What's Blizzard up to?

Wasatch Back Said: "The new skis have way more power when on edge."
And: "Better in softer snow and better on hardback".
"Still two sheets of metal and same flex profile as the 14/15 model".
Are there other changes in the 2016 layup and construction materials besides the carbon in tips and tails? I realize there are a ton of variables in ski construction and thus the resulting performance, but not sure I understand how carbon in the tip and tail area gets it to carve with "way more power on edge" on the hard snow if everything else in the layup/construction is the same as 14/15. Can you please elaborate on that Wasatch Back? Thank you.

anyone know if the zero g's will be available at retail or available for consumer demo this year?

A few of the Zero Gs will be available from mid feb. in a few places in Europe at least but it'll be a very limited stock.

ZeroG can be found at a few shops here in the US in the next few weeks. Not sure which ones as of yet.

Just got back from SIA, where I got to check out the revised Bodacious... with the metal removed, and tapered tip/tail, it's essentially a narrower, little brother of the Spur. The 193 is going to be tits.

Oh and yeah, the Zero G line was stupid light too. Looking forward to getting out on these things.

192 Cochise Review will go here. When we get snow, or I drive to some.
2462gr per ski of bamboo, metal, and carbon.
nice round flex
29m turn radius
tip rocker, slight tail rocker
looks like a fucking missile.

Why doe Blizzard do this to me? The Spur is just a little too big for long days chasing left overs, and I was dreaming for something just a little smaller...

Well, there goes my plan to avoid trying and buying another pair of skis, who's got a new pair of Bodacious for me to try?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

Why doe Blizzard do this to me? The Spur is just a little too big for long days chasing left overs, and I was dreaming for something just a little smaller...

Well, there goes my plan to avoid trying and buying another pair of skis, who's got a new pair of Bodacious for me to try?

---

If you're lusting over the Spur, but think they're too big, pick up the '16 Bodacious. It's the same ski, only 7mm narrower and you can get it in a 185 next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

ZeroG can be found at a few shops here in the US in the next few weeks. Not sure which ones as of yet.

---

Hopefully one in Seattle....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyski

Hopefully one in Seattle....

---

I'll ask around...

Looking forward to your 192 review. I've been skiing the 185 Cochise (black topsheets) for the last few weeks and it's been incredible. Best ski I've been on less than 5 inches and all conditions. Very versatile. Wouldn't hesitate to grab them not knowing the mountain conditions at all. Skied them today in 4-5 fresh, from soft to sunbaked ice sheets underneath. Very happy.

review in the works. Today was hard and fast groomers or shitfuck refrozen crud. Basically, go as fast as you fucking want. The tip is even more stable than in the past. I've skied Wrenegades, XXLs, Mojo 103s, B-Squads, Katana's, and others. These are the most stable skis to mach through the refrozen fuck. They have more balls than me.

Anyone else skied the ZeroG series? Would have loved to see a 95 in the Cochise mold and a 112 in the Bodacious mold. A 112 Bodacious in the old construction would be tits, too. 118 is pushing too wide once resorts get tracked out, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

As with all the new models the construction on each size changes. Longest length is the stiffest and most powerful and each size gets slightly softer from there on down. Trying to optimize the flex and rocker profiles for each target skier.

---

Did the long lengths get stiffer or the short lengths get softer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

I think everyone would agree the present cochise design did not shine in pow for a 108 wasted ski. Tips tended to submarine.

---

What changed for this improvement?

Quote:

---

More on ZG108 later

---

updates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XavierD

2462gr per ski of bamboo, metal, and carbon.

---

Sounds like no carbon weight loss?

My new 185 Bodacious are 2222g/ski, so ~1/2 lb lighter per ski than the metal ones. Not super noticeable. Still tanks on the skin track. But they slayyyy in soft snow. I haven't had them on the resort yet because they are new and shiny and the resort looks like a bike park.

New Cochise has tip taper and a bit more tip rise. I haven't skied them. SydVicious says they are fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Anyone else skied the ZeroG series? Would have loved to see a 95 in the Cochise mold and a 112 in the Bodacious mold. A 112 Bodacious in the old construction would be tits, too. 118 is pushing too wide once resorts get tracked out, imo.



Did the long lengths get stiffer or the short lengths get softer?



What changed for this improvement?



updates?



Sounds like no carbon weight loss?

---

Everyone bitches about deflection yet wants their skis to weigh nothing. No mass equals deflection. Yeah maybe the ZG108 could weigh a little less but you get to a point of diminishing returns...

The shortest lengths got softer. 185, 192 are the same flex profile as last year.

New tip design. It is more upturned or rises faster, however you want to describe it. It just planes in softer snow better. OG Cochise had a much lower profile tip. And no not much weight loss in the Cochise and Bonafide. Carbon Is for reinforcement and stability more than it is for weight loss in the freeride skis.

I still have only had one morning of laps out the gates at the Canyons and 10-15 runs in bounds split between Alta, Jackson, Snowbasin. 108 skis great in all sorts of conditions. At 215 lbs I can overpower the 108 at times at speed through chop but for the most part it holds it's own and is considerably lighter than a scout or Cochise. 1650g vs more than 2000g in a scout.

The 95s are almost as torsionally stiff as a Bonafide yet weigh half as much. I've only skied them on night missions at PCMR or a few runs in bounds at Alta. I haven't skied another ski in this weight class but I think those that do will be stoked on them. I can lay them over at speed on really hard snow and they don't fold at all. If anyone in UT wants to try a pair send me a PM.

Anyone spent enough time to post a detailed review/comparison between the new and old Cochise?

I'd love to hear more about the new Cochise. I fondled one at TVS a few days ago and it made me surprisingly happy.

I've become a bit of a Blizzard fanboy - I have two pairs of '14 185 Cochise (one lives on each coast), a '13 186 Bodacious, and a '15 Spur. They're each awesome in their own right, but I'm not so sure I'd like either the Cochise or Bodacious to be built like the Spur. It seems like it would neuter the Bodacious especially?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangle

They're each awesome in their own right, but I'm not so sure I'd like either the Cochise or Bodacious to be built like the Spur. It seems like it would neuter the Bodacious especially?

---

I think chargers would agree, but then again, those skiers have already bought Cochises and Bodacious'. I see the new construction having a broader appeal while still maintaining most of the performance potential of the skis.

I think a Bodacious in a Spur layup might make more sense than the Spur itself. Very interested to get on a pair in real snow, but likely won't happen this year for me given current forecast.

Quick review:

192 Cochise, mounted on the line with fks 155's (326mm bsl). Had these since January, but snow conditions (or lack thereof) have prevented me from taking them out. Got three days on them with this last storm cycle, skiing anything from 30" of untracked pow to dust on crust.

Me: 6'3, 200#, racer. Dalbello KR2 Pros. I ski the fall line and like completing a turn. Similar skis I've tried: 194 B Squads, 193 IM 103s, OG Big Daddies (flex is pretty on par with these), 1st gen. Katanas, etc...

Skied the 1st gen. 193 Cochise for four runs years ago; I liked it, but didn't need another ski at 105-110.

Quick notes between old and new versions (though it has been a while): As noted by others, the new Cochise floats better in pow. Whether this is due to camber profile/softer flex/carbony what-not/taper/decreased weight is debatable, but it doesn't dive as much as the old ones. Hardpack performance, I feel, is improved due to the skis actually having a little bit of life in them. They're not exactly snappy, but they give you a little back at the end of the turn rather than just laying there. Stability at speed is on par with the originals, which is a good thing, even if you're just tailgunning it out of a bad decision. That's about all I can say, didn't have a lot of experience with the original version.

Factory tune was a bit sharp (which I don't say often), so I'm running a 1.5* base bevel in the tip down to where the taper starts and took a couple swipes at the tail contact points with a gummy. Hooks up without being hooky. I felt like the mount point was a bit forward at first, but a couple of runs changed my mind on that. The ski feels balanced. They will still find the fall line if left to their own devices, but don't feel like a runaway train if you're not all over the tips. Pretty easy to recover on if you get knocked around in variable snow. The tips will go through or over anything in their path at your discretion, provided you ski with some conviction. They don't like it when you're indecisive. Flex is nice and even, tails are stiff without being overbearing.

First day we had almost thirty inches, which was much needed after close to six weeks of high temps and no snow. not exactly blower, but pretty fluffy for the South San Juans. I wasn't out until the afternoon, but the Cochise had no problems transitioning across other people's tracks. Ski is very balanced in the air, stomps soft landings no problem. Even on a couple of bad landings (coming up short on a double; landing on top of a bump) I just put my knees into my chest and the skis went on their way as though it was just another riffle.

We had one day of very high humidity, coastal-style snowpack. About ten inches of fresh, but everything was setting up pretty hard as soon as it was skied over. The Cochise's handled it very well, just monster-trucking through everything without a ton of feedback. Next day we had another eight inches on top of that, and it was hero-bump heaven all over the hill. They ate it up. I really like loading up the tip, powering through and using the rebound of the ski to bounce onto my new edge in crud, and these felt like they were born to it. They're very responsive when the right stimulus is applied.

I don't see a whole lot of current Cochise owners being turned off by the remodel, unless they just want an excuse to say that the new one's not as bad-ass as it used to be. It is. In short, if I owned a pair of last year's Cochise, I wouldn't run out and buy the new version. But if my old Cochise's were hacked to shit from years of hard work, I'd find it hard to come up with a better replacement.

Whats your current quiver look like? (before the Cochises)

I would say the new skis are a little more tune sensitive than the old ones. The carbon makes the ends of the skis more torsionally stiff so they engage quicker than the old ones. The ends of the rockered sections tend to have less base bevel from
the factory just due to pressure on the ski when it goes through the machine. This has always been the case but the new Carbon skis are a bit more sensitive to it. I've been adding bevel to the tips and tails on the new Cochise and Bonafide. 1.5 in the tips and tails if you want a bit more drift or 1* if you want a little quicker hookup. The bevels on the rest of the ski have been spot on at a touch more than 1*.

The tails can be a little sharp as well. I've been 45ing the tapered section and taking a gummy to the last 4-6" of the area that has sidecut.

Reviewer:
5’10” 200lb, strength over form.
26.5 2014/15 Cochise 120s w/ extra drive plate and power wraps

Skis I like:
2015 185 Blizzard Cochise
196 Blizzard Bodacious
191 ON3P Billy goat
2010 186 ON3P Vicik
Dynastar XXL
Legend Pro 105

2016 192 Blizzard Cochise:
mounted on the line, with pivot 18s for 310mm BSL with a 5mm lift under the toe piece.

BLUF: The 2016 Cochise retains its stability and crud busting ability, while providing improved float. It is an excellent western daily driver for a bigger skier who is familiar with the front of their boots. It is smooth and responsive in a variety of snow conditions, just make sure you detune the rocker sections of the ski.

Wordy review full of bad grammar, spelling and run on sentences:
For 2016, Blizzard has updated their benchmark ski, the Cochise. It retains the bamboo core and two sheets of metal, but gets an update via the ‘Spur treatment.’ The tip and tail of the ski now come with a carbon fiber wrap. Blizzard tells me this is not to make it light weight, but to increase the ski’s stability. When picking up the ski, it becomes clear that chasing the light weight game was not in Blizzard’s plan with this ski. My pair comes in at right around 8lb per ski with Look P18s. The change also resulted in a slightly new shape and rocker profile. The new 192 (former 193cm) has a more abrupt rocker section in the tip, subtler tail rocker, and comes with a 29m turn radius.

My first day out on the Cochise was in Crystal Mountain’s Green Valley in clear, firm, and fast conditions. Groomed runs were excellent, running fast and edge-able. Off groomed was what is becoming affectionately known as ‘shitfuck’ skiing. Hard, refrozen crap that grabs your ski at weird moments and generally tries to wrestle control of the ski from you. The ski was still at its factory tune of 1 base and 2 side bevel, and I had simply detuned the rocker section in the tips and tails with a few passes from a gummy stone. After my first run, I was asking myself what I had gotten myself into. The ski liked to run fast, and straight, and was responsive as long as you stayed over the tips of the ski, and kept it pointing generally down the fall line. On the groomed runs it was awesome. I was skiing as fast as I could and the tips stayed glued to the snow, with excellent edge engagement through the length of the ski. Off the groomed runs I found myself questioning my capabilities for the 192 length. Anytime I tried to kill some speed or got slightly back, I found the ski taking over and beating me up. It often felt like the ski was coming out of the turns faster than me, with the tip accelerating out from under me. Since the groomed runs were all that were skiing well that day, I found myself following everyone else and stayed on them for the next few hours. That night I re-attacked the rocker sections with a stone, detuning the tips and tails more and further into the ski.

The next couple of days were warmer, with the sun softening the off piste areas. The now detuned Cochise’s found their mark. I was able to start opening up the ski more. 192 was the right length. Detuning the tips and tails really made a difference in being able to bring the ski around quickly in tight places. I made several laps on a run that had a few open slush turns up top, some shorter turns through a steep section with some open turns followed by a small drop to a chopped up to groomed run. The Cochise was excellent in the transitions between snow quality and turn style, smoothly adapting with out jerking me around.

Over the last weekend I was finally able to get the Cochise in some fresh snow when Winter made a brief stop in the Cascades before moving on to Utah and Colorado. Friday saw 6-9in of new snow on top of a firm but very edge-able layer. North facing slopes were great. In the past, folks have found the Cochise to be wanting when it comes to floatation, especially for a ski that is 108mm underfoot. The new tip design with more taper and a more abrupt rocker profile has solved that deficiency. I never found the tip to be fishing for the bottom, but would instead plane smoothly. Patrick and I skied several of the Elk Chutes as well as a couple on the skier’s right of Powder Bowl. The top of the chutes were generally firm, with soft below. The Cochise provided good edge hold through the firm crux, and again handled the transition into the cut up soft snow smoothly. I never felt like I was running into a wall. The tip cut through the first several feet before rising to a level plane.

I took the skis back up on Tuesday, after the area had been hit by the weekend crowds, and a local juniors freeride competition. I took the skis out to Crystal's Southback, which had been closed on Friday, but ravaged by the sun and crowds for three days since. The snow was decidedly chunkier and heavier than it had been under the clouds on Friday. While the transitions were not quite as smooth as before, I never felt like I was getting bucked. At 192, it was a little heavy for some hop turns, but more than manageable.

Take away: For me, a relatively aggressive skier with exceptionally average form, the 192 Cochise is a great any day, anywhere ski, especially for more open terrain such as Crystal. If I was skiing more technical terrain or using it at a tighter ski area like Stevens Pass with lots of trees and tight chutes, I would want to explore the 185cm length. Overall though, I feel like this is a ski I can take anywhere and have a great day regardless of the conditions. It offers improved float over the previous model, is quick and edge-able as long as you stay on top of the ski. I recommend going with a 1/2 base and side bevel, detuning the rocker sections with a gummy, and taking a file to the tapered tip and tail. This is the first ski I have thought upstaged my Legend 105s in overall versatility.

https://www.tetongravity.com/images/...ios__forum.jpg

swoon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Whats your current quiver look like? (before the Cochises)

---

On the wider end, 192 Movement Super Turbo/Guardians (touring and deep days), 192 Dyanstar LP 105 (crud; great ski but soft in the shovel and doesn't float well). 195 Superbro's for daily driver (because I don't live in a fairy-tale world where it snows every day, or week for that matter), 188 '06 Stockli SS Pro for when I want to make turns. Got a bunch of other stuff, but those are my primaries. Bought the Cochise to fill in as resort pow and day-or-two-after ski since the 105's are on their way out. So far, I think I made a pretty good choice.

Can Blizzard make a Bonafide in a 193? Or is their a similar ski in a 193?

with enough time and resources, anything is possible.

True, I wonder if their is a demand for such a ski.

.1% demand

Maybe a 189 but never over 190

Anyone have advice for mounting a 185 zero g 108 - on the line, or forward some amount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garuda

Anyone have advice for mounting a 185 zero g 108 - on the line, or forward some amount?

---

More info needed...

Your BSL

What you've been skiing on, etc

I have a 185 mounted for a 300bsl on the line and would not go forward of it. No reason to go back either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XavierD

I have a 185 mounted for a 300bsl on the line and would not go forward of it. No reason to go back either.

---

Same but mounted with 305bsl. That will punish rear mounted IMO. It already kicks my ass when I get lazy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibrd

Can Blizzard make a Bonafide in a 193? Or is their a similar ski in a 193?

---

194 Kastle MX98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

More info needed...

Your BSL

What you've been skiing on, etc

---

310 bsl. About 184cm tall and 185lbs. Most of the rest of the quiver is mounted much closer to the center of the ski, so the zero g looks really far back. E.g., 195 hoji, 196 renegade at about -7 from center, tele on a tst and a q-115 with similar position.

The Zero g is going to be used for bigger vert days, steeps, spring corn. Want a stable ride with great edge grip. Pow performance is not a priority but still nice.

Inclined to mount at the zero line but was just curious if anyone skis them at +1 or more fwd with good results. Mounting with vipecs.

4frnts have waaaay different mounting points than Blizzard. As do most Salomon's. You could go forward as you're used to skiing skis that are mounted a lot farther forward but I wouldn't really recommend it.

I'm 5'9'/165lbs with 185 Zero G 108s mounted on the line for a 302mm BSL. Feels bang on the money to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garuda

Anyone have advice for mounting a 185 zero g 108 - on the line, or forward some amount?

---

For other reference, I have 185 Zero G 95s mounted on the line with Plums + 7mm toe shims. I feel like I would have been better at -1cm. No way would I want to be forward, and I have several other skis mounted closer to centre which I do like. I'm 6ft4 and 80kg (304mm boot sole) so they're much shorter than anything else I own, and they feel short. So far I like them just OK on the down. They do ski light - fine on anything smooth whether it's hard or soft but hard work in variable snow, the high edge grip hurts them there I think. If this is a "good for its weight" kind of ski on the downhill then I hate to think what a normal lightweight ski feels like. Only skied them a few times because I bought them mainly for spring touring and steeps and I do think they'll work well for me there.

I measured the line as -10.25cm from cord centre, or -9.5cm from effective edge centre. Measure up your 108s and compare to that. I was considering going forward for the same reasons as you and am very glad that I didn't (I ski 194 Devastators at +0.5, 198 Katanas at +2.5, 191 Katanas at +2 amongst other skis).

Lc, I ski the metal katana in the resort and the carbon katana in the bc, including steeps.

I was looking at the zero g 108.
Any idea how it skis compared to the carbon katana, or the metal if you only skied that?

In the bc, I ski everything, but my favorite are steep couloirs in the spring.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LC

For other reference, I have 185 Zero G 95s mounted on the line with Plums + 7mm toe shims. I feel like I would have been better at -1cm. No way would I want to be forward, and I have several other skis mounted closer to centre which I do like. I'm 6ft4 and 80kg (304mm boot sole) so they're much shorter than anything else I own, and they feel short. So far I like them just OK on the down. They do ski light - fine on anything smooth whether it's hard or soft but hard work in variable snow, the high edge grip hurts them there I think. If this is a "good for its weight" kind of ski on the downhill then I hate to think what a normal lightweight ski feels like. Only skied them a few times because I bought them mainly for spring touring and steeps and I do think they'll work well for me there.

I measured the line as -10.25cm from cord centre, or -9.5cm from effective edge centre. Measure up your 108s and compare to that. I was considering going forward for the same reasons as you and am very glad that I didn't (I ski 194 Devastators at +0.5, 198 Katanas at +2.5, 191 Katanas at +2 amongst other skis).

---

It's really tough to make a lightweight ski well in variable. They simply lack mass to push snow around. Taking the side edge bevels down to 1* and dulling the whole ski considerably helps a little, tend to get less deflection

Supposedly the flax layup that Salomon and Down are adding has helped improve the dampness. No personal experience with either yet, though. Probably helps with the tinny feeling, but can't imagine it does much for deflection.

Volkls method seems to do ok with snowfeel, but they do deflect compared to a heavier ski. Just less of that tinny feeling at least. That said, still would be nervous finding rocks and they aint cheap.