What's Blizzard up to?

[roQer]

I actually use them as a resort powder ski, and they do perform well in the chopped up.

That's a nice understatement. They own the chopped up and all kind of weird snow. IMO better DD then Cochise cuz Cochise really sucked in powder which Bode doesn't.

[straightlineorbust]

OG Bode (used but new to me) are my daily driver, and I think they're almost too much though and want something a bit less for on days I'm not trying to charge hard. At 196 I pretty much avoid most tree skiing that's not wide open or in powder because it's just too much ski in those scenarios, but perhaps that's more speaking to the length than the burlyness. Because it is plenty fun in pretty much all weird conditions. Finding detuned tips and tails are a most though

[roQer]

I'm on the 186. At the beginning I thought the ski could be a bit longer but now I'm enjoying the quite surprising maneuverability in tight spots given how burly the Bode is.

[Lindahl]

Still want a pair in a 189 and 110 underfoot. And no, that isn't a Cochise.

[snowaddict91]

Still want a pair in a 189 and 110 underfoot. And no, that isn't a Cochise.

Yes! That would be perfect.

[Tye 1on]

Not 100% sure but I think Kyle Taylor is the only athlete in the US other than Jackie that has had a bunch of time on them. He has quite a few days of days on them in deep snow.

I'll have to ask him if he's tried them on the opposite foot. Personally I have no idea why you would even want to??? I reached out to Jackie to see what she has to say.

This is the first I've heard of anyone saying they work better on the opposite foot for certain conditions or skiing. Not sure where that is coming from.

When I've skied them I don't know if I would say that there is one specific design element that stands out but a blend of a few things. I think the asymmetric design and different lengths of the inside and outside of the ski have a distinct effect on how the skis transition. All I know is they feel incredibly quick for a 124mm 192cm ski.

I am very excited about them and in the little I've talked to Kyle he is equally as pumped on them. Stoked to spend more time on them in more types of snow. Definitely going to be taking them to AK in April.

She says she prefers flipping them for the shorter radius when it's not deep, that it's like having two pairs of skis in one. Seems to be working pretty well for her so far!

[gregL]

Even with the longer 30m radius on the inside, they turned way easier for me (5'8" 170) than the current 189 Spurs and felt way damper. Looked huge on my feet but didn't feel that way at all. Didn't try them the other way.

[spindrift]

She says she prefers flipping them for the shorter radius when it's not deep, that it's like having two pairs of skis in one. Seems to be working pretty well for her so far!

I've noticed that Passo skied them on the opposite feet for both comp runs. Considering the designers made a big deal about the thought that went into the asymmetry - that seems like a evidence of a design miss to me. That is one technical looking build for a very deliberately sided ski. When your athlete chooses to run them the other way...

It'd be interesting to ski them head to head agains the Quixote which I really like and the Marksman which I have not tried.

[skibrd]

I was pretty sold on Protests and Shiros as my fat skis, but if the Spurs are two skis in one, and as much fun as you guys are saying, I might have to give them a try.

So the consensus is run the 30m radius on the inside (the way they are designed) for deep snow, and run the 26m radius (aka on the wrong feet) for shallow snow? Greg, did you notice any interesting tendencies or quirks that popped up with the skis on the wrong feet?

[gregL]

Greg, did you notice any interesting tendencies or quirks that popped up with the skis on the wrong feet?

No, I only skied them on the "right" feet . . .

[auvgeek]

It'd be interesting to ski them head to head agains the Quixote which I really like and the Marksman which I have not tried.

And next year's Billy Goat, which is supposed to be slightly asymm.

An asymmetrical shootout! I like it.

[grskier]

So, they now have a burly line and a really pretty burly line... interesting. I've always liked their skis.. but I thought they had all the bases covered with the peacemaker and gunsmoke line

[wasatchback]

The only people that bought Gunsmokes and Peacemakers were shop employees and people who got deals... good skis but they had some decent shortcomings that weren't hard to remedy just needed to redo the molds. The twin design was old and rocker flared way too much at the ends of the ski. New Rustler skis are far from burly. I think if you talk to anyone that's skied them they're pretty damn easy to ski but still let you ski fast and have good grip and dampening when condition require it. They are also built differently depending on the size. Longest ones are wider and stiffer. They get narrower and a little softer as you get shorter.

[Andyski]

I've noticed that Passo skied them on the opposite feet for both comp runs. Considering the designers made a big deal about the thought that went into the asymmetry - that seems like a evidence of a design miss to me. That is one technical looking build for a very deliberately sided ski. When your athlete chooses to run them the other way...

It'd be interesting to ski them head to head agains the Quixote which I really like and the Marksman which I have not tried.

If they're fun as shit to ski, who gives a fuck how they explain the design or if it's marketing bullshit? Flipcore struck me as complete nonsense as well (if it's about natural reverse camber and rocker, is the camber you then put on skis after a year or two not natural???), but I love the way the skis ride so who cares?

Have you tried skiing the Quixotes on the "wrong" side?

[spindrift]

Have you tried skiing the Quixotes on the "wrong" side?

Not yet. Keith suggested I do so. Not because he thought I'd like it (the implication was otherwise). But because it'd make clear how consequential the asymmetry is. I have not done this yet. But I will when I get a chance.

I'm not gonna tell people what to like or not like. But a ski like the Spur, or any other "evolved" design, has some principles underlying its development. Everything from running length to sidecut radius to rocker profile to taper past the sidecut(s). So when a ski has a ton of design effort put in, and what appears to be a reasonably exotic build to boot, it strikes me as very strange that anyone would want to ski it exactly opposite the way it was designed. Why would you want a longer radius on the inside ski? Why would you want more tip & tail catch on the inside ski? Etc....

[geo039]

Not yet. Keith suggested I do so. Not because he thought I'd like it (the implication was otherwise). But because it'd make clear how consequential the asymmetry is. I have not done this yet. But I will when I get a chance.

I'm not gonna tell people what to like or not like. But a ski like the Spur, or any other "evolved" design, has some principles underlying its development. Everything from running length to sidecut radius to rocker profile to taper past the sidecut(s). So when a ski has a ton of design effort put in, and what appears to be a reasonably exotic build to boot, it strikes me as very strange that anyone would want to ski it exactly opposite the way it was designed. Why would you want a longer radius on the inside ski? Why would you want more tip & tail catch on the inside ski? Etc....

Because it is marketing BS that does not matter to 99.9% of skiers? Placebo effect maybe?

[Sessiøn]

And next year's Billy Goat, which is supposed to be slightly asymm.

An asymmetrical shootout! I like it.

And Cease & Desist, which was asym this season.

[auvgeek]

And Cease & Desist, which was asym this season.

Yeah, but I think a few people have mentioned that the C&D is so heavily rockered, it's hard to compare to the Q and Marksman. Also: I haven't ready any reviews of this year's C&D, unlike the Q which has received a number of rave mini-reviews on here. Wonder why that is...

PS. Be great if TGR disabled the autocorrect that changes "rockered" to "rocketed." Please and thank you.

[spindrift]

Because it is marketing BS that does not matter to 99.9% of skiers? Placebo effect maybe?

Keith and Tabke spent years arriving at the Quixote design. I don't think either is into placebo. And if Tabke was into marketing BS, he could ride with anyone's skis on his feet.

I'm pretty mediocre and even without the "swap 'em" test, I can feel a difference in handling with the Quixote vs others I have used. The inside ski moves between edge and feathering more smoothly and naturally than standard designs. And the taper on the inside ski tips and tails seems less catchy in variable snow. I'd imagine the Spur designers had similar intent. Though with more of a powder bias - one would imagine the lack of catch on the inside ski of the Spur (used per user manual ) would be even more noticeable in soft snow..

I have not yet had the Quixote out in real deep snow/powder - so that's a test yet to be done. If it meets or exceeds expectations, it will definitely be my main "do it all" ski.

Marksman reviews seem few and far between. That's bit disappointing as it would be nice to get a sense of the entire design space.

[ghosthop]

That's a nice understatement. They own the chopped up and all kind of weird snow. IMO better DD then Cochise cuz Cochise really sucked in powder which Bode doesn't.

I'm on the 186. At the beginning I thought the ski could be a bit longer but now I'm enjoying the quite surprising maneuverability in tight spots given how burly the Bode is.

I just spent the first day on a new to me pair of 14/15 176 Bodacious, mounted at about +5mm due to hole conflicts. I'm 5,6 and 120 lbs. Conditions were boot top powder with a nice little crust underneath.

Visually, I was deterred when I first clicked in because it appeared that there wasn't enough tip for the style of ski I was expecting, however I never had any issues with stability or tip dive and rarely felt the crust underneath the snow, so the rocker must be working. I look forward to getting them out in some deeper, heavier snow to see if I can stuff a tip when driving the front of the ski. My immediate thought was that they would feel great for me around -1 or so but am reserving judgement until I get more time on them.

I was very impressed with how they felt at speed, always wanting me to open it up but still so incredibly easily to make quick turns to adjust speed or trajectory. In this regard they reminded me of BG's, the BG's feel comfortable scrubbing shorter turns at speed while the Bodacious' sidecut needs to be taken into account. However, I felt much more locked into the turn on the Bodacious and less like I needed to constantly be steering the ski which I prefer.

Still want a pair in a 189 and 110 underfoot. And no, that isn't a Cochise.

I was deterred by the width at first and really hoped I would not regret passing on a pair of cochise, but taking into account the fact that you can ski these a little short compared to other "charging" style skis and they feel so maneuverable, as well as the traditional mount point and flattish tail I was very happy with the width when I started hucking. At first I was missing the longer tail of my EHP, but after adjusting my weight to be more forward when landing I think the girth of the ski adds to the stability/forgiveness that is lost by a shorter, traditionally mounted ski.

[gregL]

The only people that bought Gunsmokes and Peacemakers were shop employees and people who got deals.

Yes, but when you consider those people could get any ski for cheap, it takes on more significance . . .

[wasatchback]

True. However it was time to change that ski. It was a very specific ski that worked for a small audience. New skis fill the same gap without alienating a large percentage of people that don't want to ski twins. Rustlers are better in more conditions unless you want to land switch in deep pow. Athletes that skied Peacemaker and Gunsmoke were involved in the development of the Rustler skis throughout the entire process. Loic, Connery, Luke Perin, etc.

[skibrd]

Yes, but when you consider those people could get any ski for cheap, it takes on more significance . . .

I got my 193 Gunsmokes on a deal and they came with Marker demo bindings on them, and everyone who I convinced to try them in soft snow, loved them.

I have not been on the Peacemakers, but I think the number of good skiers, who got a deal on both models, speaks volumes for just how good of skis they were. If you can ski any ski that exists, which is just about the spot shop employees are in, wouldn't you choose the ski you liked the best?

I actually sold my Gunsmokes on here last winter because I wanted something else. I then tried a bunch of skis between 108 and 118 under foot, decided I liked the Gunsmokes, and bought them back from the guy I sold them to. I've switched to Shiros for powder, but still grab my Gunsmokes from time to time because even after 4 seasons of abuse, they are fun and easy to ski.

[carlh]

Rustler 11s sound like a fun powder touring ski. When will there be demos in the wild?

[wasatchback]

Unfortunately not until next year unless you go a local demo in your area this spring where the rep has next year's gear. There are new Brahma's, Bonafides, Rustler 10s and new women's skis out in the market now but not Rustler 11s.

If you're in UT there's a demo at Beaver this Friday and then the season ending demo at Alta in April. I'll also be in Sun Valley for demos a couple times in March.

There are definitely quite a few in Cali and Northwest in March I believe but I don't have exact dates.