EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do fat men belong on women's skis? Which men belong in women's boots?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do fat men belong on women's skis? Which men belong in women's boots? - Page 2

post #31 of 42

I ski Garmont Energy's in a woman's version, bc they dont make the men's in a 24.

 

As for the rest of the thead......WOW / Really?!?!

post #32 of 42
Thread Starter 

Really

post #33 of 42

This is the most critical part of women's specific design, as I understand the issue. All this shifting the mount point from the recommended line is a dubious science.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

It's CoM relative to ball of foot and heel of foot that is different on men and women.  A ski with bindings mounted at the exact same line will have a woman's CoM further back.  To get the Woman's CoM to the same (ideal) point you would have to mount the Woman's boot further ahead than the men's boot.  If you are moving the mounting point further ahead, without moving the waist of the ski further ahead as well (via changing the position of the ski's waist), then the skis will not ideal for one of them, as the ideal mounting point, or point of attachment of the ski to the skier will be different relative to the waist of the ski.

 

Just like where the CoM is relative to the ski changes how the skier affects the ski, where the waist of the ski is relative to the mounting point changes how the ski affects the skier.  Ideally, both should be in the "best" position.


 

 

post #34 of 42

If we move the mount point forward and the narrowest point of the sidecut forward... why not just move the tail end of the ski forward too while we're at it?

 

"I need a Woman's Specific ski. One that was designed to work with the unique needs of all women. I don't want pink or flowers or girlie graphics, I don't want a softer ski or a detuned ski, I want a real performance ski... but designed for women."

 

"OK, this is just like the Unisex ski, but the design team developed this for expert women skiers, they kept all of the performance, didn't soften it or make it lighter because that would degrade the performance. They didn't put feminine graphics that would belittle serious women skiers. They used the man's ski and moved the mount point forward, the waist forward and the tail forward... now it's one size smaller!"

post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

It's CoM relative to ball of foot and heel of foot that is different on men and women.  A ski with bindings mounted at the exact same line will have a woman's CoM further back.  To get the Woman's CoM to the same (ideal) point you would have to mount the Woman's boot further ahead than the men's boot.  If you are moving the mounting point further ahead, without moving the waist of the ski further ahead as well (via changing the position of the ski's waist), then the skis will not ideal for one of them, as the ideal mounting point, or point of attachment of the ski to the skier will be different relative to the waist of the ski.

 

Just like where the CoM is relative to the ski changes how the skier affects the ski, where the waist of the ski is relative to the mounting point changes how the ski affects the skier.  Ideally, both should be in the "best" position.


This brings to light the piece I was missing.  Whenever I moved the bindings, it was to get up to the sweet spot using the BoF method because the manf spot was too far back.  The part highlighted would be similar to me trying to do the same thing while carrying a back pack (fanny pack actually) with 20-30# in it.  I would have to go forward of the sweet spot.  Fortunately for me, as was pointed out by one of my fellow instructors yesterday, I carry plenty of weight up front to make up for it nonono2.gif.

 

What do ski patrolers do?

 

However, your CoM should be where it is supposed to be relative to the waist and not the other way around.  If you move the waist forward too, the ski's characteristics would change too much for it to be the same ski and the sweet spot would move making it necessary to move the binding again.  The waist of the ski needs to stay put and you should move your CoM around it.  So what if you CoM is closer to your heel than BoF?

 

If a man that has a CoM further back than the average for most men goes to buy a ski that is 170cm long, were to buy a 170cm ski designed for people with a lower/further back CoM, you're saying the waist should be slightly more forward.  Would that not mean that his tail just became longer and the sweet spot moved forward?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

This is the most critical part of women's specific design, as I understand the issue. All this shifting the mount point from the recommended line is a dubious science.
 

 

I've played around with this quite a bit.  I think several things have to be considered; are the boots the right flex and forward lean correct for you and your style of skiing, when you stand in your static ski position, where is the balance point on the sole of you boot, type of ski, how you're going to ski, etc.  Once you add all those ingredients and tea leaves and chicken bones to the recipe, you can then look at where the bindings should be relative to you.

 

I test the boot flex by being clicked in my bindings and closing my ankles (not flexing my knees).  I checked my balance point by putting a few 1/4" dowels on the basement floor and standing on them in a skiers stance and being pushed at the heel slowly forward until I tip forward; the furthest ahead dowel marks the spot.  Surprise surprise it is dead center on the boot manufacturers mark at the bottom.

 

I think it has rightfully earned the title of dubious science because it is easier to adjust your skiing style to accommodate for it  than figure it out.  On top of that, like in my thread about a ski's length point of diminishing return, there are so many things to consider to include not just how well you ski but how you ski, it seems more like black magic than science.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

If we move the mount point forward and the narrowest point of the sidecut forward... why not just move the tail end of the ski forward too while we're at it?

 

"I need a Woman's Specific ski. One that was designed to work with the unique needs of all women. I don't want pink or flowers or girlie graphics, I don't want a softer ski or a detuned ski, I want a real performance ski... but designed for women."

 

"OK, this is just like the Unisex ski, but the design team developed this for expert women skiers, they kept all of the performance, didn't soften it or make it lighter because that would degrade the performance. They didn't put feminine graphics that would belittle serious women skiers. They used the man's ski and moved the mount point forward, the waist forward and the tail forward... now it's one size smaller!"



Ding ding ding ding ding!

 

We have a winner.

 

post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredAtBMBW View Post

Ken, are you familiar with Railflex bindings?  They are on my Progressor 7+s, and they do allow I think a 1.5 cm window of fore-aft adjustment with just a screwdriver.  Or did you more mean the entire binding apparatus?


Not those specifically but my Neox bindings do something similar. You flip the window that you read the mounting point in around so it is 1cm forward.  To set it right, the toe and heel piece will move forwards 1cm.  I cheat that system by setting my toe piece for a bigger boot and heel piece for a smaller boot.

 

I'm in favor of being able to move the entire apparatus fore and aft.

 

 

post #38 of 42


This has potential to be one of the all time classic psychodelic threads here on Epic Ski:
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredAtBMBW View Post

I'd think most fat men weigh much more than women, but not all women.  I have no specific fat man in mind.

 

I just thought maybe that the body-fat percentage could be an indicator of ski sex choice, or--upon your suggestion--relative fore-aft mounting position.



very-fat-woman1.jpg

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

so in summary- what is the best drug to take to come up with a post like this?

 

 

BTW- Jay, nicely done.... that Pettitt scene is one of my favorite. 



 


Really!?!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

This is the most critical part of women's specific design, as I understand the issue. All this shifting the mount point from the recommended line is a dubious science.
 


 

 



The more obese you are the less your skis care where they are mounted.

 

post #39 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison Matura View Post

I am dumber for even having read this.

 

^This.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

 

What do ski patrolers do?

 

Wear vests that distribute the extra weight evenly.  When I put a pack on, I feel the change in my skis/skiing from the change in CoM - same for backcountry.  

post #40 of 42

 

 

 

 

Lower CoM???? Just try this!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpS3vs4DMk0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

post #41 of 42

Thank you Ursala! roflmao.gif

post #42 of 42

With that video, this thread just improved by 1000%.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do fat men belong on women's skis? Which men belong in women's boots?