Funny that all this carbon makes the ski meh., and because many are drinking the marketing cool*aid, the big companies are feeding them. Sort of like the Vail of the Hardgoods lines.
Printable View
Funny that all this carbon makes the ski meh., and because many are drinking the marketing cool*aid, the big companies are feeding them. Sort of like the Vail of the Hardgoods lines.
It depends how carbon is done. Have you skied PM Gear or Down carbon hybrids before?
I am with Schindler on this one... Backcountry and touring and pristine snow make a carbon ski great... Resort ski not so much regardless of maker...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
No kidding, got out on last year's G3 Empires (white, all glass & metal) last weekend and really liked them. Would totally dig having a pair of this year's carbon version (400g lighter per ski) for next season, but goddammit they're black. Freaking idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
If you gotta make a dark ski, at least make it a heavy resort ski - not your flagship touring skis. Black Diamond figured it out with the almost-white 2015 Carbon Megawatt, somebody is thinking right over there.
Well, yeah, obviously, for a resort ski, you want some heft. Carbon doesn't make much sense for crushing variable snow (works fine in the resort as a powder ski). Under the impression that these are touring skis though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
Touring the wasatch = Hexcel Nano futuristic carbon + 110 underfoot is great. I would even like that honeycomb Alu. OTOH, Inbounds = wood + glass + 2 sheets of metal + square tail + 100 underfoot = tits.
Dude, black/extremely dark blue touring skis are going to be all the rage for 15/16. Just ask the most pretentious ski manufacturer in North America, their solution is to tell you to put Zardoz NotWax on your topsheets. Why buy one well designed product when you can buy a poorly planned one and an accessory?Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
From their FB page:
"Prior to launching #zeroG to the public, we wanted to get the product into the field and on the feet of those that know the "up and down game" better than anyone. Our Zero G Guru program is intended to validate Carbon Drive, and provide an opportunity for our skis to be
tested all over the world. The Gurus all received a limited edition graphic Zero G ski with Kingpin bindings and Pomoca skins."
"These skis belong to John Morrison who knows the Sierra Mountains of California like the back of his hand."
https://www.tetongravity.com/images/...7_n__forum.jpg
http://www.epicski.com/content/type/.../1000/flags/LL
the new cochise. I see them and ski them in the flesh VERY soon.
why taking so long, I thought you designed them, built them by hand, tuned them by hand, created the bindings by hand, mounted them with telepathic command over tools and fasteners, and then proceeded to tell the world they're not good enough to ski them.
this kind of slippage will not be tolerated again
I'll tell you what blizzard is up to: making fucking Spurs that fucking rule the world, like a spiny turny slasher for the grown up who doesn't plan on switch but wants to pop off everything and charge
Me and my Spurs today
This picture was not doctored
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps6765728f.jpg
Who's that? I looked at the company I thought of and didn't see anything too darkQuote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
Are the dimensions on the cochise different? I see they are still 108 underfoot but look to be a little wider in the tips....
The new cochises were made available on the Blizzard pro-form site, I guess in a pretty limited quantity. I missed out. Anybody score a pair?
Those Cochise are sick though it does look like the surface area of the sidecut has been shortened a bit....Curious to see the new Bodacious with taper as I find the Spurs shape has very little in limitations!
The proportions on that Cochise pic seem off. The tip looks way too big. No way this is a real photo (unless it is a rad new design)
Update:
Cropped the pic in a picture editor and measured at least a 1.4 ratio between the narrowest pixel width on the waist and the fattest section of the tip. If the waist is 108mm that makes the tip at least 151mm wide!. No way. Some kind of photo editor/design distortion here
I was surprised to see the wider tips. That would definitely change up the M.O of that ski as an unhooky charger that was so magnificently showcased in shitfuck conditions.
The chances of this "pic" being of accurate proportions are close to nil imo.
A pintail cochise with 14m radius! Everybody would buy one!
Any real details from the pro form offer?
Dims are pretty close to OG. Widest point is moved in a bit so the radius is 1m shorter I think.
The "pro form" deal and the ski pictured is a Ltd edition ski for shop guys only. There were 100 made for the U.S. mostly. The 185s were sold in about 20 minutes. That graphic is not the graphic for retail but that is the ski.
Curious about why got into the trouble of changing for 14/15 and then change again next year...
specially bacause the cochise was the only one with a change for this season
Actually Cochise wasn't the only ski to change. I would also add that year to year change is not necessarily a bad thing. If you feel like you want to make a change, and have the gumption/resources to do so, why would you keep it static. Companies moving forward with new models is never a bad thing in terms of evolution. I guess it's up to the every day retail buyer/skier to ultimately decide whether a manufacturer is moving in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81
Fine balance between making a ski "ski" better and making it sell better. I would imagine that Blizzard ski sales in the US did pretty well with the flipcore line. Now you get corporate pressure to improve units and margins. Will see how that plays out.
Also, if you fear change, buy up old Cochises now. They were dirt cheap all summer and available en masse here in the PNW.
More skis have been changed not for the better because of this. They will appeal to the masses but really not ski as good i find. We went from straight to {shaped} skis,to rocker in the tip to full rocker. Then to pin tailed rocker with or without camber and now all of the above with a 5 point side cut.. Some of the best skis to ski are still just shaped full camber skis with maybe a little tip rocker like some kastle skis. Depends on what the ski if for. Buy making skis with a specific geometry they can re introduce the quiver. There are some mighty fine one ski quivers for the most part out right now. But that means less ski sales. Unless your happy with skidding down a groomer. One ski for powder one for groomers is twice the sales??. Or if your a nut case like me you have 10 pairs of skis and always pick the wrong one on any given day. haha Today I should take my 92mm carvers for some cold hard snow groomer ripping and good enough for some left overs. but Im going to ski my 100mm 5point full rockered ski just in case god put something there i didnt see yesterday when it dumped a foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
The new ski looks great I think! Very DPS with a longer effective edge with less splay and flip core rather than rocker. Might be a winner? Carver and slasher all in one? Sort of a Savory 7 look to it with the contact moved more forward with a Blizzard feel sound good to me. If you look at the [winners} in the ski mag tests at all this is the {shape} that won the golds as far as that goes. Flip core and there ski in general was gold a couple years ago but not this year. Like it or not that means change if they want to sell to the masses. Every one wants the Gold medal ski or the one that ranks the highest in the tests. Thats just the way it is unfortunately some times. My guess is next year Blizzard will win the gold medal ski of the year with this new ski because of the changes for all mountain wide skis. that means sales. marketing is everything. For me its how they ski. What skis great for you wont for me necessarily unless im between 5ft 9 and 6ft weigh between 160 and 190 have between a size 9-10.5 foot then we can agree on the same ski. Most skis are built for that sized male skier. If your way bigger or lighter you have to try alot of skis to find one that works for you.
Wonder where they got the idea to use that top sheet structure? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Judo Chop!
who the fuck cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Probably from some Blizzard employee?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Maybe the guy who drinks all that Red Bull and espresso.
It's a dumb comment, I agree. It's just that we've been using it for the last two years and it seems to be coming into fashion for next year with blizzard, head et al.
From a maggots' company which got an award (also) for that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Said that, it's a terrific topsheet structure
People were skiing Blizzards with that top sheet structure over a year ago for what thats worth.
Noticed a post saying that American Dave likes his "Zero G 108". So there's a Cochise shape in there, which can't be a bad thing.
Saw next year's line up on a rack and the skis look awesome.
Showdowns look like what Atomic used to use on their cruiser line, but I definitely see the resemblance to the rest of the Down lineup on the Cochise.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzY4WDEwMj...UbhlO/$_86.JPG
Just saw the Blizzard 2015/16 line and all the skis are exactly like the Atomic Supercross SX 11.
Maggots are debating topsheet structures and Epicski is sharing real info. Sounds kind of backwards...
Found this on Epic:
"Some very basic info: New Carbon Cochise, the top sheet of metal in the Cochise has been replaced with carbon, there is much more tip and tail taper and a few millimeters of camber... oh camber, how I like thee. The early release was 100 pairs of 185cm and 192cm. Dimensions are 136-108-122, 27m turn radius in 185. My pair weighs 15.5 lbs with an FKS 180"
You still shouldn't trust everything you read on epicski.
There are still two sheets of metal in the Cochise. Carbon is integrated into the tips and tails to stabilize the rockered sections. Instead of taking material out of the tips and tails which can make them flap and create a lot of instability, heavier material was replaced with lighter, stronger material. Increased stability was the goal, slightly lower swingweight is an added benefit.
As I'm sure you know, there are only a handful of topsheet suppliers around the world, and trust me, they are all more than happy to divulge which manufacturers ordered what for this year and next. Quit your fucking bellyaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Wonder if the changes to the cochise are aimed at improving its deeper soft snow performance. I love my cochise as a hard snow ski and haven't had it deep chop or pow but it has done fine in 9 inches. Folks have given the nod to the devastator and supernatural over the cochise in deeper soft snow. Maybe these changes will improve performance in 12+. Thoughts?
^^^I like what I read here, any feedback about the float question bellow?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchback
^^^wondering that too, but I haven't had much problem with float at 150 skiing the 177Quote:
Originally Posted by tpacent