Lets say, I'm a ski manufacturer and I want to know what you want

[SnowHot]

Seriously, and honestly I have been thinking about the dilemma of ski manufacturers and the target groups they serve.
But for this purpose, lets target the woman skier.
All skill levels
All terrain
All encompassing woman skier.

So, I'm manufacturer starting a womans line.
I'll assume I want something for the upper beginner/lower intermediate skier(assuming that the beginners will start with unisex rentals)
So, for this category I'll have a nice carver, soft flex, and basic base/edge construction, somewhere around high 60's in the waist, with a moderate/generous tip and tail.(not quite a hypercarver, but a significant carver.

Next, I want to target the progressive intermediate. A woman who wants to enhance her skiing skills and excitement, so I'll want to add a more progressive base/edge construction to the beginner/intermediate ski, to make it a tad quicker, and then add a nice midfat to the line up. Something in the hight 70's in the waist?

When we get into the advanced skier category, that is easy. Something quick, carver driven, something midfat to take 'her' to the park and in the bumps and woods, maybe something fat like a mid to high 90's for those powder days. something soft enough for the light weight but stiff enough for the power crud busting she devil!
This is the funnest group of female skiers to design for so we could get really crazy.


Probably the biggest question of all.........What does the Expert woman skier want?
Does she want a ski that is womens specific and is progressive for the female skier who takes on the expert terrain, and back country with a "bring it on" vengence, or is this the woman skier who won't look at a women's specific ski because the Unisex line has already answered the call?

I used to be the woman who wouldn't look at the women's line up because it was soft, weak and not something that would make me grin.
With the industry changes and the profound way that the ski manufacturers are answering the call of the advanced women skier, I'm looking for more............and more.

With the addition of the Women's line up with Volkl,
Fuego - Quick
Aura - midfat fun
and the 09 addition of the Women's version of the Gotama(name?), ............will the expert female buy "her Got" or will she walk on by and get the unisex version?

Meantime, the Nordica Olympia line has answered the call in a profound way with the
Firefox - Quick (way too much fun)
Conquor - Nice midfat
But where Nordica has left off is that they don't get out of the system ski area, and into the twin tips or fat skis. Are they missing out on a part of the women's market.

[tradygirl]

Originally Posted by SnowHot

Probably the biggest question of all.........What does the Expert woman skier want?
Does she want a ski that is womens specific and is progressive for the female skier who takes on the expert terrain, and back country with a "bring it on" vengence, or is this the woman skier who won't look at a women's specific ski because the Unisex line has already answered the call?

I think I would start looking seriously at women's skis when they made them as aggressive as the men's all-mountain skis. I know there has been some huge advances in the women's ski market, but if I'm in the market for a new fat powder ski or big mountain ski, I'm still going unisex. Show me a women's-specific ski that can compete with the Gotama, Hellbent, Line Prophet, Lotus, Praxis, and Zealot. The thing is, I don't know if it's really necessary to make a women's ski for women that ski at that high of a level, unless they want different graphics or something (it would be kind of cool if they made two different graphics for some of these skis).

It's an interesting question, because I do think the industry has created some great women's skis in the beginner-advanced range that do have some value. Is there room for improvement in the expert category?

[Ski Diva]

I'm not sure I agree with you about the unisex skis, Tradygirl. I want an upper end ski, but I'm considerably smaller than a 210 lb. 6 ft. male who may be looking at the same ski. My physical capabilities and his are just waaay too different. So yes, I'd like to see upper end women's skis, targeted to women like me. (And I don't mean just paint 'em pink and slap on some flowers!)

[mollmeister]

Originally Posted by Ski Diva

I'm not sure I agree with you about the unisex skis, Tradygirl. I want an upper end ski, but I'm considerably smaller than a 210 lb. 6 ft. male who may be looking at the same ski. My physical capabilities and his are just waaay too different. So yes, I'd like to see upper end women's skis, targeted to women like me. (And I don't mean just paint 'em pink and slap on some flowers!)

What she said.

I am just too small for many of the high end all-mountain/big-mountain unisex skis.

I am strong and fit and a good skier, but something that is, in its smallest length, designed for a small GUY just isn't going to flex for me. A really small guy is maybe 140-150 and 5'6"+. I'm 5'2" on a good day and usually about 110lbs.

I want something that's going to perform just as well as the top end fatty men's skis. But *in my size.*

[SnowHot]

I really like where this is going.
Like SkiDiva and Moll, I'm smaller, but also very muscular and I don't like a soft ski. So........I tend to go more along the line of thinking tradygirl posted.
I would love to try a Womens' Gotama next to a Unisex version and see if they really gave the women something strong to ski on or fluffed up a perfectly good ski.

One more thing.........I was extremely impressed with the Elan Wave Spice because it is burly and will attack anything that the mens version of that same ski will do.
I'm also equally impressed with the Blizzard Eos with its brilliant performance. Both of these skis have a vertical sidewall and solid construction.
This year Blizzard has dropped the eos with a promise of something to replace it in two years.
It better be amazing if I have to wait two years!!!!

[tradygirl]

Originally Posted by Ski Diva

I'm not sure I agree with you about the unisex skis, Tradygirl. I want an upper end ski, but I'm considerably smaller than a 210 lb. 6 ft. male who may be looking at the same ski. My physical capabilities and his are just waaay too different. So yes, I'd like to see upper end women's skis, targeted to women like me. (And I don't mean just paint 'em pink and slap on some flowers!)

Ahh......but therein lies my point! You are not in the market for a big ski like that if you don't want to ski the same ski your husband is on at a shorter length. Some women are in the market for that. And those women cannot find a big, fat, stiff ski for women specifically. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Is it necessary to build a women's-specific big-mountain ski when the unisex ski is really the one we're looking for anyway?

I for one love the idea of offering the same ski (or very similar) with different graphics, maybe available in more applicable lengths (170, 175, 180, 185). A Pink Prophet with a shirtless man on it? Sign me up!

What do you consider an "upper end" ski? Why don't the unisex versions of those skis appeal to you other than length?

[SnowHot]

Originally Posted by tradygirl

Ahh......but therein lies my point! You are not in the market for a big ski like that if you don't want to ski the same ski your husband is on at a shorter length. Some women are in the market for that. And those women cannot find a big, fat, stiff ski for women specifically. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Is it necessary to build a women's-specific big-mountain ski when the unisex ski is really the one we're looking for anyway?

I for one love the idea of offering the same ski (or very similar) with different graphics, maybe available in more applicable lengths (170, 175, 180, 185). A Pink Prophet with a shirtless man on it? Sign me up!

What do you consider an "upper end" ski? Why don't the unisex versions of those skis appeal to you other than length?

This is like you're reading my mind!!

[mollmeister]

Originally Posted by tradygirl

What do you consider an "upper end" ski? Why don't the unisex versions of those skis appeal to you other than length?

That's it, I guess. I just want them to make them shorter. I could give a cr*p about women's graphics. And I hate the girly names. I just want to be taken seriously enough, even at my small size, that they make a burly ski short enough for me. But many of them are 170 at the shortest, and many don't even go that short. . . and if they do, the short lengths are impossible to find.

Give me a great ski-- unisex is fine. . . just make it short enough for me to flex it.

[altagirl]

Originally Posted by mollmeister

That's it, I guess. I just want them to make them shorter. I could give a cr*p about women's graphics. And I hate the girly names. I just want to be taken seriously enough, even at my small size, that they make a burly ski short enough for me. But many of them are 170 at the shortest, and many don't even go that short. . . and if they do, the short lengths are impossible to find.

Give me a great ski-- unisex is fine. . . just make it short enough for me to flex it.

How short do you want them?

I'm definitely in the generic unisex size range (175-185 for my off-piste skis) so it's not an issue for me. My issue with women's skis is that they generally don't make them long enough.

[Ski Diva]

Originally Posted by mollmeister

That's it, I guess. I just want them to make them shorter. I could give a cr*p about women's graphics. And I hate the girly names. I just want to be taken seriously enough, even at my small size, that they make a burly ski short enough for me. But many of them are 170 at the shortest, and many don't even go that short. . . and if they do, the short lengths are impossible to find.

Give me a great ski-- unisex is fine. . . just make it short enough for me to flex it.

Yep.

[mollmeister]

Originally Posted by altagirl

How short do you want them?

I'm definitely in the generic unisex size range (175-185 for my off-piste skis) so it's not an issue for me. My issue with women's skis is that they generally don't make them long enough.

For a powder board, provided it's not super, super stiff and doesn't ski long, I could work with 170. 163-165 would be more ideal, though. I'm just small, small, small. (And frighteningly enough, back in the day, I used to ski 193cm straight skis to keep up with the ex-racer friends on their race-stock GS skis. )

And clearly there are other people like me, since the Volkl Aura is one of the girl skis closest to the aspirational guy ski. . . and you can't find it anywhere in a 163, to demo or to buy!

Sometimes I hate being a midget.

[Ski Diva]

Originally Posted by mollmeister

Sometimes I hate being a midget.

Who's a midget??????

[jaydog]

What I like best about women's skis is the forward mounted binding. I'm small and light but carry a greater percentage of weight on my legs compared to my upper body. I need a stiffer more advanced ski, but I've found that the forward mounted binding makes staying in the front seat much easier. I am also not a fan of flowery graphics and cutesy names.

So yeah, I'd love to see a ski designed for the strongest most aggressive women skiers.

[Jilly]

I think that you will see some great changes in next years Salomon line. Both Ski Diva and I have tried some. No more flowers and pink or ugly colours. They are also coming out with a big mountain board - the lady. It matches with "the Lord". Reverse camber etc.

[altagirl]

Originally Posted by mollmeister

For a powder board, provided it's not super, super stiff and doesn't ski long, I could work with 170. 163-165 would be more ideal, though. I'm just small, small, small. (And frighteningly enough, back in the day, I used to ski 193cm straight skis to keep up with the ex-racer friends on their race-stock GS skis. )

And clearly there are other people like me, since the Volkl Aura is one of the girl skis closest to the aspirational guy ski. . . and you can't find it anywhere in a 163, to demo or to buy!

Sometimes I hate being a midget.

You need to come to Alta apparently. I wanted to demo the Aura last year and they ONLY had it in a 160. I've been complaining that they only carry and demo the short lengths.

[ISki]

I just wish one manufacturer would take a closer look at the market. You can ski from age 3-80, say, so it's more than just beginner, intermediate, and expert. Technique matters and it affects the type of the ski that one needs. There's more than one way to turn a pair of skis.

[pinto]

For me, personally, I have found that a unisex everyday ski and a women's "big mountain" ski works best. I think that's because of my height. The mantra (no pun intended) has been that your weight is the most important thing regarding ski length ... "the ski doesn't know how tall you are" and all that. Well, yes, when you're bending it, that is true.

But in deep or variable snow, fore-aft balance is a lot easier with a longer ski. The sweet spot is so much bigger that you can relax without worrying about sinking your tips.

I loved the 177 Auras because of this ... they hit the top of my forehead, lengthwise. A heavier unisex ski of that length might be too burly for my 135 lb, though, in tighter places or in moguls or in other places where quickness is important. So for ME, I'm thrilled with the light weight married to the long length. -- in an unshakable ski, at least. I'm sure there are lots of long and light noodles that I wouldn't like so much.

Now, the reason for the other (preferring a unisex groomer ski) ... it could just be that I never skied a high enough quality of women's ski. I have just preferred the unisex skis I've tried. I guess their shorter length and greater sidecut make it easier to turn, so any increase in weight or stiffness doesn't really matter so much, compared to the women's versions.

[mollmeister]

Originally Posted by Jilly

I think that you will see some great changes in next years Salomon line. Both Ski Diva and I have tried some. No more flowers and pink or ugly colours. They are also coming out with a big mountain board - the lady. It matches with "the Lord". Reverse camber etc.

Are the Salomon still mostly foam core? I never really liked *feel* of their skis, but it's been a long time.

[Jilly]

Some are wood and some are composite (it's not foam, I'm told, looks like it!). The Aero line has wood in it. And some of the stuff is stiff, so there's got to more there than "composite material"! The Opal and Amethyst were stiff enough. I don't have a book on next years to look at yet, but it'll be a the shop soon, so I can peruse!

[SnowHot]

Originally Posted by ISki

I just wish one manufacturer would take a closer look at the market. You can ski from age 3-80, say, so it's more than just beginner, intermediate, and expert. Technique matters and it affects the type of the ski that one needs. There's more than one way to turn a pair of skis.

This is a broad comment but very sensible. What should be offered to the girls/women, that isn't offered in the unisex line?

Originally Posted by tradygirl

I for one love the idea of offering the same ski (or very similar) with different graphics, maybe available in more applicable lengths (170, 175, 180, 185). A Pink Prophet with a shirtless man on it? Sign me up!

Originally Posted by jaydog

What I like best about women's skis is the forward mounted binding. I'm small and light but carry a greater percentage of weight on my legs compared to my upper body. I need a stiffer more advanced ski, but I've found that the forward mounted binding makes staying in the front seat much easier. I am also not a fan of flowery graphics and cutesy names.

So yeah, I'd love to see a ski designed for the strongest most aggressive women skiers.

Originally Posted by altagirl

I'm definitely in the generic unisex size range (175-185 for my off-piste skis) so it's not an issue for me. My issue with women's skis is that they generally don't make them long enough.

Forward mounting can be easily had in a flat ski, so this is something that we should love about going big.

But here's the question.......
If the manufacturer offered a "same ski" but with different mounting points and Sweet Graphix, would you be more likely to buy the ski?

I think I would. But would it be enough for the manufacturer to put the effort into graphix changes?

Originally Posted by tradygirl

What do you consider an "upper end" ski? Why don't the unisex versions of those skis appeal to you other than length?

This is the crux of the matter.

This may sound like I'm crazy, but in some cases, graphix DO turn me off. But I have a tendancy to really enjoy some of the unisex skis.