Printable View
These days im a classic CO weekend warrior, but even still i'd say I see softer conditions more than not. Really just feel like ive been lacking a ski to be able charge (trust) in between storm cycles. Want something that will be ready to go all out when necessary, but can also still cater to a playfull/jibby style.Quote:
Originally Posted by AGbanjo_74
The rustler 11 definitely goes all out when you want it to, and its incredibly playful for its flex pattern and will pop of just about anything. Id recommended going up a size (188), I only got the 180 because I could get it for dirt cheap. Its a ski worth looking at if you want something that'll ski pow well but also hold up in between storm cycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by jckstein
I'm wondering the same. I skied an afternoon in decent condtions and lots of different terrain in NZ on the 180 and liked them. I want the 188, has anyone spent any considerable time on the 188? Where'd you mount them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky
Mine are being mounted right now. I took a punt and mounted at +1 of recommended. I should be getting them out on Wednesday so I'll post up some initial thoughts this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Mike02
Having just read blistergear's flash review of the Rustler 11, i'm now really undecided on jumping into these as soon as I can. I've been pretty gung-ho on these after reading other reviews over the last month, but this flash review really made the ski sound dull. Basically called it a jack of all trades, master of none. Not a hard charger but also not playful. Just an easy to ski ski that isnt very fun/exciting... Not exactly the words I want to read before diving in.. I'm now pretty clueless as to what ski is right for me this season. I thought this ski would be the solution for something I can ski as hard as I want or as playful as I was over the normal variety of inbounds conditions.
sounds like the Rustler 11 is exactly what you’re looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by jckstein
Thats what I had been thinking. Maybe i'm taking the words of blistergear a little too much to heart? Have you had a chance to try to R 10s? I'd also be interested in a pair of those, though I do like the versatility of 112mm underfood from the 11. So long as I can still rail em and trust they're gonna hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I spent about 10 days on the R10s. Really liked them for their combo of being lightish, but not overly nervous. Once you detune the fuck out of the them, the dinky radius isn’t too much of an issue. Fun ski. They ski longer than you’d think.
I haven’t skied the 10s. Just the 11s. Two runs in mixed soft snow conditions was enough for me to order a pair.Quote:
Originally Posted by jckstein
Would a 185 Cochise and 188 R11 be too redundant?
The R11 sounds better to me if I didn't own other skis, but I feel like I'd get more utility out of the R10 combined w/Cochise and my dedicated pow ski that I only bring out on really deep days.
ended up going with a pair of R10's last night. I'll update once I get some time on them. Theres a decent chance R11's follow at some point later this season...
between the cochise and your dedicated pow ski, when would you choose the rustler?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytaeMoney
pow -> powski (duh)
not so much pow -> cochise.
solved it for ya. Spend those bucks on lift tickets.
Been some time since I purchased skis. The Rustler 11 sounds like a fun option. That said, I'm torn between the 188 and 192 @ 6'1.5" and 195lbs. I want to keep things playful but also prefer slightly longer skis when it gets deep.
Go bigQuote:
Originally Posted by azzure
Flexing the Rustler the other day, I though it was fairly soft..
Is it as stable as the gunsmoke/peacemaker?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yes but less playful. Gunsmoke wasn’t that stiff either. Rustler 11 skis like a Bodacious (pre 2015) and Gunsmoke had a baby. 15/16 and 16/17 Bodacious was stiff but lacked the dampness of metal making it not that stable. Rustler keeps a damp feel underfoot with more metal than a Gunsmoke but enables a livelier tip and tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
I think having multiple styles of skis is underrated. Sometimes I want to ski fast and edgy so I take my Cochise. Sometimes I want something more playful and quick so I take my Kartel 108s. Both crush it in a variety of conditions but enable me to play with how I want to ski. I have a 192 Cochise and a 188 Rustler BTW. P18s on Cochise. KingPins on Rustlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytaeMoney
The thing I loved about the gunsmokes, was their supreme “edginess” and carving ability. Best carving skis I have ever been on over 110mm underfoot. That, and the fact they were still very playful, was a combo I rarely find in skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Do the Rustlers keep that carvy, edgy feel? I never feel that same edginess in the Cochise, I have skied both the OG (2013?) and newer(2016?) Cochise.
When you say livelier tip and tail, do you mean the flex is less consistent? I am not opposed to that, I tend to like a progressive flex on jib skis.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah, it’s still progressive, but the tip loads more and is quicker to pick up a turn than a Cochise or Bodacious and more like the Gunsmoke due to the tighter turn radius. The Cochise is every bit as edgy as the Gunsmoke but has a longer turn radius hence it takes much more energy to carve a similar turn. The Rustler turn radius has more in common with the Gunsmoke - hence it is quicker and will feel ‘carvy-er.’
My experience on the gunsmoke vs the og and new versions of the cochise is the exact opposite. The gunsmokes may hook up earlier but they cannot lay high speed gs trenches with the cochise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
To me the gunsmokes were a jack of all trades, master of none, and I sold them after 10 days or so. Lighter skiers seem to like them better.
I am a bigger guy, but I liked the 186 Gunsmokes because they were more stable and more predictable on edge than almost all other 185ish jib skis, yet still had a similar level of playfulness. The 193 was more of a forgiving charger for me, rather than a playful jibby ski, and for that I just would rather have a directional ski. This is similar to how I felt about the bibby pro. I always chose my 196 governors over 190 bibbys. The 184 bibbys were much more “jibby” for me.
The first gen Cochise, I put like 35 days on. I was always flat base skiing them, I didnt like how they felt on edge. My gunsmokes were new, and cochise used, so now that I think of it, that was why the gunnies felt “edgier” than cochise.
At first I really enjoyed other aspects of the first gen cochise though, but after I tried the Katana is was game over for the cochise. Katanas could carve/edge better, and float much better. It still could handle bumps well with full rocker, and was ultimately more stable and more predictable in soft and firm crud, than the first gen cochise.
The newer gen cochise, I only put a few runs on the 2015/16, and I just didnt think it was as damp as I like in a rage ski. I aint buying the 193 cochise to mess around. The following year I got head monster 108s, which obliterated the cochise in all aspects I’d ever consider buying a rage ski for. It could carve worlds better, was 2x as damp, and it felt much better when going mach looney on anything firm.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Whats the beta on drilling the Rustler series for a binding mount?
Bit nervous about the whole carbon-flipcore-DRT-titanal sandwich.
Why would you be nervous? You're drilling into a sheet of metal. use a 4.1x9.5 bit, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by I, the Powfinder
Had day one on my R10's yesterday and have to say, pretty damn sick. Really nice to be back on a ski that lets me ski 100% hard on choppy/icy/variable snow. Yesterday at Breck was a bit of Mayvember, but when the sun dropped it turned to half slush have ice, and I was able to lay GS turns consistently without even thinking about the sun/shadow line. After too many symmetrical noodles, it was very refreshing to be on a ski that lets me ski like I actually know what I'm doing again.. Stoked for more days.
Also the tails are pretty much perfect. Havent had this much fun tailpressing rollers
I have a 185 Cochise and a 180 Rustler 11 (wish I had a 188 R11 but Ill add that at some point) and I think they compliment each other, the rustler is really chargey and can rail even in the 180—caveat, I'm not a huge guy. And the Cochise is a balls to the wall ski like no other.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytaeMoney
Im about your same size and I demoed the Rustler 11 in 192 the other day and it rips. I had a blast on it. Might be a bit much for the resort though. Its a crusher for sure. Manageable in the bumps. For in bounds duty I would go for the 188.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzure
Just mounted up mine. Went with the 188 R11 and mounted inserts for Sth2 and Kingpins. Looking forward to getting some time on them. Mounted Kingpin on the line, Sth2 i went +2 to not interfere with kingpin pattern. Hope +2 isnt too far forward.
I purchased the 192s as most reviews say they aren't too burly. Once they arrive I'll take a look and decide if I should keep or send back for something shorter. Basically hoping this will be similar to my 192 GPOs but a little more playful. Prob too much overlap anyway.
HI!Quote:
Originally Posted by azzure
Any news about the Rustler in 192?
I'm a sporty skier from europe ( 6'2 , 175 lbs) ...and i would use the rustler 11 mostly in powder and trees at medium to higher speed. ...so it sould be stable but also playfull enough to handle trees.
Which size would you recomand for me 192 or 188.?
Does anybody have anything more to say about the Rustler 10?
Great timing: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...ard-rustler-10Quote:
Originally Posted by greasyslope
FYI: I think they where a limited run, but Soul ski (banff, alberta) has a ZG 108 in 192 new
Blizzard added a 192 108 last seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by mntlion
Tempered my enthusiasm for the r10. I want a 105ish soft chunder ski for the rest of a powder day after the first two hours are over.Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
yes, mine tooQuote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
Hmm, I normally find I have a lot in common with Blister's opinions, but that really doesn't chime with my experience on the Rustlers. I demoed them last March (and spent more time on the 11s), so it's been a while, but I found them to have plenty of guts and a fairly full on tail - lots of fun railing through chop.Quote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
A French friend ( and v good skier) recently bough the 11s and raves about them too. He used to ski Kästle BMX 128s and 108s in a 195 and reckons the Rustler is way more stable charging than them and (quote) has no speed limit at all.
I demo'd the 10s last year at Alta in the 180 for a few runs and I also thought they had a decent enough backbone. They did feel a little on the light side but I attributed that to skiing a shorter ski than I am used to.
I skied 90% of my days on the OG 186 bodacious last year so that's my baseline, FWIW.
The blister review is what made me ask now. Most of the previous reviews I had read were fairly positive, but I did not like what they had to say.
I figured the R10's might be on the more playful side compared to what I'm used to, but I do not want to feel like I have to make gentle little turns down the whole mountain.
I totally agree. This is probably the first Blister review that I disagree with almost 100% of what they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkleberryFinn
Though i've only been able to ski it on the limited terrain we have open in CO right now, the R10 has been the most fun skis I've had under my feet for 'less than perfect' snow in as long as I can remember. I feel like it lets me make literally any turn shape I want... big, at radius, smaller, and back and forth between all the shapes in an instant. This ski lets me crush wide open turns through crud and then throw them completely sideways to scrub speed, never contesting or acting sketchy when doing so. Maybe the only thing from that review that might have some truth to is is when they say their findings may be different if they were lighter skiers. Im small at 5'6 135lbs, and I'm on the 180 R10. Perhaps its the proportions there that are making this ski feel as chargy as it does, but that's just speculation. All I know is I have no reservations about buying this ski as my do it all charger. I'm super excited to get it into some more technical terrain with some steeps (read: away from peak 8 breck) and let it rip. Carving, smearing, straight-lining, airing.. it really does it all. The tails are also seem to hit the perfect balance between support and playful, and tail-pressing rollers has never been this fun.
I agree the Blister review is a huge discouragement, but I'd recommend looking around it and at least trying out a pair. That review makes me wonder if maybe they're just not great skiers.
Playful is definitely a word that I would tag onto the rest of the adjectives associated with the R10, but feeling as though I have to make gentle little turns down the whole mountain is literally the exact opposite feeling that I have when skiing them. It's more like "how hard can I push this ski before my knees blow up".Quote:
Originally Posted by greasyslope
Question to the collective skiing the Rustler 11s: did you mount them on the recommended factory line or did you vary from that? What are the results?
Thx