Had some time on the 185 but I need to try the 192 as it is probably quite different in the tail departmentQuote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Printable View
Had some time on the 185 but I need to try the 192 as it is probably quite different in the tail departmentQuote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
I agree with Greg, i quite enjoyed the C106 but found the tail stiffer that the R11, which is a bit of a downer when it gets deeper. The tail is to me the stand out feature of those skis and wish the R10 had the same + extra length + the backbone [emoji1303]Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
some 180 Hustle 11 new i plastic on a FB page I know
$650
Truckee
Rustler 10 coming 192.
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by robnow
Precisely !Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
A 190 length would be so clutch in the R11-R10Quote:
Originally Posted by herrgard
R11- 192,186,180,174,168
- similar dimensions as before
- new construction
- similar rocker profile
R10- same sizes as r11
- similar dimensions
- new construction
- new rocker profile
R9- 186,180,174, 168
- slightly wider than before
- similar rocker profile
- new construction
[emoji7]
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Sounds sweet, construction probably burlier to not overlap with hustle line?
Mid winter release?
The new Rustlers look like they incorporated a twist on the Volkl Titanal Frame. Really curious to learn more and hear how they ski. A slightly burlier R11 sounds GREAT to me.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
the 192 exists and is nearly perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I live in the PNW and sizing up to get the burlier version isn’t always a sound strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by westoxified
I dig the current 188, but it gets bucked around in variable more than I would like.
But yeah, for the bigger, harder chargers, I get the 192 probably works.
New length
New construction
New rocker profile
New titanal frame
New trueblend woodcore
= New Cochise ?
I am a bigger guy 6’1 215 and like the 188 and the 192. The 192 is so damn easy to ski for its size. The 188 is perfect if you spend most of your time trees. I’ll be upset if they go to a 186 as a feel a more substantial 188-190 would be the ticket as the perfect middle ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Well, be prepared to be upset - wasatchback works for Blizzard ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll
186 sounds perfect to me - 180s are too small, 188 too much. 186 = probably around 184 straight pull, very nice
186 will be perfect for me, too, been asking for it for 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Ah, that's annoying. 188-190 is right on the money for me on a ski like that. This change will make it that much harder for me to decide between the two longer lengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
And I really want a 192+. I like the new split. The 192 R10 makes a short list of skis to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Happy to stick to the current 188/192 R11 which are perfect if that means getting a righted R10 in 192. Should be able to try them all in a couple of weeks and report back.
Who cares about the changed construction, layup, or rocker profile.
I will only buy another Blizzard if it is 187 cm. 186 won’t work for me. 188 felt too long.
187 or to the barricades!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so funny
blah blah blah
Right. JFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
New changes to the R11 sound interesting to me.
I’m upset… lol. It does make more sense for the masses but not for me. I’ll be interested to see how the new metal layout effects the flex of the ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
I will say a 186 R9 sounds like it could be a good bit of fun.
Oh don’t worry, I’ll have opinions on those things too once we get more info!Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
Considering the current snow conditions in Europe a beefed up 186 R9 is promising. Curious abt sidecut and turn radius !Quote:
Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...52483f6d4e.jpg
These new Rustlers flux.
??
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...er-sheeva-skis
I henceforth gavel in the Armchair Review Committee for its winter 2023 session!
The radii are wrong, these are going to be TRASH! /sQuote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
I fondled the rustler 11 a couple weeks ago and I thought it was heavier than the stated weight there. But I am not a scale.
hm, fairly light still
Couldn’t care less abt the new R11 but dig the weight, size and radius of the 192 R10 already. That and the orange sidewalls ;)
At a quick glance, recent activity in this thread looks like many pages of bickering about various "Rustlers" and two centimeters (that is well under an inch, for Americans).
Seems like Blizzard might not be up to very much?
New construction, new rocker profile…….Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfeitfake
Having hand flexed the new 11 and 10, 11 felt nice and supportive, 10 did not (both the low 180 something). Unfortunately I can’t compare new 11 to old as haven’t flexed that one in a long time. May get to ski them this week but most likely they’ll all be on the short side for me.
Blizzard screwed up on the colour combo again on the 11, flouro yellow sidewalls with orange bases, didn’t look good IMO.
The new Sheeva 10 and 11 are probably the ugliest skis I’ve ever seen.
Same amount of metal as before repositioned to give the skis a much more round and consistent flex from tip to tail. Present layup can cause some hinging in the tip and tail where the metal ends in the fore body of the ski. Two strips of metal that change in width depending on the model, run the full length of the ski but are not joined in the tip and tail. The third piece of metal under foot is also not joined to the strips over the sidewalls. This is important as it keeps the playfulness that the old construction had by keeping the ends of the skis torsionally softer.
I can feel the full length of the ski more on this new model. Previous gen, especially the 10, I felt like you couldn’t feel much of the ski past where the rocker started and they always felt very short
10 got the biggest change to the rocker with much less tail rocker which is a very welcome change.
9 is now 96mm under foot.
Spent most of my time on the 192 R11 so far as it’s been snowing so much. I don’t think we’ll see 192 r10s to test until maybe March.
All in all I think the top end has been improved considerably without sacrificing the ease of use and playfulness.
Ah, nice - thanks for explaining the idea behind the new design!
It will be interesting to see if the new 10 is less turny / short turn biased than the outgoing version. The new 9 looks very interesting as well.
dammit, so many interesting skis nowadays!
hah, funny - I like them. It will be fun to see them in person, whenever that will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
Hahahha..I just did a trade show showing the new lineup to dealers and buyers and their was one consistent message from any woman in the booth..."Those are the coolest women graphics I've ever seen". Men know nothing!Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by bluesbrother49