• Forums
  • Gear Talk
  • Why are women's supposedly powder skis less wide than men's?

Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Why are women's supposedly powder skis less wide than men's?

profile picture
chloeee
Posts: 18 - Karma: 79
For example Black Crows Atris Birdie is considered a powder ski for women's whereas the Atris (men's) is not. I wasn't interested in buying either one, just had me curious :)
Jun 2 2017 4:56AM
41 3
profile picture
chloeee
Posts: 18 - Karma: 79
And follow up question, would I then be making the wrong decision by going with a pair of men's powder skis? Would they be too wide at 115mm?
Jun 2 2017 4:58AM
0 0
profile picture
sambuswell
Posts: 742 - Karma: 3,451
Ski manufacturers make women's skis lighter and softer than men's skis because they consider women to lighter and less strong. They aren't as wide because women are probably lighter than men so they don't need as much float.
Jun 2 2017 7:48AM
6 0
profile picture
TRVP_ANGEL
Posts: 12420 - Karma: 114,467
sambuswellSki manufacturers make women's skis lighter and softer than men's skis because they consider women to lighter and less strong. They aren't as wide because women are probably lighter than men so they don't need as much float.


This. Unless you squat 315, i dont think your legs will have a fun time turning on phat mens skis
Jun 2 2017 9:58AM
0 0
profile picture
Zypher
Posts: 2336 - Karma: 2,268
TRVP_ANGELThis. Unless you squat 315, i dont think your legs will have a fun time turning on phat mens skis


That being said, I've seen chicks who aren't ripped riding on men's powboards all the time. Hell, my history teacher rips 180 mens Magic J's and shes like 5'10-11 and maybe 120lbs .

OP, if you know your ski size and are looking for a pair of pow skis, there is nothing stopping you from buying a pair of 'mens' skis. Just expect them to be a tad heavier and maybe a tad stiffer depending on the model.
Jun 2 2017 11:15AM
4 1
profile picture
snowpocalypse
Posts: 1036 - Karma: 3,525
Mounting point is also farther forward on the ladies ski. This enables the gals to get forward on the ski easier. Woman tend to have their center of mass lower on their bodies thus harder to get forward on the ski.
Jun 2 2017 11:28AM
2 0
profile picture
Zypher
Posts: 2336 - Karma: 2,268
snowpocalypseWoman tend to have their center of mass lower on their bodies


That your way of saying shawty got a fat ass?
Jun 2 2017 11:33AM
16 0
profile picture
snowpocalypse
Posts: 1036 - Karma: 3,525
ZypherThat your way of saying shawty got a fat ass?


No. Its my way of saying shes flat as an ironing board and has great birthing hips.

**This post was edited on Jun 2nd 2017 at 1:21:05pm
Jun 2 2017 12:13PM
12 0
profile picture
chloeee
Posts: 18 - Karma: 79
Haha flat ironing board... yeah I'm actually pretty light but tall-ish. So I'm wondering would a 108 underfoot be to small for me to take heliskiing in BC in deep days? And should I go with something like 114-115 range instead? Or...? Yeah I don't know haha
Jun 2 2017 12:34PM
2 0
profile picture
iFlip
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 19,088
snowpocalypseMounting point is also farther forward on the ladies


.
Jun 2 2017 1:02PM
5 0
profile picture
snowpocalypse
Posts: 1036 - Karma: 3,525
chloeeeHaha flat ironing board... yeah I'm actually pretty light but tall-ish. So I'm wondering would a 108 underfoot be to small for me to take heliskiing in BC in deep days? And should I go with something like 114-115 range instead? Or...? Yeah I don't know haha


No disrespect, its all in fun. But as a taller, lighter yet strong skier you could go to a 110 115 no problem. Just try and go for a "pure powder"ski. No metal. Try and go for a softer "mens" ski and just mount it a cm or 2 forward of recommended. Take a look at the Rossi Super 7 W 114 under foot and a true ripper pow ski for the strong ladies.
Jun 2 2017 1:15PM
0 0
profile picture
casual
Posts: 6712 - Karma: 6,746
chloeeeHaha flat ironing board... yeah I'm actually pretty light but tall-ish. So I'm wondering would a 108 underfoot be to small for me to take heliskiing in BC in deep days? And should I go with something like 114-115 range instead? Or...? Yeah I don't know haha


People make too much out of waist width for skiing pow IMO. I have a pair of Mr. Pollard's opus that are from 2011 that are 118 under foot, but I didn't ski them once this year because I pretty much used my supernatural 108s everyday even on days where we had 16+ inch days, or several feet over a few days.

Wide skis are nice, but there's a lot of other factors that make a ski feel good in powder. All I'm saying is don't get overly hung up on the width. Anything around 110mm underfoot is fine in my book except maaaaaybe for the absolute deepest of days (I'm talking like 3 ft.) but even then I don't see a whole lot of reasons to go beyond 120mm.

If you look at design trends, the manufacturers went reeeeeaaaally wide and in some cases reeeeeaally soft for a few years between maybe 08 and 12. Since then a lot of those same manufacturers have walked back the widths underfoot whereas most pow skis are closer to 118 whereas they're used to be lots of skis around 135mm.

It's all preference, I'm just reassuring you that you don't need flat or reverse cambered, 130mm waist, noodles to ski powder competently.

So many of the skis with camber underfoot, rocker in tip, waists around 110, etc. do really well in powder, but also ski the shit out of everything else too.
Jun 2 2017 1:48PM
2 0
profile picture
chloeee
Posts: 18 - Karma: 79
Cool!! Thanks guys! :)
Jun 2 2017 3:55PM
1 0
profile picture
Deepskier
Posts: 3267 - Karma: 4,818
casualPeople make too much out of waist width for skiing pow IMO. I have a pair of Mr. Pollard's opus that are from 2011 that are 118 under foot, but I didn't ski them once this year because I pretty much used my supernatural 108s everyday even on days where we had 16+ inch days, or several feet over a few days.

Wide skis are nice, but there's a lot of other factors that make a ski feel good in powder. All I'm saying is don't get overly hung up on the width. Anything around 110mm underfoot is fine in my book except maaaaaybe for the absolute deepest of days (I'm talking like 3 ft.) but even then I don't see a whole lot of reasons to go beyond 120mm.

If you look at design trends, the manufacturers went reeeeeaaaally wide and in some cases reeeeeaally soft for a few years between maybe 08 and 12. Since then a lot of those same manufacturers have walked back the widths underfoot whereas most pow skis are closer to 118 whereas they're used to be lots of skis around 135mm.

It's all preference, I'm just reassuring you that you don't need flat or reverse cambered, 130mm waist, noodles to ski powder competently.

So many of the skis with camber underfoot, rocker in tip, waists around 110, etc. do really well in powder, but also ski the shit out of everything else too.


Even on 2 feet+ days ive still only used my slats, in fact my slats are the widest ski ive ever used and they are only 98 UF.
Jun 2 2017 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
dan4060
Posts: 1458 - Karma: 847
casualPeople make too much out of waist width for skiing pow IMO. I have a pair of Mr. Pollard's opus that are from 2011 that are 118 under foot, but I didn't ski them once this year because I pretty much used my supernatural 108s everyday even on days where we had 16+ inch days, or several feet over a few days.

Wide skis are nice, but there's a lot of other factors that make a ski feel good in powder. All I'm saying is don't get overly hung up on the width. Anything around 110mm underfoot is fine in my book except maaaaaybe for the absolute deepest of days (I'm talking like 3 ft.) but even then I don't see a whole lot of reasons to go beyond 120mm.

If you look at design trends, the manufacturers went reeeeeaaaally wide and in some cases reeeeeaally soft for a few years between maybe 08 and 12. Since then a lot of those same manufacturers have walked back the widths underfoot whereas most pow skis are closer to 118 whereas they're used to be lots of skis around 135mm.

It's all preference, I'm just reassuring you that you don't need flat or reverse cambered, 130mm waist, noodles to ski powder competently.

So many of the skis with camber underfoot, rocker in tip, waists around 110, etc. do really well in powder, but also ski the shit out of everything else too.


You don't need to go too big. In my opinion 115 is just right for me. I ski a pair of 186 4frnt EHP's and they are 116. I ski them about half the time, the other half of the time I'm on my 99 width PMGear bros. I find my EHP's are great in windbuff, and we get lots of that in Mammoth. If I have any doubt about which ski to take out I take the EHP's. They are far from just a powder ski, you just have to adjust to a wider footprint. If we are talking about a ski that is 125 width, at that point that's just too much to be fun on packed down days, for me at least. 115 width can be versatile if it has rocker/camber/rocker. I see lots of people on skis around 115 on nonpow days. If it gets over 120 that can be tough to manage.

Pow can be ripped on skinny skis, but I am glad we have fat skis and rocker. I'm older than most here and I learned to ski pow on the skinny skis of the 90's. I loved it, but I'm glad things have changed.
Jun 2 2017 6:12PM
1 0
profile picture
casual
Posts: 6712 - Karma: 6,746
DeepskierEven on 2 feet+ days ive still only used my slats, in fact my slats are the widest ski ive ever used and they are only 98 UF.


I mean you can ski pow on anything. It's a relatively new phenomenon that people use wider skis in soft snow. I used to use a 97 mm bridge as a pow ski ten years ago.

I have slats too, and they do fine in deep snow. You do get a different feel on a wider ski specifically designed for soft snow. Slats are versatile, but as a guy that has skied slats as a daily driver and many other skis and pow skis, a ski 10-15mm wider underfoot definitely helps with float and makes smearing turns easier no question.
Jun 2 2017 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
DeepskierEven on 2 feet+ days ive still only used my slats, in fact my slats are the widest ski ive ever used and they are only 98 UF.


Yup, not necessary to go super wide. New ski technology just makes it a lot easier to ski powder and has made that whole pow/backcountry world open to the masses. Doesn't require as much skill as it did 10 years ago. I mean Seth is riding 95ish underfoot for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeqUkIOO68E
Jun 2 2017 9:37PM
0 0
profile picture
marrows
Posts: 399 - Karma: 656
Don't go wider, go faster
Jun 2 2017 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Brocka_Flocka
Posts: 1213 - Karma: 8,770
Women's skis are just a stupid marketing ploy. None of the girls I ski with ski on women's skis.
Jun 3 2017 10:11AM
1 0
profile picture
TOAST.
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 33,282
Brocka_FlockaWomen's skis are just a stupid marketing ploy. None of the girls I ski with ski on women's skis.


I got news for you buddy, you are skiing with trannys
Jun 3 2017 12:17PM
1 6
profile picture
Deepskier
Posts: 3267 - Karma: 4,818
casualI mean you can ski pow on anything. It's a relatively new phenomenon that people use wider skis in soft snow. I used to use a 97 mm bridge as a pow ski ten years ago.

I have slats too, and they do fine in deep snow. You do get a different feel on a wider ski specifically designed for soft snow. Slats are versatile, but as a guy that has skied slats as a daily driver and many other skis and pow skis, a ski 10-15mm wider underfoot definitely helps with float and makes smearing turns easier no question.


VinnieFYup, not necessary to go super wide. New ski technology just makes it a lot easier to ski powder and has made that whole pow/backcountry world open to the masses. Doesn't require as much skill as it did 10 years ago. I mean Seth is riding 95ish underfoot for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeqUkIOO68E

Yeah but face shots tho, what's the point of 2 feet of deep soft light fresh snow if you just float on the very top 6 inches
Jun 3 2017 1:15PM
0 0
profile picture
dan4060
Posts: 1458 - Karma: 847
DeepskierYeah but face shots tho, what's the point of 2 feet of deep soft light fresh snow if you just float on the very top 6 inches


I grew up skiing pow on skinny skis and I prefer modern fat skis all day long. I find the sensation more blissful. You can also throw a slash on modern fats and get a nice face shot.
Jun 3 2017 5:05PM
3 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13046 - Karma: 18,292
Test ride both skis and tell me what you feel...
115mm underfoot is pretty wide for deep powder skiing, but tips and tails, rocker style, stiffness and ski weight makes a world of a difference.

Every manufacturer has different specs and claim they have the best ski for you. Sometimes a woman's ski is just 100$ more expensive with a different topsheet.
Jun 3 2017 7:10PM
1 0
profile picture
casual
Posts: 6712 - Karma: 6,746
DeepskierYeah but face shots tho, what's the point of 2 feet of deep soft light fresh snow if you just float on the very top 6 inches


You're talking crazy. You can absolutely get face shots on pow skis.

Unless this is just a joke.
Jun 4 2017 12:47PM
1 0
profile picture
Deepskier
Posts: 3267 - Karma: 4,818
casualYou're talking crazy. You can absolutely get face shots on pow skis.

Unless this is just a joke.


It's half a joke, not saying you don't get faceshots just nice to sink to the bottom and get pounded
Jun 4 2017 12:54PM
1 0
profile picture
paige.
Posts: 1930 - Karma: 907
chloeeeAnd follow up question, would I then be making the wrong decision by going with a pair of men's powder skis? Would they be too wide at 115mm?


I agree with whoever suggested you demo the skis if you have the option, because everyone's preferences vary.

People make a big deal about how women have a lower centre of gravity than men, and how that needs to be accounted for, but I have read that the amount this is lower is only 2% of your height. So on average, even for people who are 6', women's centre of gravity will still be within 1.5 inches of men. If you're 5'4 like me, it's more like an inch and a quarter different.

People also make a big deal about women on average being weaker than men - I think for the lower body it's about a 30% difference. But whereas I have no idea where my centre of gravity is, I can figure out pretty easily how strong of a skier I am, and what sort of flex I like my skis to have. Then I can choose a ski that matches those traits, wherever I find it on the rack.

From what I've read, besides the flexiness of the ski the big difference between men's and women's skis is the recommended mounting point. I guess you could consider mounting the skis a couple centimetres forward of recommended if you do purchase a men's ski, or use a binding that allow you to play around with the mounting a bit until you find what works for you. Or you could not bother, and only make changes later if you feel it's needed.

For me, I have been happily riding men's powder skis for years. I have a pair of 2011 ON3P Caylors (120mm), and recently sold my pair of 2013ish Armada Norwalks (116mm) to my cousin who is also a lady. I didn't find that I ever had float issues with the 116 vs the 120, and probably would still float just fine on something in the 108-112 range as well, but the width affects more that just whether you float or not, and of course other ski features still play a significant role. So maybe 120mm underfoot is overkill for my needs, but I've never struggled with them, they inspire a lot of confidence, and I've had more fun on them than I ever had on another pair.
Jun 4 2017 4:01PM
1 0
profile picture
OregonDead
Posts: 6792 - Karma: 23,529
OP marketing for women's skis is lame. Actually marketing for all skis is lame but even more lame for women's skis. Yes you're fine buying any ski you want and you can probably figure out what you want better than anyone. Fat skis are fun.
Jun 5 2017 1:09PM
3 0
profile picture
Skrier
Posts: 77 - Karma: 336
Women usually weigh less which means less surface area for the same amount of float
Jun 6 2017 2:35PM
0 0
profile picture
tahoearmada20
Posts: 971 - Karma: 352
"shrink it and pink it"
Jun 8 2017 4:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7785 - Karma: 23,468
You can buy soft powder skis, and you can mount them forward. You can buy light skis too with everyone trying to shed weight in the cores now for uphill travel. You might find a women's ski that you really like and that's great, but I think it's 90% marketing to have men's and women's skis. Wood and fiberglass mashed together is not gender specific.
Jun 9 2017 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
ETonasnowboard
Posts: 9 - Karma: 20
Brocka_FlockaWomen's skis are just a stupid marketing ploy. None of the girls I ski with ski on women's skis.
That's probably because most on-piste skis for women you don't want ride when you are a decent skiër, because they are made for women that just want to be comfortable, drink gluhwein on a terrace and not do anything remotely exciting.

However on those powder skies, for example those black crows, the womens thing maybe makes sense after all because those skis are made for people that already know how to ski. The different shape of the ski with less broad UF makes the radius of the ski smaller (17m instead of 18 for the men's version), which makes them a little bit easier to turn. The flex is also slightly softer than the men's version. So yeah, easier turn initiation (but nonetheless definitely skis with power under your feet) and building up pressure slightly easier is what you get for the women's version. So you'd have to see whether that would be beneficial to you or whether you'd be an absolute shred machine that needs a men's ski.

But yeah, that being said, I always powder on my snowboard and when I ended up in powder on my too-short, way too old slaloms I'd just flee straight back onto the piste, so I don't know how that works out in practice. But you'd have to find out for yourself anyways I think which type of ski fits you best, because for everyone it works out differently. So this is just the theory I learned at my skiing instructor education, but maybe it helps!
Jun 11 2017 9:32AM
1 0
profile picture
ggfski42
Posts: 651 - Karma: 700
I think fat skis are fun, but never a necessity. Everyone has different skiing styles, regardless of gender. I have a pair of 122mm sticks that I haven't used in 2 seasons. Now the biggest ski I use is 104mm ,and i'm 6'1'' 180lbs. Like someone else already posted, I would recommend trying to demo as many skis as possible. Most of the input your'e gonna get won't serve you well, because its just a matter of personal preference.
Jun 12 2017 5:43PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)