Printable View
Agreed. But at least someone in the know took the bait and gave us what we wanted. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchback
Also, all this talk about what changes to the Cochise are hoping to achieve might get us a better/different ski, but I'm pretty sure Blizzard just wants to sell more skis.
^^^ I get it. But is the attempt to market the cochise as more accessible? It appears to have a pretty accessible rep on the interwebz as well as in shops. I know they are trying to sell more skis but to who (or whom to the English teachers in the house). Are they trying to make the Cochise a ski my 81 year old dad would want to ski? He shreds an old kung fujas fwiw and is my hero but it seems the ski is and was dialed for mags. No speed limit but forgiving when needed to be. You can straight line a sketchy chute and then go make runs with the family. It's a comp ski that with its given characteristics struggled in deep snow for a 108 ski, and that's what appeared that needed to be addressed. Don't know enough about ski design of the new tweeks. My question is - are they going to address soft snow performance or are they a marketing move that for all intents and purposes is putting training wheels on an 8 inch DH bike.
IIRC, the Rossignol Soul 7 (106-mm waist...same category as the Cochise) dethroned the Blizzard Bonafide as the best selling "high-end" ski last season. When that happens, people start looking at units, trends, and tweaking product lines to regain market share.Quote:
Originally Posted by tpacent
Also, I think that the buyer of the old Cochise is a dying breed...or rather aging. If you bought a pair, you likely loved them, but don't need another pair of the same old thing. Incorporate some weight savings, chase the carbon craze, and call it more accessible and BOOM...you entice the market place to spend more on your product.
Lather, rinse, repeat...so goes the sporting goods/outdoor gear industry.
Mine certainly don't hand flex like a more accessible/geezer friendly reboot. If we ever get any snow, I'll let you know how they go.
Agreed, lightening the ski up is likely to move more units, because people have been going apeshit for v-werks katanas, spurs, (insert indy brand here), etc., but it might actually improve the experience for the "target" market, as well as draw in some users who just didn't want to push around that much ski before. Personally, I'm hoping the 192 will still be a full-throttle charger inbounds, but give me just a little more flexibility in trees and tight stuff.
Besides, its not like they went and ruined it with a complete makeover, like, say, the mantra...
I don't think the Cochise is an old geezer ski but it was one of the few boards in the past several decades that had an incredibly broad reach. I saw a few FWT competitors absolutely send it on 185's and on the run down to the lift see a 60+ dude make mellow turns on a 177. Both folks getting what they needed out of the board. My issue and concern is that when you have a ski that unique, and I think all those with experience on this ski can appreciate, designers and marketers and athletes can convolute the changes to the ski because of the broad market. I grew up skiing in New England and can tell you that I would not want this ski on most New England terrain. Hard snow I want something more FIS oriented. Soft snow I'll take a shorter rockered soft tip board. Skiing tahoe most weekends, this is a perfect ski for Kirkwood and mountains that have variable snow conditions and a wide variety of terrain. I know and get the carbon/backcountry trend but I would have love to been a fly on the wall in the marketing/design meeting in the decisions to add carbon, taper the tip, and reduced sidecut. Athletes will be stoked on the possible touring applications, marketers on the carbon, etc. just seems this ski is getting pulled in different directions the last two years. Changes, but none that significant and with clear direction.
Curious as to how many posting in this thread have spent time on the Spur? Because the taper and carbon in the extremities in no way hold that ski back, if anything and this is pushing it the width and lack of metal are the only deficits I have found in the Spur as a variable conditions ski. Now we have that covered in the updated Bodacious and Cochise. I have quite a few days on the Spur and have been skiing it nearly everyday in every condition imaginable and its that good/versatile especially considering its width. I have been a Bodacious skier since its inception and its become my go to ski for everyday for last 4 seasons, I was dreading the day of the new improved easy listening version of the Bodacious:) But I must say after putting time in on the Spurs if Blizzard got the balance of skills right and I think they did the New Bodacious is the ski I lust after!!
So it's pretty well established ZeroG is going to be a backcountry line & the freeride line gets carbon tips and tails. I saw a pic a week ago of the new freeride line... the tips do resemble the square tip of the Spur. They keep all the same graphics as this year, with the exception of the Spur, which goes all black. More importantly, it looks like the Bodacious changes the sizing up from 186/196 to 185/193 for '15.
Mine are waxed and ready to go, but mother nature isn't cooperating with my schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poacher
Zero G.
4 models. 85mm(1 mens, 1 womens), 95mm and 108mm waist widths. Have yet to ski them, but they certainly are light and have a stout hand flex.
Some less than detailed images and info in German
http://www.spoteo.de/nachrichten/nac...iefschnee.html
1750g per ski for 185cm zero g 108 - that is pretty light.
Correction:
The images are pretty high resolution when you zoom in:
http://www.spoteo.de/extras/mediathek/imagehq_9981.html
1250g for the 178 95mm.....
Let me know when the zipper's off and i can feed the TGR endless quest for knowledgeQuote:
Originally Posted by wasatchback
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kied
Curious about the durability of the mixed metal/carbon ski. Seems like the transition between materials would be a weak spot and would be located at a high load area of the plank.
I have banana-ed two 193 cochises this winter. Love the ski but it is way too brittle....
sent from the future using my mind powers
I think there is a lot to be said about construction technique... there are several examples out there with use of metal and carbonQuote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
mmm, spur-dacious.
Incoming black powder ski complaints....
Ha, that's the truth. Personally, I think they look tits.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
And black touring ski complaints... tsk tsk BlizzardQuote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
It's funny how quick everyone reverts to graphics. People on this forum will debate tiny details of construction and shape of a ski, but in the end doesn't it really come down to whether or not a ski is black, white or mostly neither...
Will the Spur be offered in a longer length for us tall boys...?
189cm only
Hi ,
will the spur change in some way, except for graphics?
anyone knows?
When you've lugged around an extra 5lbs of snow per ski on the topsheet, or spent half the tour perpetually whacking snow off the topsheet with your pole, black graphics become kind of a big deal. It totally negates the 400 grams you just shaved off by using fancy ski construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianskis
I can certainly understand why a 193 Bodacious offering makes sense, thus the reason for the change in lengths, but I wonder if the old 186 and the new 185 are really materially different in length or if the sizing change is in name/number only. Obviously it's a CM either way so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kied
I've never had a problem and my top sheets are dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
Yep... 196's were some big boards and I always felt like they needed to shorten the gap between sizes. Mentally, 193 seems more manageable. I'd bet the 186 and 185 are the same size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smails
Different climatesQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
^^I've had issue in the PNW with dark topsheets.
All this "I have/haven't had issues with XYZ" gets annoying. Dark topsheets can collect snow; whether it's an issue for a particular person in a particular climate is kinda the definition of YMMV.
Remember when nobody wanted white/light colored topsheets for fear of losing them in the snow?
Is there data to support the idea that black skis are more prone to snow buildup than other colors? Or that White skis are easier to lose in zee powda?
Marketing video on the Zero G showing all sizes and weights for each model. No full dimensional/turn radius/rocker profile detail yet though.
Intrigued by the 95mm version. Weight is good, hoping for a bit of camber, some tip rocker, and a turn radius above 24m.
Edit - just saw this video was already posted above...
I'm just saying, I think there is more than just color that has an effect on the snow sticking to the top sheet. And at the same time, top sheet color, and whether snow sticks to it or not, will remain one of the least of my worries. I am going to find out how these things ski (and whether snow sticks to them) before I cast them out on top sheet color. 185 108, 178 95, and 178 85 sound great.
If it really matters to them people can go buy a BD convert carbon with white top sheets that are super light and just deal with a really really shitty ski on the way down. YMMV.
And just so people don't feel obligated to rewatch the video to get the weights:
ZeroG 108:
185: 1750gr (27m)
178: 1650gr
171: 1540gr
ZeroG 95:
185: 1330gr
178: 1250gr (21m)
171: 1150gr
164: 1070gr
ZeroG 85 / 85W
185: 1255gr
178: 1175gr
171: 1090gr, 19m (W graphic)
164: 1015gr (W graphic)
157: 945gr (W graphic)
Yes, but color has a pretty significant effect when the conditions are right. Usually when the ski heats up in the sun in the open and you go back into the shade. Like skin globbing. White and light colored skis heat up a lot less and can eliminate it entirely. You can feel a huge difference in the warmth of the topsheet. As witnessed by partners who do or don't have black skis. It can be extremely obnoxious. There's a reason why Lou Dawson makes a big stink about it in every review of a dark colored ski.
Attachment 162708
Lou Dawson forgets that there are plenty of us who never see the sun while touring in powder . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I carry a small plastic scraper in my jacket and when they get super snowy i scrape them and they're good for a little while. Stoked to get on 185 0G108 this spring. Really stoked.
I've been on the ZeroG 95s since early December. All-black prototypes. Sharon liked them so much we've been trading skis back and forth and she is probably going to pinch my pair so I'll need to beg, borrow another pair of ZeroGs. My blue RMU Apostles and my wife's white G3 Tonics used in the same conditions on the same day attract just as much snow to stick to topsheets as the black Blizzard skis.
This experience is consistent with my black topsheet G3 Zenoxides and other black skis I've tested or tried. There's no difference between those black topsheets and other colour topsheets. Oh yah when I get snow on the topsheets I whack them with the pole to dislodge the snow
QFT 45678Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL