Printable View
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
He is, but when I got to ski with him for two days during Gordys camp he was rocking 192 Cochises...Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Regardless of size I would it find hard to believe Leo and Loic are skiing on stock 188s... To say they are pushing gear to its max would be an understatement... No one will ever pry my 196 Bodes or 192 Smokes, but would love to try the 192 Rustler...
The mounting points on Blizzards „progressive Freeride“ line is spot on, IMHO. On the 192 Rustler I wouldn’t go any further back. I can imagine going forwards if you’re into tricking or like centered mounts. For directional skiing the recommended line is just fine. Tip dive shouldn’t be a problem on the 192s.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted
My wife just picked up the Sheeva 9. She really enjoyed demoing them. She is not s very aggressive skier, but can be when she wants to. I think she liked how she could right them centered stance, but really lean into them once up on edge. Also liked how much easier it was to initiate the turn compared to the 2cm
shorter Secret.
Wondering if she would bring it with a forward stance. These at 2cm longer than her Kiku, and 8cm longer than her Olympia (Nordica Hot Rod), so kind of a long ski for her. OTOH, she already found the turn initiation plenty easy. Maybe moving forward would make it squirrelly.
Anyway, nice looking ski. Similar tip to my Wren. Longer rocker in tail, but still a lot of camber. Hand flexes decently as well. Not stiff by any measure but a nice flex pattern.
I have the Rustler 9 in the 180cm and have tried both the line(-7.7cm from center) and about 1.25cm forward of the line. Found that on the line, you could ski with either a forward or centered stance but it preferred a more forward one. Going forward a bit made it a touch more forgiving in stance and a bit more playful. Still the same stability although my tune was a bit off(base high) and felt a touch unstable on variable snow. Stone grind and it’s very stable now. Have it forward of the line and keeping it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
Not it sure where the line is on the Sheeva 9 compared to the Rustler 9 but I’m sure you could move it up a cm or so without issue.
We don’t. Stock out of the wrapper 188s. A few years ago they made some stiffer 193 Cochise for a couple athletes but that’s it when it comes to free ride skis with different layups.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
It’s actually a huge PITA to make different layups with those molds. We don’t have the crazy proto molds like a lot of the big brands do.
Marcus skis 192 Cochise and 196 Bodacious but the European guys on the FWT ski the 188, stock one. I’m not 100% sure on Konsti, i will ask about Berkeley.
Oh yeah, well I mean he was a legit racer and had to rock 190+ in GS so it'd make sense he is comfortable on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
I’ve seen a few comments on people thinking skis are base high or enge high lately.
Granted I haven’t checked every ski but I’ve probably hand tuned roughly 1500 pairs over the last 12 years or so for trade fairs, mag tests, etc and I’ve never run into a ski that’s either base high or edge high... it’s actually virtually impossible in the molds and finishing machinery we use for that to happen. Same with most larger manufacturers.
That being said Blizzard’s are prone to erring on the side of less base bevel than more and the rockered sections of the ski will always have slightly less bevel due to how the finishing machinery works and just less pressure at the ends of the skis (especially when they’re rockered).
It’s very rare that a ski actually needs to be reground. And to be honest there’s maybe less than 10 shops in the US I would be completely comfortably grinding skis for me. It’s so easy to turn chicken salad into chicken shit if you know what I mean.
I literally prep every one of my demo skis every year. I will always run a file on 1* to 1.5* base base bevel guide (depending on the model) to make sure the bevels are correct and they always need a little more bevel in the tips and tails. Dull the rockered sections with a gummy (a file or sand paper if there’s taper) and you’re good to go.
Some people like more base bevel on the 110+ skis but that’s all personal preference.
188 Rustler 11.Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqN6UiYj...d=2xu9k4w5k7ta
It really doesn’t matter what ski these guys are on.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Berkeley skis stock 188s, and has his brother mount his own damn skis.
Keep in mind those guys are really good at landing where they don’t need a Uber stiff tail to print them out. Insanely balanced. Skiing with them in a resort makes you realize how fucking balanced and good they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muted
oh yeah, dudes pretty tiny. He sold a bunch of shit on KSL this fall. Most of the skis were longer. Ruster 11's were 188 for sure and they seem stock. They are now Reclaimation 11's because of this core damage.Attachment 262979Attachment 262975Attachment 262976Attachment 262977Attachment 262978Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
FWIW, he said he did not even feel the rock that did this damage
The balsa in the core just kinda crushed.
Ski still has not been layed up yet as I need to fix D Persons Wrenegade before can work on any of my own shit!
Nice work! You should come up to my place for about a week, have a few pair you could practice on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
Think the reason you are seeing more people commenting on skis being base high or edge high is that there are far more people sharing info online about the use of true bars etc and what to look for when purchasing skis. Know of many people that will bring true bars into the shop to check skis before purchase to find the “best factory tuned” pair in the rack. I haven’t seen quite as many skis as you have over the years but I bet it’s close as I probably tune skis about 150 times a year. Of the last 25 skis I’ve purchased over the past few years, about 1/2 had base or edge high sections and every one needed touch ups of some kind to get consistent edge angles. Wider skis are of course adding to the difficulty of getting factory flat bases.
This is a quote from Iggyskier of ON3P of a trip to a store selling all ski manufactures and checking out their tunes last year.
“The number of base high skis out there now, even from very well known & respected companies, is pretty shocking.”
I do find that most are not base high over the entire ski and just in smaller sections that may not be as noticeable to someone who is skiing in softer snow all the time but for people like myself skiing in harder or variable snow, it’s very noticeable. I’m fortunate to have someone I trust that can do a couple of light passes with a Wintersteiger stone grinder to flatten the base without taking much material off and not upsetting base edge angles unless that’s required. Would agree with every World Cup ski tech that a machine more efficiently does this job than trying by hand. As long as you are keeping in mind that you will now need to brass brush, Tex pad and then wax cycle the skis to get them glide fast again.
I now first check every ski before tuning is with a true bar and make note of base/edge high areas. I rarely run into really edge high skis but do find slightly higher edge sections that can be easily cured by using a flat file on a 45 degree angle with light passes tip to tail, cleaning the file after each pass. Usually a few passes and it’s good. Only a handful of skis I’ve ever seen that DIDN’T have a spot or two like this.
Most skis shipping with a 1 degree base/2 side now and have never gone more than 1 on a base edge since the dawn of rocker skis or in the case of rare skis like Scott that have a 1.5 from the factory. I live in the east coast and many hard core carvers and most SL racers use .5 or .75 base and then 3 or even 4 on the side. I aim for consistent 1 base/2 side on rec skis unless the the owner/company recommends something different. Find if a ski ski still seems “locked” in a turn with a 1 degree base angle, either there is a edge high section/issue or the base grind structure might be too deep and linear causing it to want to track straight.
Run my narrow skis sharp tip to tail only detuning the tip/tails in front or behind their widest points but detune all the way to the end of the rocker/camber contact point on my Moment skis along with running their preferred 1 base, 1 degree side angle. Bit of personal preference as well of course. I always carry a gummy stone for on hill tweaking.
I chased my tail for years before I learned to properly test for edge and base flatness first and correct those issues before even touching base/side angles and detuning etc.
Attachment 263009
from Jackie Paaso's instagram
Has anyone tried those older fattened up GS skis for freeride by Blizzard - forgot what they were called exactly - how are they?
When you say full the “rockered section” do you mean the entire tip and tail of the ski, from where it comes off the snow? With or without weight decambering the ski?Quote:
Originally Posted by couchsending
Seems like that would be a lot of dull edge. Don’t we ya that part of the ski when rolling the ankles and carving the ski?
My Bodes are not dulled and I have not had any hooky issues. Just full the tips where the edge wraps around the nose with a tight curve.
Been searching every where but here.
Does anyone know of there is a difference in the mounting point between the 172 Rustler 9 and Sheeva 9?
The only listed differences I can see are the core and layup.
There is not a Blizzard sealer near me, so can’t go into the shop. Will email Blizzard directly as well.
The Rustler 10 in the 188cm mounting point is 7.25cm from center and the Sheeva 10 in the 172cm is 7.15cm from center so I bet the Rustler 9/Sheeva 9 are pretty much the same too. You’re safe to go a little forward or back a cm or 2 without issue on the Rustler mounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
Same mounting pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Ottime