or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › I'm a lightweight guy - should I be looking at skis for women?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm a lightweight guy - should I be looking at skis for women? - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

 

Head back into your cave. While some ARE the same, many err most are indeed different. 

Cave?  Are you drunk? Name one that is not the same.

post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 

Just go faster! :-)

:D 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rug wheelie View Post
 

Cave?  Are you drunk? Name one that is not the same.

:popcorn:popcorn

post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rug wheelie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

 

Head back into your cave. While some ARE the same, many err most are indeed different. 

Cave?  Are you drunk? Name one that is not the same.

Volkl Attiva, completely different skis than the mens RTMs

Head Joy series, nothing comparable on the mens side in mold and construction.

All Nordica Belles..same molds but two strands of Iso-Core verses one on the mens side

Blizzard..see above

K2 Supermodels, different molds and flex patterns than the mens AMP.

 

Need I go on?

Volkl Yumi, no mens counterpart. Kenja, same construction as the mens but different mold

 

 

Skis that ARE the same...

 

Volkl Aura, One

 

 

Cave. Go. 

post #64 of 89

No difference but top sheet cosmetics and they will admit it if you press the issue and there is no one around to witness:
Salomon, Atomic, Rossignol, Dynastar, Blizzard, DPS, 4FRNT, Icelantic, Movement, Armada,....

 

Seasoned shop employees worth their salt will tell you the same thing - as long as their boss is not in ear shot.

 

Nemesis -  Hell & Back mold.  Belle - Fuel mold.  Wildfire - El Capo mold.  Yumi -  Kenja mold.  Super Joy - Super Shape mold.  Superific - Free Luv/Amp mold.  Superstitious - Apache Explorer mold.  There are discrepancies in the published dimensions but if you measure them they are the same.  EVERY single manufacture recycles/reappropriates molds.  They don't just do it with women's skis.  All of last model series of Atomic touring skis came out of alpine molds, i.e., Charter / Access.


There are a few examples of some taking the effort to lay up different cores, profile the cores different, different mount positions,  etc. but its all bullshit marketing and/or it didn't cost any more to do it or the cost to do it allowed them to squeeze more margin at the register.  You ski them side by side and you can not tell a difference.

 

Women's skis are the biggest BS - bag of poo - lier-lier-pants-on-fire scam in the ski industry. Buy what makes you happy, or matches your coat, or your eye color, or just wing it, OR better yet go demo a bunch of stuff and buy the ski that you actually SKI the best but understand this - women's specific skis are a BIG FAT LIE!  They might make you feel better or match your outfit better but they don't offer any performance benefit over a unisex or mens ski.


Edited by rug wheelie - 10/23/14 at 11:37pm
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Volkl Attiva, completely different skis than the mens RTMs

Head Joy series, nothing comparable on the mens side in mold and construction.

All Nordica Belles..same molds but two strands of Iso-Core verses one on the mens side

Blizzard..see above

K2 Supermodels, different molds and flex patterns than the mens AMP.

 

Need I go on?

Volkl Yumi, no mens counterpart. Kenja, same construction as the mens but different mold

 

 

Skis that ARE the same...

 

Volkl Aura, One

 

 

Cave. Go. 

 

I'll bite.

 

First, my understanding of the use of multiple molds in ski construction is for different ski lengths. So a 150cm ski needs to have slightly different tip, waist, and tail widths when compared to say a 180cm ski in order for the different lengths to have close to the same feel and turning radius. So the Kendo and Kenja are arguably the same ski with slightly different dimensions due to different lengths

 

Other skis that are the same. (some may not still be in production) and the women's versions would come in shorter lengths:

 

Rossi S3 came in mens' and womens' (I don't recall if the S7 did or not), and there were some other  Rossi skis called an S86w and S86m also S90w and S90m that also had identical mens' and womens' versions.

 

Salomon Lord and Lady. Gesha and Shogun.

 

There are other examples that I can't recall at the moment. Doesn't Blizzard have a womens' version of the Bushwacker?


Edited by DanoT - 10/23/14 at 10:42pm
post #66 of 89

Women's version of the Bushwacker is the Black Pearl.  Kendo and Kenja come out of the same mold and same construction even thought the published sidecut dimensions are off by a few millimeters.  First generation S3 and S7 came in S3W and S7W versions.  Salomon - you nailed it.

 

Each size needs its own mold. Some companies have different tip - waist - tail dimensions for each size some don't, i.e., progressive sidecuts.  Conceptually the idea is that the longer or shorter the ski the wider or narrower its proportions.

 

Most companies use the same core profile for the entire size run of a given model.  They take the vector length and optimize the profile for that length.  Profile = shape of the core from the side.  Vector length = length that they magically determine they will sell the most volume.  If they only give the sidecut radius of one size on there website the odds are good that this the vector length.  What does it mean?  The longer size profile will be ever so slightly thinner at the tip and tail than the shorter size.  Theoretically the shorter ski will have a slightly stiffer/different flex profile than the longer ones.  In most case you would be hard pressed to tell the difference on snow.


Edited by rug wheelie - 10/23/14 at 11:18pm
post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post

I think it's interesting that while it's considered pretty much standard for hard-charging or tall/heavy women to look to unisex/men's skis if they can't find what they need in the women's lineup, apparently when it comes to men considering women's skis, consensus is that the flex pattern in women's skis is so incredibly unsuitable to men that presumably the OP's testicles will shrink back into his body cavity as a result.
BSmeter.gif

The dissenters, of course, are the several actual light men who have gone through this themselves and said that they ski a woman's ski because it works best for them. Clearly they must be delusional, right? nonono2.gif  

I pay a lot of attention to women's reviews. I'm too tall to look at anything women specific, but I think their reviews on certain characteristics like forgiveness are better expressed than men's reviews, and since forgiveness is more like a master trait than say float I think much can be gleaned from those inputs.

This stuff isn't just about being lighter - it is also about choosing skis that that support development goals if one happens to not currently be an expert or possess thighs suitable for bending rebar. I happen to think that shortening camber without shortening overall length is the right approach in that regard, but that is an entirely personal statement.

Anyway, the women's reviews along with other reviews here are exactly why I bought the LX82 a few years ago (and then upsized it one length to the point of this thread to only change one variable at a time). I just sold that second pair, but they were spot on for me at the time and best in their longest length @ 180cm. The idea that a ski is best balanced in one length is interesting here. Some may present that balance and versatility best in longer lengths, and that's what long and lean types should look for IMO as starting points.
post #68 of 89

 

OK...You said.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by rug wheelie View Post
 

Can't believe this has not been said yet.  Women's skis are BS.  Same ski different graphics.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rug wheelie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

 

Head back into your cave. While some ARE the same, many err most are indeed different. 

Cave?  Are you drunk? Name one that is not the same.

Volkl Attiva, completely different skis than the mens RTMs

Head Joy series, nothing comparable on the mens side in mold and construction.

All Nordica Belles..same molds but two strands of Iso-Core verses one on the mens side

Blizzard..see above

K2 Supermodels, different molds and flex patterns than the mens AMP.

 

Need I go on?

Volkl Yumi, no mens counterpart. Kenja, same construction as the mens but different mold

 

 

Skis that ARE the same...

 

Volkl Aura, One

 

 

Cave. Go. 

I gave you numerous examples on where women skis are different, some that are construction difference, some that are shape difference and some that are both...and some that are the same, other than graphics that you claim pertain to ALL women's skis. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rug wheelie View Post
 

No difference but top sheet cosmetics and they will admit it if you press the issue and there is no one around to witness:
Salomon, Atomic, Rossignol, Dynastar, Blizzard, DPS, 4FRNT, Icelantic, Movement, Armada,....

YES, these manufactures share both shape and constructions. 

 

Seasoned shop employees worth their salt will tell you the same thing - as long as their boss is not in ear shot.

I am pretty seasoned, some would say overly seasoned. 

 

Nemesis -  Hell & Back mold.  Belle - Fuel mold.  Wildfire - El Capo mold. YES to all...with the molds..but the constructions ARE different, you can see the metal in the NRGy's and the different wood in the Belles  Yumi -  Kenja mold. COMPLETELY different skis  Super Joy - Super Shape mold.COMPLETELY different skis  Superific - Free Luv/Amp mold.  Superstitious - Apache Explorer mold.  There are discrepancies in the published dimensions but if you measure them they are the same.  EVERY single manufacture recycles/reappropriates molds.  They don't just do it with women's skis.  All of last model series of Atomic touring skis came out of alpine molds, i.e., Charter / Access. I said many of these sold were shared molds but the construction and flexes are different...NOT just the graphics that you claimed from the start.

 


There are a few examples of some taking the effort to lay up different cores, profile the cores different, SO THERE IS DIFFERENCES??? different mount positions,  etc. but its all bullshit marketing and/or it didn't cost any more to do it or the cost to do it allowed them to squeeze more margin at the register.  You ski them side by side and you can not tell a difference. More margin at the register, both mend and women version tend to be the same price.

 

Women's skis are the biggest BS - bag of poo - lier-lier-pants-on-fire scam in the ski industry. Buy what makes you happy, or matches your coat, or your eye color, or just wing it, OR better yet go demo a bunch of stuff and buy the ski that you actually SKI the best but understand this - women's specific skis are a BIG FAT LIE!  They might make you feel better or match your outfit better but they don't offer any performance benefit over a unisex or mens ski. Do I agree that a good amount of women don't need to be on a womens derived ski? Absolutely but to say that it is all complete marketing, no there are many cases, enough to validate the segment, that there is more good than bad. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Volkl Attiva, completely different skis than the mens RTMs

Head Joy series, nothing comparable on the mens side in mold and construction.

All Nordica Belles..same molds but two strands of Iso-Core verses one on the mens side

Blizzard..see above

K2 Supermodels, different molds and flex patterns than the mens AMP.

 

Need I go on?

Volkl Yumi, no mens counterpart. Kenja, same construction as the mens but different mold

 

 

Skis that ARE the same...

 

Volkl Aura, One

 

 

Cave. Go. 

 

I'll bite.

 

First, my understanding of the use of multiple molds in ski construction is for different ski lengths. So a 150cm ski needs to have slightly different tip, waist, and tail widths when compared to say a 180cm ski in order for the different lengths to have close to the same feel and turning radius. So the Kendo and Kenja are arguably the same ski with slightly different dimensions due to different lengths

 

Other skis that are the same. (some may not still be in production) and the women's versions would come in shorter lengths:

 

Rossi S3 came in mens' and womens' (I don't recall if the S7 did or not), and there were some other  Rossi skis called an S86w and S86m also S90w and S90m that also had identical mens' and womens' versions.

 

Salomon Lord and Lady. Gesha and Shogun.

 

There are other examples that I can't recall at the moment. Doesn't Blizzard have a womens' version of the Bushwacker?

I think more manufacturers should make proportionate sized skis, smaller dimensions for the shorter lengths, larger for the bigger ones, men's "reference" size should be in the 175ish length, women's in the 158ish. Salomon, Atomic, Scott and Head (to name a few) do this. 

 

I might have missed a model or two when I threw the list together from skimming off the top of the memory banks. 

post #69 of 89

I'm going to weigh in with a largely irrelevant anecdote.

 

About 5 yrs ago I (5' 8", 138#) demo'd a pair of Blizzard Titan Eos skis at Steamboat on a boot top pow day (It is impossible for me to walk past a demo tent). After about 4 runs, I came back down and said to the Blizzard rep that the ski must have been built just for me, and that I must have a pair. He then said that it was a women's ski and that I could look for the Titan Cronus, which was the men's version of the ski. A Google search for the Eos led me to this web site for the first time; SkiMangoJazz had a pair for sale, and I've been hanging out ever since. Before buying SMJ's pair, I tried to learn as much as I could about the ski, and if the two versions were, indeed, the same. Several comments here said they were, but at least one poster said that the Eos lacked one layer of stiffening material that the Cronus had. I decided to buy SMJ's pair because it was exactly the ski I had demo'd in Steamboat (though the fact that the price he was asking was less than half that of a new pair of Cronuses might have had a little effect on my decision) That pair of skis led to a whole Blizzard branch to my quiver, which still includes Supersonics, Bushwackers and Bonafides in active rotation. Last December I noticed a killer deal on a pair of 174 cm Black Pearls at Sierra Trading Post, what must have been their last pair in a length that didn't seem to be attractive to the target demographic. I called a friend who isn't an equipment junkie and insisted that he grab them. He loves them, of course, and for the price, he is more than happy to put up with the girlie graphics.

post #70 of 89
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

I think it's interesting that while it's considered pretty much standard for hard-charging or tall/heavy women to look to unisex/men's skis if they can't find what they need in the women's lineup, apparently when it comes to men considering women's skis, consensus is that the flex pattern in women's skis is so incredibly unsuitable to men that presumably the OP's testicles will shrink back into his body cavity as a result.

:bs:

 

The dissenters, of course, are the several actual light men who have gone through this themselves and said that they ski a woman's ski because it works best for them. Clearly they must be delusional, right? :nono: 

 

Not that I disagree with you, but did this happen in this thread? Did I miss something?

 

I did say that OP doesn't "need" women's skis, but he is 5'11" and there just aren't many long enough for him, especially since he is looking for off piste capability. Other lightweights have chimed in, too, and many of them are a few inches shorter, just perfect for the size ranges of women's skis. More power to them. 

 

As for the K2s,  Yumis,  Super Joys, etc, also not what OP is looking for, so yes I ignored them. It seems to me most of the skis actually "designed for women" are going to be more groomer oriented and not offered anywhere much above 163.  

post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

I think it's interesting that while it's considered pretty much standard for hard-charging or tall/heavy women to look to unisex/men's skis if they can't find what they need in the women's lineup, apparently when it comes to men considering women's skis, consensus is that the flex pattern in women's skis is so incredibly unsuitable to men that presumably the OP's testicles will shrink back into his body cavity as a result.

:bs:

 

The dissenters, of course, are the several actual light men who have gone through this themselves and said that they ski a woman's ski because it works best for them. Clearly they must be delusional, right? :nono: 

 

Not that I disagree with you, but did this happen in this thread? Did I miss something?

 

 

 

As for the K2s,  Yumis,  Super Joys, etc, also not what OP is looking for, so yes I ignored them. It seems to me most of the skis actually "designed for women" are going to be more groomer oriented and not offered anywhere much above 163.  

Yeah, very few women skis are designed for you but there are some..like the Dakota. Which to my point are just not a graphic change from the Cochise (Scout though ;))

post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Yeah, very few women skis are designed for you but there are some..like the Dakota. Which to my point are just not a graphic change from the Cochise (Scout though ;))

Yes, and that's what I listed earlier, dakota = scout. But that was my point, too: he doesn't need to buy the women's ski because there IS a men's ski just like it. 

post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

I think it's interesting that while it's considered pretty much standard for hard-charging or tall/heavy women to look to unisex/men's skis if they can't find what they need in the women's lineup, apparently when it comes to men considering women's skis, consensus is that the flex pattern in women's skis is so incredibly unsuitable to men that presumably the OP's testicles will shrink back into his body cavity as a result.

:bs:

 

The dissenters, of course, are the several actual light men who have gone through this themselves and said that they ski a woman's ski because it works best for them. Clearly they must be delusional, right? :nono: 

 

Not that I disagree with you, but did this happen in this thread? Did I miss something?

 

I did say that OP doesn't "need" women's skis, but he is 5'11" and there just aren't many long enough for him, especially since he is looking for off piste capability. Other lightweights have chimed in, too, and many of them are a few inches shorter, just perfect for the size ranges of women's skis. More power to them. 

 

As for the K2s,  Yumis,  Super Joys, etc, also not what OP is looking for, so yes I ignored them. It seems to me most of the skis actually "designed for women" are going to be more groomer oriented and not offered anywhere much above 163.  

 

I haven't been able to go back and review (and probably won't, honestly, because it doesn't sound fun). Maybe I'm wrong about the exact content of this thread, or read between the lines. And I'm also thinking of the general case, not just this particular guy who is indeed taller than most women. I swear I saw a few comments about "the flex pattern won't be right for you because it's a women's ski." That's what I was responding to. I totally agree that at his height he'll have trouble finding women's skis that are long enough.

post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Yeah, very few women skis are designed for you but there are some..like the Dakota. Which to my point are just not a graphic change from the Cochise (Scout though ;))

Yes, and that's what I listed earlier, dakota = scout. But that was my point, too: he doesn't need to buy the women's ski because there IS a men's ski just like it. 

Yeah, there are many men's skis that are crossdressing. Boy, that ski with the flowers and play trees has the cutest little adams apple. :D

post #76 of 89

I don't really get this.  I'm 5'7", 150-155lbs, and my favorite skis tend to be around 180cm.  What I wonder is what on earth big people who like to ski fast are supposed to buy.

post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 

 

Not that I disagree with you, but did this happen in this thread? Did I miss something?

 

I did say that OP doesn't "need" women's skis, but he is 5'11" and there just aren't many long enough for him, especially since he is looking for off piste capability. Other lightweights have chimed in, too, and many of them are a few inches shorter, just perfect for the size ranges of women's skis. More power to them. 

 

As for the K2s,  Yumis,  Super Joys, etc, also not what OP is looking for, so yes I ignored them. It seems to me most of the skis actually "designed for women" are going to be more groomer oriented and not offered anywhere much above 163.  

 

FWIW, the longest length women's skis are usually 169-172 (I see the women's s7 actually goes up to 179), and if this is your length, you can get some STEALS, price-wise. I recommend anyone in that length zone buy last years's women's skis just to feel smug about getting amazing skis new for $200-$300. :)

post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelv View Post
 

 

FWIW, the longest length women's skis are usually 169-172 (I see the women's s7 actually goes up to 179), and if this is your length, you can get some STEALS, price-wise. I recommend anyone in that length zone buy last years's women's skis just to feel smug about getting amazing skis new for $200-$300. :)

This is SO TRUE, and something I totally failed to mention. You can pick up a 177 Blizzard Dakota for $299 on skis.com right now (and it looks to be the original one, which is basically the Cochise), a couple of years ago they were selling 177 Blizzard Crushes for $199. Nordica also makes women's skis in the high 170s/low 180s, and they don't seem to sell terribly well, either. So, yeah, budget wise, not a bad call, especially if you don't mind the graphics or have a little Krylon.

post #79 of 89
^^^^that's a good point. It's like those screaming boot deals that show up on Google searches that are always 29.5 (men) or 26.5 (women).

I think Nordica should come out with some sort of Day of the Dead for Chicks theme for the Soul Rider in a 182-4. I'd def buy that since no deals are ever to be found on that ski except from people who buy it short because they took bad advice on threads like this.
post #80 of 89

I could think of two uses of women's skis I've considered lately that other lighter weight guys I know have tried, but neither is what the OP has in mind.  One is using a woman's 182 gs ski r23 (previous FIS) ski such as an Atomic for recreational frontside runs.  And the other is using a Head Maya 7 (or 8?) for tighter slalomy turns for recreational frontside also.  The Maya is the woman's version of a past, more narrow men's Head Supershape, as I understand it.  

post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

One is using a woman's 182 gs ski r23 (previous FIS) ski

 

So, I have one of these. (Actually it's a 175.) Fun stuff.

 

But I'm under the impression that these are "women's" skis in a different sense from some of the recreational skis. They're skis built to meet regulations for a women's event, not for a woman's body, per se, except insofar as her body is likely (but not sure) to be shorter and lighter than a man's. I.e., no accommodation is made for differences in skeletal geometry or weight distribution or graphic design preferences. Distinction without a difference. For a given length, if they don't have different graphics, and they don't have a different mount point, and they don't have a different sidecut, and they don't have different construction, and they don't have a different flex pattern, then they're not ... different. Just made for smaller people. I think. Right? 

post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

So, I have one of these. (Actually it's a 175.) Fun stuff.

 

But I'm under the impression that these are "women's" skis in a different sense from some of the recreational skis. They're skis built to meet regulations for a women's event, not for a woman's body, per se, except insofar as her body is likely (but not sure) to be shorter and lighter than a man's. I.e., no accommodation is made for differences in skeletal geometry or weight distribution or graphic design preferences. Distinction without a difference. For a given length, if they don't have different graphics, and they don't have a different mount point, and they don't have a different sidecut, and they don't have different construction, and they don't have a different flex pattern, then they're not ... different. Just made for smaller people. I think. Right? 


Q, pretty close.  However you will also often find quite a difference between for example the 175 and the 182  women's GS (if we consider the older specs in this case)  The 182s are built as the top of the line women's race for higher level racers whereas the 175 is typically a bit softer/lighter in flex as it targeted more towards the younger junior racer.  

 

Interestingly enough however, when you look at the newer GS skis - 183/188 30m women and 190/195 35m men - all the feedback* I have received is that the longer length is a better ski in these categories!.  looks like the 183 and the 190s keep the same dimensions and construction so they turn out stiffer and harder work than the 188 and 195 versions

 

* strictly hearsay based in the information coming form our racers who have tried both, i do not have first hand experience of the shorter versions as of yet!

post #83 of 89

I'm ~5'10 1/2", 145 lbs., pretty much the same as the OP.  So I've really followed this thread with interest.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by J2R View Post
 

Thanks for all the responses - it seems to have brought a bunch of skinny folk out of the woodwork I didn't know were there. I don't feel so freakish any more now :).

 

I currently ski on Scott Crusades in 169cm, which I like a lot (it's a shame Scott don't really sell in the USA, I'm sure this ski would have done well over there - it's very popular and highly regarded in Europe). It has a 90mm waist (in the 169cm length). I'm looking for something maybe a bit wider, and maybe a bit longer, for a couple of trips planned this winter where I'll be mainly off-piste if possible. Not 100% sure I need it, as the Crusades have given me plenty of flotation for the soft snow I've tried them in. But if I am lucky enough to get decent deep snow, I may appreciate something which floats me a little higher.

 

First, I think where you ski as well as your style and skill, make a big difference on what skis a light weight skier will like. In icier and wetter conditions, like the U.S. East Coast, and the wetter West Coast, I might be on shorter skis for melt and freeze (back East) or different perhaps stiffer skis for wet and heavy (out West). As I understand it, the Alps are wetter and icier than where I am in the Rockies.  And people there tend to like shorter skis than U.S skiers in general.

 I think the OP's height is also a big deal, and would lead to more leverage and ability to take advantage of longer skis, skills allowing it.  

 

That said, three of segbrown's recommendations, the 100 Atomic Access 181, the 106 Soul 7 180 and the 97 Nordica Soulriders 177/185, from my experience seem like really good suggestions, for the "slightly wider and longer" than 169 Scott Crusaders 90s the OP requested.  As I really like all three, these suggestions, and explanations, were a relief to me.  Her suggested lengths also: Atomic Access in 181, Nordica Soulriders in longer than a 177 (though 177 felt okay to me, since one mode of this ski is fast slalomy turns), and Rossi Soul 7, any length (180, 188). (So easy and manuerable that 180 and 188 both felt fine for me.)  I don't know that they are making the Access this year, but last year's model is available if not, and at a nice discount.  The Atomic Vantage Alibi, the kid brother/sister of the Vantage Ritual, is of similar waist.  

 

From what I can gather, the tail rocker (semi twin) Access100 and Blog 110 have been eliminated this year, and in their place are the Automatic series 102 and 109.  An Atomic rep told a friend of mine in the business that the Auto 109 is the same ski as the Blog with the tail made less rockered and more directional; the Access 100 may well have a similar relationshop to the Automatic 102, is my guess.(?)  I think all four skis are good for lightweight skiers like myself and the OP, and in lengths around 180 to 180+ also, just as segbrown suggested.  

 

I've found that as a lightweight skier, there are some Brands of skis I can trust more than others--more consistently for light to low middle weights. 

 

Rossignols, Volkls and Atomics especially, for me, seem to be brands whose expert/advanced skis work consistently for light weight and midweight men.  Even more so if the skier has some leverage/height like the OP.  Among Atomics, the Alibi 98, the Theory 95, Automatic 109 and 102, and the Ritual 103, all seem like skis that would fit the OP's needs.  The Ritual and Auto 109 might be a bit wide, but they do hold a good edge on packed snow and frontside with no speed limit, as well as in powder.  The Theory, for me, has a speed limit, but it works great at quicker turns and in bumps, and is versatile.  

 

Other brands that for me work pretty much across the board are Rossignols,  Volkls, many Stocklis and many Kastles. Probably half the Nordicas, except the more "burly" ones.  The new Rossi Exp 100s and the NRGY 100s come to mind, as "wider and longer" for the OP.  The older Exp 98s weren't so good in float or bumps, but I understand the 100s are better. 

 

The Volkl Bridge at ~95? is an incredibly versatile ski for a wide range of skiers that has gotten especially solid reviews in this year's version.  It works well in moguls and powder also. Though folks I know who own it also have a fatter powder ski and a thinner charger ski as well, their "go to" ski is the Bridge, in all the conditions the OP describes.   

 

The only brand's skis that don't work, usually, for me, just in terms of my weight, seemingly, are most Blizzards.  Although their more "playful" models work better than their regular line, the Blizzards seem to work very well for medium and heavier guys, and poorly or so-so for light of weights: bad edgehold and flex without enough weight to bend it, I'm told.  But I don't like em.  Besides, I want a directional ski whose edge I can trust rather than a more "playful" ski, like the part of the Blizzard line that does fit me.  

 

One good trick for lightweight guys is to look at the weight of the skiers who endorse them or have a hand in designing them.  Dana and Sage of the Atomic Automatic line are lightweight guys too.  Also Sean Petit and his K2 Shreditor line.  I really want to try those out myself.  


Edited by ski otter - 11/16/14 at 12:12pm
post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

^^^^that's a good point. It's like those screaming boot deals that show up on Google searches that are always 29.5 (men) or 26.5 (women).

I think Nordica should come out with some sort of Day of the Dead for Chicks theme for the Soul Rider in a 182-4. I'd def buy that since no deals are ever to be found on that ski except from people who buy it short because they took bad advice on threads like this.

Why not find a pair of three season old 185's? Great ski for both men and women. It's one of the local race club's favorite 'free ski' skis that hey recommend for their racers. Didn't really dig last season's graphic, but they're stilla round in the wrapper. Heavier skiers? Pick up a Blizzard Peacemaker.
post #85 of 89

I'll have a turn here too seeing as I am taller than the OP and weigh the same.

Same problem, I skied for years on the 'right' length ski for my height based on fashion, bad advice and watching too many ski movies and possibly thinking having the 'latest in' skis makes a skier better. Scrub that, you can never really watch too many ski movies.

Then the internet happened and more information came available to make informed choices and peoples' unbiased personal experiences actually got posted for everyone to consider.

So long story short I ended up on a 163cm Head Titan, the older cambered one and it changed everything. I like to ski short fast turns with the odd fairly quick less-edge angle but still railway track type medium turns thrown in too cause we only get groomed over here most of the time. Reviews said that ski was demanding, stout, firm even stiff but it wasn't at that length for me it was perfect! The KERs and tail kick works, the ski holds on under loaded bigger turns at speed, everything just clicked and I got to be a better skier and enjoyment went to the next level.

So for me height vs weight, weight was definitely the limiting factor and a shorter higher performance orientated ski worked just fine on piste. Sachet onto new deeper snow on trips to Canada and that ski didn't work as it turned into a submarine. So dilemma was hmm, how long vs flex on a wider ski now. Answer, a wider still cambered underfoot ski with rise at tip and tail and a softer flex i.e no metal like a Bonifide, EXP 98 etc (98mm is enough to float us weight weenies). So based on a lot of reviews I went cautious on flex and tried the Rossignol S3 and it got me places in ways I could never do on the Heads. It was okay on groomed too but not fantastic but I wasn't expecting that anyway. Next evolution of that is the SIN 7 and it is even better than the S3 was and at 180 it has same edge length as the Titan so is a doddle to ski on piste and off, even though 180 sounds quite long, as it has a strong underfoot but subtle flex at the extremities and the length is optimised more in softer snow only.

 

So in summary, personally I think we don't need to go to womens' skis to solve the problem although just for s and giggles I'd really like to try the new Head Joy series as in the flesh those look great for lighter skiers, super light but have reasonable flex stiffness so probably good edge hold and aren't even feminine in appearance as well...I'd bet money men's versions will be out in 2016.

 

But as others have said its more about what do you want out of a ski, how fast do you go to use the weight you have to pressure it? If you are technically ok an intermediate ski probably won't have the edge hold or zing that a higher performance ski can so based on my experience I'd try shorter versions of better mens' skis for on piste as we can actually get them to bend into the shape they are supposed to be and overcome the twisting deflection lever effect of the length, and for off piste use technology i.e rise/rocker whatever its called this year to make longer skis feel shorter.

My take, I reckon weight trumps height when it comes to ski selection, especially for on piste i.e. actually touching the ground.


Edited by snala - 11/14/14 at 5:53pm
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Why not find a pair of three season old 185's? Great ski for both men and women. It's one of the local race club's favorite 'free ski' skis that hey recommend for their racers. Didn't really dig last season's graphic, but they're stilla round in the wrapper. Heavier skiers? Pick up a Blizzard Peacemaker.

I do a search every now and again - maybe I am not looking in the right places? I don't think they have changed the design at all, so 3 years back wouldn't require much thinking smile.gif. I think the 185's actually measure 182 or so IIRC, which would be perfect...I think....
post #87 of 89

J2R: There's enormous variation in women's-specific skis, and some might in fact work for you.  But, as is true of skis generally, to determine if a women's-specific ski will work for you, you'll ultimately need to demo (or just buy the ski and take the risk).  

 

I'm about your weight (150), but shorter (5'7").  I was going to mention that I really like (and own) the Head Mya 7 (170cm), which is a women's ski that is a slightly softer-flexing version of their iSupershape Speed (same mold).  However, it's still a very solid ski -- easily comparable to my 170 cm Stockli Laser SC's (even though it's 6 mm narrower than the Stocklis, it actually weighs more,  because its metal sheets are thicker).  [I got it because reports were it had the Speed's solid edge hold, but that the somewhat softer flex made it a bit quicker-turning, and more versatile for moguls and softer snow.]  But then I read you liked the 172 cm Line Sick Day 95.  I know it's a very popular ski, but I skied it in a 179, and didn't like it at all -- the forebody seemed to collapse beneath me when I drove the ski.    The point is that even though we're about the same weight, our ski preferences are very different.  Probably the only people whose recommendations you can trust to work for you are those that have skied the same skis and have had the same reactions.

 

More broadly I suspect that, comparing both men's and women's skis, and men and women skiers, there's more within-group than between-group variation.


Edited by chemist - 11/30/14 at 1:05pm
post #88 of 89

Obviously not something anyone here is going to be able to answer for the OP. He should demo some skies and see what he likes. I know a Volkl rep that is a good skier, not very aggressive and  rather small guy that skies on a woman's ski and loves it. This is the kind of thing you need to decide for yourself by actually skiing on a few different skies. 

post #89 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

 

More broadly I suspect that, comparing both men's and women's skis, and men and women skiers, there's more within-group than between-group variation.

 +1

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 › I'm a lightweight guy - should I be looking at skis for women?