What's Blizzard up to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twat

What is your bsl? How long is the ski?

---

I am 6’2 and 209 lbs, my BSL is 335 mm and the skis are 188 cm. Won’t be doing any butter or straight lines with those in pow (did my ACL a couple of years back on the first gen doing just that [emoji51]) but as my only ski for touring (the 95 is way too light for me) I wonder if the forward mount could be a better option for an all rounder (conversions, shit snow conditions, turn initiation, etc). I Wish I could remember which bump I was on the first gen but I found out there was two bumps only when the bindings were mounted and I never really cared to find out… All I remember is that the skis were great but a bit hooky [emoji2371]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gweilo

I am 6’2 and 209 lbs, my BSL is 335 mm and the skis are 188 cm. Won’t be doing any butter or straight lines with those in pow (did my ACL a couple of years back on the first gen doing just that [emoji51]) but as my only ski for touring (the 95 is way too light for me) I wonder if the forward mount could be a better option for an all rounder (conversions, shit snow conditions, turn initiation, etc). I Wish I could remember which bump I was on the first gen but I found out there was two bumps only when the bindings were mounted and I never really cared to find out… All I remember is that the skis were great but a bit hooky [emoji2371]

---

Go with the forward bump with a 335mm BSL, ski first then de-tune as necessary. FWIW, the old version bumps were 1.5cm apart and the new ones are 2cm apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gweilo

I am 6’2 and 209 lbs, my BSL is 335 mm and the skis are 188 cm. Won’t be doing any butter or straight lines with those in pow (did my ACL a couple of years back on the first gen doing just that [emoji51]) but as my only ski for touring (the 95 is way too light for me) I wonder if the forward mount could be a better option for an all rounder (conversions, shit snow conditions, turn initiation, etc). I Wish I could remember which bump I was on the first gen but I found out there was two bumps only when the bindings were mounted and I never really cared to find out… All I remember is that the skis were great but a bit hooky [emoji2371]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

---

My bsl is 297 and I went for factory recommended, guess almost 40mm difference justifies for moving your heel forward.

I will ! Thank you guys for your help ! I reckon I was probably too much on the back seat on the first gen - glad I sold those skis anyway it was a bit weird skiing them following the ACL crash [emoji95][emoji51]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gweilo

I will ! Thank you guys for your help ! I reckon I was probably too much on the back seat on the first gen - glad I sold those skis anyway it was a bit weird skiing them following the ACL crash [emoji95][emoji51]

---

You're in a 29.5 Atomic Hawx Prime XTD? You might also consider a lighter boot to pair with those skis to get the most out of them . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

You're in a 29.5 Atomic Hawx Prime XTD? You might also consider a lighter boot to pair with those skis to get the most out of them . . .

---

Thank you greg ! I am either in cochise or zero g 130 and they are both great at what they do [emoji6]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gweilo

Thank you greg ! I am either in cochise or zero g 130 and they are both great at what they do [emoji6]

---

Zero G Tour Pro is an excellent matchup; BSL should be 333mm @ 29.5 though.

R9 for west coast junk snow / firm snow ski (to complement an ON3P Woodsman 110 for “half-inch indentable” snow to boot deep), for medium speed off piste noodling / pecking about where other skiers won’t go, and groomer zooming with side hits, but not totally trying to dominate the snow and mountain:
Good fit or wrong tool?

(Note: I demoed the E94 for this application in 2022 and really liked the core feel and profile but not the sidecut shape and propensity to make one turn shape, and make it on behalf of the skier as opposed to the skier telling the ski what shape to make)

Seems like a Rustler 8 would be the droid I’m looking for … but maybe the 9 could work?

R9 would be a good choice. It’s my no new snow, let’s explore / screw around ski at A Basin. Handles everything there well, except straight-lining, it’s got to be kept on edge.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

R9 for west coast junk snow / firm snow ski (to complement an ON3P Woodsman 110 for “half-inch indentable” snow to boot deep), for medium speed off piste noodling / pecking about where other skiers won’t go, and groomer zooming with side hits, but not totally trying to dominate the snow and mountain:
Good fit or wrong tool?

(Note: I demoed the E94 for this application in 2022 and really liked the core feel and profile but not the sidecut shape and propensity to make one turn shape, and make it on behalf of the skier as opposed to the skier telling the ski what shape to make)

Seems like a Rustler 8 would be the droid I’m looking for … but maybe the 9 could work?

---

They won't be making a Rustler 8 on your account, nor a Rustler 10.5 on mine. In the meantime, I'll be using the new Rustler 9 for the quiver slot you mention. If you go long enough, it can roll with the big dogs, too. (Skiing a 186 Rustler 11, 180 Rustler 9).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

They won't be making a Rustler 8 on your account, nor a Rustler 10.5 on mine. In the meantime, I'll be using the new Rustler 9 for the quiver slot you mention. If you go long enough, it can roll with the big dogs, too. (Skiing a 186 Rustler 11, 180 Rustler 9).

---

You really make me want to try the new Rustler 9. I ski my 184 M6 for that slot, but they leave a bit to be desired going off trail, especially when the snow is on the PNW-type, heavy side. Thoughts on new R9 vs M6?

Thanks Greg.

Would you say the new R9 is a big change from previous model or a subtle refinement? I can see that the tapered center titanal layer looks to have been changed to more of an H frame ... does this change how quickly the ski settles or quiets down in garbage snow?

I'm 140 lbs and would be looking to get the 180s (also on the 2020 180 cm R11). If the new R9 is a major change then I may hold out, if it's a refinement then maybe I'll look to pick up a used set or new old stock. It's not easy to demo skis down here, apart from Berg's demo weekend every March (which may or may not line up with a weekend work schedule or other kid care requirement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

You really make me want to try the new Rustler 9. I ski my 184 M6 for that slot, but they leave a bit to be desired going off trail, especially when the snow is on the PNW-type, heavy side. Thoughts on new R9 vs M6?

---

Very different skis - I love the M6 when conditions mostly call for a race ski but I might wander off the groomed once in a while. You need to be prepared to ski the M6 full gas all day, and be in shape to keep it working deep into the afternoon. The new Rustler 9 actually has similar edge hold on hard snow, but a smaller sweet spot when purely carving - it's stronger and more stable than the older R9, with more surface area for leftovers and cut up chop, but actually stays above the loose stuff while the M6 just plows through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

Thanks Greg.

Would you say the new R9 is a big change from previous model or a subtle refinement? I can see that the tapered center titanal layer looks to have been changed to more of an H frame ... does this change how quickly the ski settles or quiets down in garbage snow?

I'm 140 lbs and would be looking to get the 180s (also on the 2020 180 cm R11). If the new R9 is a major change then I may hold out, if it's a refinement then maybe I'll look to pick up a used set or new old stock. It's not easy to demo skis down here, apart from Berg's demo weekend every March (which may or may not line up with a weekend work schedule or other kid care requirement).

---

It's a fairly big change in my mind, not just because of the placement of the Titanal but also increased width and stability. It's more useful in more types and depths of snow than before - the old Rustler 9 went out mostly on groomer and family days, the new one will get more time with fresh snow on the ground.

Thanks Greg, all that is good to know. All sounds very positive to me.

Curious about the new R11 vs the OG in 192 length. Construction is obviously different but length remains the same while side cut and turn radius are slightly shorter.
Since it was such a great ski I am wondering if it is worth an upgrade like the R9 or R10 over the previous gen ? Anyone tried both and care to comment ?


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Sweet new stoke vid, good tunes good times

https://youtu.be/S2LMc3KkDZg?si=v9gcnE2PXjGKVnmV


Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

It's a fairly big change in my mind, not just because of the placement of the Titanal but also increased width and stability. It's more useful in more types and depths of snow than before - the old Rustler 9 went out mostly on groomer and family days, the new one will get more time with fresh snow on the ground.

---

What's the deal with the r10? I was thinking of mounting pivots + atk inserts on one because I loathe traveling with two skis but opinions on the new ski and weights are hard to come by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westcoaster

What's the deal with the r10? I was thinking of mounting pivots + atk inserts on one because I loathe traveling with two skis but opinions on the new ski and weights are hard to come by.

---

New Rustler 10 rips. They've fixed the issues that made me reach for something else in the past.

If you were to Google "Ski Weight Chart" you might find this:
https://www.evo.com/guides/alpine-an...ry-ski-weights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

New Rustler 10 rips. They've fixed the issues that made me reach for something else in the past.

If you were to Google "Ski Weight Chart" you might find this:
https://www.evo.com/guides/alpine-an...ry-ski-weights

---

Haha fair enough, for some reason I always thought those were just taken from mfg copy.

Haven’t heard much about the updated Rustlers. Anyone been on the 10? Did the updated construction fix the hinge/tip hook that plagued the previous generation? Is this the 10 we’ve wanted all along? Comparison to Enforcer 104 would be much appreciated if anyone can offer that up.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3ac311c7ff.jpg

In Tignes this morning… First day on the new 192 R10. Will report back [emoji6]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Have a new pair of 2022 Brahma 88s showing up tomorrow that I scored for a great price. 183 was the only size available and I tend to like 180-185ish ski lengths but this sounds like a pretty stiff ski. I’m 6’ and working back toward 170ish lbs but it sounds like some pretty burly clydesdale types are happier on the 183 vs 189. Wondering if anyone my size prefers the 177 in the newer iteration of the Brahma? I haven’t had a ski that short in a long time but maybe would have been the right choice for a 59 year old freeheeler?? Granted not much difference in length, but sounds like each size up is a pretty good jump in stiffness due to the new true blend core. Am I just turning into a worrying pussy type?

This will strictly be for charging on firm groomed snow and hitting side aprons. I have OG 180 bones and other skis for softer/deeper conditions including Praxis Quixote in a 182 that I love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3PinGrin

Have a new pair of 2022 Brahma 88s showing up tomorrow that I scored for a great price. 183 was the only size available and I tend to like 180-185ish ski lengths but this sounds like a pretty stiff ski. I’m 6’ and working back toward 170ish lbs but it sounds like some pretty burly clydesdale types are happier on the 183 vs 189. Wondering if anyone my size prefers the 177 in the newer iteration of the Brahma? I haven’t had a ski that short in a long time but maybe would have been the right choice for a 59 year old freeheeler?? Granted not much difference in length, but sounds like each size up is a pretty good jump in stiffness due to the new true blend core. Am I just turning into a worrying pussy type?

This will strictly be for charging on firm groomed snow and hitting side aprons. I have OG 180 bones and other skis for softer/deeper conditions including Praxis Quixote in a 182 that I love.

---

Im 6' 1, 195 so a little bigger than you and I have the same ski. Not once have I ever felt they were too long.

If anyone is loving their new R9s and moving on from the previous 172/180, hit me up! I wanna try it out as a low tide / garbage snow ski. [emoji1690]