EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › My little sister really needs some new skis...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My little sister really needs some new skis...

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
My lil' sis is a very good skier, about 5'7", skis Whistler.
Somewhat aggressive skier, she used to be an elite athlete, so she has a lot of physical ability.
Skis lots of backcountry too, but has skis for that, already.
Has skied since she was 4.

She's very good in the trees, loves powder (d'uh!).
She likes speed quite a bit, and just goes off in any direction at all (she's skied at Whistler for years but barely know names of any runs).

She replacing old badly beaten Salomon XScreams, I think.

Her motto: "If you're not wrecking your skis, you're not skiing."

She's interested in the Rossi Scratch BC and the Solly that replaced the Pocket Rocket (1080 Gun?). She looked at the K2 Phat Luv but wondered if it was too fat.

Thanks for your help!
PS I also posted about a guy buying skis today - that's her boyfriend. Sweet.

.
post #2 of 15
Thread Starter 
Yeah, uh I realize the subject title makes it sound like she's a child.

Sorry (sis).

She's a woman about 40.
post #3 of 15
There will be a ton of early season demos, let her go try some. All the skis you mentioned are good, its what she will like and the way she will ski it.
post #4 of 15
Salomon Foil
post #5 of 15
There's a Volkl women's equivalent to the Mantra called the Aura. They look pretty sick...
post #6 of 15
There are a number of factors at play that need clarifying.

First is her weight. If she is a light 5-7" then a softer ski like a women's specific ski should be a good choice. OTH, if she is built like an elite athlete then a women's ski may not be the perfect choice.

Second, what size is she considering?

Third, which Scratch BC is she looking at? If it is the WRS, then it is wider than the K2 phat luv and it only comes down to a 171. If it is the "BC Girl" then it is narrower by a little, but it is also not a very agressive ski. The new 1080 Gun in any size over 154 is also equal to or wider than the Phat luv.

Fourth, is this ski meant to be her everyday ski? I know Whistler pretty well and it is not always a powder haven. If her b/c ski is good enough to be her ski for deep days, then you might consider something somewhat narrower as her everyday choice.

For example, her old skis were ~~ 69mm wide. If she got something in the 78-88 mm range that was not a twin tip, she would have a more versatile quiver when combined with her b/c set up for the really deep days. Realistically, something like that could be a better ski on 80% of the days than a wide soft twin tip. The other 20% of the time, she could use the b/c ski that she already has.

SJ
post #7 of 15
Dynastar Exclusive Legend Powder
Volkl Aura
Rossignol B3W
post #8 of 15
What's with the women's ski recommendations?

This is not a troll. It is a serious question.

Don't women's skis have more forward mounted bindings, requiring that the stance is moved back? Aren't womens skis softer because women as a rule dont' ski either hard enough or fast enough to bend a regular ski?

For these reasons, I believe that women's skis are primarily designed for the casual skier, to enable them to ski slowly while in the back seat. Some skis even have an increased ramp to promote this posture.

I believe that ski manufacturers view skiing women as inferior skiers/athletes that require special equipment to accomodate poor form. That's total nonsense.

( I'll admit to the boot cuff, but not the ski. )

The same effects could be acheived by moving the binding forwards, and adding a heel lift under the heel of the binding or even inside of the boot. But you'd need to apply your own flower stickers.

Judging from the description of level of physical ability, level of skiing and aggressiveness of the woman in the original post, I believe that suggesting she get womens gear is completely inappropriate.

Flame away.
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
What's with the women's ski recommendations?

This is not a troll. It is a serious question.

Don't women's skis have more forward mounted bindings, requiring that the stance is moved back? Aren't womens skis softer because women as a rule dont' ski either hard enough or fast enough to bend a regular ski?

For these reasons, I believe that women's skis are primarily designed for the casual skier, to enable them to ski slowly while in the back seat. Some skis even have an increased ramp to promote this posture.

I believe that ski manufacturers view skiing women as inferior skiers/athletes that require special equipment to accomodate poor form. That's total nonsense.

( I'll admit to the boot cuff, but not the ski. )

The same effects could be acheived by moving the binding forwards, and adding a heel lift under the heel of the binding or even inside of the boot. But you'd need to apply your own flower stickers.

Judging from the description of level of physical ability, level of skiing and aggressiveness of the woman in the original post, I believe that suggesting she get womens gear is completely inappropriate.

Flame away.
I agree with just about everything, except your reason for the forward mounting position. I believe it is more for the distribution of a womans body weight. with thier wider hips, thier COM is further back. so when she is in a balanced position, her weight is further backthhan a man's. Has nothin to do with ability or agressiveness. also, years back, a women's ski was just a soft version with the mount point moved forward, nowdays, some skis also move the sidecut to match.
But yea, for an advanced, agressive woman, we usually recommend a men's ski.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-turn View Post
I believe it is more for the distribution of a womans body weight. with thier wider hips, thier COM is further back. so when she is in a balanced position, her weight is further backthhan a man's. .

Whoa there! The balance point is the same for everyone is'nt it?The weight disdtribution for women can be different, which would make it even MORE imperative that they get forward. I don't see how mounting the toe pieces further forwards will help a skier learn good habits.

And regardless of weight distribution, if a skiers weight is not infront of the ankle when balanced, then the skier will be unable to turn their feet properly.

I'm completely convinced that the skis are marketted to the casual skier. The huge sidecuts make turning the feet irrelevant. There is no way that such skis would have been possible without deep sidecut technology.
post #11 of 15
The binding on a woman-specific ski is moved forward to allow the skier to more easily pressure the tips of her skis, something that many women have difficulty with as a result of their CoM being further back and lower than a man's. What we are seeing now is ski manufacturers really committing to the womens' market and creating skis in womens' specific molds. this allows the waist of the ski to be moved forward instead of just moving the binding forward, which used to cause the binding to be over a fatter part of the ski, slowing it from edge to edge. Elan and Dynastar are (to my knowledge) the only ones doing this.

You are right that, for many years, "womens' specific" = "terminal intermediate." That is not so much the case anymore, with Dynastar hiring ex-US Ski Teamer Jeannie Thoren as a designer for their womens' line and companies putting huge amounts of money into their womens' programs. Sure, there are still many women that can ski unisex skis in unisex boots extremely well. The problem is that most women aren't 6' and 170 lbs- so why do they need to ski on something made for someone of thaat size when they can ski on something lighter and softer that is designed for someone who is 5'6" and 120 lbs.
post #12 of 15
I can testify that I have been "chicked" enough times by women on women's skis that I don't ever sneer at the performance of a good womens ski.

SJ
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
The binding on a woman-specific ski is moved forward to allow the skier to more easily pressure the tips of her skis, something that many women have difficulty with as a result of their CoM being further back and lower than a man's.
If your balance point is not infront of the ankle, one cannot pivot the skis properly. The axis of rotation is off. That's sex independent.

Since a woman's CoM is further back, and lower, it makes it imperative for them to move their CoM forwards so that the axis of rotation is properly aligned.

Of course if all you do is carve on the trails, moving forwards for pivoting is no longer relevant due to the extreme sidecuts. And being in the back seat on the groomes is not very punishing. Until you pop an ACL.

I think nolo once spoke to Jean Thorien, who basically responded that womens ski equipment is designed to accomodate the inability to both get forwards and flex at the ankle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618
The problem is that most women aren't 6' and 170 lbs- so why do they need to ski on something made for someone of thaat size when they can ski on something lighter and softer that is designed for someone who is 5'6" and 120 lbs.
There are many skis for lightweights: Salomon, Dynastar and Rossignol make many softer flexing skis. If they are truly tiny, then one can always consider using jr skis. It's not as if there are no options....
post #14 of 15
I worked with Jeannie Thoren for a full day fitting boots earlier this season. I too was one of the many skeptics of woman-specific equipment, until thoroughly discussing the merits of such equipment with her. Due to their slighter build, women drop their butts to flex their ankles, whereas men use their leg muscles in conjunction with their ankles' natural dorsiflexion to flex. Having softer boots and softer skis with heel lifts built into them compliments the way a woman's body naturally functions, rather than forcing her to ski as if she had a man's body.

Jr. skis are, for the most part, garbage. Sure, many of the Jr. race skis are made in the race room with the same materials, but they cost almost as much as an adult ski, and not everyone wants nor needs to be on a race ski.
post #15 of 15
I have known Jeannie Thoren for some years and will be hosting her seminar again this year. She clearly has more empirical knowledge than anyone else about this subject. She is the first to say that not all women benefit from specialized equipment. She also makes a very good point when she notes that a softer flex is not the only answer and probably is not the most important answer either.

A softer flex can help a skier muscle the ski though a turn while in an improper position. However a flex that is too soft (like most jr. skis) while somewhat easier to manuever, is handicapping in some more advanced skiing situations. A more effective answer for many women is the repositioning of the sidecut and binding position. The Dynastar heel lift is also quite helpful especially at the intermediate or low advanced levels.

Naturally, ski flex should be balanced for the skiers weight, agressiveness, and muscle structure whether the skier is male or female.

SJ
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 › My little sister really needs some new skis...