in the meantime. They're 178s - the longest ski currently in my possession!

Nope. (imo, of course, but ... nope)

 

[bounceswoosh]

I will just go with that answer. Still don't know what to do with these skis. One pair of skis isn't enough to make furniture.

 

[pinto]

Shot ski!

 

[snow addict]

I still don't buy that "women-specific" means much apart from a few flowers in design and a different marketing approach. They also tend to be priced higher - not by hundreds, but 20-50 euros difference is normal here - and this is for skis that are absolutely the same. I guess making up all these descriptions that will appeal to women comes at a premium, men are known to be easier to please Real characteristics like ski weight, stiffness, length - yes, they mean a lot and a greater choice is always welcome, but both sexes need a wider mix of this characteristics in skis in equal measure. Men have a slightly higher CM than women - on average, however a shorter man will have a CM lower than a taller woman. It's not in the hips for a woman and chest for a man. It's around belly button area for both sexes, the difference for a man and woman of the same height is negligible and very unlikely to affect a binding position if the ski length is suitable and no other issues are present. Also the notion that women are bottom-heavy is a gross generalization, plus lot of men have big bellies too, which should balance things nicely. For a woman's CM to gravitate noticeably towards her bottom most of her mass should be in her bottom, and for a man to have in his chest it will take some massive knockers with little mass elsewhere. Same goes for binding positions or lifters - there is no binding position for a particular sex, but a position that may accommodate a particular skier better, whether it's a man or a woman, since bio-mechanical issues occur for both men and women.

 

[ski diva]

I think that if manufacturers didn't have women-specific lines, they would tend to neglect the shorter lengths that are best for short and light women.

You know what maybe *would* be really helpful to me? Publish suggested skier weight and height ranges on each ski. It could be sort of like those graphs on pantyhose packages (and maybe about as useful? Hopefully more useful).

I agree with both of these things. As someone who's short and light, I find that women skis offer the length and flex that works for me. A lot of unisex skis just don't, so if it takes paying attention to the women's market to get them out there, I'm all for it. However, I also think bounceswoosh's second suggestion is excellent -- if manufacturers would publish suggested skier weight and height ranges for the skis they offer. The only thing this fails to take into account is ability and condition. For example, someone who's looking to ski powder may want a longer length. Or a beginner skier might want to go shorter. But on the whole, these are workarounds. A great idea.

The one thing I hate -- well, really resent -- about women's skis is when they make look them like something you'd use to decorate your bathroom -- all pastel and swirly with butterflies and flowers. It's like they think we have some kind of demented circuit in our brain that'll only respond if something is sugary sweet and cutesy. Ugh.