What's Blizzard up to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robnow

Mostly because of the reduced mass?

---

Mass is the same, ~3285g with an STH2 16 WTR per ski. I think it is more a factor of the reduced contact length (more rocker at both ends). The older 188 would generate some tip flap at speed (past the Titanal DRT layer) but it still felt rock solid. The new ski doesn't do that (metal goes all the way to the tip around the perimeter), but it does "wander" a bit on firmer or chunkier snow. Noticeable on the hard snow at the WWSRA testing venue, never entered my mind last week in Utah.

General Blizzard question (and this is coming from a legit Blizard fan boy who is on either Rustler 9s or Brahma 88s every day)

Does Blizzard make burly as fuck skis, but topsheets that are whatever the OPPOSITE of what burly is??? My two pairs seem to sustain new top sheet damage every day I'm out, and I'm not like, a beginner or soft intermediate who gets his skis crossed up regularly. The pics I've seen of other used Rustlers or Brahmas from that year (2019) always seem to have super beat up topsheets too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VON

Thanks for the info! Yeah it's bizarre that the R10 wants to hook up more than the R9, but that does seem to be consensus amongst those who've skied both.

---

Honestly, a little more ability to carve than the 9 appeals to me in daily-driver form where I know I'll be spending some time on groomers even if it is just too-and-from other stuff.

I think I'm going to have to get on a set of 9s to try them out, but demoing a new 10 is on my list. I just don't think I can justify an R11 with an Mfree 118 in the quiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamond Joe

General Blizzard question (and this is coming from a legit Blizard fan boy who is on either Rustler 9s or Brahma 88s every day)

Does Blizzard make burly as fuck skis, but topsheets that are whatever the OPPOSITE of what burly is??? My two pairs seem to sustain new top sheet damage every day I'm out, and I'm not like, a beginner or soft intermediate who gets his skis crossed up regularly. The pics I've seen of other used Rustlers or Brahmas from that year (2019) always seem to have super beat up topsheets too.

---

The newer black or orange brahmas are better

I have old Green R11s and the topsheets are getting destroyed with large chips this year, not sure why this year - a record snowfall year.

I thought I read someone here is looking for a single orange 192 R11 - it may be a different design but I have a fairly new green single 192 R11 I'd give away to anyone in need.

I was looking a couple posts back but actually got a call from the mtn earlier this week that someone found my ski. Thanks, would have rocked the Orange and green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Mass is the same, ~3285g with an STH2 16 WTR per ski. I think it is more a factor of the reduced contact length (more rocker at both ends). The older 188 would generate some tip flap at speed (past the Titanal DRT layer) but it still felt rock solid. The new ski doesn't do that (metal goes all the way to the tip around the perimeter), but it does "wander" a bit on firmer or chunkier snow. Noticeable on the hard snow at the WWSRA testing venue, never entered my mind last week in Utah.

---

Seems like 2cm wouldn’t change things much at all, especially since the new one has metal out to the shovel and the weight is the same. Could the tune be a factor? I haven’t a/b’d the tip width either, maybe that is causing them to wander?
Might have to demo some with my older R11s at hand to a/b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by half-fast

The newer black or orange brahmas are better

---

They had a bad year 18-19 with the softer, smooth topsheets, and changed designs to the current matte material the following year. My matte rustler topsheets have held up great.

I’ve really been appreciating my 19/20 R11s for storm skiing this season, even if it’s only 2”, or 12”. Since mine are 180 cm, they are only 112 mm waist.

What should I be looking for in the 117 to 120 mm range (any brand) that has a similar personality on those deeper days? The skis I currently have in this quiver slot like to go fast and mostly make GS sized turns on pow, not as loose as the R11s and not as fun when slowing things down as the legs get tired and things start getting mixed and chopped after running out from hunting for pockets of untouched in the trees. 180 to 183 cm is kind of my ideal length for this quiver slot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SacTo

Seems like 2cm wouldn’t change things much at all, especially since the new one has metal out to the shovel and the weight is the same. Could the tune be a factor? I haven’t a/b’d the tip width either, maybe that is causing them to wander?
Might have to demo some with my older R11s at hand to a/b.

---

Tune is fine on both (I check before I they even see snow); there is probably 20 to 25cm less ski on the ground. You've tried the new 186 and noticed the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

I’ve really been appreciating my 19/20 R11s for storm skiing this season, even if it’s only 2”, or 12”. Since mine are 180 cm, they are only 112 mm waist.

What should I be looking for in the 117 to 120 mm range (any brand) that has a similar personality on those deeper days? The skis I currently have in this quiver slot like to go fast and mostly make GS sized turns on pow, not as loose as the R11s and not as fun when slowing things down as the legs get tired and things start getting mixed and chopped after running out from hunting for pockets of untouched in the trees. 180 to 183 cm is kind of my ideal length for this quiver slot.

---

Black Ops 118 seems like it might work, but they're 186.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

I’ve really been appreciating my 19/20 R11s for storm skiing this season, even if it’s only 2”, or 12”. Since mine are 180 cm, they are only 112 mm waist.

What should I be looking for in the 117 to 120 mm range (any brand) that has a similar personality on those deeper days? The skis I currently have in this quiver slot like to go fast and mostly make GS sized turns on pow, not as loose as the R11s and not as fun when slowing things down as the legs get tired and things start getting mixed and chopped after running out from hunting for pockets of untouched in the trees. 180 to 183 cm is kind of my ideal length for this quiver slot.

---

I’ve skied 186 and 191 Billygoats a lot. 188 Rustlers a bit. Have one day on 189 M-free 118s. I’d say they split the difference.

Floats a lot better than the Rustlers, doesn’t carve as well. Less hooky tail.

Very, very nimble, but in a poppy, playful way. Hand flexed far softer than expected.

Where my BG can be skied like a Mantra through cut-up, the M-free skied best bouncing from pile to pile. But their weight keeps them from going all over the place.

Mount point in between Rustlers and BG. Felt appropriate. I’m sure the 180s will ski very well for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Tune is fine on both (I check before I they even see snow); there is probably 20 to 25cm less ski on the ground. You've tried the new 186 and noticed the same thing?

---

No, I haven’t, but I really want to A/B the old vs new R11s on the same day. I didn’t think there was that big of a difference in rocker. Sounds like the tail is stiffer though and the flex is more progressive with the new construction. You agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

I’ve skied 186 and 191 Billygoats a lot. 188 Rustlers a bit. Have one day on 189 M-free 118s. I’d say they split the difference.

Floats a lot better than the Rustlers, doesn’t carve as well. Less hooky tail.

Very, very nimble, but in a poppy, playful way. Hand flexed far softer than expected.

Where my BG can be skied like a Mantra through cut-up, the M-free skied best bouncing from pile to pile. But their weight keeps them from going all over the place.

Mount point in between Rustlers and BG. Felt appropriate. I’m sure the 180s will ski very well for you

---

Thanks, very helpful, I will peck about some more in the Dynastar thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SacTo

No, I haven’t, but I really want to A/B the old vs new R11s on the same day. I didn’t think there was that big of a difference in rocker. Sounds like the tail is stiffer though and the flex is more progressive with the new construction. You agree?

---

Put them down side by side and you'll see the difference in rocker. I think the new ski is stiffer underfoot and softer at both ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Put them down side by side and you'll see the difference in rocker. I think the new ski is stiffer underfoot and softer at both ends.

---

Wow, heard their product development guy on Blister and he said the tails are stiffer.
Is there more of a progressive flex now though? Did they get rid of the hinge point in the fore body?

I really enjoyed the recent Gear30 with Christian A. I thought the long talk about the old Rustler 10 and the changes made to the new one was particularly straight and to the point. No effort was made to shine that turd and I'm 100% with Jonathan's assesment. Still don't think the new one would be my kind of ski, but happy to hear the details on the progression.

My daughter really took to the 161 J Cochise we bought on the recent evo sale. Mounted on the line and she ripped em. Definitely not set up as a groomer zoomer but good enough on softish snow. She'll be needing full metal version soon.







Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

I really enjoyed the recent Gear30 with Christian A. I thought the long talk about the old Rustler 10 and the changes made to the new one was particularly straight and to the point. No effort was made to shine that turd and I'm 100% with Jonathan's assesment. Still don't think the new one would be my kind of ski, but happy to hear the details on the progression.

---

Thanks, that was very interesting.

And I say that as someone who unabashedly loves my original 17/18 rustler 10. Yes, they have a speed limit and are maybe too turny in steeps , but that's the combo that has just made them so much fun as a daily driver for me. They were my first ski where I made an effort to embrace the "playful" adjective and step away from the race background that made me gravitate towards heavy dual-metal skis.

That said, I'm certainly open to improvement on them. They are a delight in the trees (where the rocker lines make them super agile and the hinge point never becomes a problem), but if the redesign can push the speed limit up a bit and eliminate some of the odd handling character, that's a win in my book.

Big brother got his little brother back…

Attachment 454710

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SacTo

Wow, heard their product development guy on Blister and he said the tails are stiffer.
Is there more of a progressive flex now though? Did they get rid of the hinge point in the fore body?

---

Maybe he measured it and knows better than me. Yes, the continuous strip of Titanal around the perimeter got rid of the hinge point, which was also a weak spot for breakage/delams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

Big brother got his little brother back…

Attachment 454710

---

Heart warning reunion.

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

Big brother got his little brother back…

Attachment 454710

---

Attachment 454757

Glad the family reunion worked out. [emoji6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

Big brother got his little brother back…

Attachment 454710

---

Cold dead hands skis! I have the same setup, 186 for average to tight terrain, 196 for open terrain.

Cold dead hands indeed. I'm on my 3rd or 4th pair of 186, and I know a few folks that feel the same way. The 196 are monster trucks, no need for them here but wouldn't mind having a pair if I still skied the Bird all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

Big brother got his little brother back…
Attachment 454710

---

Probably a bit too geeky - but this quote seemed appropos.

Quote:

---

Hello! Would you like to destroy some evil today? -SwordNimi

---

Is it a pipe dream to hope that Blizzard re-releases the Bodacious every 5 years?

I don’t ever want to be without these skis, the rest of my life.

Marshall's R120 sounds like it could check a lot of boxes for a Bode lover. I'm keeping it in mind if I can't find another pair when my current ones bite the dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowaddict91

Marshall's R120 sounds like it could check a lot of boxes for a Bode lover. I'm keeping it in mind if I can't find another pair when my current ones bite the dust.

---

I assume the R120 skis a little longer than a similar sized Bodacious would, and the 185 R120 could replace a 186 Bodacious. Perfect 30m turn radius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

Maybe he measured it and knows better than me. Yes, the continuous strip of Titanal around the perimeter got rid of the hinge point, which was also a weak spot for breakage/delams.

---

Apparently, it’s an athlete request so they could stomp bigger airs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SacTo

Apparently, it’s an athlete request so they could stomp bigger airs.

---

Honestly that was not really why we changed the construction of 6 models of skis; men’s and women’s. Yes that was part of the discussion but this change addresses all of weaknesses that exist in the present design. It gives the skis a much rounder overall flex. Yes the tails might feel stiffer but that’s because the hinge point in both the tip and tail has been eliminated. Present Rustlers ski pretty short due to this hinge point. You feel a better connection to the full length of the skis with the new design. I think the R11 is much more stable at speed and in cut up crud. Much less deflection and nervousness. I’ve mostly been skiing the 192 but had a few days on the 186 as well. 186 R10 skis longer than the previous gen 188.

I think the changes improve the performance at the high end without making them harder to use. If anything they’re actually easier to ski as they are much more balanced in flex. Less nervousness, less deflection, ski their length, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Honestly that was not really why we changed the construction of 6 models of skis; men’s and women’s. Yes that was part of the discussion but this change addresses all of weaknesses that exist in the present design. It gives the skis a much rounder overall flex. Yes the tails might feel stiffer but that’s because the hinge point in both the tip and tail has been eliminated. Present Rustlers ski pretty short due to this hinge point. You feel a better connection to the full length of the skis with the new design. I think the R11 is much more stable at speed and in cut up crud. Much less deflection and nervousness. I’ve mostly been skiing the 192 but had a few days on the 186 as well. 186 R10 skis longer than the previous gen 188.

I think the changes improve the performance at the high end without making them harder to use. If anything they’re actually easier to ski as they are much more balanced in flex. Less nervousness, less deflection, ski their length, etc.

---

Just going off what Blizzard’s guy said on Blister Gear Review about changing the stiffness of the R11 tails. It’s great to hear what you have to say about them-my burnt orange R11s will be up for sale in the fall!

I enjoyed the commentary on the Cochise 106 in the recent blister podcast as well. Ya’ll are definitely sleeping on the C106….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

Honestly that was not really why we changed the construction of 6 models of skis; men’s and women’s. Yes that was part of the discussion but this change addresses all of weaknesses that exist in the present design. It gives the skis a much rounder overall flex. Yes the tails might feel stiffer but that’s because the hinge point in both the tip and tail has been eliminated. Present Rustlers ski pretty short due to this hinge point. You feel a better connection to the full length of the skis with the new design. I think the R11 is much more stable at speed and in cut up crud. Much less deflection and nervousness. I’ve mostly been skiing the 192 but had a few days on the 186 as well. 186 R10 skis longer than the previous gen 188.

I think the changes improve the performance at the high end without making them harder to use. If anything they’re actually easier to ski as they are much more balanced in flex. Less nervousness, less deflection, ski their length, etc.

---

Any thinking about a Rustler 8? Think it’d make a pretty fun east coast ski


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

I enjoyed the commentary on the Cochise 106 in the recent blister podcast as well. Ya’ll are definitely sleeping on the C106….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

A lot of people have been saying it’s been neutered. Maybe a good ski, just not in the same category it used to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velomayniac

A lot of people have been saying it’s been neutered. Maybe a good ski, just not in the same category it used to be?

---

It’s not that it’s neutured, it’s just not as fun or has the same feeling as the old ones. You can still rage as hard as you want on the 192.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

It’s not that it’s neutured, it’s just not as fun or has the same feeling as the old ones. You can still rage as hard as you want on the 192.

---

I have a hard time understanding the new one. Does seem a bit misunderstood in general.

I think it could work for someone like me, heavy guy that likes chargers, but also ski a lot of moguls and tight spots. That’s what I got from the Blister review too.

How stable is the 192 Cochise 106 compared to 192 Declivity X? Declivity is just about where I draw the line for “charger”. Nothing to do with my ability, more like my weight and probably lack of balance I need a stiffer ski to hold me up when I’m speeding through smaller bumps and crud. I’m glad you steered me away from the Blade Optic 114

I almost traded the Declivity X for Cochise 106, but just started at a new University at the time and took my time/forgot. When I reached out to the guy again, he started swearing at me about wasting his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velomayniac

I have a hard time understanding the new one. Does seem a bit misunderstood in general.

I think it could work for someone like me, heavy guy that likes chargers, but also ski a lot of moguls and tight spots. That’s what I got from the Blister review too.

How stable is the 192 Cochise 106 compared to 192 Declivity X? Declivity is just about where I draw the line for “charger”. Nothing to do with my ability, more like my weight and probably lack of balance I need a stiffer ski to hold me up when I’m speeding through smaller bumps and crud. I’m glad you steered me away from the Blade Optic 114

I almost traded the Declivity X for Cochise 106, but just started at a new University at the time and took my time/forgot. When I reached out to the guy again, he started swearing at me about wasting his time.

---

see, and that statement right there pretty much sells me on a cochise over my Corvus. I like my Cochise I picked up for cheap on GS but it’s the black special edition with the carbon tips, I want a full build new one.

I am most interested in finding a mint pair of 2019 Orange Cochise 192

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velomayniac

I have a hard time understanding the new one. Does seem a bit misunderstood in general.

I think it could work for someone like me, heavy guy that likes chargers, but also ski a lot of moguls and tight spots. That’s what I got from the Blister review too.

How stable is the 192 Cochise 106 compared to 192 Declivity X? Declivity is just about where I draw the line for “charger”. Nothing to do with my ability, more like my weight and probably lack of balance I need a stiffer ski to hold me up when I’m speeding through smaller bumps and crud. I’m glad you steered me away from the Blade Optic 114

I almost traded the Declivity X for Cochise 106, but just started at a new University at the time and took my time/forgot. When I reached out to the guy again, he started swearing at me about wasting his time.

---

It’s more stable than the declivity X on hard snow as it has way less taper, 20cm? The tail is also a slight bit stiffer on the cochise, but I don’t find the declivity particularly soft, more just lacking effective edge in the tip. I definitely think the cochise could work well for you, it’s also more fun in bumps than gen 2, but not surfy like gen 1.
I wrote a review somewhere in here, probably past season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

It’s more stable than the declivity X on hard snow as it has way less taper, 20cm? The tail is also a slight bit stiffer on the cochise, but I don’t find the declivity particularly soft, more just lacking effective edge in the tip. I definitely think the cochise could work well for you, it’s also more fun in bumps than gen 2, but not surfy like gen 1.
I wrote a review somewhere in here, probably past season.

---

Thank you. Interesting, I’d like to try them for sure. I’d plan to use them for firm, mid winter conditions. Bry’s response to them has me a bit scared.

You gonna come down and ski Tahoe this spring?