 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi everyone,
I've finished ski trips for the year now so unsurprisingly it's time to start longing over new gear as I need to replace all my soft and forgiving beginner kit. Before my feb holiday I upgraded my boots to some Head Raptors fitted by Colin which I am very happy with. Next up is the skis...
I'm 5'6, 75kg. On the Inside out scale I'm probably a conservative level 7, certainly a strong 6. Happy on any pisted run and beginning to enjoy the odd itinerary but they are currently more effort than I'd like and I lose style but have always made it down unscathed, possibly partly a mental thing. I do enjoy them though and the odd play off the side
I think I should be looking at around the 160-165 mark and 75-90. Due to the glacier I do spend most time on piste so wouldnt want to sacrifice piste performance but probably not after a SL ski either. Other half has Titans which he raves about but in 177. I tried on a blue but deffo too long and cumbersome to really get a feel for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'd be interested in this too; very similar skier to you, just a bit shorter and lighter. I'm on holiday the first week of Easter and renting some Atomic Affinity Storms which seem to get good general reviews. I'll report back (nag me if I forget!)
I've heard people on here mentioning Blizzard Black Pearls too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I'd only note that I'm skeptical about the whole idea of "women's" skis. How does the ski know what dangly bits you've got?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Oh, but they do come in prettier colours 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'm not that bothered if it says womens or mens on it TBH. My first ski was a womens ski because they were more readily available in shorter lengths and was the pair I got given in the hire shop, just bought a new pair of the same.
I've heard good things about the Black Pearls, and a friend also suggested the whitedot one. I ski with my other half's family who are all waaaaay better than me having skied all their lives, or friends, both guys, one of which is 6'2 and best part of too heavy, very gung ho over jumps etc but not technically that good, is under control but very z shaped turny etc and the other a boarder. I was hoping someone of similar stats and ability to myself might be able to give a few pointers/reviews of ski's they have enjoyed so that when I get the chance to demo a few pairs I can at least start with stuff that others have found suitable.
I demo'd the volkl yumi in a 161, which I found good fun at Hemel, but I only had the rental ski's to compare it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I'm an inch shorter, 60kgs and like to ski edge to edge rather than slide so seek out a ski with a good 'pop'. I loved the Rossignol Sin 7 which I tested at Tamworth. They're a little wider than I was initially looking for, but they really did perform brilliantly in the fridge. Nice and poppy, great edge to edge capability yet seemed solid as a rock. They ski very short though so the 172 would be the right length, I would definitely recommend that you test them out fully on piste though. The ladies version is the Saffron 7 but they're exactly the same ski apparently in all but colours.
The other skis I really liked were the Volkl Kenja, in fact they were my fave until I tried the Sin 7. The Black Pearls came third for me. I'm currently skiing on Scott Mayas which I've really enjoyed as they're so confidence inspiring, but they're not quite stiff enough and I feel I need a ski with a longer turn radius.
I was going to buy the Sin 7s this season, but head had to rule heart as I needed a new jacket and will need to book in with CEM for new boots before next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the saffron 7. Picked them up very cheaply at end of season last year. I'm 5 4 and have the 162s.
Love them. But they may be a bit wide for what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are loads of reviews by women, mainly of women specific skis on skidiva.com. I think you need to decide if you want to concentrate on piste performance just now, in which case I would say 160-165 <80mm underfoot would be your best bet. If you want something that is going to help you get more confident off piste then look at the 80-100mm and probably around 170-175cmcm range.
Sizewise you don't need to limit yourself to women specific skis. You also need to remember what type of ski you are looking at when you think about length so at the bottom of your range 160cm might be great for a 75mm cambered piste ski but 165cm will be way too short for a 90mm ski with a decent amount of rocker, you would be better on something 10cm longer, they will feel nothing like your boyfriends 177cm Titans either.
Have you tried any skis you have loved or hated? That can be useful as skis from the same brand often have a similar feel. If you have no ideas on what you like my advice would be to just get out there and have a try of anything you can, once you have some definite likes and dislikes online reviews can be a bit more helpful as you can decide whether the reviewer has similar tastes to yourself.
I demoed some women's skis recently and my favourite piste skis were the Blizzard Cheyenne and the Nordica Belle to Belle. The Head Joy series seems to be getting great reviews as well but I found them too light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@lampygirl, I'm probably a similar level of skier to you although taller and heavier. I currently have Atomic Cloud D2 73 in 167 which are essentially a piste ski with a small amount of rocker which makes them a bit more manageable in soft snow where my previous skis seemed to sink and stop dead in soft snow. However they don't quite have the same edge hold as my previous skis (Rossignol Attraxion VI).
Other skis which I have demoed and really liked:
Atomic Vantage Elyssian (although probably a bit too off-piste biased for me)
Atomic Affinity Storm
Nordica Wild Belle
Movement Gloss
Fischer Koa
Scott Rosa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name, while the ski construction should be the same as the men's equivalent, this isn't always the case. The only difference in skis should be standard mounting point, which should be a tad further back for women to account for female biomechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
My wife, who is an experienced skier and tends to be quite aggressive (i.e. skis like she drives - fast) currently skis on Scott Mayas and loves them, however, she recently demo'd a pair of Atomic Vantage Supremes and absolutely loved them. She is 5'5" and weighs around 60kg. The Supremes are 87mm underfoot and she was very surprised at just how nimble and playful they were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@Zero_G, I've found that the advice is usually to move the mounting point forward slightly for women skiers as generally speaking with naturally more weight on our hips and backsides we tend to be slightly in the back seat even when upright, surely mounting behind would make things worse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My other half after being at the UK Ski Industry Test week a couple of weeks ago spent a lot of time talking to all the various Ski Co's there about the holy grail of a Women's All Mountain ski.
This is the article http://www.stylealtitude.com/gender-bender-skis.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@under a new name, I am also skeptical about "women's" skis especially that 90% of the time the difference between women's and unisex model is purely cosmetic (different topsheets) and different lingo used in the manufacturer's descriptions, yet women ride them without any problems believing that the skis were specially designed to accommodate them. I suspect the said biomechanical differences if exist are rather insignificant. I usually buy unisex as shorter (for men) skis get discounted and always available when sales start, whereas women's equivalent at the same length gets sold out quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| never summer wrote: |
| @under a new name, I am also skeptical about "women's" skis especially that 90% of the time the difference between women's and unisex model is purely cosmetic (different topsheets) and different lingo used in the manufacturer's descriptions, yet women ride them without any problems believing that the skis were specially designed to accommodate them. I suspect the said biomechanical differences if exist are rather insignificant. I usually buy unisex as shorter (for men) skis get discounted and always available when sales start, whereas women's equivalent at the same length gets sold out quickly. |
and I've started buying more women's skis as the longest lengths often get heavily discounted 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@lynseyf, That can work too unless the longest length in a women's model is not long enough - some stop at 170 cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Zero_G, No @lilywhite, Yes, The binding position is normally slightly further forward for women to compensate for lower centre of gravity and distribution of bodyweight (i,e. our derrieres) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@lampygirl, My girlfriend is approx. same height / weight. She loved the Blizzard Black Pearl (I think in 166cm) to the point that she nearly bought some when we were in Canada. She also enjoyed the Lacroix Pearl as a substitute in the week just gone in France (but not enough to consider the ridiculous price tag).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Have girly skis and chappy skis in my quiver. Some girls skis are just prettier versions of the blokes versions. Rossi soul 7/savoury 7 for example. Apparently in order to appeal to the female mind, they cite the length as 2cm shorter even though they are the same length! All a bit patronising if you ask me. Mr P bought the Savoury 7s last season cos he could get them cheaper. (He's a man entirely comfortable in his own skin!).
I own a pair of 177 twin tips that are marketed as "men's" skis. Love them and the crazy graphics. Loathe the pink swirls on many female orientated skis (of which K2s are the absolute worst offenders!).
My current fave skis are however female orientated and are slightly differently made to the male version. Liberty Envy Powder in a 167. Love them, love the graphics. Wish they were about 5cm longer. I think there is too much of a tendency to make women's skis too short.
These days I tend not to bother one way or the other re who skis are aimed for. I am perhaps a more aggressive skier than you, but lighter. People rave about the Black Pearls and they may suit you. Kenjas are stiffer. I loved Blizzard Brahmas when I tried them last November - quite stiff though. I have also enjoyed a test on Dynastar Cham 87 Ws which may be more forgiving.
A friend really loves her Volkl RTM 84s- they get great reviews too. Possibly more piste orientated which may suit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| lilywhite wrote: |
| @Zero_G, I've found that the advice is usually to move the mounting point forward slightly for women skiers as generally speaking with naturally more weight on our hips and backsides we tend to be slightly in the back seat even when upright, surely mounting behind would make things worse? |
| Helen M A wrote: |
| @Zero_G, No @lilywhite, Yes, The binding position is normally slightly further forward for women to compensate for lower centre of gravity and distribution of bodyweight (i,e. our derrieres) |
Yes, further forward, not back, got that back-to-front
| never summer wrote: |
| I suspect the said biomechanical differences if exist are rather insignificant. |
If it exists? Erm... it's real, you only have to disect bodies to see the differences 
The differences are quite significant and are not so much about larger bums and breasts but about:
* Different angle and width of the pelvic girdle
* Different ratio between leg length and torso length
* Difference in waist length and shape of the muscles around the core
* Different ratio between lower leg bone length and upper leg bone length (and, thus, the muscles attached that to those bones)
* Difference in muscle mass and fibre types
These are the things that affect balance, stance and how you power and drive the skis. Extra fat on the bum and breasts has no significant effect, no more than skiing with a backpack, or a camera chest pack, or 40m of climbing rope wrapped diagonally across your body would have.
The old way was just to shorten the ski and slap on girly graphics and this still happens with the majority of brands. But some brands make other changes, e.g. slightly less stiff, slightly lighter, plus different ramp angle (or mounting point if the ramp angle isn't changed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Disclaimer: I am in no way an expert on skis. I do, however, believe that if your skiing skills are good and you're physically strong and fit, you should be able to ski on any skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Zero_G, Agreed, only need to tune the mounting position on the ski (which of course is dead easy with a tracked mounting) and the binding ramp delta.
FYI my wife has Head Super Joys which she loves but then to be fair the only off piste she does is occasional forays onto the borders of the piste. Couldn't believe how light they are so weighed them - 4.45kg the pair inc. bindings! They're 75 underfoot (127-75-107) so have some float.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you thought about Rossignol Unique 8's? I tested a pair a year ago and they were fab, quick edge to edge, good in crud and really stable. There are a few offers around on these at the moment too, and they are not pink or flowery!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
