For northern Utah folks, these 188 R11s were recently listed. Not mine, but seems like a great price.
https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/69469578
Printable View
For northern Utah folks, these 188 R11s were recently listed. Not mine, but seems like a great price.
https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/69469578
How big are you? At 5'8" and ~170 lbs. the 188 is perfect for me no matter how deep; the 180 R11 sometimes felt like I would go straight over the tips (180 mounted on the recommended "bump" and 188 mounted +1 for 305 or 306mm BSL). Hustle 10 is great (IMO the best in the series), Hustle 11 felt a little loose and sloppy to me. I did, however, ski all the Hustle skis in 180 as there's no way I could make an uphill kickturn in steep terrain on a 188.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtlange
6'2" and 225lbs and Im very top heavy with a forward stance which may lead to my issues going over the tips.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
You have answered your own question. Try a 192 R11. And any snow deeper than 6-8" is not a great medium for a tip-driving forward stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtlange
Pulled some stickers off and figured I should take a family photo as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Attachment 429982
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
That is quite the impressive stable there!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian
Agreed. Bones with steels and Bodes with red 916s... Drool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I’ve looked at other skis, but I just keep coming back to the Bodacious shape and how much I like they way they behave.
I had a pair of 185 Cochise and they were ok, but I was a little disappointed in how they skied in soft snow. The 193 might have changed my opinion, but while I was looking for one of them, the B97 fell into my lap.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
OG Bodacious would have been perfect if it came in a 190-193 length. 196 was super fun but just a bit big for getting in and out of tighter places.
It almost feels like a dream that a ski with those dimensions was ever produced in a 196-cm length.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I'm happy with the 186 in CO, but I often wished for a 191 at Alta/Bird.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
That's a steal, almost worth sharing in the sale section here incase anyone has not seen them.Quote:
Originally Posted by g_man80
That’s why I have all three sizes!Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
A couple of months ago a used skis ad lit a Gunsmoke spark with me. I never got any time on them when they were in production. Remembering shop fondling them, thinking crazy things in line with "too much tail rocker". Re-read reviews lately and getting intruiged I set out to scout the webz for a used pair just to get to try them, if only just to flip 'em.
And guess what, in search of the used pair, I happened to stumble on a pair of shop left-over NOS 193's (in a far-away-from-mountains-shop) which apparently had been sitting there since '14. With a bargain price tag, now reduced to one-eighty bucks I quickly jumped... Who wouldn't, right!
Got them home safely today. Looking forward to (finally) see if the 'smoke fever of the past is contagious or if I'm immune to it. Mount point consensus is that 193's go on the line, right?
Attachment 431427
nice score!Quote:
Originally Posted by waxoff
Fucking epicQuote:
Originally Posted by waxoff
-5cm from true center sounds right to me if I remember right. If you can still see the line mount it there. The mount sweet spot is big.
So you got a pair that have never been mounted? If you don't wanna keep em and wanna make a buck, I know a guy that would take them off your hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by waxoff
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Yep, they were undrilled, at arrival, but that lasted only until like nine hours ago... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DarthMarkus
Anyone tried the new 2023 Bonafide yet?
I have a pair of Zero G 95, 185 cm, with ATK Freetour, which are great for harder snow which we have a lot of in Scandinavistan. Now I need a wider pair for softer and bigger days. I was more or less set on the Zero G 105, 188 cm. Then I saw all the marketing for the new Hustle series and I’m beginning to think the Hustle 10, 188 cm, is a better option for my type of skiing. Has anyone skied both or at least the Hustle 10? I´m a bigger guy (183 cm, 90 kg) and tour for the down. For daily drivers I use Brahma, Bonafide, Mantra 102 and Rustler 11, 192cm, so I tend to like stable skis. Thanks��
Despite the similarities on paper, they are different skis for different purposes. The Zero G 105 is a pure touring ski, while the Hustle 10 is intended for mixed use. I haven't weighed a 188 Hustle 10 yet, but I bet the difference in weight is around 400 grams per ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudis
I like the same skis as you for resort skiing, and I stuck with the Zero G 105 for my powder touring setup. It won't be used on the lifts except to dial in the tune.
So what's the word, is the Hustle 11 coming in lighter than the spring editions?
I eavesdropped on a weigh-in while in the shop for a mount on the cheesed Bodes my clueless ass wasn't going to risk attempting, and in my months-old recollection it was at or just under the 2000g ballpark; a 188.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
No. For the slight weight difference, you might as well get the Rustler 11, the ski really benefits from the Titanal DRT layer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
Hustle line seems like a missed opportunity for a great 1700g touring ski, but I'm sure they will sell a ton of em.
They will sell a ton of them and many will never see a skin track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
Can anybody tell me, other than (obviously) the topsheets, have there been any meaningful changes to the Rustler 9 since its introduction? Is this current year model essentially the same ski as the one from 4 seasons ago?
Same ski, and still amazingly powerful and hard snow-capable despite the significant rocker at both ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond Joe
Thanks man, thats what I thought. Yeah I've been looking for a pair as an EC daily driver for months now unsuccessfully, finally found a pair in nice shape but they're the first version (greyish with black tips and tails and neon green logos) and wanted to make sure.
The R9 has just about replaced my flat tail hard snow skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Are the shorter lengths of the Rustler/Sheeva 9 the same ski as the Rustler/Sheeva Team? Blizzard website shows the exact same dimensions and weight for the 9 and Team at the 164cm length.
How different is the new red zerog 95 from previous iterations? Some anecdotal evidence regarding it being stiffer than second gen and slightly more manageable than first gen. I'm curious about them as I had the first gen ski and found it to be capable but a bit too demanding for Tahoe transitional snow.
Read back 10 or 12 pages but I couldn't find out - what is the major differences between the Hustle line and the Rustler line?
There seems to be a lot of overlap between the two, what makes them different?
From Technica copy:
This ski, which comes in three waist widths (94 mm, 102 mm, and 112 mm) bridges the gap between traditional touring and freeride skis—and demonstrates Blizzard’s commitment to making high-performance backcountry skis. Made in the same molds as the brand’s popular Rustler and Sheeva freeride lines, the Hustle shaves weight with a new True Blend core of made of beech, poplar and paulownia wood. (The idea of True Blend is to create a core that’s softer in the tip and tail to make turn initiation easier and stiffer underfoot for edge-grip.) Instead of metal, Blizzard adds a lightweight carbon-fiber laminate for added strength without the weight. The Hustle 9 weighs 1,750 at 180 cm; the 10 weighs 1,800 grams at 180 cm; the 11 weighs 1,950 at 188 cm.
Lighter core, no Titanal DRT laminate . . . actual production skis are not as light as the marketing copy would indicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond Joe
I’m betting the true blend core trickles into the Rustler line next year and they get heavier. Maybe the hustle will come in close to marketed weights next year too. This would make a bigger difference between the two.
I happily toured on rustler 11s when they first came out so I’ve talked myself into walking around on hustle 11s this season… though I do wish they weighed 1800 grams…
Just ask to weigh the ski before purchase. I have seen hustle 11 188's comes in near the marketed 1950 weight, so blister's take that the prepro batch came out heavier is likely true.
So the Hustles are a lighter, no metal version of the Rustlers? Wouldn't that make them kind of, I don't know, noodle-y?
The Hustle line uses a lighter TrueBlend Free Core and then carbon fibre in a similar area to where the titanal plate is in the Rustler models. Actually a bit stiffer flexing in the Hustle models but softer torsionally compared to the Rustlers.
Heard the Spring release versions of the Hustle had thicker and heavier top sheets and the current production versions are now closer to spec weights.
In my demo runs on a 188 hustle 10, softer than a mantra 102, but not some plywood crapshack ski. They hold up to hard skiing but you're not gonna go mach looney down a chunder field obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond Joe