Powder skis for petite women

[chasinghorizons]

In an ideal world, how wide should petite women go for powder skis? I've heard that we don't NEED anything wider than 110. But would something 110+ still be more fun, or are they too hard to handle at our size?
Thinking about the Sheeva 11. I'm 5'1 / 110.
Thanks for any and all advice!

 

[marzNC]

Depends a bit on how deep you are thinking about and exactly what type of "powder."

 

[chasinghorizons]

I guess I'm kind of wondering if there are ANY conditions where I'd want a 112 width ski. Or would I really get top flotation with say 106 and going any further up is just unnecessarily adding width for no reason? Even if it's just a once or twice a season blow out day, if a 112 would feel significantly more fun, I may just buy it for that dream day. But if there's no point and I'd have just as much fun and float on a skinnier ski, then I'll avoid.
I ski primarily at Mammoth but interested in other ikon destinations in CO, UT etc.

 

[Analisa]

I swear that misconception about 110+ skis was written by a man who wanted to expand his own quiver instead of his wife's. The concept is that women are smaller and lighter so we don't need as much float. But there are 2 problems. 1 - speed also impacts float. Women on average are more cautious, so a woman with a slower, finessed style might negate any difference in size. 2 - shape matters. Shapes are designed for men and then applied to women's skis. Would an 88mm waist ski with a giant shovel work for a small woman? Perhaps, but we'll never know, because no one makes them. Brands save oodles more money using the same base shape and adjusting the flex and sidecut for women's preferences.

For me, I'm 5'3. I ski in the PNW, off piste unless I'm on a short groomer stretch back to the lift. Fat skis were a game changer for me to get forward on my skis without worrying that I was going to bury a tip. Past skinnier models I was wayyy in the backseat making sure I wouldn't go over the handlebars. My current quiver includes:
112 waist / 168 length DPS Yvette Alchemist 112 for touring
110 waist / 169 length Santa Ana 110 (the pre-2021, 2 sheets of titanal version)
108 waist / 169 length Atris Birdie
104 waist / 170 length Ripstick 102 W
95 waist/ 162 length Pandora 95 for touring
And I've spent a lot of time on the Pandora 104 in a 172, and the Sheeva 10 in a 172.

The Yvettes are definitely the nimble-est and one of the most versatile skis in my quiver. I like them enough that I schlepp them around a lot of spring tours where my Pandoras should be more appropriate.

Width is just a small ingredient in the overall ski's construction and what skier type its been designed for.

As for the Sheeva 11, I think it'll be a more dramatic difference than the Stargazers compared to the Sheeva 10s. The Stargazers definitely have an all-mountain backside shape and a decent amount of tip rocker. The Sheeva 10s would definitely be a step up in powder skiing, but I wouldn't dare call it a powder ski. It's also an off-piste biased ski with versatility too. You'd have less odds of overlap and clear delineation in terms of which skis for which days.

That being said, there are other factors to keep in mind:

- Have you skied your Stargazers in powder at this point? Around what depth of fresh snow do you feel like your Stargazers are overmatched?
- What length are your Stargazers and what length are you thinking in a powder ski? More surface area means more float, and that includes length - especially since pow skis with a lot of rocker ski short. If you have a 162 Stargazer, the right width for a Sheeva might change whether you're considering a 164 or a 172.
- Do you ski off piste with good, confident form, or do you tend to approach powder with a nervous, defensive stance and slow speeds?
- Do you need this ski to be very versatile? (Able to handle groomers or moguls)? This has less to do with width than construction and shape. Some of the super fats get really soft for maximum float

 

[chasinghorizons]

I swear that misconception about 110+ skis was written by a man who wanted to expand his own quiver instead of his wife's. The concept is that women are smaller and lighter so we don't need as much float. But there are 2 problems. 1 - speed also impacts float. Women on average are more cautious, so a woman with a slower, finessed style might negate any difference in size. 2 - shape matters. Shapes are designed for men and then applied to women's skis. Would an 88mm waist ski with a giant shovel work for a small woman? Perhaps, but we'll never know, because no one makes them. Brands save oodles more money using the same base shape and adjusting the flex and sidecut for women's preferences.

For me, I'm 5'3. I ski in the PNW, off piste unless I'm on a short groomer stretch back to the lift. Fat skis were a game changer for me to get forward on my skis without worrying that I was going to bury a tip. Past skinnier models I was wayyy in the backseat making sure I wouldn't go over the handlebars. My current quiver includes:
112 waist / 168 length DPS Yvette Alchemist 112 for touring
110 waist / 169 length Santa Ana 110 (the pre-2021, 2 sheets of titanal version)
108 waist / 169 length Atris Birdie
104 waist / 170 length Ripstick 102 W
95 waist/ 162 length Pandora 95 for touring
And I've spent a lot of time on the Pandora 104 in a 172, and the Sheeva 10 in a 172.

The Yvettes are definitely the nimble-est and one of the most versatile skis in my quiver. I like them enough that I schlepp them around a lot of spring tours where my Pandoras should be more appropriate.

Width is just a small ingredient in the overall ski's construction and what skier type its been designed for.

As for the Sheeva 11, I think it'll be a more dramatic difference than the Stargazers compared to the Sheeva 10s. The Stargazers definitely have an all-mountain backside shape and a decent amount of tip rocker. The Sheeva 10s would definitely be a step up in powder skiing, but I wouldn't dare call it a powder ski. It's also an off-piste biased ski with versatility too. You'd have less odds of overlap and clear delineation in terms of which skis for which days.

That being said, there are other factors to keep in mind:

- Have you skied your Stargazers in powder at this point? Around what depth of fresh snow do you feel like your Stargazers are overmatched?
- What length are your Stargazers and what length are you thinking in a powder ski? More surface area means more float, and that includes length - especially since pow skis with a lot of rocker ski short. If you have a 162 Stargazer, the right width for a Sheeva might change whether you're considering a 164 or a 172.
- Do you ski off piste with good, confident form, or do you tend to approach powder with a nervous, defensive stance and slow speeds?
- Do you need this ski to be very versatile? (Able to handle groomers or moguls)? This has less to do with width than construction and shape. Some of the super fats get really soft for maximum float

Thank you, this is super informative! I have tried my Stargazers in about 8-12" of powder (3 times).

First time I ever tried them in powder was my first time ever in powder (what a revelation). Because I wasn't used to it, I was going much slower than usual and I definitely sank more than I'd like. The snow was also a bit heavier too.
Second time was in about the same depth of snow, but a couple days old and crusty with it. Still not comfortable on it yet but I did float better when I went faster. But the rougher skied out tracks were not fun to cross at speed.
Third time was a fresh powder day at Mammoth, about a foot. I did a fast run down Cornice and they did actually float really well for that one. But I was going quite fast, so it seems like I really need a good deal of speed for that flotation. It'd be nice to have something that floats more easily and doesn't require so much work on the less steep parts of the hill.

My Stargazers are length 154. I saw a pair of Sheeva 11s on sale in length 156. That's why I was super tempted. Not really planning on skiing them in anything but a big pow day so hopefully chatter won't be an issue despite the shorter length? And I like trees and moguls so I was thinking the shorter length might work better for that than the 164?

Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it!

 

[WaterGirl]

@chasinghorizons I also ski Mammoth and the "powder" is quite variable. It's rare that we get a lighter/cold smoke powder and the typical Sierra cement gets overwhelming at times after its tracked out.
I would focus on a ski that works in 'wind buff' which you are more likely to encounter. I have a 116 ski that I have taken out once or twice in the past 3 years, and yes its a blast in the untracked. But I would like to replace it with something in the 106ish range as I feel I just don't need that much ski anymore. There is a fine balance between a ski that is fun in the deep but can handle the chop. I have demo'd Atris Birdie (Camox birdie is my daily driver) and the Fischer 102 FR, would like to get on the Elan Ripstick 102 (94 is my tour ski); Mindbender 106 Alliance, and really anything else that's in that 100-110 size to compare and see it something that works better than the 116.

Speed definitely is your friend in the tracked out ;0

Btw it may be harder to find a fatter ski to demo on the mountain they seem to be going narrower for next year. You can always check out P3 to see what they have for powder skis, they usually have smaller sizes

 

[marzNC]

I guess I'm kind of wondering if there are ANY conditions where I'd want a 112 width ski. Or would I really get top flotation with say 106 and going any further up is just unnecessarily adding width for no reason? Even if it's just a once or twice a season blow out day, if a 112 would feel significantly more fun, I may just buy it for that dream day. But if there's no point and I'd have just as much fun and float on a skinnier ski, then I'll avoid.
I ski primarily at Mammoth but interested in other ikon destinations in CO, UT etc.

In terms of buying skis, I would say "no". As for renting for a deep, deep powder day, can be fun. The widest skis I've rented at Alta were 117mm, 159cm. That was after a storm that dropped 35 inches in about 24 hours. The first morning I took out Rossi skis that were 106mm, 162cm when there was about 24 inches when the lifts opened. In the afternoon I switched to 115mm, 165cm. I'd never skied powder that deep before. Having the wider skis helped.

My Stargazers are length 154. I saw a pair of Sheeva 11s on sale in length 156. That's why I was super tempted. Not really planning on skiing them in anything but a big pow day so hopefully chatter won't be an issue despite the shorter length? And I like trees and moguls so I was thinking the shorter length might work better for that than the 164?

While Sheeva 11 @156 could work in trees and on bumps, I wouldn't recommend skis that wide for that type of terrain. For what it's worth, Taos ski instructors who emphasize teaching having fun in bumps don't like wide and long skis. I had an instructor who was very happy when I had BP98 @152. She thought the K2 Alluvit 88 @156 was too long earlier that week when conditions meant we were on groomers because nothing else was open. It was an advanced Ski Week group (6 consecutive morning lessons).

I really like DPS skis. Had a chance to demo several models at the early April Demo Day at Alta a few times in the last 5-6 years. The Nina 99 was my go to skis when renting, assuming any were left in April. Also enjoyed the Zelda and Yvette on deeper days. With that experience I was prepared to take advantage of a deal offered by a Diva for a pair of used Zeldas a couple years ago. They are 158cm, 130-106-120, R17 @158. I've enjoyed them. However, only bought them because my ski buddy who lives out west is willing to house them during the off-season. Flying with two pairs of skis is too much of a pain, even with a Sportube 2.

I was lucky enough to get a "dream day" at Grand Targhee a couple seasons ago. Knee deep fluffy powder in sunshine. I had a ball . . . using my Stöckli Stormrider 85 skis. Not many places to rent skis for GT and I didn't want to take the time to see if there were any skis worth renting. But that's after gaining powder experience and having a few lessons on 95-105mm demo skis for a few years. Plus other lessons and practice to improve fundamentals.

 

[chasinghorizons]

@chasinghorizons I also ski Mammoth and the "powder" is quite variable. It's rare that we get a lighter/cold smoke powder and the typical Sierra cement gets overwhelming at times after its tracked out.
I would focus on a ski that works in 'wind buff' which you are more likely to encounter. I have a 116 ski that I have taken out once or twice in the past 3 years, and yes its a blast in the untracked. But I would like to replace it with something in the 106ish range as I feel I just don't need that much ski anymore. There is a fine balance between a ski that is fun in the deep but can handle the chop. I have demo'd Atris Birdie (Camox birdie is my daily driver) and the Fischer 102 FR, would like to get on the Elan Ripstick 102 (94 is my tour ski); Mindbender 106 Alliance, and really anything else that's in that 100-110 size to compare and see it something that works better than the 116.

Speed definitely is your friend in the tracked out ;0

Btw it may be harder to find a fatter ski to demo on the mountain they seem to be going narrower for next year. You can always check out P3 to see what they have for powder skis, they usually have smaller sizes

Thank you! What were your thoughts on the Atris and Fischer? Did you feel they worked as well as your 116? You might try to demo the Rossi Rallybird too - new this year and not as well known I think, but I love my Stargazers and the Rallybird is the wider version of it. I was considering this one too until I saw the Sheeva 10 on sale and grabbed it.

And yes my concern with demoing powder skis is availability and also timing - we're often driving up late Friday night after work, so no time to pick gear up before opening Saturday morning

 

[Analisa]

So I pulled the profile of the 9, the 10, and your Stargazers. (Ski Essentials didn't carry the 11, but the profile is similar to the 10s). As you can see, the Stargazers definitely have a flatter tail, the 9s have more, and the 10s "lose" a lot more length in the back with more dramatic tail rocker. There's a bit more tip rocker on the 10 than the 9. Will a 156 ski longer? Probably. Will it be a full size up like a 157 Sheeva 9? No. The Rustler 11 is known to be a bit stronger ski than the 10, but if the 148 9s were really chattery, it doesn't make the size for the 11s super obvious.

I love a quick surfing powder ski in the trees, but fat can be some work in the moguls. But overall the Sheeva 11 is definitely a ski that will excel in powder and trees and get the job done with a little more work on the groomers and moguls towards the end of the day.

I'd probably skip the Atris. They're definitely unique. They're a softer ski with a 20m turn radius. It's not hard to bend the ski (which shortens the TR), but they want you in a little more forward confident stance. If you're shifted back in defense mode, you feel every meter of that 20m turn radius. They're my daily drivers now, but I definitely spent a season where I contemplated selling them and then spent a lot of time with my fitter once I realized my boots weren't setting me up in the right position. I'd also pass on the Ripsticks. They're definitely more of a fat all mountain ski than powder tool.

Has the Soul 7 been on your radar at all? Or the Icelantic Mystic? They seem like they'd check a lot of your boxes. Same for DPS. Their women's line has changed a lot since they carried the Nina, but the Yvette 100 and 112 have that unsinkable, turn on a dime sort of feeling that they're known for (albeit for a price that definitely had me waiting for a craigslist find)

 

[WaterGirl]

I'd probably skip the Atris. They're definitely unique. They're a softer ski with a 20m turn radius. It's not hard to bend the ski (which shortens the TR), but they want you in a little more forward confident stance. If you're shifted back in defense mode, you feel every meter of that 20m turn radius.

Or the Icelantic Mystic? They seem like they'd check a lot of your boxes. Same for DPS. Their women's line has changed a lot since they carried the Nina, but the Yvette 100 and 112 have that unsinkable, turn on a dime sort of feeling that they're known for (albeit for a price that definitely had me waiting for a craigslist find)

Thank you! What were your thoughts on the Atris and Fischer? Did you feel they worked as well as your 116? You might try to demo the Rossi Rallybird too - new this year and not as well known I think, but I love my Stargazers and the Rallybird is the wider version of it. I was considering this one too until I saw the Sheeva 10 on sale and grabbed it.

And yes my concern with demoing powder skis is availability and also timing - we're often driving up late Friday night after work, so no time to pick gear up before opening Saturday morning

I don't really think my 116 work other than getting me thru the transition of learning how to ski powder with out worring about tip dive. There have been one or two days in the past seasons when I decided to use them - days when DH ended up post holed up to his waist stuck in the trees on his snowboard and I just sailed thru. Those days are far and few between and I seem to be fine w/ my daily drivers in everything else.

There is a learning curve that Analisa is describing - being forward and actually driving the ski instead of sitting back to try to get it to plane - so either a fatter ski will help or a longer - I'm sure others can chime in -- its just that Mammoth's cement can be tough - its not easy blower pow, there is a skill set that is needed to fully enjoy tracked out crap. For that a ski that doesn't get pushed around and speed are beneficial.

Also I understand the Friday drive up, you need to call P3 or Kittridge or Footloose and see if you can reserve. P3 should have the Icelantic - I was actually thinking that would be a good option also.

 

[chasinghorizons]

I love a quick surfing powder ski in the trees, but fat can be some work in the moguls. But overall the Sheeva 11 is definitely a ski that will excel in powder and trees and get the job done with a little more work on the groomers and moguls towards the end of the day.

I see what you mean with the Sheeva 10 and 11 having a shorter effective edge than the Stargazers. Hard to tell if the sale on the 156 Sheeva 11s is worth it, or if I should just wait for a better length/ski later on. The main reason I asked about the Sheeva 11s is I saw it was on sale, but then a shop guy told me I shouldn't go over 110... which is why what you said earlier had me in giggles.

I swear that misconception about 110+ skis was written by a man who wanted to expand his own quiver instead of his wife's.

Getting a full-blown powder ski wasn't really on my radar until I saw the sale, so I may just wait for now until something better comes along.

Has the Soul 7 been on your radar at all? Or the Icelantic Mystic? They seem like they'd check a lot of your boxes. Same for DPS. Their women's line has changed a lot since they carried the Nina, but the Yvette 100 and 112 have that unsinkable, turn on a dime sort of feeling that they're known for (albeit for a price that definitely had me waiting for a craigslist find)

I didn't really look at the Soul 7 much since it was an older line. I did look at the Rallybird, but seems like they basically took the Soul and made it a bit stiffer and more groomer-oriented? Which wasn't really the direction I wanted to go in. So I guess it makes sense that I should give the Soul a closer look.
I've heard of Icelantic but never really looked at them until now. Wow are those graphics gorgeous!! I take it you're referring to the Mystic 107? Not seeing a lot of in-depth reviews online unfortunately... how do they compare to the Sheevas and Pandoras?

 

[marzNC]

I didn't really look at the Soul 7 much since it was an older line. I did look at the Rallybird, but seems like they basically took the Soul and made it a bit stiffer and more groomer-oriented? Which wasn't really the direction I wanted to go in. So I guess it makes sense that I should give the Soul a closer look.
I've heard of Icelantic but never really looked at them until now. Wow are those graphics gorgeous!! I take it you're referring to the Mystic 107? Not seeing a lot of in-depth reviews online unfortunately... how do they compare to the Sheevas and Pandoras?

Since I like Rossi in general, when I rented at Big Sky for 3 days I took out the Soul 7 2017, 136-106-126, R17 @162cm. The shop in Meadow Village rents older demo skis for a second season so it was only about $100 for all 3 days. I wanted the Sky 7 but they didn't have any short enough left. The snow that time was deep but fairly heavy, not fluffy like I had skied at GT and Bridger the week before. By the last day I didn't really need wider skis but was having a good time in assorted terrain so didn't feel the need to take the time to change out. I usually change skis when demo'ing from a shop at the mountain, at least for the last few runs so I can demo something.

Here's what I demo'd at the 2019 Alta Demo Day in spring conditions that I found fun or at least had potential at an appropriate length and appropriate snow conditions.

Icelandic Oracle 88 @155, 126-88-108 - similar to BP88
Blizzard Sheeva 9 @157, stats: 124/92/114 R14 @164cm - tip flap on groomers
Icelandic Pioneer 96 @166, 131-96-118, twin tip with camber - too long
DPS Nina 99 @158, 125-99-111, R16-19 depending on length - Phantom 2.0

Note that I took out the Pioneer 96 @166 knowing it would be too long. I often learn more from skis that don't fit my optimum length or I don't like for whatever reason. I demo wider skis not so much for potential purchase, but so I know what to rent when I get lucky and catch a powder storm, and don't have my DPS Zeldas.

The DPS Nina 99 for a few seasons and those were the 2020 version, treated with Phantom. Made for an interesting comparison to the Stormrider 85 with traditional wax.

 

[marzNC]

@Analisa : what is the story with the Head Kore 99W? I did a demo run on a northeast groomer at a Women's Demo Day at Sunapee in 2019. It was a prototype @162cm, 134-99-120. Enjoyed it but have not have a chance to demo them since then.

 

[Analisa]

@marzNC The big differentiator for the Kores are that they're somewhat light & very stiff. They're a paulownia core, which is pretty popular for touring skis, with a Koroyd, Graphene, carbon, and glass. Super cutting edge materials in skiing - graphene wasn't produced and identified until 2004. Koroyd development didn't start til 2006 and was commercialized in 2010. It's mainly used in helmets. It's an incredibly stiff ski that shaves 100g or more off of comparable skis with metal.

I'm not super surprised you're a fan. They require and reward solid technical chops, but the lighter weight keeps them from being as fatiguing as some of it's heavier competitors, which is nice for skiers who don't have a lot of weight to put behind them.

Downsides, reviews have criticized their crud performance (tends to be a theme for anything soft & light). And while they hold an edge well on groomers, they're not the most energetic carvers that you can flex deeply & load with energy in a turn and then get that "ricochet into oblivion" snap back when you release it. (Some people don't need it. It's a deal breaker not to have it for me). Some people consider them planky for this reason.

It's getting a bit of a makeover coming in 2022 with the following changes
- For women, the sizing convention will finally make sense. The skis are scaled off the men's 2nd longest length. So for the 99, it's 99 at the waist for the 180. The 189 is 101 at the waist, and the 162 is 95. In fact, for the Kore 99 W, none of the skis are 99mm wide. They go 93, 95, 97. The women's line will be named for the longest/widest ski in the range, so the 99 W will become the 97 W, with no actual width changes.
- The new version will be "more playful"
- The topsheet will get a more durable update.
- Size jumps will also change and decrease the interval between sizes. (Haven't seen the 97 lengths, but the 87/85 will go from (153, 162, 171) to (149, 156, 163, 170).

 

[marzNC]

It's getting a bit of a makeover coming in 2022 with the following changes
- For women, the sizing convention will finally make sense. The skis are scaled off the men's 2nd longest length. So for the 99, it's 99 at the waist for the 180. The 189 is 101 at the waist, and the 162 is 95. In fact, for the Kore 99 W, none of the skis are 99mm wide. They go 93, 95, 97. The women's line will be named for the longest/widest ski in the range, so the 99 W will become the 97 W, with no actual width changes.
- The new version will be "more playful"
- The topsheet will get a more durable update.
- Size jumps will also change and decrease the interval between sizes. (Haven't seen the 97 lengths, but the 87/85 will go from (153, 162, 171) to (149, 156, 163, 170).

Thanks for the heads up!

Makes more sense to have. a new name. It gets very confusing when the name stays the same but the design is in fact different enough to be noticeable to most skiers. Having to know which year a BP88 was made makes it that much more complicated to make a decision buying online.

 

[Analisa]

@marzNC Yea! Naming is really complex. I did some research this year on the BP 98 to 97 change, and the Nordica Enforcer 93 to 94 change. The majority of both genders will still research old skis for the season after they're renamed, but men pick up the new naming faster. (45% of men look up the 94 vs around 30% of women searching for the 97). There are probably a number of reasons for this, but I think most of it has to do with OR shows. Ski Media pages dedicate the vast majority of their content to updates in men's skis. Women's models are given a few lines and the end of the pieces. Sometimes, they don't even mention what's happening for women at all (the most recent Sick Day overhaul and the release of the Armada Declivity line made no mention of whether the women's would be affected.) Women don't want to sift through pages and pages of men's gear highlights for 70% odds that there will be information on the upcoming year's women's model. I started writing my own women's previews this past year after trying to work with many of the mainstream outlets for better inclusion for women's gear, and pissing a few of them off in the process.

Names can carry a lot of equity. If a name is successful and identifiable in the market, brands will generally keep keep it consistent where they can. Each brand decides to switch names based on different criteria. The Kores are largely the same ski with the same materials. The most recent Sick Day overhaul made big changes to the ski, but the ski's capabilities and the targeted end user are still the same.

The really annoying ones are the brands that just keep using a name because it's been a successful line. For example, Pandora 104, 94, and 84 are all built to match the men's Sick Day line in their construction and design. But when they wanted to introduce a women's version of the Line Vision, they decided to call it a Pandora as well as the 110. I have friends that demoed the 104 and bought the 110 thinking it would be the same DNA, with better powder performance (and they haven't really clicked with the ones they purchased). I've seen friends recommend the 94 and 104 based on how much they love the 110.

There are definitely trade offs to continuity vs rebranding, and I have no clue what the right guidance is, I just know giving more room to women's product changes & announcements during OR season would go a long way in making sure women are up to date.

 

[elemmac]

Naming is really complex. I did some research this year on the BP 98 to 97 change, and the Nordica Enforcer 93 to 94 change. The majority of both genders will still research old skis for the season after they're renamed, but men pick up the new naming faster. (45% of men look up the 94 vs around 30% of women searching for the 97). There are probably a number of reasons for this, but I think most of it has to do with OR shows.

I'd be curious on how much of this has to do with the release of these two skis. Both were new for 2021, but if I recall correctly Nordica did an early release with their Enforcer line in...maybe January (?) of 2020, whereas the new Black Pearl wouldn't have been available for purchase until mid-late summer 2020.

 

[Analisa]

@elemmac I'm sure that definitely influences it, but when I shorten the time range and only look at Nov to present, men are 66% new name vs. 33% old; women are 50/50.

I think it's also largely influenced by the fact that women get their information socially. I went on a big research bender last summer looking at how women shop for skis so that I could match that back to how the review industry operates for women. We start out as shops' best customers, but leave for online options faster than our male counterparts. Advanced and expert women are in-store retail's worst customer. I also looked at Google search traffic and when women are doing lots of searches per each purchase. I assume this means they're researching, but it could be price shopping. Interestingly, there's not a strong correlation between sales units and research. None of the bestselling beginner skis (that make up slots 2-4 behind the black pearl 88) don't even register on Google trends. Most women stop trusting a partner or retail sales clerk and starts owning her purchasing decisions around the high-80's to mid-90's ski that skews a bit more advanced and is a solid all mountain ski with off-piste potential. It's all the models we tend to talk about here - Secrets, Pandoras, women's Black Crows, Santa Anas. No formal review site is fully serving that reader. Some good ones skew wider and strictly advanced-expert, some skew more frontside technical. But if I'm deciding between a Pandora 94 and Blaze 94 as a 50/50 ski, no one has captured that they're super similar with the Blaze being a bit more flexy and easy to steer.

When you look at the number of reviews and the wordcount, it doesn't match up to the 60/40 split of men's to women's skis in the North American market. We're getting underserved by reviewers. I've got a lot more of that data here.

So women are more likely to either supplement or completely rely on peer advice. But unlike reviewers and ski shops, we haven't dedicated our professional lives to staying up to date on the most currently line up and the year over year nuanced changes that happen on the ski wall. When I see facebook group posts soliciting advice on powder skis, I see a lot of up to date advice, and some not so much. (The volkl Kiku comes up every time. It's been out of production for 7 years).

I think that's why we see a bit more preference for legacy naming conventions on the women's side.

 

[elemmac]

@elemmac I'm sure that definitely influences it, but when I shorten the time range and only look at Nov to present, men are 66% new name vs. 33% old; women are 50/50.

If you're looking at Nov to present, then the Enforcer 94 has been on the market and available to consumers for nearly 11 months vs. the BP 97 at approx. 3 months. I'd still say that this doesn't tell an 'equal' story. But comparing that to your earlier statistic it does show that over time the statistics change quite a bit (which is pretty interesting on it's own account).

I suppose you'd have to compare data from Feb. 2020-July 2020 for the Enforcer, to data for the BP from Nov. 2020-June 2021. But of course then you bring in the discrepancies of how many people are actually looking/search at that time.

I think it's also largely influenced by the fact that women get their information socially. I went on a big research bender last summer looking at how women shop for skis so that I could match that back to how the review industry operates for women. We start out as shops' best customers, but leave for online options faster than our male counterparts. Advanced and expert women are in-store retail's worst customer. I also looked at Google search traffic and when women are doing lots of searches per each purchase. I assume this means they're researching, but it could be price shopping. Interestingly, there's not a strong correlation between sales units and research. None of the bestselling beginner skis (that make up slots 2-4 behind the black pearl 88) don't even register on Google trends. Most women stop trusting a partner or retail sales clerk and starts owning her purchasing decisions around the high-80's to mid-90's ski that skews a bit more advanced and is a solid all mountain ski with off-piste potential. It's all the models we tend to talk about here - Secrets, Pandoras, women's Black Crows, Santa Anas. No formal review site is fully serving that reader. Some good ones skew wider and strictly advanced-expert, some skew more frontside technical. But if I'm deciding between a Pandora 94 and Blaze 94 as a 50/50 ski, no one has captured that they're super similar with the Blaze being a bit more flexy and easy to steer.

Really interesting to see how this has played out in your research. Thanks so much for sharing. Out of curiosity, how is it that you go about researching these types of Google searches? Is it a special program, or public information somewhere online?

 

[Analisa]

@elemmac Totally fair, I repeated the process with the Pandora 94 & 95 over the past year (June 2020-June 2021), and compared that against the Sick Day 94 and Sick Day 95 another year ago (June 2019-June 2020) since both models refreshed at the same time, but a year apart. It's also the same number changes, since some typos on the number keyboard may be more prevalent than others. The Pandora still has 1/3 of search traffic on the older model, while the Sick Day 95 didn't have enough traffic to register on Google Trends.

In terms of research, I have 1 year of sales data from SIA from the 2018-2019 season that I'm definitely not supposed to have. They include the breakdown of sales, MSRP, percent sold online vs in-store. I layered on catalog information from evo.

The search side is all public on Google Trends. They provide indexed scores to give you a sense of which searches are more common, without revealing any of their public data. Any low-velocity searches are disclosed as zero to protect their data. Here's the Pandora query. It isn't perfect - the related queries tab further down gives good visibility to whether the query is specific enough. "Cochise" alone has a lot of results for Cochise the Native warrior, Cochise County, the ski, the boots, etc. So it's not a perfect resource, but has been really helpful for talking to manufacturers and review website owners about the shopping journey for women customers. I think women would buy way more skis if we had more information and buying felt like less of a risk. Demoing is definitely still best, but it adds a lot of friction to the shopping process and not everyone can ski the right ski in the right conditions in a very time or cost effective way. Not to mention, while we have a very different culture here, a lot of women don't recognize when they'd benefit from a quiver or a longer/stronger ski.