I suppose it's quite possible to get the benefit of the female specific features you value, while still getting a high performance ski of the correct length.
I'm sure that's the case. It's interesting that many of the most popular (say from reading ski diva forum or similar) women's skis - the upper end of the Joy series, the black pearl, the santa ana, the kenja - are slightly lighter than the men's version but still pretty stiff with titanial or graphene cores. The binding mount position for the latter three are the same as the mens I think. At least their marketing doesn't mention a forward mounting point? Nor do Head actually!
Ha - I'm on a long distance train with a beer so could go on forever - will shut up having thoroughly high jacked. Sorry OP!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@ElzP, I'm putting forward these opinions, never having been on Women's skis, so not speaking from experience....but I have had bindings that could be moved (Atomic variozone - and before that ESS v.a.r), and it made quite a difference.
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?
@DrSJF16, for Courchevel 1650 instructors Sweet Snowsports are well worth a look.
@Old Fartbag, no, we shall just have to agreeably disagree. I will maintain however, that I suspect my skiing female friends (of which I have and ski with mny) have more experience than you do
Oh and I must say that without thinking too hard about it, (I'm on my jollies) your cited article reads like marketing puff to me...
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, no, we shall just have to agreeably disagree. I will maintain however, that I suspect my skiing female friends (of which I have and ski with mny) have more experience than you do
Oh and I must say that without thinking too hard about it, (I'm on my jollies) your cited article reads like marketing puff to me...
Your notions and "My Female friends agree" neither counts as evidence, nor changes female physiology and CoG.
On a more serious note, my guess is your friends are all really competent skiers, that are good enough not to need the extra help of Female specific skis - and like the extra stiffness and power of Unisex skis. They are unlikely to be representative of the people who would most benefit from the design changes that have been highlighted.
@Old Fartbag, That's probably true. The ladeez I ski with are not representative of the general population.
It may be that early stage skiers would benefit from such changes but all or almost all of the points in your article would be better addressed by better instruction and many of the points also apply to blokes who are not very fit.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, That's probably true. The ladeez I ski with are not representative of the general population.
It may be that early stage skiers would benefit from such changes but all or almost all of the points in your article would be better addressed by better instruction and many of the points also apply to blokes who are not very fit.
IMV. Being good enough to "work around" your physiology, is not necessarily a reason to avoid getting kit specifically designed for it...which needn't be "Soft and Pink" (apologies for that image!).
Also, the chances of a 1 week per year skier becoming as good as your friends, is remote.....and having kit that makes life easier, means progress in those lessons you talk about, could be quicker.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Old Fartbag, all true. But equally I know lots of girls who don’t have Welchian boobs or Kardashian derrieres. This all gets over thought and over marketed.
The reverse however, one chumette who is slim and athletic bought her latest skis because they were pink. Which is fair enough.
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.
Quote:
Delta angle raises the skier’s heel, moving the centre of mass both upwards and forwards over the front of the skis.
This leads to better pressure distribution on the front of the ski with a girl’s reduced ankle and knee flex and without bending at the waist
This is bs. Women tend to have better ankle flexibility then men (and better flexibility in general).
The big difference in biomechanics is wider hips give women a bigger q angle which is likely why they have much higher risk of ACL injury while skiing. Unfortunately no ski is fixing that.
I get why a woman skiing on a man's ski might want to mount bindings further forward to overcome the skis not being optimum for her height/weight. But if it's a woman specific ski, I'd argue the design is poor if a woman is having to move bindings further forward.
I do think it's mostly marketing bs. Yes women are on average lighter and shorter then men, and probably need a ski that reflects that (shorter, lighter, more flex). I don't think there's any hard evidence they need a radically different ski though (unless you can find a design that solves the q angle problem!).
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, all true. But equally I know lots of girls who don’t have Welchian boobs or Kardashian derrieres. This all gets over thought and over marketed.
The reverse however, one chumette who is slim and athletic bought her latest skis because they were pink. Which is fair enough.
If you want proof that women have a different CoG, whatever their shape - do this experiment (I haven't met a Man that could do it, or a Woman that couldn't):
Delta angle raises the skier’s heel, moving the centre of mass both upwards and forwards over the front of the skis.
This leads to better pressure distribution on the front of the ski with a girl’s reduced ankle and knee flex and without bending at the waist
This is bs. Women tend to have better ankle flexibility then men (and better flexibility in general).
That is quite correct. I had assumed (maybe wrongly), that the article was referring to the inability to properly flex at the ankles, if the CoG had the weight too far back....ie. an effect a bit like having boots that are too stiff.
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.
Old Fartbag wrote:
... If you want proof that women have a different CoG, whatever their shape - do this experiment (I haven't met a Man that could do it, or a Woman that couldn't):
I don't want proof. However copying what they did in that video seems rather trivial, to me. Can't see what the problem is. The people in the video are overweight though - perhaps overweight women put the weight on in different places from overweight blokes?
My female chums ride the same snowboards as everyone else.
Once upon a time I contacted DaKine to ask them if their female snowboard bags, which were cheaper than the male bags, were any different. The answer was that they're identical, and I've been carrying a female bag ever since. I do hope that gets up the noses of those who think I'm not allowed to change the gender of my snowboard bag.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@phil_w, I know nothing about Snowboards or how to use them.
That video may seem trivial - but it nicely highlights the difference. It doesn't matter whether the people doing it are skinny or not. The result is the same.
I was 9.5 Stone when I tried it - and couldn't stand up. My sister was even lighter and stood up without any problem.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Old Fartbag, there is no doubt that women's centre of mass is slightly lower than mens. The question is how does that have any effect on skiing? I'm yet to see anything quantifying the difference. The assumption that you can overcome it simply by shifting bindings forward a few cm suggests it's not hugely important. their increased flexibility at the ankles probably allows them to get it more forward than most of the guys with tight calves.
As I said before the obvious biomechanical difference is q angle. Probably accounting for much higher prevalence of ACL injuries than found in men. For recreational skiers that's a much more important fix than miniscule changes in COM.
Do I really think companies are putting $ into r&d for female skis? Not a chance. I suspect most just make something shorter with more flex. Which is probably enough for a recreational skier. If you want to go to the Olympics maybe optimising is necessary.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@boarder2020, Here is a very balanced article - pretty much discussing exactly what we have been debating on here.
Women's skis - It used to be the case that many manufacturers thought they could get away with simply creating a women’s ski by shortening the length of the men’s model, softening the flex and then adding a pretty pink and purple graphic on the topsheet : thankfully those days are well and truly over! Fortunately, in the past decade manufacturers have cottoned on to the fact that women demand skis that perform just as well as those of their male counterparts.
Since the mid 2000’s both the North America and European ski companies have upped the ante; researching, testing and developing high-end skis that meet the needs of female skiers at all levels. A key element of the change in approach has been the recognition that women’s physiologies are different, such that a woman’s ski needs to factor in important considerations such as the relevant leg to torso length ratio, the size of the upper body relative to the lower body, and other bio-mechanical aspects that differentiate the female skier from the male. Today, women’s skis are every bit the match of those designed for men and, backed by professional freeride skiers such as Angel Collinson and Lindsay Rider putting in the R&D hours, the skis on offer just keep getting better with every winter season.
Anatomical/physiological Differences - Women’s torsos constitute a greater overall length of their total body length relative to men. In addition, the upper part of the leg is commonly a greater part of the total length of the leg for a woman. The aforementioned differences result in a considerably different pattern of flexion and movement of the centre of gravity for women, such that at a female skier flexing forward in her ski boots has a greater possibility of shifting bodyweight back over the rear of the skis. This consideration has a major impact therefore on the design of women’s skis: the prospect of the unweighting of the ski tips caused by a shift in position needs to be factored in when creating a ski that can properly initiate and engage in turning, and also counter any tendency for the ski to drift or feel unstable.
A further consideration in relation to physiology in designing a women’s specific ski is pelvic width. Relative to total body height, a woman’s pelvic width is generally greater. This difference influences how ski designers calculate the necessary sidecut of the ski, taking into account how a female skier’s centre of gravity changes through the course of initiating and following through carved turn. Ski design needs therefore to consider how the shape of the ski, in combination with the flex pattern, will effect control and stability and minimise the risk of over rotation of the hips that can produce an uncontrolled skid, as opposed to a balanced, controlled carve.
Ski flex and mounting position - The flex pattern is a critical element of ski design and function. A women’s specific ski needs to take into consideration differences in physiology that influence the positioning of the binding. Women’s skis require a mounting position that is different from that of men’s skis. Crucially, a women’s ski is designed such that the mounting position is shifted slightly forward; this counters the tendency of the skier’s weight to shift toward the tails when a turn is instituted. The resulting effect of shifting the mounting position slightly towards the tips is that it assists the skier in directing the energy driven through the skis such that power is more effectively transferred toward the skis’ tips, thereby aiding stability and reducing the level of exertion required to initiate the skier’s turn.
It should be noted that manufacturers most often experiment with flex patterns and mounting positions together whilst also taking into account how these two elements of the ski work in conjunction with the skier’s technical ability. Often designers will implement more radical modifications to compensate and correct for challenges beginner skiers will face while learning good ski technique. In contrast, more advanced women skiers can better exploit the performance of expert skis that are stiffer and less stable, yet allow for faster transitions from edge to edge and can better handle the higher levels of energy transmitted through them.
Women’s bindings - Women’s bindings are developed such that they provide the optimal compromise relative to performance, safety, comfort and the overall weight of the binding unit. In addition, women’s bindings usually feature a heel piece that lifts the boot heel slightly higher than that of a man’s foot in the equivalent binding model. This difference factors in the need to slightly shift forward a women’s centre of gravity to ensure optimum body positioning over the ski, and will also therefore result in a safer binding — correct functioning of the release mechanism is partly dependent on how the binding is loaded in relation to the pressures exerted on it.
Apologies to the OP for the diversion....but it is related to the topic. I find it interesting in a geeky sort of way, as in marketing BS or genuine advance - and am keen that a bunch of Men don't dismiss the need for Female specific skis, as "They'll be just fine on what suits us".
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
"They'll be just fine on what suits us"
The vast majority of recreational skiers will be fine on any generic unisex ski at a reasonable size and flex. I'm sure for the Olympian needing a high performance ski and looking for marginal gains these things makes a difference.
My masters was in sports biomechanics, with a big focus on movement variability. The idea that someone's centre of mass follows the exact same pattern on every turn is laughable. Even more so when you consider that ski terrain is rarely uniform.
I bet if measured plenty of back seat male skiers have COM way behind women's.
I'd love to see blizzards white papers. Honestly I don't buy it's anything other than speculation and marketing fluff. I could design a women's ski boot with "canted footbeds, to combat increased q angle due to women's differing anatomical structure", "curved upper shell, ergonomically designed to better fit differing muscle shape and sizes" etc. Sounds good, some truth in it. Would it actually improve performance, comfort, or decrease risk of injury - probably not.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@boarder2020, You are neither a Woman (obviously) nor a Skier - and while I have no doubt that you are highly qualified in sports biomechanics - did you specialise in, or do an in depth analysis specifically on Female biomechanics, as it relates to skiing, ski design and the potential problems therein eg. Ski shape/Construction/Flex/Sidecut/Binding position/Delta angle etc?.
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?
@Old Fartbag, I don't think an in depth analysis is anywhere near necessary. Ultimately all these forces acting upon the ski are reduced to a single resultant vector. It's nowhere near as complicated as the marketing department would like you to believe.
That said, most men's ski ranges are unlikely to accommodate someone of 5'1" although as an American, maybe skis do not know how tall you are (or what you've got, or not between your legs).
also, if Mike Hattrup's in my camp, I feel fully vindicated!
@Old Fartbag, I don't think an in depth analysis is anywhere near necessary. Ultimately all these forces acting upon the ski are reduced to a single resultant vector. It's nowhere near as complicated as the marketing department would like you to believe.
That said, most men's ski ranges are unlikely to accommodate someone of 5'1" although as an American, maybe skis do not know how tall you are (or what you've got, or not between your legs).
Not that it's important, but I have given your argument a lot more credibility, since seeing Fischer relate it almost word for word (You don't do PR for them in your spare time, do you? ). As you know, I just thought it was another of your notions. However, saying all that, I'm in the Blizzard camp and the K2 one as well, as they were pioneers in this.
The Joy series by Head were designed from the ground up for women. Kästle on the other hand, don’t even offer women's skis, as they feel a skier is just that, a skier, neither male nor female.
So, it's best to pick a position and stick to it, no matter what.....while the fairer sex should just go out and choose whatever suits them best ie. without the need for any mansplaining.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I’m certainly not wanting to enter into the discussion but it did get me thinking about gender identification and the like.
Should a male who identifies as a female still buy male skis as his skeleton will be that of a male.
Personally I like Kastel’s approach.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Old Fartbag, I agree with everything you said about women's skis. I own K2s and if hiring, would always ask for a women's ski. However, your chair video... yes, I can do it and my husband can't. However my son, (early 40's, average height/weight, not particularly muscular), is at our house so I asked him to try. He can also do it, quite easily. Do I need to be asking him "questions"?
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.
Come on, everyone, try it. I want to know more .
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
maggi wrote:
@Old Fartbag, I agree with everything you said about women's skis. I own K2s and if hiring, would always ask for a women's ski. However, your chair video... yes, I can do it and my husband can't. However my son, (early 40's, average height/weight, not particularly muscular), is at our house so I asked him to try. He can also do it, quite easily. Do I need to be asking him "questions"?
Get him into the Guinness Book of records.....and then some Women's skis!!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
FWIW I think it’s mostly about stiffness. I have 120 mm skis which are flexible and I can ski almost anywhere happily! My stiffer narrower skis are more fun when conditions aren’t amazing but can punish me for not skiing well. Short turning radius is also good as turning is control. They can detune the backs of skis for you to slarve round more easily. Good luck!
I’d try what you can and not worry too much about width etc.
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.
Old Fartbag wrote:
@boarder2020, You are neither a Woman (obviously) nor a Skier - and while I have no doubt that you are highly qualified in sports biomechanics - did you specialise in, or do an in depth analysis specifically on Female biomechanics, as it relates to skiing, ski design and the potential problems therein eg. Ski shape/Construction/Flex/Sidecut/Binding position/Delta angle etc?.
No I didn't. But i can appreciate how difficult (could argue impossible) that would be to do. You are talking a team of postdocs multiple years and 5-6 PhDs worth of research. That's just to scratch the surface and do a relatively basic technique analysis, design some prototypes, and then test them. That's before you consider the difficulty of motion capture of skiing which for obvious reasons can't be done in a lab. (Probably explains why there is so little research).
If a company is really going to that extent with r&d they'd be using it in their advertising and publishing white papers showing how much better their products are. If a company "developing women's skis from the ground up" actually just means they just hypothesise x,y,z will work for women, make a prototype and give it to a few women to test and get generic feedback on their opinions. I can believe that, but I wouldn't really give it huge credibility.
I'd argue suggesting their is a male and female technique is way oversimplified anyway. You will find huge variation in both populations. There are just way too many confounding variables (height, weight, limb length, flexibility, strength, skill level, boots, surface slope angle, snow condition etc. You probably need to make custom skis for each person, which I suspect is the case for the top Olympians. Of course marginal gains are much more important at that level.
The obvious differences between the average man and woman are; height, weight, strength/power, and q angle. The first 3 can be mainly solved with shorter, lighter, more flexible skis. I don't see an easy quick solution to q-angle. As for com yes it's different during standing. I'm skeptical how much it affects skiing (we don't have any science quantifying it). COM is very dynamic and easily manipulated. I could hypothesise that women's greater hip and ankle flexibility compensates for the starting difference, allowing them to get their com to a similar position as the average man. Unfortunately we just don't have the hard evidence to say either way. A more obvious solution seems to be to slope boot footbed.
Again I just don't think it makes much difference for the average intermediate. Put them on generic unisex skis and they will be fine. It would be a fun experiment to do some blind testing. Even more fun to put a stereotypical mens top sheet on a women's ski and vice versa and see who picked the "correct" ski for their gender and who went with the graphics.
In conclusion, I just can't see any companies really going deep into the biomechanics and testing. Even if they did it would probably be useless as they'd likely find such a huge range of differences within females. It definitely makes sense to produce women's skis that are lighters, shorter, and less stiff and that's probably beneficial to most women. As for the suggestion skis need to be completely redesigned for women and some of the technology claims, it seems like marketing bs with no actual hard data to back up.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@boarder2020, "You will find huge variation in both populations. There are just way too many confounding variables (height, weight, limb length, flexibility, strength, skill level, boots, surface slope angle, snow condition etc. You probably need to make custom skis for each person, which I suspect is the case for the top Olympians."
Mostly all of this except the top Olympians bit, ski build is just not that precise. There are custom ski makers, but no precision.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@boarder2020, also, most rental shops give ski lengths based +/- on height ... so the vast majority of population skiing have no idea ...
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@DrSJF16, Continue to hire .
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@under a new name, makes sense. I would have thought most Olympians have a preference for length, size, sidecut, stiffness and would have skis made accordingly. Maybe "semi-custom" ski would be a better term. But I may be wrong, and we are probably already in a position where the skis are mostly optimised already.
Exactly , most intermediates are probably skiing around on equipment not at all optimised for them and don't even know it. Simply having a ski with the right length and stiffness for your size and ability probably gets you 90% of the way there. Sure for more advanced with specific goals they might want to argue over things like sidecut radius, but for the intermediate it's not worth worrying about just get something generic in the middle.
Put Lindsey vonn on a generic man's intermediate ski and I bet she'd be pretty good still
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@boarder2020, IMV. It is amazing how a small misalignment in equipment, in a way that doesn't suit the individual, can have a profound effect on the skier.
This is much more Colin's (S4F) area than mine - but have certainly come across posts on here, where the person involved suffered with burning thighs, only to discover that it wasn't a fitness problem, but the boots were too stiff, the Forward Lean was too much, or there wasn't enough/too much Ramp/Delta angle etc This pushed their weight too far back.
Now, if these small discrepancies can have such a profound impact on the way a person skis, surely it's not too much of a leap to think the general anatomical/physiological/biomechanical differences between Men and Women "Can" produce difficulties that should be addressed.
Does this mean every Woman wants a specific Lady's ski?.....No it doesn't.....But due to the CoG differences, which can have the weight too far back - surely it makes logical sense to help mitigate this, for those that have not reached a level of skiing that can adapt to it.
As for measuring - I suspect Carv would be useful in comparing the effects.....and Ski Companies don't pluck designs out of thin air and have a wealth of design knowledge - so already have the means to design skis for specific purposes. A ski that suits Female physiology is just another "specific purpose".
As blokes, we can pontificate and even learn the theory, but I don't think we can fully understand what it's like to be a Female grappling with a ski, that was designed by blokes, for blokes.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sun 30-07-23 10:49; edited 1 time in total
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?
Old Fartbag wrote:
.. That video may seem trivial - but it nicely highlights the difference. It doesn't matter whether the people doing it are skinny or not. The result is the same.
No, I meant that I can trivially do the thing you say males can't. Hence I think that specifically proves nothing. The people in the video seemed to have significant excess body fat, which may be why one of them isn't able to do what I can do trivially. Perhaps carrying excess fat affects one's balance; I'd suppose it may, but it doesn't prove that a ski knows if the person driving it has a dick or not.
I don't think Olympians are relevant. Their skis may look stock but they're unlikely to be that. Even without custom gear you won't notice any difference in their performance because their skill level is so much higher than average. The marginal gains a racer is looking for are totally irrelevant to everyone else; it makes no sense to look for those gains (even if they exist, which is disputed here), when you haven't really learned to ski.
Lemmie have a go at some of that marketing text, as we're here.
Quote:
Women’s bindings - Women’s bindings are developed such that they provide the optimal compromise relative to performance, safety, comfort and the overall weight of the binding unit. In addition, women’s bindings usually feature a heel piece that lifts the boot heel slightly higher than that of a man’s foot in the equivalent binding model. This difference factors in the need to slightly shift forward a women’s centre of gravity to ensure optimum body positioning over the ski, and will also therefore result in a safer binding — correct functioning of the release mechanism is partly dependent on how the binding is loaded in relation to the pressures exerted on it.
1st sentence: They're implying that ordinary bindings are not developed to provide that "optimal compromise", which is obviously marketing nonsense. All bindings are developed that way. This sentence provides no information at all.
"In addition". That's weak: they know the 1st sentence is meaningless. This additional thing sounds like nonsense. They don't say precisely which bindings lift which heels by how much, but I'd hazard a guess that you'll get more variation in boots than anything they put in there. This sounds technical, but it again provides no actual information.
The rest of that isn't a lot better. It reads like marketing.
@phil_w, The relevant bit of the section you quoted is, "In addition, women’s bindings usually feature a heel piece that lifts the boot heel slightly higher than that of a man’s foot in the equivalent binding model". This is a "female specific" adaption, to allow for their weight being slightly further back. They don't say by how much, because different manufacturers have different Delta angles.
Few dispute the need for Women's ski boots designed around their physiology - this thinking has now been taken into ski design - though IIRC K2 have been looking into this since the late 80s, with their LTP (Ladies Top Performer) and Bad Bitch....although back then, it was probably 85% marketing.
The only point I am making, is that some ski manufacturers appear to take seriously the points I have been raising, and make specific adaptions to address them .....and....the strongest scepticism seem to be coming from blokes. The effectiveness of all this, needs to come from the Women who have tried both.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 30-07-23 11:06; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
phil_w wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
.. That video may seem trivial - but it nicely highlights the difference. It doesn't matter whether the people doing it are skinny or not. The result is the same.
No, I meant that I can trivially do the thing you say males can't.
I can do it too. Not easy and on moving head back from wall I have to bend further forward before standing. Easy if you let chair part from chest. For clarification I’m male and not super skinny.
But due to the CoG differences, which can have the weight too far back
I'd love to see the evidence of this. Yes we know women's com tends to sit a little lower when standing. However, there's absolutely no hard evidence that this has a significant effect on skiing. I suspect the prevalence of males who can't get their com forward enough due to lack of ankle and hip flexibility is not insignificant!
I think people fail to understand just how complicated and dynamic skiing is and how much redundancy the human body has. Here's a study showing just how complicated going from seated to standing is, showing that age plays a bigger role than sex, and that people employ a range of different compensation strategies to overcome physiology https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-022-00094-x
We used to do a practical where we'd get someone to go from sitting to standing and then make them repeat the movement on one leg, wearing a heavy backpack, holding a weight in front of them etc. While the movements looked completely different the students were surprised to find once com was plotted it was near identical in all cases.
I'm not saying that women should be stuck having to adapt to skis massively unsuitable for them. But the idea that a slightly different starting com position requires a complete redesign of equipment seems overblown.
Quote:
the general anatomical/physiological/biomechanical differences between Men and Women "Can" produce difficulties that should be addressed.
Yes. Nobody is suggesting a women's ski shouldn't be smaller, lighter, and have more flex to accomodate obvious physiological differences between the average male and female.
But you are assuming there is a generic female technique that is clearly different to men's. I'd push back that there are likely so many different female techniques based on a whole range of confounding variables (strength, flexibility, height, weight, limb length, mass distribution etc.) it's almost redundant. As in the sit to stand study linked above you may well find fit healthy 20 year old males and females have more in common with each other than they do a 50 year old of the same sex.
Quote:
The rest of that isn't a lot better. It reads like marketing.
Exactly. Most of the women specific tech just comes across as generic marketing bs with no substance. Some things sound good and plausible, but even they seem to lack any hard evidence.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
DJL wrote:
phil_w wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
.. That video may seem trivial - but it nicely highlights the difference. It doesn't matter whether the people doing it are skinny or not. The result is the same.
No, I meant that I can trivially do the thing you say males can't.
I can do it too. Not easy and on moving head back from wall I have to bend further forward before standing. Easy if you let chair part from chest. For clarification I’m male and not super skinny.
I have found both the whole discussion and the results of the Chair Lift interesting. I have been aware of the Chairlift "trick" for over 50 years....and seen it tried many times, by many people. I have never seen a Male succeed, or a Female fail....so I wonder if there are any other factors influencing the results.
When I try, if in bare feet, I am 21" from the door and can stand up without holding any weight. If I lift a solid Oak side table, I can't stand up. If I am wearing shoes, I am 23" from the door and can't stand up, even without the table.....so I suppose some consistency and removal of variables need to be applied.
So, to take the variables of foot length and chair weight out of the equation, try this (carefully).
For the blokes that succeeded at the Chair lift - please try this and report back.
After all it is free
After all it is free
All depends how far back you get your butt. I managed it second try.
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.
DJL wrote:
All depends how far back you get your butt. I managed it second try.
Moving your butt back far enough to offset the CoG difference, when you failed doing it correctly the first time, is cheating.....It's a bit like reducing the distance to the wall to succeed at the Chair Lift test. Your thighs should be reasonably close to perpendicular to the floor.
BTW. Thank you for trying.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Old Fartbag wrote:
DJL wrote:
All depends how far back you get your butt. I managed it second try.
Moving your butt back far enough to offset the CoG difference, when you failed doing it correctly the first time, is cheating.....It's a bit like reducing the distance to the wall to succeed at the Chair Lift test. Your thighs should be reasonably close to perpendicular to the floor.
BTW. Thank you for trying.
There was no instruction about thighs being perpendicular.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
). As you know, I just thought it was another of your notions. However, saying all that, I'm in the 
... so the vast majority of population skiing have no idea ...