Posse Mama
Certified Ski Diva
Ditto on the Sheeva 9's and they work on non powder days as well.
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
How wide should a powder ski be for a short, lightweight skier?
- Thread starter TiffAlt
- Start date
I’m 5’2” and around 110. I recently got to ski my Ripstick 94W 154cm in everything from 2 to 20 inches of powder plus their tracked out later in the day versions. I then skied on 88mm Stance and Nela.
The Ripstick can be harder to turn for me (assymetric strength between dominant and non-dominant sides of my body) but that went away in powder because of the nature of powder skiing. The tip rise made it easy to get into powder and the tail did not get caught. It felt solid.
The 88mm skis had less float (expected) and struggled more in 4 inches of powder and in tracked out powder. While the Ripstick does like to go fast, the Stance 88 and Nela 88 *needed* the speed to get through the few inches of tracked powder.
I think for my skiing level, fitness level and weight I would have been happier with the 146 cm, which I could not find when I bought my skis last year in March. The 154 is super stable and any problems I have can be overcome via technique and confidence.
Part of the reason they're still on my radar is that you like yours so much!
Plus I was worried that 96 was going to feel wide or hard to turn, and they weren't at all.
ceestan
Certified Ski Diva
Do you know why you have such hesitance about skiing a wider ski? Are you worried they are going to be more difficult to ski, or you've just never skied one before? Based on my experience of buying my first "powder" ski (I put powder in quotes because they were 102mm underfoot and not even really considered a powder ski (Sheeva 10), more an all-mountain ski that can handle powder), I think the only way you will shock yourself with a wider ski is how much easier they make it to ski powder, haha.
I have noticed lots of hesitance among fellow lady skiers to get a wider powder ski. They make skiing powder way more fun, why not? Instead of spending your time on powder days worried you're going to bury a tip, and skiing backseat to prevent that from happening, which then leaves you exhausted and working way harder than you need to (don't ask how I'm so familiar with this scenario
) , you can actually trust your skis, which empowers you to ski with more speed/momentum/flow and stay forward. Then you can actually focus on what matters like working on your powder turns and technique.When you mention turning too sharply and ending up on your side, that sounds like you're maybe letting your shoulders and upper body follow your skis, and the over rotation is causing you to spin out and crash. I was having similar troubles with my powder turns until I worked on keeping my upper body quiet and forward, and wider powder skis (110mm underfoot) enabled me to trust that I could keep myself forward without my ski hooking up or diving into the snow.
One of my skiing goals was to actually be able to enjoy powder days (they used to be such a struggle!) and I am super stoked that I'm finally there. I want more women to be able to enjoy them too, instead of pow days just being a sausage-fest of dumb testosterone frenetic energy, lol.
mustski
Angel Diva
@santacruz skier owns both the Sheeva 9 & 10 and skis them all over Tahoe, in our Sierra Cement. Perhaps she could chime in?
TiffAlt
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Do you know why you have such hesitance about skiing a wider ski? Are you worried they are going to be more difficult to ski, or you've just never skied one before? Based on my experience of buying my first "powder" ski (I put powder in quotes because they were 102mm underfoot and not even really considered a powder ski (Sheeva 10), more an all-mountain ski that can handle powder), I think the only way you will shock yourself with a wider ski is how much easier they make it to ski powder, haha.
I have noticed lots of hesitance among fellow lady skiers to get a wider powder ski. They make skiing powder way more fun, why not? Instead of spending your time on powder days worried you're going to bury a tip, and skiing backseat to prevent that from happening, which then leaves you exhausted and working way harder than you need to (don't ask how I'm so familiar with this scenario
When you mention turning too sharply and ending up on your side, that sounds like you're maybe letting your shoulders and upper body follow your skis, and the over rotation is causing you to spin out and crash. I was having similar troubles with my powder turns until I worked on keeping my upper body quiet and forward, and wider powder skis (110mm underfoot) enabled me to trust that I could keep myself forward without my ski hooking up or diving into the snow.
One of my skiing goals was to actually be able to enjoy powder days (they used to be such a struggle!) and I am super stoked that I'm finally there. I want more women to be able to enjoy them too, instead of pow days just being a sausage-fest of dumb testosterone frenetic energy, lol.
Honestly, when I think about my own hesitation, it's stupid. The root of it when I ponder on it is: I've gotten it into my head that if other people on narrower skis can do it with the right technique, I should strive to as well. Also many ski sites seem to disdain skiers that use "wide" skis and imply they use it as a crutch to allow them to ski badly and get away with it and worse, it can hinder progress. I don't want that to be me. But if you actually get the conditions that call for that width to truly enjoy the day - why not?
I'll be at Bachelor next week where it's been snowing like crazy. They got like 2 feet within the last few days and according to the forecast, it should continue snowing for all three days we plan to be there as well. They have the Sheeva 10s in 162, which is a bit taller than I'd normally go for, but I've heard they ski short. They also have the Blaze 94 W and will allow up to 3 changes, so I think it's looking like a solid demo opportunity!
Now if only they would call me back, so I can properly reserve!
If any of you wonderful ladies see anything else I should try, here is the demo list from their site:
santacruz skier
Angel Diva
True! I feel I've got my Tahoe quiver covered with both the Sheeva 9's (92 underfoot) and Sheeva 10's (102 underfoot). The Sheeva 10's are surprisingly good on groomers as well as the usual sierra cement. They are super fun and were my ski of choice in Tahoe last season with the constant dumps of feet of snow. They're not heavy demanding skis and really fun in powder. My Sheeva 9's are 157 and Sheeva 10's are 156. I'm 5'1 and around 105 so happy with the length. I also have the 2017 Black Crows Camox Birdie (stiffer than current models) in a 156 and I didn't ski them at all last year.
Many good ideas out there for you to demo. It's good to read reviews and hear others comments, but only you know if the skis are right for you. There is one other ski I would consider because I like bumps and trees when snow is good and that would be the 152 Volkl Blaze 86W..... This is because I have skied with many of the divas who own the ski and I know how they ski. That's important because you can't think you'll love a ski because somebody else does unless you have skied with them and have similar tastes in skis. Still you might not like the ski, but I'm pretty convinced I would like the Blaze 86W to add to my quiver.
ceestan
Certified Ski Diva
I see that on ski forums too! I think it's old school purists. It's true that if you don't already know how to carve a turn and you only ever ski on some fat rockered noodles like the Bent Chetler, you're probably not going to learn to carve and finish your turns properly. But there is a ton of nuance missing from that conversation. I think it's completely valid to be actively working on your technique, have a narrower ski in your quiver, and also have some wide skis for a powder day.
Sounds like a great time to head to Bachelor! The Sheeva 10s look like a solid choice from that list (I'm 5'1" and had the 156 cm length in those, but eventually regretted that I didn't get them longer because it's true that they ski short).
marzNC
Angel Diva
I didn't mean the skis needed to be less than 100 underfoot. What Arthur wanted was to avoid skis over 100. I used to rent DPS Nina 99 from the Alta Ski Shop, if they were available. For a powder lesson, he didn't want my tall friend on skis that were 110+ wide, which you often see at Alta.
Couldn't tell you the reason. My guess was that he wanted to teach technique for powder turns at Alta. The lessons were for advanced skiers who take trips out west but don't have that much deep powder experience. I assumed it was similar to the idea that learning the movements to carve is easier on narrower skis.
Arthur has been teaching at Alta for about 20 years. He became a Level 3 instructor in the southeast before that. He lives in NC near me and spends the winters in SLC. Of the instructors I've worked with multiple times at destinations resorts, he pays more attention to gear. He didn't say that much about skis or boots until I and my friends had worked with him a few times.
Verve
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Maybe the Armada VJJ 116? I hear the hesitation to go too wide but these are super maneuverable and as you said, you don’t want to miss out on the fun on a truly heavy pow day. Could be a good contrast with the more “versatile” Sheeva 9/10.
Agreed on the ARW 116 - it's incredibly nimble. Looking at the list, I also wondered about the Blaze 106W in a 158, rather than the 94W.
Analisa
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
+1 to experimenting with wider skis. I'm also in WA, and split my time between the typical wet Cascade snowpack at Stevens and much drier, colder conditions at Mission. Western WA snow is so much wetter & heavier than continental snowpacks. You have a much easier time turning when you stay on the snow vs sinking a bit into the snow. Sinking creates a lot more resistance for us vs. someone skiing MT / CO / UT.
My first two setups were 87s & 95s, and I had really similar beliefs that I just needed to fix my technique and get over a mental block and commit to getting out of the backseat and it would happen. And that's kind of true, but a good powder ski was essential in getting there.
See, powder is a lot about finding you balance. Too far forward, you'll bury a tip and go over the handlebars. Too far back, you're in the backseat where you're not in an effective steering position. That sweet spot is a lot smaller on an all-mountain ski (especially narrow ones like the Yumi). Keeping the ski balanced as the slope angle or snow depth/density changes on a run takes a lot of skill & precision. A powder ski with more rocker in the tips & softer tips (helps them plane) will have a much larger sweet spot, where it's less terrifying to start shifting your weight forward & building momentum with connected turns. As a bonus, powder skis will also give you more tip taper compared to the Yumis, which is like aerodynamics for snow. The tips glide through snow with less friction & it's less likely to catch an edge. They're also designed to be softer skis, since you can't put the same leverage on it pressing against low density snow vs. a firm groomer. Getting an Atris Birdie & a Yvette 112 in my quiver helped me build strong powder skills that I could transfer over to my Santa Ana 93s or Backland 98s.
In an ideal world, ski width would scale. Like the Coalition Snow SOS is 97mm wide in a 157 and 109mm wide in a 180. But that kind of design is super expensive with molds & tooling. Most brands build skis for men and then do a take-down for women. The skis designed for powder are 110-120mm wide for men. They make a shorter version with a feminine graphic for women. And when women's powder skis sell 100-300 units in the US per season, it's what makes sense economically.
So there is a bit of a trade off between a "true" powder ski that's 110-120 wide that'll get you best-in-class float and something "freeride-y" in the 102-110 range that is best in softer conditions, but can feel a little more composed when things get tracked out or you end the day with some groomers. For most resorts, powder is a finite resource and the freeride ski makes sense. At Crystal, if you're willing to hike into Southback, you can ski freshies all day. Personally, I love a little versatility. Something like a Pandora 104, Sheeva 10, Unlimited 108, Liberty Genesis 101/106, Craigslisted Sky 7 (97 wide) or Soul 7 (104), is where I see a lot of women find success getting off-piste. Going wider could totally make sense, but I could also see running into days where there's 4" of snow and wanting something in the middle of that 30mm gap. (And as a true enabler, to that I say, "porque no los dos?")
My first two setups were 87s & 95s, and I had really similar beliefs that I just needed to fix my technique and get over a mental block and commit to getting out of the backseat and it would happen. And that's kind of true, but a good powder ski was essential in getting there.
See, powder is a lot about finding you balance. Too far forward, you'll bury a tip and go over the handlebars. Too far back, you're in the backseat where you're not in an effective steering position. That sweet spot is a lot smaller on an all-mountain ski (especially narrow ones like the Yumi). Keeping the ski balanced as the slope angle or snow depth/density changes on a run takes a lot of skill & precision. A powder ski with more rocker in the tips & softer tips (helps them plane) will have a much larger sweet spot, where it's less terrifying to start shifting your weight forward & building momentum with connected turns. As a bonus, powder skis will also give you more tip taper compared to the Yumis, which is like aerodynamics for snow. The tips glide through snow with less friction & it's less likely to catch an edge. They're also designed to be softer skis, since you can't put the same leverage on it pressing against low density snow vs. a firm groomer. Getting an Atris Birdie & a Yvette 112 in my quiver helped me build strong powder skills that I could transfer over to my Santa Ana 93s or Backland 98s.
In an ideal world, ski width would scale. Like the Coalition Snow SOS is 97mm wide in a 157 and 109mm wide in a 180. But that kind of design is super expensive with molds & tooling. Most brands build skis for men and then do a take-down for women. The skis designed for powder are 110-120mm wide for men. They make a shorter version with a feminine graphic for women. And when women's powder skis sell 100-300 units in the US per season, it's what makes sense economically.
So there is a bit of a trade off between a "true" powder ski that's 110-120 wide that'll get you best-in-class float and something "freeride-y" in the 102-110 range that is best in softer conditions, but can feel a little more composed when things get tracked out or you end the day with some groomers. For most resorts, powder is a finite resource and the freeride ski makes sense. At Crystal, if you're willing to hike into Southback, you can ski freshies all day. Personally, I love a little versatility. Something like a Pandora 104, Sheeva 10, Unlimited 108, Liberty Genesis 101/106, Craigslisted Sky 7 (97 wide) or Soul 7 (104), is where I see a lot of women find success getting off-piste. Going wider could totally make sense, but I could also see running into days where there's 4" of snow and wanting something in the middle of that 30mm gap. (And as a true enabler, to that I say, "porque no los dos?")
TiffAlt
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Since I can't leave two reactions and you deserve the heart, just know I'm also
while my wallet is 
at this.I live in the PNW and absolutely don’t recommend a Sheeva in our powder. I own this ski, and it is great in a few inches of fresh, but terrible in real powder over here. It just bogs down and the tips collapse and bury. It’s also way too wimpy for chop. I swapped the Sheevas out for my fully rockered Auras way too many days, and don’t bother bringing them any more.
Full disclosure, I own the Sheeva 10 from a previous year with a different layup.
Full disclosure, I own the Sheeva 10 from a previous year with a different layup.
TiffAlt
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Well I did demo, but it wasn't exactly as planned. When I asked at for the Blizzard Sheeva in 162, they said yes, they had it. Both my husband and son were renting too, so we took a bit to set up since they were waffling on lengths. After I paid, I realized they brought me they Sheeva 9 and let them know about the mixup. Actually, they said they didn't have the Sheeva 10 and this was just a misprint, it should be the Sheeva 9. At this point, we had been in there long enough and since I had never tried any version of the Sheeva, I figure what the hell?
The verdict: I liked them, didn't love them. Part of it was the conditions: windy with heavy fog on the upper part of the mountain and overcast flat light elsewhere. I fell twice, both times on the beginnings of runs when I came across bumpy terrain I didn't see/expect in the fog. In one of falls, my left ski actually got stuck IN the bump. Conditions got better lower on the mountain amongst the trees, still flatish light, but better and the ski performed well there - it felt easy to turn. But it stopped snowing earlier than anticipated and the powder was really only to be found in the trees. Most of it was chewed up crud and the crud still punished me as much as a I remember. My legs were TIRED.
In the end, I got sprayed with snow by a skier who came too close and was really whipping up the snow. My goggles were up since I was waiting for my son who was still in the trees, When I went to wipe my eyes, I accidentally wiped my contact out. With only one good eye and tired legs, I finished the run and called it a day. Unfortunately, it was too early I think to give the ski a good review since I only have about four runs under my belt by that time.
The verdict: I liked them, didn't love them. Part of it was the conditions: windy with heavy fog on the upper part of the mountain and overcast flat light elsewhere. I fell twice, both times on the beginnings of runs when I came across bumpy terrain I didn't see/expect in the fog. In one of falls, my left ski actually got stuck IN the bump. Conditions got better lower on the mountain amongst the trees, still flatish light, but better and the ski performed well there - it felt easy to turn. But it stopped snowing earlier than anticipated and the powder was really only to be found in the trees. Most of it was chewed up crud and the crud still punished me as much as a I remember. My legs were TIRED.
In the end, I got sprayed with snow by a skier who came too close and was really whipping up the snow. My goggles were up since I was waiting for my son who was still in the trees, When I went to wipe my eyes, I accidentally wiped my contact out. With only one good eye and tired legs, I finished the run and called it a day. Unfortunately, it was too early I think to give the ski a good review since I only have about four runs under my belt by that time.
