Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

Boys skis good for girls??

profile picture
mcweapon
Posts: 175 - Karma: 247
does anyone know of any brand.. or ski that is over 95 underfoot and not above a 167?????? i looked for a while.. and i cant find anything (but maybe i am not looking at the right sites)... help?.. i want fatter pow skis
May 13 2008 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
Alex_G
Posts: 11902 - Karma: 1,018
I would imagine the shorter pow skis will work for you? Why not? the only thing that is different for girls is a larger q-angle in the hips which creates a higher stress on the ligaments in the knee, and that might be what girls skis are made to compensate for but I have no idea I don't think it's a problem.
May 13 2008 11:33AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939

Girls twin tips are no different than guys skis, other than they are typically softer and/or narrower + shorter.

Some anatomically correct carving or race skis will put the binding closer to the center of the ski than on mens skis to compensate for weight distribution in a typically shorter female body, but with twin tips, you're mounting in the middle of the ski, or at least close to it, so this doesnt trancend different ski types.

To answer the main question though, Boys skis are quite fine for girls, and I happen to know quite a few girls who own and use skis that were originally meant for males.

As for girls skis that are over 95, but under 167..

-K2 makes the Missbehaved for next season.. its basically this years Seth, but I believe they are making it down to 157? Not sure if its still 98 underfoot at that size... but worth checking into. Take into consideration that there is rocker in the ski.

-VOLKL makes the Kiku for 09.. which is a Gotama in womens sizes and with womens graphics. I believe they are making them in size 160 and 167. It is 105 underfoot in all sizes.

-MOMENT makes the Sierra, which... not sure if they are making it smaller than 170, but I understand its based on the 96 underfoot Tahoe. They also make the Pika, which from my understanding - based on the Ruby. Not sure if thats any smaller than 170 either...

-LINE has the pandora, which is 139-110-137 and based on the Elizebeth. Not sure if its smaller than its twin brother which is 172, but look into it when it comes out next season.

Other than that, I cant really recall any other womens skis over 95. Everyother womens ski i can remember is at or around the 90 width...

Good luck hunting.

May 13 2008 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
alpineplease
Posts: 2790 - Karma: 1,762
you might be stoked on the k2 kung fujas, 95 underfoot and 169 in length.
May 13 2008 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Gun_Labs
Posts: 68 - Karma: 8
i agree with alpine
May 13 2008 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
nosnowsnakes
Posts: 301 - Karma: 133
I tried the Elizabeths this season and besides the fact that they were a lot of ski for me to handle (I'm 5'2 and 115 lbs) and it wasn't a pow day, I was pretty stoked on them, You might want to look into these pandoras.


This is the first year I have ever invested in a pair of womens specific skis, so yes guys skis will work okay for you. I usually find that womans skis just aren't agressive enough but I picked up a pair of the line celebrities and really liked them this year.


I'm stoked that more ski companies are putting time into good womans skis instead of selling generic all mountain skis with pink graphics.

May 14 2008 2:52PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiCA
Posts: 247 - Karma: 33
You want a powder ski, Moment has the pika 140-112-130 size 170...looks awesome, hope you have some nice pow pow for those!!

I have the celebrities and love them...
May 14 2008 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939
Might as well just buy an old seth pistol, because thats basically all they are anyway...

Not to stoked about them.
May 14 2008 11:09PM
0 0
profile picture
bret
Posts: 2845 - Karma: 833
^really? are you sure the sidecut isn't all updated and centered and shit for all mtn park riding?
May 15 2008 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939
I coulda swore they had the same dimensions as the old seth pistols from years ago... 126-95-120?

Not sure what that "biodirectional sidecut' means... I guess they moved the center of the ski up?

Ehh.. Perhaps I just have a biased opinion against "made in china" stickered skis...
May 15 2008 12:56PM
0 0
profile picture
bret
Posts: 2845 - Karma: 833
eh i'll have to check it out. even if they kept the old SP dimensions and just moved the center up, i still think it could be a heck of a fun ski. worth a look anyways.
May 15 2008 1:31PM
0 0
profile picture
mcweapon
Posts: 175 - Karma: 247
thanks guys... i will check out all of the mentioned skis and find which one works for me..... i have girls skis now but will be getting guys skis this round :)
May 15 2008 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
zoek
Posts: 70 - Karma: 11
What about the Armada ARVs? 165cm and 95 underfoot. Super fun in the park and pretty decent everywhere else. I'm female and seriously love them, the only thing i don't like is the bindings i have on them means i cant run and jump into them like my old pair. Pretty much my favourite ski ever. Are you a fairly aggressive skier?
May 18 2008 7:59AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939
the 165's are 89 underfoot... the 175's are 92 underfoot, and the 185's are 95...

So unless she could shred on 85's... that would be a negative ghostrider...
May 19 2008 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
zoek
Posts: 70 - Karma: 11
oh you are totally right, sorry i lie! i was reading the arv info and forgot it would change for the diff sizes. well they are only a few mms too short but a good ski still!
May 19 2008 2:32AM
0 0
profile picture
mcweapon
Posts: 175 - Karma: 247
I have been actually been looking at two pairs... one is Moment - Pika.. and the other is Volkl  Gotama ... more leaning toward the Gotama .. 168 which isnt too bad... and 133 - 105 - 124 .. nice for pow and backcountry... 

and yeah.. i am pretty aggressive, though, rails and boxes still scare me .. ill go over decent sized jumps... and will be heading in the backcountry more next season (my roomies getin another sled) ... so these skis will be my sort of "pow only" skis... i ride 160 scratch BCs right now... for park.. and i guess for everything :) they are my only pair... so it is time for some new guys
May 19 2008 11:50PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939
Werd.

The pika and the got's are beastly.
May 20 2008 9:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Tross
Posts: 951 - Karma: 117
Armada ARVw next year. Dimensionally and structurally similar to the ARVw. It didn't feel softer, but I didn't ski it. It'll be a 165 if I remember correctly. Might be up your alley.
May 29 2008 3:08AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,939
89 underfoot. obviously not fat enough. Its also just the 165 ARV's with a girly graphic...
May 30 2008 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Squirrel_Murphy
Posts: 2195 - Karma: 1,165
don't listen to her, she brakes her legs (c;
May 30 2008 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Tross
Posts: 951 - Karma: 117
Wow. I didn't know it was exactly the same ski. You must have some kind of inside track or something. Good call.
Jun 2 2008 1:59AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)