Why are there no small men testing skis?

[Ron]

One advantage we have here is familiarity. If you are active on the site and go to some of the gatherings, we all get to meet and ski with each other and then better relate. @ski-ra is a great example, I have been skiing with him for years, i just know how he skis and what he likes in a ski, Its not rocket science. When I am testing a ski, I am always thinking what that ski likes to do or how it prefers to be skied or what it feels like to me. The other pubs dont offer that.

There is a lot of truth to not just latching onto a review from someone who the same relative height and weight, its more about how that person skis, where they ski and what they value. I am not a racer so I seriously doubt someone like @HeluvaSkier is ever going to value or relate to what I like in a ski.

this is a great thread

 

[ski-ra]

...Despite what @Josh Matta says, there are frequently muscle differences between men and women. I have skied a number of men's/unisex skis, but despite my weight, I can't flex some of the stiffer options.

I've often wondered about this and have tried to demo women's skis to see what might be up (putting aside those women's skis which are identical to the men's versions except for the graphics). Unfortunately the women's demo skis available tend to be only in lengths shorter than what I want (i.e., no more than low 160's or so) and vice versa for the men's ski's (i.e., the shortest length may be in the low 170's if I'm lucky...demo'ing ski's is much easier said than done especially if one is at the "outside limits of the bell curve" - not to get even more whinier about my "size issue" than I already have been here:0) .

So how do I properly compare a 162cm women's ski to a 172cm men's ski? This was the case during my recent demo days which led me to once again not bother and instead leaving the question for more future pondering (damn, if only I could have found a pair of 169cm Santa Ana's somewhere in the front range to demo...I wanted to hold off on buying the NRGy 100's til I got back up to the 'boat where they do have 'em but that didn't happen - oh well).

I know that someone jokingly posted about starting "a 5'5", 125 lb. ski tester club" (OK - I deserved it: I did say I was selfish). But why not have the lightweight male & female testers focus on both women's and the less-burlier men's skis?

 

[ski-ra]

...this is a great thread

Yeah - thanks folks!!

 

[SBrown]

I've often wondered about this and have tried to demo women's skis to see what might be up. Unfortunately the women's demo skis available tend to be only in lengths shorter than what I want (i.e., no more than low 160's or so) and vice versa for the men's ski's (i.e., the shortest length may be in the low 170's if I'm lucky...demo'ing ski's is much easier said than done especially if one is at the "outside limits of the bell curve" - not to get even more whinier about my "size issue" than I already have been here:0) .

So how do I properly compare a 162cm women's ski to a 172cm men's ski? This was the case during my recent demo days which led me to once again not bother and instead leaving the question for more future pondering (damn, if only I could have found a pair of the Santa Ana's somewhere in the front range to demo...I wanted to hold off on buying the NRGy 100's til I got back up to the 'boat again but that didn't happen - oh well).

I was thinking about this yesterday ... there is some overlap in men's and women's skis; quite often I am testing both, and Tricia and even SkiNurse are testing women's skis that are the exact same construction as the men's. I believe the 90Eight is one of these, but I'm not positive. But it would be a valuable category for those of us who are in the middle here, and good info for teenagers and other such skiers. I know I was always trying to figure out if the unisex and women's version of a ski was the same.

 

[ski-ra]

I know I was always trying to figure out if the unisex and women's version of a ski was the same.

It seems like the answer to this is usually knowable but not without some digging. Often times a skimag review of a women's ski will say "identical in construction" to the men's (unisex?) version. Other times I just compare the build stats and if they are the same (and the description doesn't say something like "with a softer women's flex") then they are probably identical. Finally some comparative hand-flexing seems to help too (i.e., the women's versions of the Rossi Sin/Soul7's seem noticeably softer than the men's versions even though there's nothing in the build stats that might indicate this...whereas the flex of the Vantage 95c's seem identical between the men's/women's versions).

But yeah it is still an unfortunate guessing game which the manufacturer's seem to be fine with keeping as mysterious as possible (why I don't know since women's skis aren't more expensive so it's not like they'll make more money pushing women to a ski that is identical to the men's version, and many women will always choose a women's ski over the men's version anyway if only due to the graphics...or so it seems to my male-addled brain).

 

[SBrown]

It seems like the answer to this is usually knowable but not without some digging. Often times a skimag review of a women's ski will say "identical in construction" to the men's (unisex?) version. Other times I just compare the build stats and if they are the same (and the description doesn't say something like "with a softer women's flex") then they are probably identical. Finally some comparative hand-flexing seems to help too (i.e., the women's versions of the Rossi Sin/Soul7's seem noticeably softer than the men's versions even though there's nothing in the build stats that might indicate this...whereas the flex of the Vantage 95c's seem identical between the men's/women's versions).

But yeah it is still an unfortunate guessing game which the manufacturer's seem to be fine with keeping as mysterious as possible (why I don't know since women's skis aren't more expensive so it's not like they'll make more money pushing women to a ski that is identical to the men's version, and many women will always choose a women's ski over the men's version anyway if only due to the graphics...or so it seems to my male-addled brain).

That's what I mean, though ... it's something pugski could dig, and publish along with our reviews and specs.

 

[ski-ra]

That's what I mean, though ... it's something pugski could dig, and publish along with our reviews and specs.

Very cool if that could happen (and surely the reps at the SIA demos should know the real story?)

 

[Monique]

damn, if only I could have found a pair of 169cm Santa Ana's somewhere in the front range to demo

What's your BSL? I have a pair mounted at 300 BSL that I could lend you. I seem to be spending all my time on my La Ninas lately.

 

[neonorchid]

Fischer Skis -

Women BMP
Forward binding mounting point to make turning easier for energy-saving skiing.

 

[Monique]

Fischer Skis -

Women BMP
Forward binding mounting point to make turning easier for energy-saving skiing.

So ... Why don't men benefit from easier turning? What am I missing?

 

[Philpug]

To say all women need a forward mount point is a blanket statement, the same with saying all men are stronger. Yes, women's skis are just marketing segment.

Could we make a thread with all the skis mens & womens skis that share mold AND construction? We can, but what are looking to accomplish with the information?

 

[Tony S]

Yeah, (some?) ski shops seem to have a gender bias since I've always found it funny that they tend to recommend a high-170's cm ski for me.

This. It makes me crazy. Staff very often simply don't look or listen. On at least one occasion I have actually hauled out the scale many shops have to facilitate filling out binding adjustment cards, and had a non-listening staffer look at the dial while I was standing on it.

 

[cantunamunch]

Could we make a thread with all the skis mens & womens skis that share mold AND construction? We can, but what are looking to accomplish with the information?

Continuity (consistency deliberately avoided here) of impression/behaviour across sizes?

 

[cantunamunch]

This. It makes me crazy. Staff very often simply don't look or listen. On at least one occasion I have actually hauled out the scale many shops have to facilitate filling out binding adjustment cards, and had a non-listening staffer look at the dial while I was standing on it.

OTOH I have watched women have the same problem in the opposite direction. Particularly at demos.

 

[Tony S]

OTOH I have watched women have the same problem in the opposite direction. Particularly at demos.

Right. What ski nurse was saying earlier.

 

[SBrown]

To say all women need a forward mount point is a blanket statement, the same with saying all men are stronger. Yes, women's skis are just marketing segment.

Could we make a thread with all the skis mens & womens skis that share mold AND construction? We can, but what are looking to accomplish with the information?

Because when you are making a purchasing decision, it's nice to know if topsheets are the only thing that's different.

 

[ski-ra]

What's your BSL? I have a pair mounted at 300 BSL that I could lend you. I seem to be spending all my time on my La Ninas lately.

Wow - that would be cool! I'm dying to try out my new NRGy 100's and a comparison to the S.A.'s would be very interesting, though hopefully it won't make me regret my purchase. Anyway, my BSL is 296 which is certainly close-enough to not put me too far forward on 'em, but enough such that they would need the heel piece forward pressure adjusted (something I'm pretty good at doing if you don't mind having someone monkey with your bindings...though perhaps you know how to do it yourself). Either way I'm game if you're game. I'm waiting for the storm track to return (i.e., if it snows on Mon/Tue then I might head out on Tuesday). Feel free to PM me with more detail...

 

[ski-ra]

Fischer Skis -

Women BMP
Forward binding mounting point to make turning easier for energy-saving skiing.

I've seen this promoted in the past and actually have noticed this more-forward mount point on the women's (vs. men's) versions of the same model skis (can't recall which ones). This year though, while looking at (and demo'ing) a boat load of skis, I did not ever see any difference in the binding mount points (i.e., I compared the Vantage 95C & CW, the Enforcer & S.A., the Rossi Sin/Soul & Savory/Saffron, Bonafide & Samba...). Who knows - maybe this was a flash-in-the-pan gimmick like Cubco or Spademan bindings, or rear-entry boots

 

[ski-ra]

Continuity (consistency deliberately avoided here) of impression/behaviour across sizes?

Because when you are making a purchasing decision, it's nice to know if topsheets are the only thing that's different.

This is great...though of course it adds work to the testing and test info compilation efforts...I'd be glad to somehow lend help in support of these goals since they are clearly not being met anywhere else (at least to any degree that would be useful)

 

[Tricia]

That hasn't worked well for me in the past. Maybe I'm just a bad judge of whether someone skis like me (which when you think about it--unless you regularly watch yourself in ski videos--it's easier said than done). Either way I remember some 20-30 years ago a woman with whom I was skiing with a lot said I'd be able to step up my game with a pair of Volkl Renntigers. While we did ski fairly similarly she tended to go straighter/faster, was a former CU ski team member and was 180lbs. of pure muscle. Needless to say those Renntiger's made me their bitch (which was the beginning of my unhealthy relationship with Volkl skis that most recently led to my embarrassing tussle with the 90Eights).

Though you are onto something here.... What did work for me this year was taking the advice of someone who knows how I ski (and what I like in a ski) and who is also a ski tester here: Finndog. That combination helped him to uncannily and definitively tell me what skis to avoid contrary to all the hoopla (e.g., the Enforcers, ) and what less-hoopla'd skis I should try instead (e.g., Vantage 95c, Q-98's and NRGy's). So perhaps Ron needs to start his own "concierge" ski website...I'd call it "FinndogSki - ski talk at a more personal level"

I think you're on to something. How many of us really know how we ski unless we see ourselves in video.

The first time I saw myself on video I realized that I skied more like an ape carrying two suitcases than Picabo.
More recently, I saw some video that @DoryBreaux took and was surprised that the skier who was making those nice turns was me.

The more realistic we are about our own skiing, the better we'll be able to find the right ski.