Why women's gear sucks

You should snap up the Scott Black Velvets. Sweet little Series 4 race pole. In gift wrap.

GF and I walk into the local shop.. she is looking for a pair of 08 One Luvs. I'm a few yards away and I hear someone ask if she needs help. She states that she is looking for the 08 not the 09 that they have on display. Shop guy responds that all they have are the 09s but you should check these out... they look really nice! Not until she explains that she has demoed a handful of them and knows what she wants does he drop the pretty skis for a girl pitch.

On the other hand she does want the 08 over the 09 because of the graphics.

Fixed it for him... They skied really nice, same ski just a change in graphics...

I bet if they gave her teh 09 for the 08 price, she would forget she liked the graphics better .

I'd like to toss out my $.02,

1) I don't think this message board reflects the majority of the skiers out there so anything we state is the VAST minority. Most of the people on here are posting about performance and that matters to them because they are skilled enough to appreciate it. Most skiers are just looking to enjoy their time out there.

2) I do think that in an ideal situation it would be all unisex with just different flexes, flex points and shapes to accomodate both genders. But for this to work the graphics would also have to be fairly generic and gender neutral.

3) If #2 occurred what would the point of trying to market the skis be? It would be more up to you to demo and actually find the ski that fits you and the style of skiing you prefer then any marketing interest.

4) My wife finds that the women's skis allow her to enjoy skiing much more then when she has ski'd on unisex skis. She's a tall athletic woman so its not because she can't find a men's ski that is small enough. However she's not a pink and prissy woman, but would prefer just a slightly more feminine style, kinda like the tru luvs from last year, not blatantly girly but not black and masculine either. When I was looking at the local ski shop for unisex skis for her I couldn't not because she wouldn't ski well on them but she would have hated the Rossi Screamin or the K2 Silencer graphics. However the Squirrel in a tutu brandishing a sword on the K2 Misdemeanor also completely annoys her.

5) I do agree that for many of the recreational skiers and boarders out there; style is a large part of what they choose. Why else would some of the things you see on skis, boards and apparel be there? Some of the people I ski with would rather get something that "matches" rather then look at what is in the apparel (something "waterproof" versus something that has goretex or another known waterproof/breathable fabric in the making) for the same price point.

Here's a newb wannabe question I'm curious about.

A couple prefatory remarks.

I'm not massively experienced in demoing skis. Up until this year, the most I've ever skied in a year was 7 days so I pretty much would go to the hill having read a few reviews and rent some demo skis for the week. At most I'd switch skis once in the week. For the most part, I figured any problems I faced while skiing were due to my crappiness and had little to do with the equipment.

When I read reviews...both professional reviews and enthusiast reviews...it seems there really isn't all that much difference between equipment once you get into the right ballpark. That is to say, one reviewer will say, "This ski is too stiff" and another one will say "What are you smoking? That ski is too soft." Obviously I'm overstating it, but I do get the feeling that the differences between skis are often quite minor.

OK, all that said...do the more expert people here really believe the average Joe/Jane Doe wants to go into a shop and have to tick off 12 boxes describing exactly what they are looking for or would they rather walk up to the women's ski section, point at a ski they find attractive and get something that's probably is at least 80% as good as what they would get going through the careful process (assuming they could even get the careful process details right)? Furthermore, would they even be able to tell if they got that extra 20% (or whatever it is) on the snow? My guess is no...but, as you all know, I'm a wannabe...please correct me if I'm missing something.

So, if I'm right, women's skis, as they are marketed now, seem to match what most women both want and need from both a shopping/aesthetic and a performance perspective.

I can understand how the more technically minded folks here might be irritated by that though...

FWIW, I love geeking out on the technicalities of my hobbies...look at my boring and overly technical posts on performance driving. And I'm looking forward to learning as much technical stuff about skiing as I can (thus my addiction to this board) now that I'm living in ski country.

Wannabe, here is a link to a thread about the advancement of Women's ski gear with the influence of Jeannie Thoren.

Interesting thread...thanks Trekchick!

I'm not sure which direction you may have intended that thread to push my thinking, but I'm thinking that it reinforces my idea that having a "generic" women's ski is a good thing for the vast majority of female skiers. Quoting from one of SnowHot's posts:

Anyway, an interesting topic to me. My wife has the general desire to ski, but the equipment has always held her back from doing it much...particularly boots, which even after hours in a rental shop trying to get fitted would hurt too much for her to do more than 1 run without sitting in the lodge for a few hours to recover. After a few hours with a boot fitter and a lot of work, it seems she has boots she can wear for long periods of time finally. I'm thinking she will benefit from the "generic" women's skis as well...

Thanks again for the thread.

It is always amazing to me when there is a thread about women specific issue that many of the responses are from men who make sweeping generalizations about issues on which they know nothing about.

Most of the women who I ski with are Level 3 instructors who buy skis because of the qualities of the skis and not because of the graphics. If we like the graphics, great but they are not going to make a difference as to whether I buy a ski I like.

This goes on, but you can go back and read the OP. Will take this very belated opportunity to tweak MntLion about boots and then duck and cover: Don't know much about boots, and he's an expert. How stupid can I be?

Well, pretty stupid, but I do know something about measurements of bodies, including feet, and he's fundamentally wrong in his assumptions. Mntlion assumes that there is this single distribution of foot shape, and it will encompass all kinds of feet if only people took care in choosing boots and companies made enough versions. Well, in fact there are two distributions and they do not entirely overlap. Put another way, women's feet do not have the same range or type of variation as men's. Women's feet are not simply scaled down male feet, nor will their variation be encompassed by taking male lasts and making them softer or narrower.

Women's feet are more gracile (smaller bones at same length), they have more protruding bones (less fat and muscle over bones than males), and they have disproportionately smaller heels and longer toes relative to a male with the same length foot. Even to a male who considers himself to have a narrow heel. They also average larger calf circumferences for tibial length. (Alan Alda famously said that men had chicken legs; typically he was right.) And there are numerous smaller sex differences in the shape of specific bones. Women even suffer different markedly rates of pathologies such as bunions or hammertoe brought on by the shoes they wear every day. This is all available for inspection in the standard anthropometric data sources such as Army publications, specialized anatomy texts, or the various longitudinal growth studies.

Bottom line: Women DO need boots that are designed specifically for female feet, rather than just brands that modify a universal last derived from male feet. We're not just one big happy unisex foot family. And women should not take flak, especially from an excellent boot fitter, for wanting some realization of this...

I am SnowHot. I really enjoyed the Jeannie Thoren night with the girls and I completely understand how her vision has impacted the womens ski industry, more so in boots.
I tend to find myself in the 10% on one end of the spectrum that leans toward a unisex pick.
I have women's boots but not any of the usual women tweeks.
I also don't care much for the forward mount on a ski. But, I am in the minority and I know that.

As another woman skier, I think you are one who, like me, feels its about the individual and not the gender.
Just so happens that many women DO benefit from the women specific products.

Do I buy based on graphix? No
Are there some graphix that make me drool? Hell yea.

AI agree with you. Yes ladies move differently, and are shaped differently then guys, but all women are not the same. Every person needs gear that works tor them.

Ladies on average are shaped as your say. Now on top of that there are ladies that are not average. (I would say that more people are not average then average) And for these people they need to take fitting a few steps more, and find a perfect boot shape that works for them. Now what if that perfect boot happened to work for a man as well? Or what if that perfect boot that happened to work for that ladies was a man's boot?

I just get frustrated with a ladies comes into my store, and HAS to have a ladies boot when in fact based on many things (like the points that you listed) a non-ladies boot would be better for her.

mtlion, you nailed it!
While the WS ski gear has woo'ed many women into the sport, and has, perhaps, kept some in the sport who would have gotten discouraged with the gear being offered in days of old, it is important for all skiers, women and men alike, to get the right gear no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

I think I'm going to spend a bit of time on chick skis this season to see what I think :-)

Last season I bought this pair of women's version Nordica SUV 12s 170 cm for my wife dirt cheap, like <$200 new with bindings. They have relatively neutral pale blue traditional graphics. I think they were a marketing flop and that's why there was some cheap NOS. She used them for a season til she demoed enough to decide what she wanted for her main ski and ended up buying a pair of K2 Burnin' Luv 160cm (which she loves). So the chick Nordicas are sitting the basement. I'm going to set them to my boots and give them a try. If they are not do wampy, I think they'll be my teachin' ski this season.

Oh, I'm a dude, not a chick, otherwise the post would be pretty pointless, huh.

-l2t

OK, so sounds like we're actually on the same page here. All good. One small point: An average is a statistical abstraction. Like 2.2 children. No one is average. But in those bell-shaped curves we all hear about, two thirds of all folks are fairly close to the mythical average. Call it central tendency. Why the curve looks like a bell and not a plateau. So if you have two curves, one for men and one for women, they will overlap a fair amount, which is why some of your female customers should be in unisex boots (and ironically, as many men who should be in women's models). But when you get out past those central 2/3, you'll find women who just will never fit happily into a unisex boot, and men who will never fit into a female model. They should move to snowboarding...

Not only that, but we deserve women's boots that aren't marshmallows! I finally found the perfect fit for my feet, but I can damn near fold the stiffest model in the line in 1/2! Why would the Exclusive 100 be sooooo much softer than my WC 100????? A brief chat with Jeannie provided the information I suspected.......Lange has no intention of offering the Exclusive in any stiffer model. WHY??????????

Why???...............Economics.

The number of women skiers out there that could/would justify the production of the Exclusive mold in a stiffer model are insignificant relative to what it would take to justify the production expense. The production and sales/marketing costs dictate that about 3,500-5,000 units are the break even point for the worldwide market for such a venture. That is quite a few boots.

I have been hammering at (for example) Nordica to produce a Dobie 80/90 with a lowish cuff and a non Dobie graphic. Why?? it's an awsome shell shape and fit for the foot type and the flex is correct for many women under say 5'-6"- 5'-8" and 140#.

Why bother you might axe? I already have the Dobie 80 and sell roughly 30-35 pr a year to the target customer. The resposes that I get are diametrically opposed. One customer says....."THANK GOD!! a boot that holds my foot solidly and I can actually ski in.....BTW are you married?". The other says....."EEeeewwwwww!! does it come in some other color??".

WADR to TC, VG, SD, 9/11, and the many others that I know.......I'm truly sorry to say this but......this is the way it is.

Yikes...........................

SJ

I'm happy, Jim. Are you happy?

Yup!

SJ

Jim, any guy turning down that many proposals has got to be happy !

Nothin' wrong w/basic black in the wardrobe. Especially when it comes pre-polished & shiny. I like that boot in the 100, 'cept the low cuff just doesn't work for me. You are right about the graphic. The red clashes with a lot of the ski colors. But I understand the need for the red, since that makes it faster.

Early on when women's specific gear came about they were not nearly as feminine looking as they are now. For example the skis and boots my GF had really had no indication that they were for women based on the coloring....in fact they looked more masculine than my stuff. I think that a vast majority of women actually wanted the more girly looking stuff. Personally I think the women specific gear look very nice. If a woman still wants to have man-like gear, there is no one stopping them from buying it. All women, whether they like girly looking stuff or not, should be happy that the manufacturers have afforded them that many more options when it comes to gear.

RR, When we went to the Jeannie Thoren Experience Tuesday night, she explained a lot about the dynamics that make 80% of the women more efficient/comfortable, on ski gear. Heel lifts, and forward mount are only two of the things. She spent a bit of time talking about the Lange Boots (for which she has a hand in R&D). She commented on the down and faux fur liners which lend to asthetics as well as warmth. Since I don't have a desire to turn away from my beloved Kryptons, I kinda rolled my eyes, but I can plainly see how, many women would LOVE the down/faux fur lined boots. THIS is where we get girls like your GF excited about the sport. If we can make her happy and comfy at Step 1, then she may just excel to a point where she can, some day, kick your ass. I'm betting you would love that.

if you in a larger exclusive size (282ish or larger) check out the fluid 120's.

Very similar shape, just stiffer.

Trekchic, one trouble I see with the JT clinics is that there is not a test presented to check whether you might be an exception to her rules.

Another is the false impression that all "women's" gear is necessarily enabling to that 80%, so that gems like this:

are perceived as being better than a unisex modern boot.

Do you see what I'm getting at? In order to avoid those pitfalls, the lady client must find a bootfitter who knows the clinic material, the women's gear, and the client's anatomy anyway.

In which case, how is the clinic not redundant?

I think the Jeanne Thoren clinics are meant to introduce and educate in a generic sense. She does offer opportunity for individual bootfitting sessions in addition to the informational clinic.

Comprex, having been to several of the Thoren clinics, I can tell you that those relics you have in your picture would not ever be touted as superior to any modern unisex boot. Jeanne does a great job of presenting information without endorsing or slamming specific products. Perhaps you should go to one. You might learn something.

This is a straw man argument. Never said they would be specifically touted.

What I am saying is that the clinics lead to conflation of "women's" gear, and that unless the client studies bootfitting for herself, she will not know which fall under the positive design umbrella and which don't. The above example is obvious only because I selected it for absurdity.

Thanx. I did. Four times bitten, five times shy: not sending female friends to one again.

What's up with throwing dinosaur pic's into the mix ?

A "test" for individual applicability of the theories is really up to each woman as she learns & becomes more informed. It allows women to use their own judgement having more facts or information when making purchasing decisions. What's not to like about that ?

Redundancy - hmmm, 1 person speaking to 30-40 other people at one time, providing views, information, considerations, etc. Increasing knowledge, general information. Don't see a relation btwn that and a 1 on 1 individualized session with a bootfitter during purchase & fitting of a boot. It's like saying a JT clinic is redundant with this epicski forum. Or maybe that's reversed ?

Comprex, I sooooooooooo, want those boots!!!

Someone hasn't been paying attenton. JT never says that anything is thus and so....cut and dried. She presents a general theory that has been proven to work for a majority of her clients. This has not been proven with a plumb bob, a balancer, a bootfitters instincts or any other static device. Her theories have been proven on snow repeatedly for over 15 years.

Again...almost ad naseum here.......when JT finds a woman that doesn't need "the theory" that woman gets a high five and a hug. Those that can benefit, get a high five and a hug too but for different reasons.

When JT does a sales consultation, she does do a test. In my store, she relies on my plumb bob, my eyeballs, as well as her own knowledge.

JT is not even suggesting that she provides a "plug and play formula" She merely suggests that there are biomechanical issues that some women have that can be addressed with equipment.

Not considering this as a valuable contribution to the greater good seems rather myopic to me.

SJ

Amen!!!
This is what I got out of it.
She clearly says this^^^^^^^^^^^^ during her seminar.
No matter which way you slice it, she has brought many women into the sport with some amazing gear!