Bumped into another 192 H11 today, shop said they just got em in...2209/2215 g/ski. Stated is 2000. One example so YMMV.
Printable View
Bumped into another 192 H11 today, shop said they just got em in...2209/2215 g/ski. Stated is 2000. One example so YMMV.
I'll weigh my 180 H10s tomorrow. Felt like a burly but not metal heavy ski when fondled.
Jfc. I guess they weight the 180 or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvan
Haha, yup. See how it all shakes out. I for one wouldn't have been upset if they hit the mark on the 192 H11, but ended up 200ish grams overweight on the 192 R11. Now that could have really simplified a quiver! They likely woulda sold less but at least I'd be stoked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
The Hustles that were sold in last season as early into and the ones that were tested are heavier than the production skis. The production skis use a thinner topsheet material. There are plenty of those early intro skis in the marketplace which is why some might be heavier than stated weights.
The 180 is the size that’s used when weights are listed, not the 192. That would be like a boot company referencing the weight of a size 30.5.
They are the same rocker profile and shape as Rustler but with a new lightweight True Blend Freeride core and a carbon DRT piece instead of metal.
If we wanted to make them lighter we would have. The lighter protos didn’t ski nearly as well.
^So, in summary, you made the Hustle 11 200 grams heavy on purpose, cause it skis better at the heavier (Rustler like) weight, and cause your company doesn't make mistakes; also, all future production will be lighter. Finally, skis and boots are weighed using the same procedure (one weight listed), despite the website listing 5 ski weights, with the 180 @ 1850, and the 192 @ 2000. Cool marketing story bro, I feel like I read the email myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchback
Just weighed my H10 180s and they came in at 1800 and 1817 grams which I guess is good for stated weight 1800g.
Last season I skied Down TD103 (playful resort), BC Corvus (resort charge) and BC Camox freebird (touring) and was thinking about mounting these H10s with shifts for an one quiver replace them all travel ski.
Was hoping the camox skins would fit but having doubts:
Attachment 434903
Topsheet says drill 4,1x9,5. Are these metal under binding area, should I tap?
Anyone skied both the R11 192 cm and the Enforcer 115?
No but if you have an enforcer then I can give you a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley
The rustler 11 is extremely versatile and carves better than any 115 I’ve ever been on. It’s all mountain for sure. Just not a billy goat for crushing variable. I’m pow it’s good but if it’s over a foot I’m on the protest or redeemer.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
[QUOTE=whyturn;6735161]No but if you have an enforcer then I can give you a comparison.
The rustler 11 is extremely versatile and carves better than any 115 I’ve ever been on. It’s all mountain for sure. Just not a billy goat for crushing variable. I’m pow it’s good but if it’s over a foot I’m on the protest or redeemer.
Ya I’ve skied the enforcer 104, 100 (OG) and 94 all 186cm.
Agree with these comments. I love my 188 R11. I like it best mounted forward of the rec line at +1.5 (I've only tried +1, rec line, and -1.).Quote:
Originally Posted by whyturn
In this category, I've owned:
190 Moment Bibby (12/13)
190 Moment Deathwish (17/18)
188 Praxis FRS (20/21)
191 Praxis Lhasa Pow
So, a few, but not a ton. R11 is so nimble (esp at +1.5), great and surfy in Cali cream ("powder"), confidence-inspiring in steeps, good for billy-goating, and fun on the groomers. It's an awesome soft-snow resort ripper.
I had some mounted with some Shifts. Hated the Shifts, so they are just mounted now with Pivots. May throw a CAST on there now that I've settled on my forward mount. If I had to go down to a one-ski quiver (ugh NOOOOO!), R11 would be it for sure.
One note: I snapped the tip on my first pair of R11s at the top of the metal insert layer. Ran directly into a rock. I was uninjured, ski was not. As a result, I would not say this as rock-solid built as my Moments have been. But overall, I think it skis better - it's a like a directional, slightly-lighter Bibby.
Would like to hear more about 192 r11 as well, I have a flat pair in the basement. I like my 188s but they ski short. 192 seems like a different beast...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvan
This made me lol. Sounds like the hustle is a diet rustler at this point, and diet shit sucks.
BC has two of the Sheeva (same ski as the r11?) in 188 for $315
https://www.backcountry.com/blizzard...m_term=Content
Own the Enforcer Pro/115 (191) and Rustler 11 (green and orange models), but only in the 188. The Blister review of the Pro/115 is pretty accurate IMO. It’s more damp (w/2 full layers of metal) but skis easier than the 191 length would suggest. The other standout area of the 115 is in crud and variable, where it is more capable than the Rustler. Again…full length sheets of metal. I’m guessing the 115 will be more durable, as you hear about lots of bigger, hard chargers snapping the Rustlers right at the metal/wood transition point in the shovel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
[QUOTE=Bandit Man;6735618]Own the Enforcer Pro/115 (191) and Rustler 11 (green and orange models), but only in the 188. The Blister review of the Pro/115 is pretty accurate IMO. It’s more damp (w/2 full layers of metal) but skis easier than the 191 length would suggest. The other standout area of the 115 is in crud and variable, where it is more capable than the Rustler. Again…full length sheets of metal. I’m guessing the 115 will be more durable, as you hear about lots of bigger, hard chargers snapping the Rustlers right at the metal/wood transition point in the shovel.
I’ve only read about the 188’s breaking, but guess the same could be true for the 192. Since they are both close in weight at least per the Blizzard website the 192 has a stated weight of 2260 and Blister weight the E115 at ~ 2350 per ski seems close enough to be an interesting comparison.
Will try to pick up both used on the cheap, ski ‘em and sell what I like the least.
Thanks for the replies !
Broke an old phone with weights, but I do recall my '19 192 R11s (green ones) being close to stated. This is a helpful resource as well:Quote:
Since they are both close in weight...
Will try to pick up both used on the cheap, ski ‘em and sell what I like the least.
Thanks for the replies !
https://www.evo.com/en-ca/guides/alp...i-weights#2023
Couldn't find a 192, but extrapolation can sometimes be helpful. Hope you find em!
Let me add, I think that the Enforcer 115 is an easier going ski than the 188 Rustler 11. The dampness of the 115 makes it a bit more forgiving (don't feel like you have to be "on it" as much). It's tail is also looser. The Rustler is a better carver and has more rebound out of a turn. They are both great skis, just different strengths.
That’s the 2nd time I’ve read that the Rustler is a better carver - surprises me a bit given my time on other enforcers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Would it be fair to say the Rustler floats better, but the Enforcer is better in chop?
^Agree with all the R11 thoughts. Great ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
Haven't skied the 188, but I found the 192 (green ones) skied a bit short too. If you decided the 188 skied a bit 'too' short for you, I'd be surprised if you didn't get along well with the 192. Big mounting sweet spot so you could always cheat the binders a bit too. Loved mine, miss mine.
Edit to add: I stopped DDing em as, at my size (6'2,195#), I was starting to notice the hinge in the tip when charging in firmer conditions and chop, and more so, in the tail when back seat (landings, etc). Only mention it to provide context that in WBs coastal snowpack, the green 192 is not a crazy burly big mountain gun relative to full length metal lam skis (188 CMD 118, 193 Confession, etc). At my weight and style, accessible, approachable, even easy, with plenty of top end for the weight, and a super fun, soft snow focused rig. Rad ski.
I actually own and ski both R11, 188 with Duke PTs and 192 with Pivots. Both mounted on the line. I found them to be quite different, the 188 (second orange gen) eventually turning into what I hoped the R10 would be (a rather lively daily driver in soft snow considering its waist). The 192 (first gen green one) is more of a damp charger, and if the conditions are right it’s hands down the best ski I have ever been on. The 188 is also pretty good for touring in soft snow.
Enforcers are great too but i feel the rustlers suit my skiing better (less directional but still stiff with looser tips and tails). I am 6.3/200lbs.
PS : I honestly don’t know how to improve the existing R11 but I really hope the coming R10 will be MUCH better that the current one !
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Great comparison Gweilo!
Merci pour l’info Gweilo !Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
I pulled the trigger on a pair of 21/22 R11’s and just received them today. On my kitchen scale they are ~ 2335 each! This is a nice surprise and while they are heavier than stated I am still considering Shifts, but can move a pair of Griffons as well and they make more sense from a lift-lapping (gondi/tram) perspective.
[emoji1303]
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Is it crazy to have both a 188 and 192 R11? I love the R11 192 and just ordered the 188 for when im skiing with the lady who is just learning.
6'0 1/2 210 lbs strong intermediate.
Oh and to help out here my new 192 weighed 2336.
I read on ski essentials that their 188 was 2186.
Math checks out. When they went from green to orange, they gained a little weight (50-80 grams?), which I initially forgot about.
I edited my above posts to clarify that I owned the green ones; my bad on the weight confusion. Now I'm wondering how much better these 2335g versions are, or if the bump in weight is noticeable. Hmm...
There was a "The Ski Monster" podcast episode a month or so ago where their crew chatted with the Blizzard Product and Design team. They mentioned a proto-type all-mtn/big-mtn ski that they were all geeking out on that could be a 2023 release. Anyone have any hints they want to share? Bonafide/Cochise replacement? Update to Rustler line? Something entirely different?
I'd guess a Rustler update is more likely than a Bonafide/Cochise update. Blizzard tend to update a 'family' of skis every couple of years and the Bonafide/Cochise line got a significant revamp more recently than the Rustlers. Their more backcountry-oriented offerings also got the new Hustle line. Rustler 11s have been largely the same for a few years now so I'd guess they are due for a new look. Unless it's a replacement for the discontinued Bodacious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I looked it up and listened today and inferred they were testing Rustler prototypes at saskadena
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
New Rustlers (cough…taper)…and those complaining the Hustles are too close in weight to the Rustlers, there may be a bigger gram differential now.
I actually don’t know ****;)
To be fair I was holding both rustler and hustle 11 with the same bindings I could hardly feel the weight difference…Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Someone on that podcast compared it to a Declivity
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
How are the Rustler 9's? Looking for a tree, bump, and spring ski in new england.
Attachment 439860
New Mantra R10 on the horizon ?!
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
174 length, wonder if the longer ones get a 2 cm increase as well.
So, no further intel on the new Rustlers? Someone has to know more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
190+ R10 would be a welcome addition !
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Those who want a 190+ R10 with a backbone should ski the C106
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Not really. I've been schooled in a tight chute on a 185 Cochise while the 188 Rustler 11 comes around just fine . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21