Thx!
Printable View
Thx!
Thought I’d asked again here so everyone can chip in or benefit from the answer. Just pulled the trigger on the 2024 version of the 105 but I noticed the two bumps are back ! Since I have always mounted my blizzards on the line (Brahma, rustler, firebird and spur) and have always been happy with the skiing I wonder which line I should go for ??? Is the first one centered à la Rustler and the second one backwards a la Bonafide ? Bit confused here [emoji51]Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Btw [mention]wasatchback [/mention] we’ve just had a headstart with snow in Europe and I should be on the 192 R10 pretty soon. Really looking forward to it !
What is your bsl? How long is the ski?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
The forward mounting bump is the right one.
Both of my ZG 105's are on the back bump (180 and 172) and I'm happy with it. The usual considerations apply: If the ski is borderline too long, going forward will help with ease of turn initiation; if you go back you'll gain a little flotation and straight line stability. If your BSL is longer than average for the ski length, going forward will put in a more "average" balance point. Me: 5'8" and 175 lbs., running a 288mm BSL with both skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
(I have skinny friends who weigh less than me and stand 6'2" with a 312mm BSL who I'd advise to mount at the forward bump on the same skis).
I am 6’2 and 209 lbs, my BSL is 335 mm and the skis are 188 cm. Won’t be doing any butter or straight lines with those in pow (did my ACL a couple of years back on the first gen doing just that [emoji51]) but as my only ski for touring (the 95 is way too light for me) I wonder if the forward mount could be a better option for an all rounder (conversions, shit snow conditions, turn initiation, etc). I Wish I could remember which bump I was on the first gen but I found out there was two bumps only when the bindings were mounted and I never really cared to find out… All I remember is that the skis were great but a bit hooky [emoji2371]Quote:
Originally Posted by twat
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Go with the forward bump with a 335mm BSL, ski first then de-tune as necessary. FWIW, the old version bumps were 1.5cm apart and the new ones are 2cm apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
My bsl is 297 and I went for factory recommended, guess almost 40mm difference justifies for moving your heel forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
I will ! Thank you guys for your help ! I reckon I was probably too much on the back seat on the first gen - glad I sold those skis anyway it was a bit weird skiing them following the ACL crash [emoji95][emoji51]
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
You're in a 29.5 Atomic Hawx Prime XTD? You might also consider a lighter boot to pair with those skis to get the most out of them . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
Thank you greg ! I am either in cochise or zero g 130 and they are both great at what they do [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Zero G Tour Pro is an excellent matchup; BSL should be 333mm @ 29.5 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gweilo
R9 for west coast junk snow / firm snow ski (to complement an ON3P Woodsman 110 for “half-inch indentable” snow to boot deep), for medium speed off piste noodling / pecking about where other skiers won’t go, and groomer zooming with side hits, but not totally trying to dominate the snow and mountain:
Good fit or wrong tool?
(Note: I demoed the E94 for this application in 2022 and really liked the core feel and profile but not the sidecut shape and propensity to make one turn shape, and make it on behalf of the skier as opposed to the skier telling the ski what shape to make)
Seems like a Rustler 8 would be the droid I’m looking for … but maybe the 9 could work?
R9 would be a good choice. It’s my no new snow, let’s explore / screw around ski at A Basin. Handles everything there well, except straight-lining, it’s got to be kept on edge.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
They won't be making a Rustler 8 on your account, nor a Rustler 10.5 on mine. In the meantime, I'll be using the new Rustler 9 for the quiver slot you mention. If you go long enough, it can roll with the big dogs, too. (Skiing a 186 Rustler 11, 180 Rustler 9).Quote:
Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio
You really make me want to try the new Rustler 9. I ski my 184 M6 for that slot, but they leave a bit to be desired going off trail, especially when the snow is on the PNW-type, heavy side. Thoughts on new R9 vs M6?Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Thanks Greg.
Would you say the new R9 is a big change from previous model or a subtle refinement? I can see that the tapered center titanal layer looks to have been changed to more of an H frame ... does this change how quickly the ski settles or quiets down in garbage snow?
I'm 140 lbs and would be looking to get the 180s (also on the 2020 180 cm R11). If the new R9 is a major change then I may hold out, if it's a refinement then maybe I'll look to pick up a used set or new old stock. It's not easy to demo skis down here, apart from Berg's demo weekend every March (which may or may not line up with a weekend work schedule or other kid care requirement).
Very different skis - I love the M6 when conditions mostly call for a race ski but I might wander off the groomed once in a while. You need to be prepared to ski the M6 full gas all day, and be in shape to keep it working deep into the afternoon. The new Rustler 9 actually has similar edge hold on hard snow, but a smaller sweet spot when purely carving - it's stronger and more stable than the older R9, with more surface area for leftovers and cut up chop, but actually stays above the loose stuff while the M6 just plows through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
It's a fairly big change in my mind, not just because of the placement of the Titanal but also increased width and stability. It's more useful in more types and depths of snow than before - the old Rustler 9 went out mostly on groomer and family days, the new one will get more time with fresh snow on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio
Thanks Greg, all that is good to know. All sounds very positive to me.
Curious about the new R11 vs the OG in 192 length. Construction is obviously different but length remains the same while side cut and turn radius are slightly shorter.
Since it was such a great ski I am wondering if it is worth an upgrade like the R9 or R10 over the previous gen ? Anyone tried both and care to comment ?
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Sweet new stoke vid, good tunes good times
https://youtu.be/S2LMc3KkDZg?si=v9gcnE2PXjGKVnmV
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
What's the deal with the r10? I was thinking of mounting pivots + atk inserts on one because I loathe traveling with two skis but opinions on the new ski and weights are hard to come by.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
New Rustler 10 rips. They've fixed the issues that made me reach for something else in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
If you were to Google "Ski Weight Chart" you might find this:
https://www.evo.com/guides/alpine-an...ry-ski-weights
Haha fair enough, for some reason I always thought those were just taken from mfg copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Haven’t heard much about the updated Rustlers. Anyone been on the 10? Did the updated construction fix the hinge/tip hook that plagued the previous generation? Is this the 10 we’ve wanted all along? Comparison to Enforcer 104 would be much appreciated if anyone can offer that up.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3ac311c7ff.jpg
In Tignes this morning… First day on the new 192 R10. Will report back [emoji6]
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Have a new pair of 2022 Brahma 88s showing up tomorrow that I scored for a great price. 183 was the only size available and I tend to like 180-185ish ski lengths but this sounds like a pretty stiff ski. I’m 6’ and working back toward 170ish lbs but it sounds like some pretty burly clydesdale types are happier on the 183 vs 189. Wondering if anyone my size prefers the 177 in the newer iteration of the Brahma? I haven’t had a ski that short in a long time but maybe would have been the right choice for a 59 year old freeheeler?? Granted not much difference in length, but sounds like each size up is a pretty good jump in stiffness due to the new true blend core. Am I just turning into a worrying pussy type?
This will strictly be for charging on firm groomed snow and hitting side aprons. I have OG 180 bones and other skis for softer/deeper conditions including Praxis Quixote in a 182 that I love.
Im 6' 1, 195 so a little bigger than you and I have the same ski. Not once have I ever felt they were too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3PinGrin
If anyone is loving their new R9s and moving on from the previous 172/180, hit me up! I wanna try it out as a low tide / garbage snow ski. [emoji1690]
Gonna mount em up! 18” of snow on the way in the next ten days now that I bought a firm groomer zoomer, ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony911
If you get on steep harder 2d snow, you’ll know if they’re too long when making tele turns. My experience in that test is the skis are rad/solid when making alpine turns but I struggle keeping good edge (lots of skittering) hold in a tele turn at slower speeds. It tells me that I don’t weigh enough for the ski as a result of the weight distribution between the skis in a tele turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3PinGrin
Thanks bodywhomper. Honestly if it’s super steep and icy I usually switch to p turns until I get to the lower mellower part of the local hill or it softens up on the steeper pitches. One thing I love about NTN is how well parallel turns work, and I tend to switch back and forth from tele to alpine turns quite a bit depending on terrain. I do suspect the 177 would be better for tele in steeper 2D conditions but didn’t have that size option.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
And I’m not much for slow speeds except in the BC or tight terrain where warranted. 😁
Ha! I also switch turn method often. It’s pretty fun especially with ntn.
I learned the too long ski thing on steeper terrain at mammoth after a long wind event that stripped the snow. Moguls had become sastrugi. There weren’t too many skiers in the terrain. Good fun!
Hopefully they don’t end up being too unwieldy, but can probably flip them on gear swap pretty quickly if so. Sastrugi is the suckage, best ski I’ve ever had for those conditions is the Praxis Quixote.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
Not wind affected moguls though, Quixote isn’t a lot of fun in moguls. But it rails rippled wind affected firm snow if I get my speed up.
Ha. Groomer zoomers are most fun when opening it up. Less unwieldy with speed, IME :)
Any opinions on the new Rustler 11 in 186?
Considering it for a travel ski slot. Thinking inserts for Pivots and Marker Alpinists in case some touring is on the agenda. Have strong preference to low ramp deltas. To be skied with Lange XT3 LV. No super fast fall line charging, but no noodling either.
Alternatives are new Nocta in 185 and Bent 120 in 184, but they seem much more specific and soft snow focused.
Any info is much appreciated
Own it, love it, and would gladly take it on a trip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qilimanjaro
I don't consider either in the category of potential "travel" skis (maybe if you're travelling to Hokkaido, but maybe not this season). If you get the Bent 120 you should have a guarantee of 20+ cm of fresh snow each night and no ice or chunks under the pow. If you get the Nocta, you will hope you don't really have to ski any groomers during your trip (actually they are reasonably precise, but a 122mm wide ski is still a tank). I would consider the Nordica Unleashed 114, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qilimanjaro