Printable View
I’m considering it with my 10’s. Got them used and was able to use existing mount which has me +.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
Was skiing them Friday in 5” new on top of prior days 20” and was crossing my tips all over the place. Switched skis after five runs and no more crossing.
If I keep them I’ll probably go -1
I have probably 70-80 days on the OG Cochise. Great skis but tips didn’t have enough splay in powder. Regardless, that doesn’t make adrenalated wrong about skis with thicker bases being capable of being just as lively.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
More tip splay on the OG? Hell no. #NotMyCochise
That's where I mounted mine and they ski $$$$ in all conditions. Should work perfect if you are a more traditional skier.Quote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
If you’re using a different ski for deep days then sure, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytaeMoney
That's me, face first no spinnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Hicks
Anyone ski the 188 r11 +2cm or more from of recommended?
Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app
I think there could be something done to the tip design to help them plane better in deeper snow. The first gen tip profile is so low that it just tended to submarine. Not sure it needs more "rocker" just potentially a better tip shape of some sort.
I'm skiing the 192 at +2 and love it. Feels like the ski has quite a large sweet spot to mount on too.Quote:
Originally Posted by kicool
I've seen on instagram that a bunch of the pros also mount the 188 +2.
I'd be happy with any of the first 3 years of Cochise coming back. Maybe forgo the Texas / stars topsheet this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
That said, if I was going to tweak it, I would (in order of importance)
1) Don't make it lighter. The 185ish length should be a 2400g ski.
2) Don't fuck with the OG Cochise's shape. No tip taper / pintail. That's how Dynastar went wrong. And the radius should stay pretty close to 30m, or even a bit longer.
3) I'd prefer a ski that's heavy and damp and not that stiff over a ski that's super stiff but lighter and less damp. There's no shortage of skis that are decently stiff due to a bunch of carbon, but they're light and harsh.
3) The ski would be ok with a very moderate amount of camber, but it's probably better if it's flat or full reverse.
4) If I was going to mess with the flex, I'd maybe soften the tips just a tiny bit to help them plane up in pow a little better.
^^ I liked the first gen being pretty much perfectly flat underfoot.
Yeah, possibly something a little more prone to cut back to the surface and not get stuck. Maybe just a touch softer in the shovels and/or tips. That could in theory be achieved without sacrificing much performance on firm / groomers - that really is where the OG Cochise shined considering it was 108 underfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
Less garish topsheet would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
But if I had to have garish to keep them from messing with stuff, I'd take it and smile.
Honestly, I can't think of anything I'd really think of changing. You just know as soon as they think to "change" something, they're going to screw it up. Witness the sans-metal Bo's from last year.
Perhaps I'd still be happy with slightly more splay in the tips for a bit more float. But honestly, I skied them in nearly 35"+ of pow recently, and I'll be dammed if I could complain about how they skied. I just keep going back to - "They were pretty awesome the first time." Why mess with it, it's unlikely you'll make it better without sacrificing something else. And it's far more likely than not, it won't be an even trade. Something will get a teensie-tiny bit better and something else will get a LOT worse.
My recommendation? Just put out the same ski. New topsheet. Call them the Kush Kravins [or something] to attract the damn kids [and piss off Jeffie Sessions] and make cash. We'll be like: "Here, take my money!"
Bumping this thread to ask about a Rustler 11 vs Billy Goat comparison. Been on the BG’s for the past 4-5 seasons and never looked at anything else. Haven’t skied the R11, but intrigued by the reputation. Thoughts?
Don't feel very alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
The rustler feels much more carvy and traditional, but still playful due to the light swing weight. Way easier to ski and likes to be on edge. Its also way lighter and doesn't make you tired at all. Great in bumps for its size. Not a slarvy RES ski like the BG at all.
I own both btw. (189, 192)
Thanks for the response. I see you are in BC, so you ski the same dense-coastal snowpack I do down here in Seattle. What spot does the Rustler 11 fit in your quiver with a 189 BG there, too? I own a few pairs of BG's (RES 186, latest 189, and SG's), so I have that data point locked. Light, playful, and easier to ski in a wider range of conditions sounds enticing, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
I skied them for a couple runs. Good skis. Fun in bumps and groomers for the width. A little softer in the extremities than I'd like. Not as good in chop as my Enduro core GPO's, but similarly balanced and a bit easier to bend into a carve. Would be great for skiing with friends or kids who aren't agro when the snow is pretty good. They remind me a bit of the Blizzard Bushwackers from a few years back in that they aren't chargers in the traditional sense but they're enough ski for anyone to have fun on. Sometimes it's just nice to be a on ski that is easy. Didn't ski them in powder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
PSA: 2018 Brahmas (180cm only) on corbetts.com right now for $346 shipped to your door. Prices listed on the website are in CAD so you get an extra $100 off after the exchange rate. Shipping is free for orders over $100.
https://www.corbetts.com/2018-blizzard-brahma-skis/
All other sizes are sold out so I'd imagine the remaining 180s will be gone soon.
^^ all gone. Screaming deal.
Not sure where to put this so I’ll add this here. Finally skied my 188 Rustler 11’s today. Wow. Totally stoked on the versatility of this ski. Now I see what all the hype is about. Quiver killer for soft snow locales. Carves, floats, and as stable as I need it to be these days. Not as slarvey as a BG, but so good everywhere else.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
So what’s the difference btw 192 and 188? I read somewhere 192 is supposed to be a completely different ski. More of a comp charger than 188. I like the 188 a lot but miss sometimes the heft of a metal Katana or Bodacious. So is a 192 worth the upgrade if you look for more ski or are the differences btw 192 and 188 to subtle to justify it? Are you more on the 188 or on 192?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
I don’t own the 188 and 192. I have a 189 BG and a 192 rustler 11.
The 192 is not some burly comp ski at all. I haven’t skied the 188 but I assume they are quite similar. I do not think the differences between the 192/188 rustler is as big as it was for the 193/186 gunsmoke. I think owning both would be overkill unless one was setup as a 50/50 ski with a tecton or shift.
The 192 does not have the heft of the old bodacious, I think the rustler has a much better shape/profile, but no where near the dampness of the old heavy construction.
Have you skied the confession? Might be more what you are looking for.
Most athletes ski the 180 or 188; none of them are exactly huge people though.
Thanks for those insights. I‘m actually quite happy with the Rustler/metal Katana combo in my 110-120 quiver range. Rustler in 188 is quite capable for almost everything and saves the legs. If I wanna go hero I take out the Katanas. Confession sound intriguing but I‘m kind of between the sizes so I rather stick to Katanas as long as they still deliver (I have actually two identical pairs so it will take long to wear them off).
BTW: This German dude knows for sure how to rip the shit out of the Rustlers https://vimeo.com/301610222
Very impressive comp riding.
Not a pro athlete, but ski the 180 on the line and 188 +1 cm. Both are outstanding. 5' 8" and 170-ish.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
So the 192cm isn‘t much stiffer than the 188cm?
200lbs 6ft3 - looking for allround resort pow occasional tour Ski.
Am wondering which one to get.
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
Since not many people have talked about the Rustler 9 and I’ve had them out on multiple days I’d thought I’d give my 2 cents. I like them! I’m 6’2”/175 lbs and have the 180cm mounted +1cm to make it a little more playful and more balanced in the air. Have tried it on the line and skis great there too but it’s a little more forgiving of stance forward a bit.
The factory tune was edge high in a few spots which were cured with a file and noticed a few base high spots as well. They skied okay in most conditions but felt a bit unstable in mixed conditions vs other skis in the quiver so I got a very light stone grind to get the bases flat and they were much improved.
The Rustler 9 is very quick edge to edge and has lots of pop out of a turn. As the Ski Essentials reviews have often mentioned, it feels like a slightly wider Brahma underfoot but with more forgiving tips/tails. Lots of fun in the bumps and trees. Not quite as heavy or stiff as the Brahma but crud performance is still pretty decent.
The one thing I like about it is that it can do quick short turns but also doesn’t fight you if you want to make longer turns at higher speeds. For a 17m radius it does GS turns at 45-50mph very well and doesn’t mind going straight. Blister Gear mentioned it doesn’t like longer turns at speed but every other review mentions how this ski “comes alive” at speed so wondering if there was a tuning issue like mine originally had.
Seems to ski longer than the other Rustler models as it has the stiffest flex, least rocker and most metal for its length so I wouldn’t always size up. Think I’d only do the 188cm if I was north of 200lbs and skied in more open areas similar to a Brahma 187cm user.
All in all, a great one ski quiver for someone who wants a Brahma mixed with a free ride ski. It’s the most “serious” of the Rustler range but can still be quite playful especially with the mount up a bit.
Jeebus be praised - thanks for posting, that was awesome. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
Just gotta say that that line (backflip) at 4:40 is mind blowing. Maybe it’s the camera angle, but... wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
If he can gain some comp experience and stay humble in learning from the veterans, he’ll have a rad career. Hopefully he doesn’t pull a Rodney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salx
I have the 188 and they work fine for what you want them for.
To shed some light into the Rustler 11 192 vs. 188 debate: I received my 192 pair yesterday and skied it today. Yesterday I was skiing my 191 cm metal Katana, the 3 days before I spent on the 188 Rustler.
The 192 Rustler seems to be indeed a different animal. It hand flexes significantly stiffer and has a noticeably thicker core. The titanal plate appears to be thicker which contributes most likely to both, a stiffer flex and a thicker core.
The 192 version skis significantly different from the 188 length as well. The tails are much more supportive and the ski is not as quick and easy going as the shorter version. The additional stiffness can be very well felt on the snow. The floatation and dampness are quite similar, no big differences in those departments. Both are not as damp and smooth as the metal Katana.
All in all, the 192 Rustler 11 provides a more stable platform for chargy skiing style with a higher top end. It’s not simply a longer version of the 188 Rustler.
Thanks. Do you see it getting much action between the Katana and 188 Rustler? Or becoming your go to ski?
FAAACCCKKKKK!!!!! God damn it, that's why I hate the 188. I fucked up, shoulda known better.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
i'll offer up a solution to your dilemma. cash in on them 188s and i'll sell you a new (never-mounted) pair of 192s.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted
Does it have a top end?Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
I like personally the 192 cm version better so I’ll stick to it for soft snow and powder days. The Katana is my ski for variable conditions. Kind of hard to find something to replace it. Rustler 11 in 188 is still a very nice and capable ski but I had always the feeling like the tails are slightly to soft for me. I’ll use it maybe for skiing with the family or throw a Shift on it. Great ski for 50/50 duties.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I took a gamble and upgraded my Rustler 188 to 192s, after hearing they are better. Before I mount them, any advice on where to mount? I've never messed with mounting points before, but the tips dive on the 188s. Anyone mount them a hair back or stick to the line?
Thanks again to the Powfinder for the upgrade.
192 is indeed stiffer (and wider) than the 188. Which is in turn wider and stiffer than the 180.
Same goes for the 9 and 10.
Not 100% sure but I believe Leo and Loic ski the 188, pretty sure Konsti does too. Again, not big dudes. Loic always skied the 186 Gunsmoke.
I wouldn’t be dramatically surprised if Blizzard made a 188 with the layup of a 192 (or even stiffer) for them. Shouldn’t be probably a big deal for Blizzard.Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
I’m always wondering how those guys are able to stick their monster backflips, 360s, and drops on a stock 188. Clean and centered landings no probs but I was personally wheeling out on the 188 even of 2 m drops if landed slightly in the backseat. But of course they are skiing in a completely another league so what do I know.
Yeah, Marcus Caston always looks like he's skiing on Blizzards that are a foot taller than him. Going a touch smaller on everyday skiing is normal for pros, but not using the 192s in competition? Maybe easier to trick or ?
Who knows.
He is also, FWIW, realllllly small.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted