What's Blizzard up to?

[adrenalated]

Mini review of the Rustler 11:

Had an extra day after a backcountry hut trip so demoed some skis and skied a day at Kicking Horse. I really would have rather skied a Cochise but they didn't have a pair with Warden demos (to fit my WTR boots) so I grabbed 188 Rustler 11s instead.

I'm a fairly old school skier, don't spin, never ski backwards, tend to like traditional mount points, flatter tails, and some positive camber. Conditions were generally hard packed but soft and chalky on north aspects, somewhat choppy/manky crud on south aspects. I haven't skied a Blizzard since the first gen Cochise so will compare more to ON3P Wrenegades and Kartels.

The Rustler 11 was certainly more locked in to a carve and had more pop than the first gen Cochise (not surprising, since the OG Cochise had no camber). R11 definitely has that damp, smooth feel that Blizzards are known for, but wasn't really any more damp than an ON3P and definitely had less pop. In funky snow and crud when trying to lay down a fast, long turn, I felt that the tip would try to hook up and turn harder than I would have liked. I could probably fix this by detuning the tip heavily and moving the mount back 1cm, but really, I just don't think I jive with a 21m turn radius. The radius does ski a little straighter than 21m would suggest, but it's still not a long radius ski. Flex was very nice, stiff but never overpowering. I thought it skied a little shorter than 188 - it felt more like a current 184cm Wren in length (and a bit shorter than my 186 Wren 112s). I got a few choppy pow turns in the apron on Truth/Dare/Consequences and float seemed good for a ski of this type - not as good as something like the Billy Goat, but totally fine.

Overall I'd say the R11 falls kinda in between a Wrenegade and a Kartel. Charges harder than a Kartel, but not as playful. A bit less comfortable at high speed and long radius than a Wren, but a bit more playful and with a more progressive/forward mount point.

Not a ski I'll be buying, but a good ski for sure and one I didn't mind spending a day on.

[trex_9]

"Both still much prefer staying oriented down the hill compared to the old gunsmoke"

This is surprising.

193 gunsmoke or ?

The OG smokes' with metal are an amazing ski. Wish i could find another pair to hoard

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[roQer]

Mini review of the Rustler 11:

Had an extra day after a backcountry hut trip so demoed some skis and skied a day at Kicking Horse. I really would have rather skied a Cochise but they didn't have a pair with Warden demos (to fit my WTR boots) so I grabbed 188 Rustler 11s instead.

I'm a fairly old school skier, don't spin, never ski backwards, tend to like traditional mount points, flatter tails, and some positive camber. Conditions were generally hard packed but soft and chalky on north aspects, somewhat choppy/manky crud on south aspects. I haven't skied a Blizzard since the first gen Cochise so will compare more to ON3P Wrenegades and Kartels.

The Rustler 11 was certainly more locked in to a carve and had more pop than the first gen Cochise (not surprising, since the OG Cochise had no camber). R11 definitely has that damp, smooth feel that Blizzards are known for, but wasn't really any more damp than an ON3P and definitely had less pop. In funky snow and crud when trying to lay down a fast, long turn, I felt that the tip would try to hook up and turn harder than I would have liked. I could probably fix this by detuning the tip heavily and moving the mount back 1cm, but really, I just don't think I jive with a 21m turn radius. The radius does ski a little straighter than 21m would suggest, but it's still not a long radius ski. Flex was very nice, stiff but never overpowering. I thought it skied a little shorter than 188 - it felt more like a current 184cm Wren in length (and a bit shorter than my 186 Wren 112s). I got a few choppy pow turns in the apron on Truth/Dare/Consequences and float seemed good for a ski of this type - not as good as something like the Billy Goat, but totally fine.

Overall I'd say the R11 falls kinda in between a Wrenegade and a Kartel. Charges harder than a Kartel, but not as playful. A bit less comfortable at high speed and long radius than a Wren, but a bit more playful and with a more progressive/forward mount point.

Not a ski I'll be buying, but a good ski for sure and one I didn't mind spending a day on.

Very nice write up. Now grab the 192 cm and report back.

[adrenalated]

Very nice write up. Now grab the 192 cm and report back.

Hah! I'm 5'9" and 145lb, I'll save the 192 for someone big enough to turn it.

[roQer]

If the 188 skis like a 184 the 192 will be like 188/189 or no? Anyway your review kinda cooled my off on the Rustler. I better stick to my Katanas and Bodacious.

[adrenalated]

If the 188 skis like a 184 the 192 will be like 188/189 or no? Anyway your review kinda cooled my off on the Rustler. I better stick to my Katanas and Bodacious.

Keep in mind that when I say it skis like a 184, I mean that it skis like a 184 from a company who measures the actual length of the ski after it's finished (ON3P). IE, it skis like a REAL 184. I didn't put a measuring tape on the Rustler but if it's anything like any other Blizzard I've seen, the 188 probably measures more like 185-186.

I wouldn't necessarily tell a Katana/Bodacious guy to not buy R11s. I just wouldn't buy a R11 as a direct replacement for those skis. I'd buy it as a more playful, easier going alternative that still has balls.
It's actually pretty similar to a Bibby Pro in a lot of ways.

[brown9]

Am I missing something or is the Rustler 9 a direct competitor to the M5 Mantra? Anyone skied the R9?

[mr_pretzel]

I’ll be riding the 192s tomorrow. Will report back

[prsboogie]

Am I missing something or is the Rustler 9 a direct competitor to the M5 Mantra? Anyone skied the R9?

I know it's only 94 under foot and the review I read was that it's a blast to ski, precise on hard pack and easy in 8" of fresh. Said it had the precision of the brahma without being demanding, which I never found the Brahma overly demanding myself.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

[brown9]

I know it's only 94 under foot and the review I read was that it's a blast to ski, precise on hard pack and easy in 8" of fresh. Said it had the precision of the brahma without being demanding, which I never found the Brahma overly demanding myself.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

Sounds super fun. I've never skied a Blizzard but am looking for a shallow snow ski for post rope tow laps with the kid, when the hill is skied out (but usually softer than not). R9 sounds like a great mix of edgability and still can break the tails loose in bumps to have a great afternoon all over the hill.

[Gone Skiing]

Definitely have to detune the shit out of the tips of these and any other Blizzard over 90mm. I like my Brahmas sharp sharp sharp. I've been primarily on the all metal Bodacious for like 5 years now, and I found the R11 a wonderful replacement. They have a lot of the power of the Bodacious with a lot more snap. They're so much lighter on your feet, but they can hang at speed, and they still do that thing the Bodacious loves to do where it can be pointed downhill, across the fall line, or anywhere in between while still moving downhill fast. Good skis.

[Flexon Phil]

Am I missing something or is the Rustler 9 a direct competitor to the M5 Mantra? Anyone skied the R9?

Completely different animals. The R9 is much more playful and a but damper. It had the edge in 3D mank and the M5 was actually really good on the packed snow. I will say stronger skier can overpower both.

[mr_pretzel]

Mini Review of Rustler 11, 192:

I like both more centered skis like the on3p kartel 116 and more traditional skis like the cochise. I like to ski hard and fast all over the mountain, catching air/spinning where I can. I like to drive a ski, but tend to adjust to skis easily and do not notice a large change in my stance between traditional and centred skis. Size: 6,1 165

Skied my heart out from bell to bell at Whistler today. Stormy, about 8-10" fresh, deeper where the wind had blown in snow. Mounted at +2 from recommended(-8 from true center).
True length of ski 190.5cm. Will update with weight.
Flex is somewhere around 3.5-4/5 on the praxis scale. A little softer hand flexing than the bibby.

The skis feel light on your feet and are easy to ski. They turn easily on hard snow but are somewhat slow edge to edge. Not very energetic in firm groomed areas, easy to see why the blister guys didn't love the ski as they probably only skied groomers on it.
However in any sort of soft snow, or variable they are great. They are definitely more on the carve'y side of the spectrum and do not feel very surfy. The tails of the skis release easily and the skis slarve well, and allow for easy adjustment of speed. Again, more of a traditional carve’y feel.

In pow they float decently well for the width and size. They feel
Loose and maneuverable, but not surfy. Easy to throw around and change direction, but hard to slash. Doesn’t like the fake faceshot slash turn. They are super fun in the trees, never felt to long and you could pivot on a dime.

In chop the skis have quite a high speed limit. Even at +2 you can keep a forward stance and pressure the tips. They are damp and composed, but it is noticeable that you do not have as much mass under you. The damp and light feeling is somewhat strange, but once you get used to it, it feels great. They are also great in the air with light swingweight for such a big ski. Tails are strong for landings, but forgiving if you need it.

193 gunsmoke comparison:
I skied the 193 gunsmoke a bunch last season. And while they have their similarities they are quite different. The gunsmokes where much more fun on groomers because of how loose they felt while still holding a good edge. The problem with the gunsmoke is that it did not float as well and is not as loose as the rustler in fresh. The swingweight of the 193 was also massive which discouraged tricks. The have about the same top end, rustlers may have a bit more beef.


I’d agree that they feel like a 190 bibby, but less surfy and more carve’y.
If your looking for something that is easy to ski but can still rally the rustler 11 is up there with the best. The light weight also keeps you stronger, longer.

[roQer]

Mini Review of Rustler 11, 192:

I like both more centered skis like the on3p kartel 116 and more traditional skis like the cochise. I like to ski hard and fast all over the mountain, catching air/spinning where I can. I like to drive a ski, but tend to adjust to skis easily and do not notice a large change in my stance between traditional and centred skis. Size: 6,1 165

Skied my heart out from bell to bell at Whistler today. Stormy, about 8-10" fresh, deeper where the wind had blown in snow. Mounted at +2 from recommended(-8 from true center).
True length of ski 190.5cm. Will update with weight.
Flex is somewhere around 3.5-4/5 on the praxis scale. A little softer hand flexing than the bibby.

The skis feel light on your feet and are easy to ski. They turn easily on hard snow but are somewhat slow edge to edge. Not very energetic in firm groomed areas, easy to see why the blister guys didn't love the ski as they probably only skied groomers on it.
However in any sort of soft snow, or variable they are great. They are definitely more on the carve'y side of the spectrum and do not feel very surfy. The tails of the skis release easily and the skis slarve well, and allow for easy adjustment of speed. Again, more of a traditional carve’y feel.

In pow they float decently well for the width and size. They feel
Loose and maneuverable, but not surfy. Easy to throw around and change direction, but hard to slash. Doesn’t like the fake faceshot slash turn. They are super fun in the trees, never felt to long and you could pivot on a dime.

In chop the skis have quite a high speed limit. Even at +2 you can keep a forward stance and pressure the tips. They are damp and composed, but it is noticeable that you do not have as much mass under you. The damp and light feeling is somewhat strange, but once you get used to it, it feels great. They are also great in the air with light swingweight for such a big ski. Tails are strong for landings, but forgiving if you need it.

193 gunsmoke comparison:
I skied the 193 gunsmoke a bunch last season. And while they have their similarities they are quite different. The gunsmokes where much more fun on groomers because of how loose they felt while still holding a good edge. The problem with the gunsmoke is that it did not float as well and is not as loose as the rustler in fresh. The swingweight of the 193 was also massive which discouraged tricks. The have about the same top end, rustlers may have a bit more beef.


I’d agree that they feel like a 190 bibby, but less surfy and more carve’y.
If your looking for something that is easy to ski but can still rally the rustler 11 is up there with the best. The light weight also keeps you stronger, longer.

Thanks, again a great review from a real skier. No need to downsize to 188 for guys > 6‘, eh?
You mind to draw some comparisons to the Cochise especially regarding insta speed scrubbing, pivotability and any turn shape, characteristics which skis with Blizzards rocker flat rocker or subtle reverse rocker profile a la Katana excel in?

[brown9]

Thanks, again a great review from a real skier. No need to downsize to 188 for guys > 6‘, eh?
You mind to draw some comparisons to the Cochise especially regarding insta speed scrubbing, pivotability and any turn shape, characteristics which skis with Blizzards rocker flat rocker or subtle reverse rocker profile a la Katana excel in?

Guessing Pretzl was on the 192

[mattig]

Mini Review of Rustler 11, 192:

I like both more centered skis like the on3p kartel 116 and more traditional skis like the cochise. I like to ski hard and fast all over the mountain, catching air/spinning where I can. I like to drive a ski, but tend to adjust to skis easily and do not notice a large change in my stance between traditional and centred skis. Size: 6,1 165

Skied my heart out from bell to bell at Whistler today. Stormy, about 8-10" fresh, deeper where the wind had blown in snow. Mounted at +2 from recommended(-8 from true center).
True length of ski 190.5cm. Will update with weight.
Flex is somewhere around 3.5-4/5 on the praxis scale. A little softer hand flexing than the bibby.

The skis feel light on your feet and are easy to ski. They turn easily on hard snow but are somewhat slow edge to edge. Not very energetic in firm groomed areas, easy to see why the blister guys didn't love the ski as they probably only skied groomers on it.
However in any sort of soft snow, or variable they are great. They are definitely more on the carve'y side of the spectrum and do not feel very surfy. The tails of the skis release easily and the skis slarve well, and allow for easy adjustment of speed. Again, more of a traditional carve’y feel.

In pow they float decently well for the width and size. They feel
Loose and maneuverable, but not surfy. Easy to throw around and change direction, but hard to slash. Doesn’t like the fake faceshot slash turn. They are super fun in the trees, never felt to long and you could pivot on a dime.

In chop the skis have quite a high speed limit. Even at +2 you can keep a forward stance and pressure the tips. They are damp and composed, but it is noticeable that you do not have as much mass under you. The damp and light feeling is somewhat strange, but once you get used to it, it feels great. They are also great in the air with light swingweight for such a big ski. Tails are strong for landings, but forgiving if you need it.

193 gunsmoke comparison:
I skied the 193 gunsmoke a bunch last season. And while they have their similarities they are quite different. The gunsmokes where much more fun on groomers because of how loose they felt while still holding a good edge. The problem with the gunsmoke is that it did not float as well and is not as loose as the rustler in fresh. The swingweight of the 193 was also massive which discouraged tricks. The have about the same top end, rustlers may have a bit more beef.


I’d agree that they feel like a 190 bibby, but less surfy and more carve’y.
If your looking for something that is easy to ski but can still rally the rustler 11 is up there with the best. The light weight also keeps you stronger, longer.

Thanks! This is helpful

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[mr_pretzel]

Thanks, again a great review from a real skier. No need to downsize to 188 for guys > 6‘, eh?
You mind to draw some comparisons to the Cochise especially regarding insta speed scrubbing, pivotability and any turn shape, characteristics which skis with Blizzards rocker flat rocker or subtle reverse rocker profile a la Katana excel in?

The ski never felt long at all and was so easy going even in tight trees I would say no need to downsize if your 6’, but the 188 will probably be very easy to trick. But reading the comments from other people in this thread leads me to think that the 188 is still a capable ski.
Again the ski is very easy to ski, I have only been on the newer version of the cochise with camber and the rustler feels much looser. It’s hard to explain the loose but carve’y feeling. The tail does not feel as locked in as the cochise.
I also forgot to mention that the turn radius feels somewhat larger than 23m, but not by much. The ski is easy to bend into all different turn shapes.

I have not skied any of the narrower full rocker skis like the katana/old cochise, only wider skis like the renegade/nocta etc all more on the centered spectrum, the rustler does not pivot as easily as those skis, but I dont think you want it to either.

I think you would really enjoy the ski as it is quite capable of chargy skiing, but not a total ass-kicker like the 192 faction dictators you have.

Also picked up a pair of old 186 Bodaciouses that I will be getting on soon. Will post up a comparisson.

[roQer]

Also picked up a pair of old 186 Bodaciouses that I will be getting on soon. Will post up a comparisson.

I look very much forward to this one.

[Hicks]

The ski never felt long at all and was so easy going even in tight trees I would say no need to downsize if your 6’, but the 188 will probably be very easy to trick. But reading the comments from other people in this thread leads me to think that the 188 is still a capable ski.
Again the ski is very easy to ski, I have only been on the newer version of the cochise with camber and the rustler feels much looser. It’s hard to explain the loose but carve’y feeling. The tail does not feel as locked in as the cochise.
I also forgot to mention that the turn radius feels somewhat larger than 23m, but not by much. The ski is easy to bend into all different turn shapes.

I think you would really enjoy the ski as it is quite capable of chargy skiing,

The 188s are 186 when measured with straight pulled tape fwiw and yes they are very capable, can subscribe to everything said here.

[AGbanjo_74]

Anyone else who's skied the new 187 bonafides and absolutely fallen for them? I typically ski 185 Cochises as my every day resort ski, but on a whim decided to demo some 187 bones and I think they might honestly be a more versatile ski. Haven't skied them in every condition yet though. Thoughts?

[swissbro]

I have a pair of new 187 Bonifides and they’ve taken the place of my Cochise 185s for piste skiing, but definitely not for mixed conditions off piste.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[couchsending]

The OG smokes' with metal are an amazing ski. Wish i could find another pair to hoard

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

There was never a Gunsmoke with metal other than the metal mounting point under foot. They were all basically the same construction except the very first 186s that were produced for samples and demos which were softer than the production ones that first year.

Am I missing something or is the Rustler 9 a direct competitor to the M5 Mantra? Anyone skied the R9?

I wouldn't say they're direct competitors. Definitely different skis and different targets. M5 is more of
a Bonafide type of ski in my opinion. R9 has more rocker, less metal, is lighter and all around kind of different.

I know it's only 94 under foot and the review I read was that it's a blast to ski, precise on hard pack and easy in 8" of fresh. Said it had the precision of the brahma without being demanding, which I never found the Brahma overly demanding myself.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

I think a lot of people will be surprised by the R9. Unfortunately we only have 172s and 180s at the moment, but the response has been rather positive. I think there were plenty of people had expectations just based on it's weight, shape, and price that it was gonna be kinda blah. On edge it's a ton of fun, carves really well, pulls through the turn nicely, etc. I'm a little too big for the 180 at 220 lbs so it gets deflecty on me in cut up crud but that isn't surprising considering it's rocker profile and weight. I think people will find it a really fun, lighter, do everything type of ski, for not a lot of money.

For those commenting on the comparison between a Cochise and a Rustler. The concept behind Rustler is to make the ends of the skis torsionally softer without making them that much softer lengthwise. This makes the tips and tails easier to release without making them floppy at speed. So you can still ski fast but shut em down easily. I like to say "easy not shitty". Typically something easy to ski means it has a speed limit or just isn't fun at speeds or variable conditions. I think the Rustler skis kind of buck that idea, other's that have skied them would probably agree. We use the unidirectional carbon in the tip and tail instead of the bidirectional carbon like in Cochise and Bonafide. The Uni carbon manages flex on one plane, so it lets the ends of the skis twist but helps to manage the longitudinal flex. The bidirectional carbon manages flex on two planes, both longitudinal and torsional.

On another note I'm on a personal crusade to update the Cochise or replace it with something in that 108mm waste width. Since there are so many people here that ski them now or have skied them in the past I'd love to know what people would like that ski to be. Thoughts on rocker profiles, constructions, flex, sidecut, weight are all welcome.

[mattig]

I'd read here previously that 193 gunsmokes had a different layup than the rest of the line, not that they incorporated metal (apart from binding retention plate), but we're simply a bit stiffer.

Can you confirm or deny?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[markcjr]

To update the Cochise: 188-190
More durable base and top sheet
And slightly higher tip and tail rise. Basically just keep it the same and make it a 188 or 190. Same Construction just more durable bases. But I think a little higher tip and tail would make it more useful for just busting crud, also ski pow better. Don't make it softer though or use the carbon. Just keep the metal top sheets

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[Banh Mi]

Can anyone confirm the Rustlers are better at speed than the gunsmokes/peacemakers


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums