“systemic” tall/heavy discrimination?

[CoreyLayton]

so, Ive always wondered:

why is it, that skiis/snowboards are all so “granularly sized” for people that weigh sub-90kg; and then there is *one* last maximum “one-size-fits-all” for everyone 90kg+?

seriously.

There is usually a whole progression of sizes, up to 90kg, equating to 10 or even 5kg increments. And then if you are 90kg or 120kg or more, there is a single model to cover that whole range.

I mean, for an adult male, 90kg seems like it would be close to *average*. (especially if you factor in a pack…)

It just dont make sense.

Thoughts?

[paulzo]

In general, when it comes to products, if there is demand, some manufacturer will fill it. So I would guess that the market for skis to suit bigger folks is just too small.

[Stephen]

I would say its the bell curve thing.
Anything that falls out on the ends is just weird — like me.
Decades ago I could find medium tall shirts — not so much any more.
Try and find pants in 32W-36L — not usually.
Try and find anyone who would actually understand my world view — maybe.
Ever heard of the Meyer’s Briggs test?
There are 16 outcomes.
100 / 16 = about 15% per outcome.
The distribution is not even.
I’m in the box that has 4% of the population.

I get your point. I understand the frustration. But like @paulzo said, if there was money to be made, capitalism would come to the rescue.
And, as the saying goes, these are pretty much First World Problems.
Don’t mean to be uncaring — it must be getting late…

Maybe there’s a market for a Big and Tall Sports Equipment retailer?

[Woodserson]

You should see what happens when you have 47+ size feet or Mondo 31 boots!!!

In terms of skis there's also a physics issue, right? There's only so much camber that can be applied without getting into huge weight penalties. Then on top of that is shipping lengths and the cost associated with longer items. 210 seems to be the limit and once over that prices start to climb rapidly.

I feel you. Invest in the companies that make longer lengths. The Gamme and Amundsen specifically. Learn and use grip wax so you're not limited by mechanical friction of scales that cannot be changed. Keep an eye out for older E99 that came in 215.

[FourthCoast]

[...] Keep an eye out for older E99 that came in 215.

I am 6'1" and, well, I am fat. I really like the E99 in 215 that I got from Stephen. I stand on one foot and the ski grips. I stand on both feet and the skis glide. Very cool. I highly recommend it.

[Montana St Alum]

True. If you are in a group that is small, the likelihood of making money building stuff for you goes down. Not many people want to make stuff out of the kindness of their hearts.

[CoreyLayton]

So I would guess that the market for skis to suit bigger folks is just too small.

perhaps....

but, 90kg as a break-point seems odd to me. At least half of the adult males I know are heavier than this - either because they are fairly tall (6feet+), or a bit rotund...

[CoreyLayton]

I would say its the bell curve thing.

one would think so - and that makes perfect sense.

But the "bell curve" of Fischer's size chart (for example)
begins at 50kg and ends at 90kg - with at least 4 ski lengths, (if not 6) to cover that weight range - a 40kg spread.
But then a "one-size-fits-all" for everyone above 90kg.

I don't think that is a very representational "bell curve" of backcountry nordic skiiers, in practice.
I know *lots* of guys in that 100-120kg range that are fit and very athletic -
and a few are even devout "free-heel" (tele and XC) skiiers.

It may be a combination of your "bell curve" theory, and Wooderson's physical practicality of ski length, production, and shipping limitations at work...

[CoreyLayton]

I feel you. Invest in the companies that make longer lengths. The Gamme and Amundsen specifically. Learn and use grip wax so you're not limited by mechanical friction of scales that cannot be changed. Keep an eye out for older E99 that came in 215.

oh, and just to clarify: I, personally, to not fall outside of the 90kg "ceiling". (but I am right about at it...)
So, I have no problem finding skiis that work well for me.

But I thought it odd, that I am the "top end" of what is offered,
when I know a lot of guys who are very fit and athletic and range a good bit above that 90kg mark...

[Montana St Alum]

So I would guess that the market for skis to suit bigger folks is just too small.

perhaps....

but, 90kg at a break-point seems odd to me. At least half of the adult males I know are heavier than this - either because they are pretty tall, or a bit rotund...

I think it is odd, from just a standard healthy distribution aspect. A healthy 45 year old at 6'2" tall and 90kg can be perfectly healthy. But, it's also possible that the drop off in numbers of people in endurance activities drops off rapidly above a certain weight (partially due to weight and partially due to age) and in the height category, it may also drop off as taller individuals may specialize in activities that are enhanced by being tall, like basketball.

If I were a manufacturer, I'd be aware of such data. In alpine skiing, where more, older, heavier, and unhealthy people are represented, you see that in what equipment is available. Lot's of skis that will float someone over 90kg.