Why are there "women specific" skis?

[Wendy]

@Tricia

You stated that marketing and design work arises from what the average woman wants, and also, that many women skiers on Pugski aren’t “average.” While I’m a pretty average skier I agree that female Pugskiers are not. .

But here’s my question: How does a manufacturer pick the members of its focus group? How do they determine who the “average” skier is?

I always wondered this.

I do need to say that I am never offended when a rep or demo guy suggests a woman’s shorter ski when I’m standing in front of him. They are probably just gauging in their head by past experience. I just find it curious, because I’m not a small person.

About flex.....and this is admittedly a bit of a diversion from the intent of this thread.....some days I feel strong and confident and like to charge. Other days, I want to just kind of flit around on a softer ski. Maybe I’m tired. It still want to be on the snow. Maybe I feel less confident that day. In Utah, I was exhausted from a long recovery from the flu on top of a tough work schedule, so I demoed softer skis than my own for 2 days. It helped. This experience reinforces the idea that ski flex is not just about size and experience, but strength and stamina and that days’ expectations.

For reference, here’s a picture of me at the Alta Thursday night gathering with 3 other Pugskiers (MaryG, Tinymoose, Pequenita. (I’m the taller one).

 

[Sibhusky]

Here's one woman who has never owned a women's ski. The few I've demoed or traded with another were all rampant failures. Years ago, when I weighed 50 pounds less, I was a more aggressive skier, and tall for a woman (back then, they are growing even taller these days). As I've aged, I've calmed down but put on a lot of weight. So, it means I still like a stiff ski for most conditions. And I ski a 170, which means I have more choice in men's skis.

There also may be an aspect of "being doing it this way for 45 years" going on.

Now boots? Have to be women's because of the calf size. All my early boots used to have to get extenders for the top buckle, thank God there's women's boots now that expect something more than a broom handle for a leg.

 

[tromano]

There arent womens specific skis, there are skis that are marketed to women.

 

[pchewn]

As a mechanical engineer, I'd like to know what measurable attributes make a ski suitable for women vs men.

Weight: OK, how many kg -- is this related to the person's mass?
Length: What length is women's ski? Men's?
Sidecut?
Width?
Stiffness (front,center, rear) please give measurable units.

If it can't be measured and repeated, then it is not 'real".

 

[David Chaus]

I understand that women in general may have a somewhat different distribution of weight and muscle mass. That said, isn’t a main principle of skiing to control the relationship of COM (center of mass) over BOS (base of support; ie the boot/binding interface)? I’m not sure it matters how the mass is distributed as much as where the COM is, and if it’s really that different between men and women. As noted in this thread and elsewhere in the Pug universe, the skilled pilots who also happen to be women are often skiing unisex/men’s models. OTOH, as a relatively lighter male (5-10 and 145 lbs) I’d probably be fine on women-marketed models as long as they were long enough. Like, if I can find a Head Big Joy in 178 I might just grab it.

I notice that DPS, which as a smaller manufacturer could probably do production runs of whatever layups they wished, however their men’s and women’s counterparts (Wailer/Yvette/Zelda) (Cassiar/Uschi) are exactly the same construction, in shorter lengths for women with different top sheets. Similarly, ON3P makes their Jessie women’s line which are exactly the same skis as the men’s Kartel, only shorter and different graphics. In a Blister podcast, Scott Andrus noted they might make a “women’s” Billy Goat, same skis in shorter lengths, same lay up, might not even bother calling them “women’s” skis.

 

[Goose]

We've got boy/girl twins. Walk up to the kid's ski wall at a ski shop and the boy goes to the boy's skis and the girl goes to the girl's skis.

Just an observation.

Just so they don't go to the snowboards, all is good.

hahaha... that's funny.

 

[Tricia]

But here’s my question: How does a manufacturer pick the members of its focus group? How do they determine who the “average” skier is?

I think the average skier is the person who walks into a ski shop without doing the kind of research that "we" tend to do.
The person who says, "I'm looking for a new ski but haven't bought skis in 5-10 years".

I'm not sure how they form focus groups. I believe they have some feedback from shop employees who talk to every day customers.

 

[Goose]

Im certainly of no authority on ski tech nor am I involved in the industry of course. But I do a decent amount of researching when ever I have a question and this is a subject I have found some info on in the past and even presently due to simple curiosity as well as ski purchase. Im under the impression (correct if wrong) that the average women's ski is lighter, and with a bit more forward mount binding along with differently placed narrowest section . Of course then there are graphics as a secondary feature.

I think most of this general design into the gender specific ski is based off most (women) on average size and build vs a man but not at all always fits and the much more advanced nor the much more knowledgeable woman skier. Among the general masses that is not most. But there is of course an obvious and average size and shape of a woman vs an average size and shape of a man. And men vs women in general do have a different center of gravity and balance. But of course within each gender there are also tons of variations and it doesn't at all always fit any average. But the makers need to begin somewhere when selling to the general masses. And most people (men and woman) are not that educated when they buy nor care to be and/or are too stubborn to be so the makers then offer the two versions. Imo that is a lot better than not offering it. At least that leans a bit towards more people (gender wise) being in a potentially more correct ski than not due to the average physical makeup.

There are always going to be woman who have a great understanding of what they are skiing and also many who don't fit the bill of an average size and shape and certainly also don't fit any average skills ability. There is also imo going to be women (and men also) that don't believe in woman skis just for sake of principle as though its some sort of sexist act to sell women's skis. But men and woman do have a different physical makeup. That's just science. On average are smaller and lighter. And center of gravity is different for most and so is how we balance. So with that general knowledge there in exists the idea (and imo a good one) for creating the different ski to better suit that average.... but never is it all. Nothing is ever 100%.

So with that I think any makers who may simply do nothing but change graphics are actually doing much more an injustice to the average woman buyer than ones who do actually vary the tech to better suit one gender vs the other. That doesn't at all mean all women need nor are better served by a women's ski. But again it comes down to an average among the masses of buyers. And that average is different between the two genders. We both balance on the same parts of our feet but its done differently due to our physical make up. And so then we athletically move and balance different as we do.

 

[Tricia]

We both balance on the same parts of our feet but its done differently due to our physical make up. And so then we athletically move and balance different as we do.

But....not everyone is moving athletically.
Just watch form a chairlift.

 

[Wendy]

I understand that women in general may have a somewhat different distribution of weight and muscle mass. That said, isn’t a main principle of skiing to control the relationship of COM (center of mass) over BOS (base of support; ie the boot/binding interface)? I’m not sure it matters how the mass is distributed as much as where the COM is, and if it’s really that different between men and women. As noted in this thread and elsewhere in the Pug universe, the skilled pilots who also happen to be women are often skiing unisex/men’s models. OTOH, as a relatively lighter male (5-10 and 145 lbs) I’d probably be fine on women-marketed models as long as they were long enough. Like, if I can find a Head Big Joy in 178 I might just grab it.

I notice that DPS, which as a smaller manufacturer could probably do production runs of whatever layups they wished, however their men’s and women’s counterparts (Wailer/Yvette/Zelda) (Cassiar/Uschi) are exactly the same construction, in shorter lengths for women with different top sheets. Similarly, ON3P makes their Jessie women’s line which are exactly the same skis as the men’s Kartel, only shorter and different graphics. In a Blister podcast, Scott Andrus noted they might make a “women’s” Billy Goat, same skis in shorter lengths, same lay up, might not even bother calling them “women’s” skis.

I purchased a unisex DPS ski because I liked the orange color better than the teal-ish on the women’s. DPS does make a “women’s” in my length, which is indeed the same ski as the men’s....but I went for the “men’s” color, lol.

 

[Goose]

I understand that women in general may have a somewhat different distribution of weight and muscle mass. That said, isn’t a main principle of skiing to control the relationship of COM (center of mass) over BOS (base of support; ie the boot/binding interface)? I’m not sure it matters how the mass is distributed as much as where the COM is, and if it’s really that different between men and women.
.

well, Im no physicist but when the COM is in a different area (lower on woman and higher on men) Id speculate that correlates to the balance forces applied to the foot and ski to be coming form different angles because COG (center of gravity) is in a different place. Especially while we move and turn. rotate, lean, etc... The average male would have a higher leverage point vs a lower one. As that point moves while we make movements it then places forces from different angles.

Ever see the popular chair experiment .....man vs woman? Stand against a wall and bend to pick up a chair. Most woman can do this yet not most men. A man will fall over much sooner and perhaps before even being able to grab the chair and also when grabbing the chair cannot pick it up without falling over. Yet most woman can do this.. Different COM and leverage point is different. If you research it you can also find other info on how woman balance and move about different from a man.

So yea, we stand on similar feet pretty much the same way but the forces line up in a different manor and so then do they while we move.

But there are also muscles involved here too. And they can be used to resist, support and even change applied forces to different angles as long as they are strong enough to do so. Id speculate via those means there are woman who prefer non woman skis. And also as mentioned, not every woman (or man) is the same and not all fit a general average.

 

[Tricia]

@Goose Hip width, Q angles, Boobs......we don't stand the same way.
On the other hand, I know a few dudes who are built more like a girl, and a few girls who are built more like a dude.

 

[Goose]

@Goose Hip width, Q angles, Boobs......we don't stand the same way.
On the other hand, I know a few dudes who are built more like a girl, and a few girls who are built more like a dude.

there are always many variations in both men and woman and average doesn't always apply. Then as said , I think muscle strength can also create different preferences too.

 

[DanoT]

With shaped skis do binding installers still mount bindings on women's skis a few millimetres forward to account for a COM that is more toward the rear?

 

[Pequenita]

But here’s my question: How does a manufacturer pick the members of its focus group? How do they determine who the “average” skier is?

I always wondered this.
....
For reference, here’s a picture of me at the Alta Thursday night gathering with 3 other Pugskiers (MaryG, Tinymoose, Pequenita. (I’m the taller one).

View attachment 42065

Oh, hey, a photo of me!

The best part of "women's" skis is that they actually make lengths for me.

The really weird thing is that for the major manufacturers, I am not skiing their shortest skis, and I have wondered for a long time for whom those skis are intended. Tweens, I'm told, but to be honest, my build and ostensibly COM is different than a tween, so I have no idea how that all fits in.

 

[Sibhusky]

With shaped skis do binding installers still mount bindings on women's skis a few millimetres forward to account for a COM that is more toward the rear?

I've usually been asked and declined it.

 

[Wendy]

With shaped skis do binding installers still mount bindings on women's skis a few millimetres forward to account for a COM that is more toward the rear?

I’ve always been asked by the tech. Most of the time the regular mounting point works best.

 

[Goose]

@Tricia
But here’s my question: How does a manufacturer pick the members of its focus group? How do they determine who the “average” skier is?

I always wondered this.
View attachment 42065

I think the average skier is the person who walks into a ski shop without doing the kind of research that "we" tend to do.
The person who says, "I'm looking for a new ski but haven't bought skis in 5-10 years".

I'm not sure how they form focus groups. I believe they have some feedback from shop employees who talk to every day customers.

I recall an article from a woman from K2 discussing thier woman group of test skiers and how much a process and effort they go through before putting a womans ski design out for production. The article did focus fwiw on the area of concern as for if the woman's design was actually better and they determined it is. But again nothing can ever be for all woman.

But as for focus gender group? I think its just an average sort of what Tricia brings up. Most people are recreational skiers and most don't ski nearly as much nor as well as many in this unique community. And/or are not as educated about it, and are perhaps a few day a year participants at most. Id argue that is indeed most people who ski. Most dont live near resorts nor have the resources of time and money to get much more involved than that. The same can be said for men too. So as a manufacturer what do you do? Imo you put out a ski design that would/could better fit or benefit the average recreational woman skier while of course not at all would they be better for all woman. But if the purchasing population is reached with a product better suited for a majority of them, then imo its the best you can do. And If most sales can be made in this fashion then it should be just a bit easier for those woman to ski on their product and most purchasers are happily using the product, then it will continue to sell.

Its imo kind of like golf clubs. Golf clubs for the more avid and more educated player really need to be custom fitted but most people are not that community and so the makers of clubs put out a product for sale on the shelf which has characteristics via tech that is based on what they think will benefit the average person. Its not correct at all for all and in fact would vary for each person. But all you can do is put out what you think would best benefit the average person. And so I think on that similar ideology is where we have woman's vs men's skis and just where they come up with an average imo is based on the average physical build of a woman vs a man which of course cannot ever apply to everyone and probably far from everyone. But even for a woman who may be tall or a man who may be short or either one being skinnier or heavier in either gender, there would still be a basic average difference between the man and the woman of the similar size, shape. Usually the man is going to be more mass up (broader shouldered) top and the woman lower (wider bottom). And the man usually would have more muscle mass in general. Its all imo a generality and mixed with the natural average differences in builds of each gender. So I would think the slightly different (gender specific) skis is a better thing than not for the 'average" buyer. Whether or not every maker actually does this correctly may be another story and is where an injustice might be. .

 

[tinymoose]

As a small, lightweight person I could not care less about women's specific skis. I've owned juniors skis and shorter women's skis. A lot of women's skis are too long for me actually, or so I think (@Magi lol). In some ways, I'd just prefer if skis came in a wider range of lengths and just have them be unisex.

Oh, hey, a photo of me!

The best part of "women's" skis is that they actually make lengths for me.

The really weird thing is that for the major manufacturers, I am not skiing their shortest skis, and I have wondered for a long time for whom those skis are intended. Tweens, I'm told, but to be honest, my build and ostensibly COM is different than a tween, so I have no idea how that all fits in.

Me!!!! I often buy the shortest lengths or close to them. Although, a wise person told me I could or should be able to ski longer but I dunno... give me a few more years. lol

 

[François Pugh]

Just as an anecdotal data point, my daughter tried the Head women's offerings years ago. She tried the Head Lightning. She found them very scary at speed, and was unable to keep up. She even took them off to descend steeper runs. Got her a pair of (unisex) Volkl Porsches (basically a SL carver) and she was much happier.

Shrink it and pink it and make it lighter and to hell with high-speed stability is not the correct way to build a women's specific ski.

Just say'n.