Why women's gear sucks

I, for one, am delighted that there are women's skis out there. At 5'1" and 110 lbs, I used to have a terrible time finding skis that were right for me; years ago I even resorted to junior skis. I don't think offering the same skis in different lengths and/or flexes and/or mounting points is the answer. These days the differences go beyond that (and I don't just mean graphics!). Women's skis have shorter tips to help you get forward. And some of them offer canting to get you forward, too.

It's the same with boots. Women's boots aren't just smaller. They can offer lower or scalloped cuffs to accommodate our lower calf muscles. So it's more than just size.

I also think that although finding an aggressive women's ski may have been an issue years ago, that's no longer the case. There are some great, kick-ass women's skis out there now. I think there's something for everyone.

Not sure you get MtnLion's premise here.

Not ALL women need a heel lift to get forward. For some it is detrimental. Not all women have lower calf muscles. Some men do.

Just had to chime in to say that, a 17-year-old is hardly a good example of what the average woman would do/say (hence your disclaimer). The young lady in your story is very typical of the average teenage girl. Living with a 17-year-old female, I know how obsessed she is at her age with how she looks (as are her friends)--much more important than how her equipment performs--and while she's a decent, fast-improving intermediate snowboarder, she wouldn't be caught dead on the perfect-performing board if the graphics didn't pass muster with her. The color of her boots was every bit as important to her as the color/design on her snowboard and they had to coordinate, as did her bindings. I tend to think that, the more of an adult the average woman becomes, the more likely she is to consider performance over graphics (but graphics will always play a part for the majority of women).

To the OP, the marketing (and manufacturing) of skis/boots/gloves or whatever for women is obviously working. Not every skier is hard-core or performance-conscious, and if having a pretty, color-coordinated skiing kit works for a woman, what's wrong with that if it gets her out on her skis? Obviously, it's working, because the market for women-specific skis and boots is ever growing. There are men who will ski on women's skis and even a few who will buy them because they work for them. Some graphics may be too OTT-feminine for men, but, as has been mentioned in an earlier post, there are some unisex ski graphics (men with machine guns) that I'd shy away from as well, especially if there was another ski that worked as well for me that had more appealing graphics.

The market targets what the market will bear. The women-specific market seems to be faring quite well. I'm sure that means frequent frustration on the part of the folks who sell skis and fit boots, but the market is not just for people concerned about finding the ski or boot that will perform or help them improve in their skiing ability. You'll always come across those who don't care in the least about performance or progressing from green to blue runs, but rather, are just as content to stick to green groomers, looking pretty in their color-coordinated ski kit (I know, it's hard for those of us who are so passionate about skiing to imagine that person exists...). And there are those few who have to learn the hard way--they'll insist on buying the lavendar boots (against the advice of the bootfitter), marveling at how cute they look as they walk around in the shop, but once they ski on them a few times, they'll realize that the guy in the boot department was right--the boots may look good, but they suck performance- or fit-wise.

THAT IS the point. Making a blanket statement that all woman are the same and have the same exact needs is just as bad or worse than not making any adjustments at all.

We have a Winnah!!

Actually I would edit that to sayd the young lady was the typical average teenager.

But then a few months ago I got to witness a young MALE (<17yo) snowboarder at the local ski shop spend about an hour matching a beanie to a flashy burton jacket. :

I guess this puts me in the minority, but I have to defend myself... At 19, I care a lot more about the ski, and how it gets me around, than how it goes with my jacket and pants. I've only been skiing for three years, and if left to my own devices, I would be a recreational-foo-foo skiier, but, thankfully, I've got brothers to keep up with, Warren Miller movies to watch, and can I ski whatever I want. I'm going to buy the 2009 Auras, despite the fact that I hate the graphics. (Pink.... Flowers.... Geisha, blegh. AND they definately don't 'go well with' my bright orange pants. So what?) They are near hideous, in my opinion, but I've demoed them, and I love them. I ski on Salomon Verse right now, and they aren't the prettiest ski in the world, but I love them to death, they ski better than most things I have demoed- girly graphics and not.

FWIW, I LOVE Lange boots. They fit my tiny feet. In the boot category, it's awesome to have womens sizing. But I also would have bought men's boots if I could have found a pair that fit me. Also, I would buy a pair of Mantras, in a heartbeat, if they made them short enough.

I'm under the impression, from working in the gear industry, that women's specific ski lines are really, truly a way to get more women buying skis. A relatively wealthy tourist skiier is more likely to buy a pair of skis if they go with her purple outfit. If there isn't a product on the market to match her, then why bother owning a pair of skis? I'm not saying that this is the only instance this happens, just an example. Also... The skis that I personally found 'cute', when demoed, weren't worth a dime when it came to performance.

That, I agree with. I think it's like bootfitting, we all (men and women alike) have different shapes and strengths and weaknesses, and need to have the gear that suits our needs, not just what we like the look of.

However the title "why women's gear sucks" and several comments by other members about choosing skis by color kinda make me get a different feeling from the thread. I could be wrong, but I got the feeling that the implication was that ideally women's specific ski gear would be eliminated and unisex gear would become more unisex, with various options that would suit men and women as opposed to being designed for men and suiting some women who have properties that enable them to use men's gear efficiently.

As far as that concept goes, I feel like in a perfect world we'd be best served to have men's gear (what is currently unisex, built with men in mind) unisex gear (lighter/softer) and women's gear (built from the ground up with women in mind). However, I know that there are so many options manufacturers can give us, and if that means cutting one of those three categories, I'd cut the middle one.

While women's specific gear isn't the best choice for all women, it is for some, and many women with quivers have both, depending on what meets their needs and makes them grin. When it's demo time, I go for women's specific and unisex skis, if they've got both in lengths and types I'm looking for.

While many of my clothes are from the women's section, some are from the men's department, some are from the boy's department, and some are from the girl's department. What works works, regardless of who it's branded for, and when something is designed in a way that works best for me, that's what I go for. I think there are many other women out there who follow that philosophy. Of course there are women who go for looks, just as there are plenty of men who do the same. I don't believe there's any shortage of men who buy the ski that they heard is what the bad*sses ski on, so they can look like a bad*ss as well.

In short, I think that women, as well as men, would benefit the most from buying gear that suits them as opposed to gear they like the look of, or the reputation of, etc. I also feel that women's specific gear being available gives us more of a chance to find gear that suits us and performs the way we'd like it to.

AMEN, sista.

I don't give a rats patootie what my skis look like. I'd build custom skis if I could afford them, and you could bet that they would have a really neutral topsheet. I don't like flowers, and I don't like pink, in most cases. But I'll be riding some pink Auras next year, because they are a great ski and deliver terrific performance. . . and Volkl manufactures them short enough. Period.

I want performance, and I want it in a ski that works for my weight and height. At 5'2" and 110-115lbs (depending on how recently I had a baby, lol), they don't really make Mantras and Karmas for the likes of me.

I am small, but I am fit and strong and I like to ski off-piste. (Small does not mean wimpy and chained to the groomers. My best-skiing friend is my height and not much more than 100lbs. . . and she kicks BUTT.) So I am happy that they're making women's skis that serve *my* market. If they could/would make some of the best performing, wider unisex skis shorter? Sure, I'd buy 'em, and avoid froo-froo graphics. But they don't, so I buy women's skis.

Sorry it's a PITA. . . or something (I'm not sure I really get what the problem is, if there is a product that people want and they're buying), but try being a relatively hard-charging, open-bowl-skiing 110lbs and get back to me after you've tried shopping for unisex skis. (And don't even get me started on boots. Narrow, narrow, narrow is necessary. Even the lowest of the *low volume* boots are usually too wide in the heel.)

I'm a female, don't own a woman's ski, never have. Why? Because I feel my weight, which varies all over the map, is usually in the male range compared to the female range. I DO own "women's" boots because when I said I needed to accommodate a large calf, the salesmen had me trying on women's boots. I've owned "male" boots, but the ones that have fit me best have been women's boots. If they had flowers or were pink, tho, they'd have to find something else.

That being said, I tried the Auras, liked them, but felt they were just a TAD light for me. I wanted to demo a longer pair of the Auras, or a shorter Mantra, but they just weren't out there to try them. So, neither got bought.

And my husband refuses to buy the PE's because of the graphics, he keeps asking me what they look like THIS year.

mntlion sent me his OP earlier this week and for the most part i agree, that being said and others have mentioned it we here (and TGR/Biglines/skidiva) are the minority and the manufacturers must cater to the unwashed masses as well the hardcore

since i have been going to trade shows as a buyer and now as a rep i laugh at the yearly bootwall discussion, it goes something like this:
year one: why don't the manufacturers make the womens boots in grey or black so it matches the clothing available instead of white, pink and blue like this boot line here...
year two: why don't the manufacturers make the womens boots white, pink and blue in so it matches the clothing available instead of instead of black and grey like this boot line here...
year three: repeat year one
year four: repeat year two
and so on....

Fortunately my girlfriend only cares about performance/cost.
She ski's with a really good and bright red Tenson outfit, has the white ans yellow P50 and, to top it of, wears the green/fluogreen Nordica GT boots.
She couldn't care less about looks.
Well she does when looking but as soon as the wallet comes out she doesn't anymore, then it's all about value for money.

I'm affraid I'm worse than she is.
I usually find some technical or performance arguments to buy a piece of gear or kit that I want but often the well-thought arguments are only there to mask the general appeal of an item.
It's not as bad as that really.

All in all I don't think womens gear has so much to do with looks and graphics.
I think womens gear is more appealing just by the fact it is specifically made to tailor to womens needs (or is at least marketed that way).
If I have a choice between two items and one is said to be developed specifically for my kind of person than I will likely look at that item first.
It's like shampoo for blondes, redheads and what have you. Even if functionally the same a blonde will buy the blonde shampoo, just because of the suggestion of better performance for that person.

What she said.

I should add that my post was primarily about skis.

While I do think there is some value to the fit tweaks in some ladies boots (my boots currently have *Lady* in their name), I would never, ever, ever, ever buy ski boots without some serious time in the shop of a very reputable boot fitter. It's a big, expensive, important (the most important) ski investment, and one that's pretty hard for even the most addicted laypeople (like me) to understand to the fullest.

I would never walk into my bootfitter knowing exactly what I wanted. I might walk in saying, "I have heard this is a great boot, would it fit my feet?" But if the bootfitter said "no" and pointed me elsewhere? Well, I am going to have to listen to the expert. My last pair of boots prior to finding a decent bootfitter? : and : and

Never again will I trust my own *expertise* in this department.

moll, [edit: just saw your new post...]
The op's point is that from a skishop perspective it's difficult to carry 2 lines of everything when there could be just one with a wide range of fit, flex, cuff shapes etc. (primarily boots). When you introduce "women's" or "men's" then people are less likely to switch gender lines even though it might fit them better.

Are there any good wide skis for a heavy person with flowers on them? If so maybe I"ll purchase them. Then I'll get a "ski like a girl!" sticker and put it on them. They could be cool. Especially if it makes me ski like Ingrid Bacstrom (sp?)
I like those swix "medieval" poles. There kind of "girly" and cool.

hmmm...maybe there's something wrong with me...

Junior race skis make a good choice for a lighter person in the East.

Orage- nice post. Watch out for Warren Miller movies - they just make my ADD worse. Check out Steep.

My question for you (off topic): (street clothes here) How to get the boys to at least wear their pants close to the waist?
My answer is: Get the girls to stop dating them. (Why should you get all dressed up and they look like they found some huge guys pants on the street?)
Whadya think? (or maybe you like the pants that way?)
---------------------------------

None with flowers that come to mind, but next year's Volkl Auras will be hot pink and black, with swirls and geishas. That's pretty girly. And I have heard some men like them.

Not in the east, or I certainly would have tried this by now! Fat waisted is where's it's at!

Graphics won't sell a womans ski, but they sure will stop a sale.

My sister tried the Elan wave spice. Liked the ski but would never buy it because:
Ski is black and ugly especially with the wave under the top sheet.
She told the shop guy it made them look like there was something wrong with them.
I agree they're ugly.
As for Elan's square tips I think they're stupid I wouldn't be able to deal with them. (Don't like the Dynastar coffin tips either.)

oh grasshopper...so wrong..so wrong..(note your "would have tried" as opposed to "tried")
Of course maybe you meant "west"?

Do these thin skis make my butt look big?

I meant I am not in the east. I am in the west. Have been for lo, these many years, after a youth on the blue ice of MI/VT/NH. I will never go back.

ah yes moll, I see what you mean. Still, you really should be upset about not skiing in the east. I mean it rains a lot, then it's freezing cold, then maybe it snows, then rains, then it's windy and cold. Maybe it'll be sunny...just maybe...


crildart,: moving right along....

Originally Posted by SueNJ
Just had to chime in to say that, a 17-year-old is hardly a good example of what the average woman would do/say (hence your disclaimer). The young lady in your story is very typical of the average teenage girl.

Last summer I heard an interview with the race car driver Danica Patrick (24? yrs). The woman interviewing her said she noticed that Patrick used the word "girl" a lot and not "woman". Danica Patrick replied "I don't know...I just think the word 'woman' is old fashioned."

So the lesson for women who care about this issue is: Buy your clothes this year and next year the boot colors will have caught up, so wait until then to buy boots?

Correct response, according to the Car Talk guys: "I've seen worse".

my answer is "I don't think it is the boots that make your ass look fat"

Hahah. I don't even understand how that can be comfortable, street clothes, OR ski clothes. Boxers are much less attractive than jeans, or ski pants. But an answer to your question, I have no idea.

Warren Miller is classic, grown up on those, but I'll have to check those other ones out.

Thanks!

I will stick with my black boots and "mens" ski. They perform the best!

I've been really annoyed at the women's designs....mostly horrible in my opinion. And most women I've talked to don't really like them (especially a few years ago when they were becoming more common). I've always wondered what the ski companies were thinking when they did these designs. I always prefer the men's ski designs better. However, in the end I do not choose a ski by its design, I choose it by performance, and while I've always been open to either men's or women's skis, I think some of the adjustments they make for female body shape and weight distribution make sense, so I've looked to the women's skis the last few years. I just bought a pair of Salomon Origins, which I had never even considered for several reasons, one of them the yucky design. Then I had the chance to demo them and they were fabulous and perfect for my needs. So I got them, in spite of the flowers. They've kind of grown on me looks-wise, I now find the design ok, I don't really care what it looks like because I like how it skis and how I ski on it!!!.....and heck, maybe it's less likely to be stolen due to the looks! If you're just a casual skier not obsessed with skiing a lot and getting good, I doubt if it matters what you ski, just something easy and forgiving, and probably cheap.

As for boots, I've had a horrible time getting a good fit. I have feet that are difficult for ANY shoes, much less ski boots! I had some Nordica Beast 12's for a couple of years and they really hurt....I have a high arch, high instep, narrow heel, and I simply could not get in and out of them without help. This year I tried on a bunch of boots, and found boot nirvana in some Technica Attiva Flames. I never thought to try men's boots because I always thought female feet tended to be a bit different and it would be hard to fit in a men's boot. I might be wrong there, but my Technicas are great.

I just want to chime in here with my snowboard choice - It's Salomon Seek 160 from the late 90s. It ended up being a perfect board for me for a long time, and it was marketed as being a women's high-performance board. Luckily, the graphics are of jellyfish, so it doesn't really say "chick."

I'm 5'8" and 145ish, although I was lighter when I bought that snowboard. This year's go-to equipment after breaking my PEs is the 177 Mantra. So a ski to fit my abilities, even if some say it's too big.

I'm generally inclined to agree with Mntlion. On the other hand, as long as the ski companies keep the same widths in different lengths of their skis, it would be difficult for a smaller person to get something with a large-radius sidecut or for a larger person to get a small-radius sidecut within a unisex ski line. A good friend of mine is on ski boards partly because at just over 5' tall, she couldn't find skis she liked when she started spending significant amounts of time on the mountain several years ago before the women's ski thing really took off.

All that said, I'd have a hard time skiing something with a hearts-and-flowers theme, even if it rocked. I'd probably still do it, though...

I just got a new pair of ski boots. Was looking to get a boot that was a tad stiffer to compliment my Krypton Storm and to have on hand for that day when the the Storm finally gives up the ghost(which I'm hoping is in the distant future).

I pondered getting the Krypton Pros Oboe is offering in Gear Swap, but was discouraged because I'm told they would be too stiff for me.
I ended up getting the Kryzma, which I'm fondling daily, as you should with such a beautiful piece of ski gear.
What is the difference in the Kryzma and the Pro?
Am I just assuming that there is a big difference in stiffness between the men/women models?