• 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.

On women's skis

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Jackson Hogan just released part 2 of his blog post on Women's Skis. Part 1 is in the OP. Here it is in whole. If you've been watching the Rossignol women's marketing thread, be sure to note the entry in the first chart on Rossignol.

The State of the Women's Ski Market II

In 1993, there were 25 models of reputedly made-for-women skis entered in the Snow Country Magazine ski test. They were classified as "recreational," but a more accurate adjective would have been "dreadful." Not a single brand of the 18 represented was aiming at anyone above average ability. Our elite test crew regarded them with unvarnished contempt.

The reason no one tried to concoct a decent women's model was the prevailing attitude among ski makers that making a model specifically for good women skiers was a misbegotten enterprise. The men who designed skis were, of course, skiers themselves, and the women they skied with didn't ask for or want anything to do with a "women's ski." Nonetheless, the selection of women's skis continued to grow, soon adding a cadre of step-up, "performance" models that were still three rungs below the nearest race ski in any brand's collection.

I share this historical nugget as it establishes a baseline that in some aspects still exists today. Now as then, the best female skiers in the world are racers, an arena in which made-for-women skis simply do not exist. A hefty percentage of non-racing experts also prefer either a unisex ski or women's ski that's a virtual clone of a unisex model.

But unlike the situation 30 years ago, made-for-women models are no longer an exercise in condescension. Outside of the race world, they occupy every category and price point in the ski pantheon. The mind-blowing success of Blizzard's Black Pearl 88 has firmly established the viability of the made-for-women market. Just how much any given women's model has actually been adapted for the fairer sex is another matter, one this essay - and companion chart - intends to illuminate.

With your permission, I'm going to burn two minutes of your attention span by chatting about the attached chart (below). It's a nearly complete list of the women's models offered in the U.S. in 2020. For each model, it indicates what changes, if any, were made in comparison to any corresponding unisex model. Four design elements are examined: construction, materials, mounting position and sidecut. A model with "X's" across the board has been built from scratch to be a women's ski. Gray scale in lieu of an X means that this ski shares that feature with a unisex model.

The one trait that all women's models share is they come in shorter lengths. It's common practice to pare down the core thickness on shorter skis so the intended, lighter weight target skier can bend it. Because thinning the core profile is standard operating procedure that applies to any short ski, regardless of who it's sold to or how the topskin is decorated, this modification is treated as a given and so doesn't appear on this table. The same can be said for changes in sidecut geometry that are related to length, not gender per se.

What the table tells us is that most of the X's land on Technical and Frontside models and most of the gray scale spans across the All-Mountain East, All-Mountain West and Big Mountain genres. Among modifications, moving the mounting point forward (normally in the 1-2cm range) is by far the most common accommodation for women. As for more consequential alterations, changing a sidecut - and therefore the tooling - is less likely an adaptation than employing a modified construction and/or a switch in materials.

What the chart doesn't reveal is how much time and money each brand spends sorting through all the alternatives that might make a ski better for a lighter weight skier. Salomon, for example, maintains separate test crews for system skis and flat (wider) models, yet their testing often leads them to propose identical solutions for men and women. Nor does the chart cast any light on any given brand's future direction.

But the chart is clear on one point about the present: there are a lot of checked boxes and a lot of gray scale boxes, which exposes a schism in the current thinking about women's skis. On one side of the philosophical divide, empirically derived differentiation is deemed both good for the female skier and for the company that commits to it.

The other side of the argument hasn't changed since the days of the Snow Country ski test: the ski can't tell a good female skier from a good male skier, so why do women need different skis? If you want to adapt a model or two specifically for women who need training wheels, fine, but don't try to help skiers who neither need nor want any help.

Both of these perspectives are here to stay, as is the abundance of choices available across the women's market as a whole. If there's a category that could use shoring up, it's Women's Frontside, for which I have a simple, economical solution.

Instead of isolating the best, most adapted, hard-snow women's skis in the Technical genre that Americans eschew, make clones of the flagship women's model in 80mm and 84mm waists. I don't suggest anyone eliminate their current crop of diluted Frontside models that match the needs of intermediates, just add one or two strong skis geared for the advanced gal. They won't attract a lot of American women right away, perhaps, but it would be a step in the right direction. As things stand, American women are more or less obliged to "graduate" to an All-Mountain East model just to get a high performance women's ski.

Most likely the market for high performance, Frontside women's skis will remain small, but maybe not. Nobody saw the Black Pearl 88 coming, not even Blizzard. And it's been the top selling ski in America, regardless of gender affiliation, for the past four seasons.
View attachment 11405View attachment 11406
I have more comments, but in scanning that chart, I am questioning its accuracy. I know for a fact that the Santa Ana 88 and the Enforcer 88, while very similar, are NOT the same construction. The women's versions of the Nordica skis all come with thinner layers of titanal and I believe a bit softer wood material as well. The Volkl Secret 92 is also similar but not the same as the men's M5 Mantra (which is a wider ski overall.)

Makes me want to contact Realskiers and ask for clarifications on their data.
 

santacruz skier

Angel Diva
Also I noticed all (or most) skis that are 88mm wide are in the "All mountain Eastern" category. Many "western" skiers see that width as daily drivers.
 

liquidfeet

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Here is Jackson Hogan's generalized way of categorizing skis by type. He stays pretty consistent. So for instance when he says Frontside skis, he means skis with waists 75-84. This list serves as his glossary for his writing on RealSkiers and on his blog.

FIS Race (no women's models)
Non-FIS Race (no women's models)
Technical (waist 67-74) (popular in Europe but not USA)
Frontside (75-84) (women's skis in this category have been mostly intermediate models)
All-Mountain East (85-94) most women ski this size ski, so most women's models are here
All-Mountain West (94-100) considered too wide for daily drivers for most women so there are very few models (98 Great Joy was discontinued)
Big Mountain (101-113) no women's models, or few (110 Big Joy was discontinued)
Powder (around 120+)
 

santacruz skier

Angel Diva
Here is Jackson Hogan's generalized way of categorizing skis by type. He stays pretty consistent. So for instance when he says Frontside skis, he means skis with waists 75-84. This list serves as his glossary for his writing on RealSkiers and on his blog.

FIS Race (no women's models)
Non-FIS Race (no women's models)
Technical (waist 67-74) (popular in Europe but not USA)
Frontside (75-84) (women's skis in this category have been mostly intermediate models)
All-Mountain East (85-94) most women ski this size ski, so most women's models are here
All-Mountain West (94-100) considered too wide for daily drivers for most women so there are very few models (98 Great Joy was discontinued)
Big Mountain (101-113) no women's models, or few (110 Big Joy was discontinued)
Powder (around 120+)

Okay so a bit of a generalization but thanks for the clarification that he's being consistent.
 

Jersey Ski Girl

Certified Ski Diva
FWIW, the Yumis are my wide skis, aka the skis I take out west. I never noticed a huge difference between my Kenjas and Yumis as far as their width; 87 vs. 84/83 (old Yumis were 83, I think).

I also tried the BP 88s and new Yumis (84) back-to-back on the same day and while they certainly had their differences in how they skied, I never really felt like the waist width was a factor. The Yumis didn't feel substantially narrower. The Yumis certainly aren't a powder ski, but I don't consider them a ski specifically made for groomers/frontside either. They're not built like a carving skis; there isn't a lot of side-cut to them.
What did you think of the Black Pearls?
 

Skisailor

Angel Diva
Interesting and informative article about “women’s” skis. But it leads me to a bit of a rant . . . all IMHO of course.

I see no need for “gender” specific skis - only for skis made for light, medium and heavy skiers! The gender specific part of it - as it relates to the binding mount point and therefore the side cut design - is based on the notion that all we women skiers have big fat butts and a radically different center of mass location which makes it harder for us to get “forward” on our skis. Poppycock!

First of all the difference between the location of the center of mass for the average male vs. the average female is very small. And if you look at the bell shaped curves the overlap is huge! Even to the extent that there IS a difference, it can easily be overcome with minor adjustments by the skier. Bring your shoulders an inch forward, for example, and . . . voila! There is simply no need to categorically move the binding mount position forward for half of our species. In my experience as an instructor I can also guarantee you that men have just as much trouble getting “forward” on their skis as women do.

I like K2 skis, but whenever I buy a pair, I end up having to move the binding back.

So when I look at the chart - I already nix the binding mount and sidecut changes as totally bogus.

That said - yes - smaller, lighter skiers, and I am one, need to be able to bend their skis. So using different materials in the construction and offering a full range of length choices, seems to me to be very appropriate adjustments that ski manufacturers shoukd make in order to accommodate the full range of potential buyers.
 

Jersey Ski Girl

Certified Ski Diva
Interesting and informative article about “women’s” skis. But it leads me to a bit of a rant . . . all IMHO of course.

I see no need for “gender” specific skis - only for skis made for light, medium and heavy skiers! The gender specific part of it - as it relates to the binding mount point and therefore the side cut design - is based on the notion that all we women skiers have big fat butts and a radically different center of mass location which makes it harder for us to get “forward” on our skis. Poppycock!

First of all the difference between the location of the center of mass for the average male vs. the average female is very small. And if you look at the bell shaped curves the overlap is huge! Even to the extent that there IS a difference, it can easily be overcome with minor adjustments by the skier. Bring your shoulders an inch forward, for example, and . . . voila! There is simply no need to categorically move the binding mount position forward for half of our species. In my experience as an instructor I can also guarantee you that men have just as much trouble getting “forward” on their skis as women do.

I like K2 skis, but whenever I buy a pair, I end up having to move the binding back.

So when I look at the chart - I already nix the binding mount and sidecut changes as totally bogus.

That said - yes - smaller, lighter skiers, and I am one, need to be able to bend their skis. So using different materials in the construction and offering a full range of length choices, seems to me to be very appropriate adjustments that ski manufacturers shoukd make in order to accommodate the full range of potential buyers.
What do you think of the Black Pearl skis?
 

Skisailor

Angel Diva
Thanks. Ski barn was ranting that they are the best rated all over the country.

The fact that so many people like them suggests that they are versatile and forgiving. I thought they were ok but I liked the K2 Alluvit better - more agile. Of course, they aren’t making the Alluvit anymore . . .
 

Skisailor

Angel Diva
Bummer about the Alluvit. I am looking for a good powder ski that I could possibly use on groomed in the east too.

You can still find the Alluvit online in some lengths. But for eastern centric skiing, the BP is probably a better choice. Demo if you can though!
 

VickiK

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I read that Trek and Specialized are dropping their women's specific designs and returning to unisex designs with adjustments for individual needs. I can see that happening in the ski world, just like @Skisailor said and what this thread sorta implies.
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
What do you think of the Black Pearl skis?
I've owned a few versions of the Black Pearl 88s, and also tested the BP 98s. I typically get about 100 days on snow per year. I'm an "intervanced" skier who is very tentative at times. The Black Pearls are VERY confidence inspiring, stable, overall great skis. What I think makes them so great is their versatility and that they appeal to a pretty wide variety of skill sets. The BP 98s that I skied for two runs in cut up, fresh powder had me grinning from ear to ear. Those skis are made for that kind of snow.

Are you contemplating getting some?
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I read that Trek and Specialized are dropping their women's specific designs and returning to unisex designs with adjustments for individual needs. I can see that happening in the ski world, just like @Skisailor said and what this thread sorta implies.
I actually hope this doesn't happen. There are a lot of things on bikes that can be tweaked and softened (suspension) to suit a smaller/lighter rider that can't be tweaked on skis. Unless the lighter weight "men's" skis are expanded, ie. the Head Kore series (which ARE the exact same construction as the Kore W series.) As someone who tends to have a preference for women's specific skis, I really hope they don't go away. The Nordica Santa Ana series for sure has a lighter wood core than the men's enforcers, but I know for a fact I did also read (I just haven't dug it up yet) that they use thinner titanal in them as well. So, while the shapes and dimensions are identical, the construction is in fact tweaked a bit for those of us who are lighter or less aggressive yet not beginners.
 

elemmac

Angel Diva
I actually hope this doesn't happen. There are a lot of things on bikes that can be tweaked and softened (suspension) to suit a smaller/lighter rider that can't be tweaked on skis. Unless the lighter weight "men's" skis are expanded, ie. the Head Kore series (which ARE the exact same construction as the Kore W series.) As someone who tends to have a preference for women's specific skis, I really hope they don't go away. The Nordica Santa Ana series for sure has a lighter wood core than the men's enforcers, but I know for a fact I did also read (I just haven't dug it up yet) that they use thinner titanal in them as well. So, while the shapes and dimensions are identical, the construction is in fact tweaked a bit for those of us who are lighter or less aggressive yet not beginners.

I completely agree. Plus, I'll be the first to admit, I like pretty skis. Obviously performance comes first (I own one of the ugliest skis out there (IMO)), but it doesn't hurt if they look good too.

I also like that they make women's model bikes. A couple weekends ago I was able to get on a Santa Cruz 5010, then immediately get on the Juliana version of the bike. The Juliana has the same frame, different tune to the suspension, different seat, grips, and I believe narrower handlebars. The Juliana felt much better in comparison. I'd rather be able to buy a bike that fits me and not have to tweak and fiddle around with everything, spending more money on different parts after I just bought a pretty expensive piece of gear.

As for the Santa Ana, I know Ski Essentials did a review that stated that it was a thinner sheet than the Enforcer. I don't recall if they were talking about the whole line, or just the 88 (which was what the review was about). And I also don't recall if it was in the Enforcer 88 review they mention it, or in the Santa Ana 88 review...I read them both back to back the other day.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,697
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top