What's Blizzard up to?

For those diehard Gunsmoke and Peacemaker fans.... what is it about those skis that you miss? What is it that they did that say other skis don’t do? What do you like more about them than Rustler?

I get it all the time from people and people with all sorts of different skiing styles. People that mounted them forward of the mark and more traditional skier who moved them back.
They were fun skis for sure but I think people would be shocked by how few were actually sold. Granted they couldn’t have been any more challenged graphically.


For me there was too much rocker, especially in the tail. If you got out of balance it was really hard to recover and you ended up tail wheelying all the time. Maybe that wasn’t an issue for people that mounted them further forward?

Just interested to hear people’s perspectives. I will tell you that they won’t get re-released but Rustler will get some updates at some point in the future so you never know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunderBumps

I always thought of the Gunsmokes as slightly thinner, more versatile Moment Bibbys. Not exactly, but they felt more similar to me than a lot of other freestyle skis. Damp freestyle wide twins, -6cm mount and felt good in any condition, being driven or skied more relaxed.

I need a ski that can literally do anything, lift or backcountry, mounted with the new Dukes. You guys think the Rustler 11 is close to fitting that bill? I also need some retail therapy, I’ve been good this whole virus.

---

I have a pair of shifts on mine, they do very little touring but when the conditions warrant them, very few skis Id rather be lugging up the hill for that weight. I really cant say enough good things about those skis. I've only wished for more ski when its 2+ feet on somewhat flat terrain. They can really ski it all very, very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

For those diehard Gunsmoke and Peacemaker fans.... what is it about those skis that you miss? What is it that they did that say other skis don’t do? What do you like more about them than Rustler?

I get it all the time from people and people with all sorts of different skiing styles. People that mounted them forward of the mark and more traditional skier who moved them back.
They were fun skis for sure but I think people would be shocked by how few were actually sold. Granted they couldn’t have been any more challenged graphically.


For me there was too much rocker, especially in the tail. If you got out of balance it was really hard to recover and you ended up tail wheelying all the time. Maybe that wasn’t an issue for people that mounted them further forward?

Just interested to hear people’s perspectives. I will tell you that they won’t get re-released but Rustler will get some updates at some point in the future so you never know...

---

I skied the 193 Gunsmoke at +1.5cm from the recommended bump. I tried on the bump (my pair the top sheets were off by a bit) and I couldn’t find a balance point on the ski that was comfortable, but at +1.5cm they were easy.

I liked how easy and versatile they were in any soft snow. Some people might call them boring, but for me I never had a second thought if they could handle what I wanted.

I’ll try to be more specific. The tip and tails were soft enough to flex to keep the tip above the snow in soft snow, but stiff (maybe damp is a better word) enough the tips and tails didn’t collapse at snow density changes. The whole ski had a flex that allowed me to really push the ski into holes, and the skis rebounded with a comfortable controllable pop that let you ski around bumps or pop off them and double to a bump down hill. They weren’t light by any means, but they were just light enough to be comfortable for a quick 30-60 min tour/hike out of bounds to where you didn’t even think about bringing lighter skis, and when you got there you had a real ski under you.

If you got into a tight spot, trees, bumps, a chute, or couloir, you had that Blizzard feel under your feet where you could get your edges in and be fine if needed. If you needed to make a sketchy jump turn, you’d be fine. If you needed to turn on the gas, you’d be fine.

The tips and tails (at +1.5) had enough support to reward a good technique, but not punish me if I got into the back seat. The tip and tail rocker made wiggling through tight trees, or riding the wiggles that appear around JHMR every winter, super easy to slarve around corners.

They weren’t as good as a Cochise at bashing through pow, and didnt have the float of a Bodacious or Spur, but that was alright because they were a much better pow ski then the Cochise and a lot easier to ski then a Bodacious or Spur. I could grab them if their was 3 in of snow or 24in, and know Id be fine.

Maybe that’s too vague, but they just worked for me. Maybe given enough time the R11s would feel the same, but I tried them for a few days and never got the same feeling. I understood why the changes were made, and before the R11 came out I definitely said the Gunsmoke would be a much better ski with a bit of metal and some tweaks to the rocker profile, but then it wasn’t the Gunsmoke any more.

You say it won’t get remade, but so did Dynastar about the Pro-Rider and that keeps coming back... I’m just going to holdout hope.

The Gunsmoke didn’t sell that many skis compared to what? Is it compared to the Cochise? To the Brahma? To other 193cm 116mm wide twin tip pow skis? Maybe the answer is for off the record over a beer some day?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

I liked how easy and versatile they were in any soft snow. Some people might call them boring, but for me I never had a second thought if they could handle what I wanted.

I’ll try to be more specific. The tip and tails were soft enough to flex to keep the tip above the snow in soft snow, but stiff (maybe damp is a better word) enough the tips and tails didn’t collapse at snow density changes. The whole ski had a flex that allowed me to really push the ski into holes, and the skis rebounded with a comfortable controllable pop that let you ski around bumps or pop off them and double to a bump down hill. They weren’t light by any means, but they were just light enough to be comfortable for a quick 30-60 min tour/hike out of bounds to where you didn’t even think about bringing lighter skis, and when you got there you had a real ski under you.

If you got into a tight spot, trees, bumps, a chute, or couloir, you had that Blizzard feel under your feet where you could get your edges in and be fine if needed. If you needed to make a sketchy jump turn, you’d be fine. If you needed to turn on the gas, you’d be fine.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I’m sure you already have a list of skis to try, but let’s add to the list.
Moment wildcat 108, if it skis like a smaller 118 it will be dependable when snow gets weird and you need to turn on the gas, probably stiffer tips than gunsmokes but solid flex and pop.
Candide 3.0s maybe too light but tons of pop, easy to double up rollers and swing around.
Enforcer 110 mounted forward, does not have as much pop, not as loose, very easy to ski, does everything well to the point of being boring but dependable. Sometimes I wish it had a longer turn radius but I think the versatility is what really makes it such a good ski and it might loose some of that.
Dynastar m-free 108 haven’t tried but could be a close option.
K2’s wreckoner 112 haven’t tried but it looks like an intriguing option, loose and easy to ski, the 102 has a decent backbone for a freestyle ski so the 112 might also.
On3p Jeffrey 108 also an option
All of these have a 190+ length option also. A lot of companies have a gap from 108-116 underfoot in their lineup. I think 108-114 is the perfect daily driver width out west.
I’m ready to be skiing again...



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poleplant

I’m sure you already have a list of skis to try, but let’s add to the list.
Moment wildcat 108, if it skis like a smaller 118 it will be dependable when snow gets weird and you need to turn on the gas, probably stiffer tips than gunsmokes but solid flex and pop.
Candide 3.0s maybe too light but tons of pop, easy to double up rollers and swing around.
Enforcer 110 mounted forward, does not have as much pop, not as loose, very easy to ski, does everything well to the point of being boring but dependable. Sometimes I wish it had a longer turn radius but I think the versatility is what really makes it such a good ski and it might loose some of that.
Dynastar m-free 108 haven’t tried but could be a close option.
K2’s wreckoner 112 haven’t tried but it looks like an intriguing option, loose and easy to ski, the 102 has a decent backbone for a freestyle ski so the 112 might also.
On3p Jeffrey 108 also an option
All of these have a 190+ length option also. A lot of companies have a gap from 108-116 underfoot in their lineup. I think 108-114 is the perfect daily driver width out west.
I’m ready to be skiing again...



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I want to be skiing again soon too, we all do.

Quick run down:
Wildcat 108 is on the list to try, if I make it to Tahoe this winter I’ll try to grab a pair from Moment.

I have a pair of 3.0s, but bought the 204s and they are just too long. Super fun, really close to the Gunsmoke, and maybe I’d like the 192. If I can find a pair on sale, maybe I’ll give the 192s a shot.

Enforcer 110 is meh, I like the new (next years) 115 a ton, but it’s not poppy and playful like the Gunsmoke.

I’ve heard good things about the M-108, it’s on the list.

The Wreckoner 112s tips are really soft, but I going to check it out.

ON3P and I don’t get along... idk why but it never works.

Rossignol snuck in the Black Ops Sender Squad, a 194cm 1142mm twin tip, out, or I don’t see much about it. I grabbed a pair from Evo and am pretty excited about it. I’ll report back in December.

Thanks for the help.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

Rossignol snuck in the Black Ops Sender Squad, a 194cm 1142mm twin tip, out, or I don’t see much about it. I grabbed a pair from Evo and am pretty excited about it.

---

You lucked out, I didn't even know we had any. Might be right on, I almost got a pair of Black Op 118's as a Gunsmoke replacement a few years ago, but it just didn't have the same precision on edge . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

For me there was too much rocker, especially in the tail. If you got out of balance it was really hard to recover and you ended up tail wheelying all the time. Maybe that wasn’t an issue for people that mounted them further forward?

---

I demo'd a pair for a day and felt the same way. I was shocked that a 193cm ski could have a tail that felt that unsubstantial.

The sender squad is very intriguing. I’m excited to hear your thoughts on it once you’ve gotten it on snow.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowaddict91

I demo'd a pair for a day and felt the same way. I was shocked that a 193cm ski could have a tail that felt that unsubstantial.

---

Hmmm. I had 3 pairs of 186's and never had a problem with not enough tail support while skiing. Only issue was skating across flats and hooking the tails on each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poleplant

Dynastar m-free 108 haven’t tried but could be a close option. TGR Forums

---

THIS!! Diehard lover of my smokes and after 3 days on the Mfree 108 last year it is the ski I’ve been looking for to kick the smokes off their podium!!

Super edgy when you need it, effortless to swing around or smear any shape of turn. Nice weight so it’s damp as hell!!

They are a bit more narrow but they float well and better than they should based on dims.

You should really get on a pair this year — I’m buying em.

Attachment 337775

Railing turns on the 108 — haven’t had this much fun skiing since... well when I got on smokes!
Attachment 337776



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Hmmm. I had 3 pairs of 186's and never had a problem with not enough tail support while skiing. Only issue was skating across flats and hooking the tails on each other.

---

Maybe it just took me by surprise more than anything? I usually like/ski stuff with really low tail rocker and in my head I was thinking "a 193 must be stable, otherwise why ski a 193?"

FWIW I have awful balance, I just lean forward lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Hmmm. I had 3 pairs of 186's and never had a problem with not enough tail support while skiing. Only issue was skating across flats and hooking the tails on each other.

---

Ditto

The metal in them does not yield soft tails


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

You lucked out, I didn't even know we had any. Might be right on, I almost got a pair of Black Op 118's as a Gunsmoke replacement a few years ago, but it just didn't have the same precision on edge . . .

---

You guys had the only pairs for sale in North America I could find, granted it’s really early, so I bought them. Even paid retail, which I NEVER do. I went to check something else out on your website today and they are all sold out.

Oh those tails catching was always fun. People would definitely give me looks as I stumble skating across flats.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Do you guys find 108mm skis to have that big ski planted feel that 114mm skis have? I know I’m splitting hairs here. I might buy some Wildcat 108s since I get along with all Moments mustache rocker skis, but I do hope they expand the Wildcat lineup to add a 113mm ski in between. I always ended up skiing Bibbys everyday over PB&Js when I owned both, because the Bibbys felt more steadfast yet barely harder to ski in firm moguls or trees. There were some days I wish it was very slightly thinner. A 113-114mm Wildcat could replace gunsmokes for me as a twin tip one ski quiver. Correct me if I’m wrong, and Wildcat 108s feel like a big ski, the way Wren 108s do.

Everything about the K2 112 reckoners look great, except their weight. K2s have always been noodles IMO, but their saving grace for larger skiers was heavy damp feel, almost like extra fiberglass feeling in a praxis 2 flex ski. Reckoners don’t have that weight.

Sender Squads look amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunderBumps

Do you guys find 108mm skis to have that big ski planted feel that 114mm skis have? I know I’m splitting hairs here. I might buy some Wildcat 108s since I get along with all Moments mustache rocker skis, but I do hope they expand the Wildcat lineup to add a 113mm ski in between. I always ended up skiing Bibbys everyday over PB&Js when I owned both, because the Bibbys felt more steadfast yet barely harder to ski in firm moguls or trees. There were some days I wish it was very slightly thinner. A 113-114mm Wildcat could replace gunsmokes for me as a twin tip one ski quiver. Correct me if I’m wrong, and Wildcat 108s feel like a big ski, the way Wren 108s do.

Everything about the K2 112 reckoners look great, except their weight. K2s have always been noodles IMO, but their saving grace for larger skiers was heavy damp feel, almost like extra fiberglass feeling in a praxis 2 flex ski. Reckoners don’t have that weight.

Sender Squads look amazing.

---

114-118 skis do feel more substantial. I think the wildcat 118 would be more ski than the gunsmoke, the 108 would keep more of the easy ski ability. Just depends on what aspects you care more about keeping and what hole in the quiver you want to fill.
I need to try out the new k2 line. I had old Kung Fujas that were noodles all the way through, hated them. These new ones seem more refined, solid underfoot but still super soft in the tip. They probably won’t feel great at speed, but should be fun to load up and pop over stuff. I’ll have to try them to see how they are for sure though.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poleplant

114-118 skis do feel more substantial. I think the wildcat 118 would be more ski than the gunsmoke, the 108 would keep more of the easy ski ability. Just depends on what aspects you care more about keeping and what hole in the quiver you want to fill.
I need to try out the new k2 line. I had old Kung Fujas that were noodles all the way through, hated them. These new ones seem more refined, solid underfoot but still super soft in the tip. They probably won’t feel great at speed, but should be fun to load up and pop over stuff. I’ll have to try them to see how they are for sure though.

---

I did not like the Kung Fujas either, but loved all the Shreditors, Pettitors, and Seth skis in any condition. The marksman was uninspiring for me on hard snow. I plan on demoing the reckoner 112 as soon as I can, however I don’t have high hopes for damp feeling with that weight. Flex aside, old K2 pro models were 2.4kg skis and had a damp feel. If the Reckoner 112 has some sort of low weight, but damp composite wizardry, and feel anything like the shreditor 112s, I’ll buy them for sure.


Does the Rustler 11 have a more even or gradual flexing tip than the enforcer skis? I haven’t the E110 or 115Pro, but have a few days each on 19Xcm Enforcer 93 or 100. The tails were fairly stiff, but I felt a hinge point in the tips to a soft tip that would buckle n catch for me if I tried to lean into them. The Enforcer 110 is supposed to be the softest right, and you guys are saying it’s noticeably more ski than the Rustler 11? I had the same issue with Patrons, but the gunsmoke had a more even flex. Hoping this is the case for Rustlers.

I can ski an all around soft K2 ski harder because it’s predictable. I always know how that soft even flex is going to react to more challenging conditions. When a ski has a hinge point like some of these Nordicas, they don’t feel as predictable for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunderBumps

Does the Rustler 11 have a more even or gradual flexing tip than the enforcer skis? I haven’t the E110 or 115Pro, but have a few days each on 19Xcm Enforcer 93 or 100. The tails were fairly stiff, but I felt a hinge point in the tips to a soft tip that would buckle n catch for me if I tried to lean into them. The Enforcer 110 is supposed to be the softest right, and you guys are saying it’s noticeably more ski than the Rustler 11? I had the same issue with Patrons, but the gunsmoke had a more even flex. Hoping this is the case for Rustlers.

---

I hated the folding tips on the Enforcers I tried a few years back (185 100's, I think). This is not a problem with the Rustler 11's at all. The 11's are very, very good skis. So easy yet so capable in just about any conditions. They are currently the benchmark ski to which I currently compare all others.

Quote:

---

=The 11's are very, very good skis. So easy yet so capable in just about any conditions. They are currently the benchmark ski to which I currently compare all others.

---

I’ve got some extra 115mm Pivots, and am looking for a ski to add to the quiver. Cochise?, MB 108?, Candide 4.0?.....Keep comparing to the R11s that I already own.....so there’s a good chance I’ll have two pair of R11s in the quiver next year. 1 green pair with Shifts, 1 orange new pair with Pivots. Keep it simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

I’ve got some extra Pivots, looking for a ski to add to the quiver. Keep coming back to the R11.....pretty sure I’ll have pair of R11s in the quiver next year. 1 with Shifts, 1 with Pivots. Oh well.

---

Sell Shifts, upgrade Pivots with CAST?

Unless adding a ski is a goal in itself.... Nothing wrong with that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

I’ve got some extra 115mm Pivots, and am looking for a ski to add to the quiver. Cochise?, MB 108?, Candide 4.0?.....Keep comparing to the R11s that I already own.....so there’s a good chance I’ll have two pair of R11s in the quiver next year. 1 green pair with Shifts, 1 orange new pair with Pivots. Keep it simple.

---

That was my strategy last season. This year I'll go alpine bindings on both pairs, heaviest touring ski will be ZG105 + Backland Tours. What if you break a pair during a storm cycle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

I hated the folding tips on the Enforcers I tried a few years back (185 100's, I think). This is not a problem with the Rustler 11's at all. The 11's are very, very good skis. So easy yet so capable in just about any conditions. They are currently the benchmark ski to which I currently compare all others.

---

I have only skied the R11 for a few runs @ Snowbasin demo day(they and Spurs were the stars of the show) so take with a slight grain of salt. I was struck by how similarly they skied to my Caylors. The R11 did not have resort crushing capabilities of the ON3P's. Not anywhere near as damp or poppy or fun. R11 is also not built nearly as robust w/ the balsa in the core. I do own a used pair that need repair work. Core shot in center of base basically dusted that area of the core and multiple bent edges from rock impact. I think the R11 makes for a great touring/side country tour ski, but if I was just going to mount regular alpine bindings and smash in the resort, I'd personally use the ON3P's as my measuring stick.

CB- the Jeffrey 116 is the ski you seek

Attachment 337997
R11 was the funnest ski I was on that day.
These were very close second on a day they were highly inappropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

For those diehard Gunsmoke and Peacemaker fans.... what is it about those skis that you miss? What is it that they did that say other skis don’t do? What do you like more about them than Rustler?

I get it all the time from people and people with all sorts of different skiing styles. People that mounted them forward of the mark and more traditional skier who moved them back.
They were fun skis for sure but I think people would be shocked by how few were actually sold. Granted they couldn’t have been any more challenged graphically.


For me there was too much rocker, especially in the tail. If you got out of balance it was really hard to recover and you ended up tail wheelying all the time. Maybe that wasn’t an issue for people that mounted them further forward?

Just interested to hear people’s perspectives. I will tell you that they won’t get re-released but Rustler will get some updates at some point in the future so you never know...

---

I owned a few versions of the gunsmokes and a few versions of the peacemakers.

Blizzard was selling two skis that had some crossover between their cochise and bodacious. They are obviously different skis, but depending on the skier and style of skiing, I think they could be used in the same situations (people were getting on the podium in the FWT with the gunsmoke more than the cochise or bodacious). IMO, I think they marketed the cochise line WAY stronger than any of their other skis and stole a lot of thunder away from the potential of the gunsmokes and peacemakers, hence the lower numbers on sales. Just look at the topsheets between the two - they even partnered and paid money to rodeos so they could use names and symbols on their skis.

Gunsmokes/peacemakers appealed to me for a number of reasons:

1. I do mount my skis forward. I mounted both skis at least 1.5cm forward and bought them in the biggest size they came in. I'm 6'1 when I don't slouch, and at 193 and 186, mounting them forward felt awesome. In a perfect world I would have probably gotten them in a 196 and 190. I think there's still some inclination to buy twin tip skis like you would a traditional ski. The rustler you could argue this with maybe, but NOT on the peacemaker and gunsmoke. IMO buyers should have been buying them larger knowing that the twintip makes them ski shorter. If you like powering off your tails, then a ski like the gunsmoke shouldn't be mounted traditionally. So either be okay with a shorter tip profile when you mount them forward or get a bigger size.
2. the construction on both skis had titanal under the binding plate extending probably around 2.5 - 3 feet total. I would guess the intent was to give a nice solid mounting platform, but it had the additional effect of giving more torsional rigidity in the middle of the ski, as well as a nice stomp platform for landing airs. The end result was a ski that you could still blast through and control in crud, yet having a more malleable tip and tail profile that you could manipulate it through variable terrain contours. I could (and still do cuz I still have the ski :D ) watch and feel the tip flop around a bit, but underfoot I was still very stable. More flexible tips and tails also meant that if you landed backseat, backslapped, or made little mistakes, you could still recover or not get beat up. Blizzard, Volkl, and Stockli understand this idea the best I think.
3. I think the side-cut of the ski was pretty well matched with the camber and reverse camber in the ski. Skiing the ski flat and/or pivoting on them allowed you to utilize the rocker in softer snow as well as in trees/bumps to get a lot of maneuverability. When you turned the ski over it was surprising how much edge grip you could get on them. To me it felt fairly similar to the Shiro and Gotamas that had the continuous, gradual rocker profiles (zero camber skis) - essentially, all these skis had a similar story when you turned them on edge; it engaged a lot more of the ski and gave you a lot more control. I think this is why a lot of companies are shying away from the 5-dimensional shape, and also why I never really liked that style of ski. Because no matter how far over you turn a 5-dimensional ski, you'll never engage all of the tip and tail profile for your turn. A mediocre ski will engage its reverse camber at certain thresholds, at which point usually the entire tip/tail profile will engage. A good ski will engage its reverse camber more as you turn it over more, giving the user predictability and control over the ski as well as a smooth transition.
4. I think I still value the Gunsmokes/Peacemakers over the rustler series because of my style of skiing; I do like skiing backwards sometimes, I like a more centered mount, I like ski tips with a more predictable flex pattern and slightly playful, and I like a nice stiff platform underfoot. I think I also like them more because they were heavier.

I do miss those skis, and I have a lot of holes in my gunsmokes now, so I don't know how much longer I'll feel safe skiing them. Like others have mentioned though, the M-Free line from Dynastar looks to be a good replacement. I skied the PROTO last season, so I know it won't be exactly the same, but the M-Free line has its own merits and still allows a lot of the similar feeling that the gunsmokes and peacemakers had. I'll probably be skiing the M-Free 108 closer to how I did the peacemaker and the gunsmoke, while the M-Free 118/PROTO I'll use as a more strict powder ski than the gunsmoke was.

Thanks DarthMarkus - that was a quality post with a much wider utility than just understanding the Blizzards in question. Thank you for taking the time to go in depth :)

DarthMarkus, that is very spot on. I almost had a two ski quiver with Shiros and Gunsmokes. That comparison hit home hard, and I haven’t been able to replicate a similar one two punch since my Gunsmokes died.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I love my Gunsmokes. Stoked I scored a pair when I did. Looking at Icelantic skis recently, and the Nomad 115 seems like a likely replacement.

At least you've got those Scouts back, eh?

Nomads (and most of Icelantics offerings) have always skied “plankey” and “dead” to me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I wouldn't look at icelantic if you like your gunsmokes. Check out the Faction Candide 3.0, ON3P Jeffrey 108, Dynastar M-Free 108 or 118, Moment Wildcat 108, and probably the Kastle ZX108.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthMarkus

I wouldn't look at icelantic if you like your gunsmokes. Check out the Faction Candide 3.0, ON3P Jeffrey 108, Dynastar M-Free 108 or 118, Moment Wildcat 108, and probably the Kastle ZX108.

---

The Rossi Sender Squad should be on that list too. They hand flex stiff, but should be pretty close after a few days of skiing


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Anyone else really wish the R10 came in a 192/193 length? I keep eyeing mine up and wishing they were just a bit longer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

Anyone else really wish the R10 came in a 192/193 length? I keep eyeing mine up and wishing they were just a bit longer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Not really, the short'ish turn radius they have works well for their length.

I don't find long skis of moderate width with short turn radii to ski that well.

I think you will like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkiLyft

Nomads (and most of Icelantics offerings) have always skied “plankey” and “dead” to me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

The current Nomads in the longer lengths = yes. The shorter ones have more life from what hear. At 6’3”/ 210# The older Keeper is a very lively ski imho. I love my well used pair still.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

I am look for some advice. I want to pick up a resort, more powder oriented ski and I have been looking at the Rustler 11, as well as the Nordica Enforcer 115, Moment Wildcat and 4frnt Hoji (due to my positive experience with 4frnt). I'd plan to put the new Look P15s on the ski.


My daily driver is a 4frnt MSP 99, 181. I picked up a pair with some Look P14s back in 18/19 when they were running some great deals. I like the ski, but I have found in anything above 6”-8” of fresh snow, I am wanting something more.


I am 5’11”, ~180 lb. and I would consider myself an advanced, more aggressive skier. With that said, I am not as aggressive as I was -- I have a young family -- but I am getting the opportunity to ski alone more and more, which is allowing me to ski the terrain that I want to. My home mountain is WP Mary Jane in CO -- trees, bumps, etc.


I have read through a lot of this thread and I get the feeling that sometimes people wish they had purchased the 192 rather than the 188. For those that purchased the 188 or have skied both, would you recommend the 188 or 192 (I was originally thinking the 188)? Of the skis listed above (or any others you may recommend), would you go with the R11 or one of the others as part of a 2 ski quiver? Why?


Thank you in advance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stu2020

I am look for some advice. I want to pick up a resort, more powder oriented ski and I have been looking at the Rustler 11, as well as the Nordica Enforcer 115, Moment Wildcat and 4frnt Hoji (due to my positive experience with 4frnt). I'd plan to put the new Look P15s on the ski.


My daily driver is a 4frnt MSP 99, 181. I picked up a pair with some Look P14s back in 18/19 when they were running some great deals. I like the ski, but I have found in anything above 6”-8” of fresh snow, I am wanting something more.


I am 5’11”, ~180 lb. and I would consider myself an advanced, more aggressive skier. With that said, I am not as aggressive as I was -- I have a young family -- but I am getting the opportunity to ski alone more and more, which is allowing me to ski the terrain that I want to. My home mountain is WP Mary Jane in CO -- trees, bumps, etc.


I have read through a lot of this thread and I get the feeling that sometimes people wish they had purchased the 192 rather than the 188. For those that purchased the 188 or have skied both, would you recommend the 188 or 192 (I was originally thinking the 188)? Of the skis listed above (or any others you may recommend), would you go with the R11 or one of the others as part of a 2 ski quiver? Why?


Thank you in advance!

---

Ok...you are new here and found the right place to post. That scores you some credit. Your 188 vs 192 question is fair. We all want to need the 192, but most of us do not. I have 15-lbs on you and have skied the 188 Rustler 11 for the past three seasons. I’ve never really needed the 192, which is almost a different ski. It’s wider, has a bigger turn radius, and is stiffer. The handful of people who want the 192 are real full blown chargers or much bigger than you.

Also, why would you talk about you resort having lots of bumps and trees and think the 192 is the right length?

Final question, when you used to ski more aggressively, what skis were you on and in what length? That will help people quite you a bit.

Finally, if you daily driver is a 181 MSP 99 and you don’t feel like you need more ski or more length, you most likely don’t need the 192 Rustler 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Ok...you are new here and found the right place to post. That scores you some credit. Your 188 vs 192 question is fair. We all want to need the 192, but most of us do not. I have 15-lbs on you and have skied the 188 Rustler 11 for the past three seasons. I’ve never really needed the 192, which is almost a different ski. It’s wider, has a bigger turn radius, and is stiffer. The handful of people who want the 192 are real full blown chargers or much bigger than you.

---

Thank you for the incredibly fast response! I am glad I didn't screw up and post it in the wrong spot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Also, why would you talk about you resort having lots of bumps and trees and think the 192 is the right length?

---

This is a very fair question. I read some responses in this thread about the 192s being easy enough to turn in the trees/tighter spots. I was surprised by the posts and they peaked my curiosity. I was originally thinking the 188s because I still want to use the skis in trees and on terrain that usually has moguls, but with 6"+ fresh snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Final question, when you used to ski more aggressively, what skis were you on and in what length? That will help people quite you a bit.

---

The last skis that I rotated through were the Rossi Scratch BC 182 and the Head Mojo Mad Trix 181. I used to use twin tip skis much more than I intend to now. I am a little more cautious these days now that I have kids. I have enjoyed the MSPs for the added stability and ability to be more "relaxed" when skiing with my kids. My kids don't enjoy deeper snow yet (too young), so I will be able to ski more aggressively on these new skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Finally, if you daily driver is a 181 MSP 99 and you don’t feel like you need more ski or more length, you most likely don’t need the 192 Rustler 11.

---

This is helping to support my original thinking.

^^^^^ For Winter park I'd go 188 for sure. I've skied my 188 11's there (I'm 5'10" 170) and it was a good match. The best thing about that length is they work quite well in bumps, which are inevitable where you ski.

I expect with the 4FRNTs and Moments you'd get more pure pow performance and while the Nordicas and Blizzards will feel more natural when things are scraped out. Beyond that, you're looking at personal preference and skiing style.

The R11 is the most well rounded ski of the 4 you mentioned. All 4 are great in powder, but the R11 will be more fun when the skiing is tracked out.

I think the 188 would be more appropriate with the terrain Mary Jane has. You don’t give up much in float but gain a lot of maneuverability. Now if you are 6’4” >200lbs, and we’re making trips to Squaw, Snowbird, Jackson, I’d say get the 192 for the stability when going fast, but for MJ, the 188 will be perfect.

If you scroll back a few pages, I think someone brings up that the Blizzard Freeride pros are mostly on the 188. It’s just a bit easier to ski, and I’m sure they all could ski the 192 if they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Thank you to "Skibrd" and "I've Seen Black Diamonds!" for your responses! Most appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

The R11 is the most well rounded ski of the 4 you mentioned. All 4 are great in powder, but the R11 will be more fun when the skiing is tracked out.

I think the 188 would be more appropriate with the terrain Mary Jane has. You don’t give up much in float but gain a lot of maneuverability. Now if you are 6’4” >200lbs, and we’re making trips to Squaw, Snowbird, Jackson, I’d say get the 192 for the stability when going fast, but for MJ, the 188 will be perfect.

If you scroll back a few pages, I think someone brings up that the Blizzard Freeride pros are mostly on the 188. It’s just a bit easier to ski, and I’m sure they all could ski the 192 if they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

^^^^^ For Winter park I'd go 188 for sure. I've skied my 188 11's there (I'm 5'10" 170) and it was a good match. The best thing about that length is they work quite well in bumps, which are inevitable where you ski.

I expect with the 4FRNTs and Moments you'd get more pure pow performance and while the Nordicas and Blizzards will feel more natural when things are scraped out. Beyond that, you're looking at personal preference and skiing style.

---

Posted elsewhere as well, perhaps this is a better location for my question;

I have a pair of 192 R11's and am looking to get either the 185 Cochise or 187 Bonafide's

For reference I'm 5'10" 190 and fit.

Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Sand Yeti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sand Yeti

Posted elsewhere as well, perhaps this is a better location for my question;

I have a pair of 192 R11's and am looking to get either the 185 Cochise or 187 Bonafide's

For reference I'm 5'10" 190 and fit.

Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Sand Yeti

---

IMO, the Bonafide is nowhere near the ski the Cochise is. [I've bent a pair of Bonafides. There's a thread about it.]
Not that I didn't like them, but they simply aren't nearly as bomber.

But you couldn't get the Cochise away from me for anything. (I've skied a bunch of different version of the Cochise, but currently I'm on the 185's from a couple of years ago.)

I can ski the Cochise FAR harder without feeling like it's all going to blow up on me.

But I suspect you'll prefer the Bonafide better on hard snow. Since you have the R11, that seems like when they'd come out.

I'm 5'7" and ~145# - and I ski pretty hard, love most all burly stuff - Kastle MX/Cochise/Bodacious etc. So, My prefs may well not be yours.

FWIW, GregL (among others) keeps trying to "convince" me to get an R11 instead of a Bodacious, and while I haven't skied the R11, I'm very much leaning toward the Bodacious in 185. (I currently have a pair in 177 and love them.)