What's Blizzard up to?

[LC]

I was looking at the zero g 108.
Any idea how it skis compared to the carbon katana, or the metal if you only skied that?

I've never skied any Volkl carbon/V-Werks. Both of my Katanas are the full-rocker-low metal versions (11/12 & 12/13). 100% different skis in every aspect anyway: weight, length, flex, construction, taper, radius... The numbers suggest that the 108 is a heavier construction than the 95.

It's really tough to make a lightweight ski well in variable. They simply lack mass to push snow around. Taking the side edge bevels down to 1* and dulling the whole ski considerably helps a little, tend to get less deflection

Yep, physics is physics. I wasn't expecting it to cut through chop like the longer metal skis I own. Some write-ups seem a little exaggerated for its variable snow performance; I'm just telling my experience to balance that. Maybe if it was sized over head-height it might be a different story. It's a niche ski for me and the weight is very nice on the way up.

I retuned the side edges to 1 degree after a couple of days on them but have only skied soft untracked snow on them since. I'll probably to detune the tip and tail heavily and maybe blunt the whole edge slightly but want to get them on some firm steep terrain first which is what I really bought them for.

Might swap with a friend's 14/15 Carbon Converts one day for a comparison.

[Beder]

Bonafides need a tune and would like to match the factory spec. Was it 1*/3* ?
Also looking for a new Brahma 187. I see them for $650, but yeah...

[wasatchback]

Bonafides need a tune and would like to match the factory spec. Was it 1*/3* ?
Also looking for a new Brahma 187. I see them for $650, but yeah...

Yup 1/3... If you're skiing mostly off groomed 1/2 might be better

[andrewpringle]

Deleted

[skibrd]

Dreaming of the future, anyone hear any rumors or info about adding 193 cm length to the Zero G line? Ive been touring on 193 Scouts and would love to drop some weight and get a little stiffer.

[tone capone]

Just gonna be the squeaky wheel about maybe a bodacious dimension zero-g, cough cough...

[skibrd]

Just gonna be the squeaky wheel about maybe a bodacious dimension zero-g, cough cough...

But will it come in large person sized lengths, aka over 190? Some of us tall people actually still like long skis, even though they are heavier to tour on.

[mntlion]

193 zero G will be avail next winter, but in limited numbers. Pre-order from your local retailer.

[skibrd]

193 zero G will be avail next winter, but in limited numbers. Pre-order from your local retailer.

SWEETTTTT!!!!!!!!!! Almost time to retire the 193 Scouts for lighter Blizzard Zero G!

[wasatchback]

I'm amazed people really want that big of a backcountry ski. At 6'2" 220 I never felt the 185 108 was that undergunned in the BC. In resort maybe but never in untouched pow. I doubt there will be very many 192 108s around so if you want one you might need to pre order like mntlion suggested.

Looks like no Zero G Bodacious in the future. However there might be a new 116-114 waste in a light construction. We'll see. Just started testing new protos last month.

[gregL]

Just started testing new protos last month.

Carbon flax weave? Deal me in.

[skibrd]

I'm amazed people really want that big of a backcountry ski. At 6'2" 220 I never felt the 185 108 was that undergunned in the BC. In resort maybe but never in untouched pow. I doubt there will be very many 192 108s around so if you want one you might need to pre order like mntlion suggested.

Looks like no Zero G Bodacious in the future. However there might be a new 116-114 waste in a light construction. We'll see. Just started testing new protos last month.

Anything under 187 feels short to me, unless its a pair of dedicated carving skis, i.e. Nordic Firearrows or Blizzard Quattro in a 180. That probably sounds very JONG like, but the last pair of short touring skis I tried (Kitten Factory Tour Lights or what ever they are called) felt like ski blades, and they were 184s.

No Zero G Bodacious, meh, Spurs work fine if its crazy crazy deep and I feel like dragging them up hill. Or Ill just be deeper in the snow on 108s.

116-114? Like a touring/light construction Gunsmoke? Thats drool worthy! The Gunsmoke charges, and I heard rumors of two models of the Gunsmoke next year, one identical to the past few years and a stiffer one. If the stiffer model is available to the public, not just the athletes, Id replace my 3 year old Gunsmokes with that ski.

Ill see if my local shop can preorder them for me. If not I may have to go pay GregL a visit.

[gregL]

If not I may have to go pay GregL a visit.

That rumor may be unfounded - I wrote our product descriptions a couple weeks ago for Blizzard, and there's only one Gunsmoke on order. I plan on owning a pair, though.

[tenB]

116-114? Like a touring/light construction Gunsmoke? Thats drool worthy! The Gunsmoke charges, and I heard rumors of two models of the Gunsmoke next year, one identical to the past few years and a stiffer one. If the stiffer model is available to the public, not just the athletes, Id replace my 3 year old Gunsmokes with that ski.

Ill see if my local shop can preorder them for me. If not I may have to go pay GregL a visit.

Line Mordecai is a lighter and stiffer version of the Gunsmoke. I skied half a day on them and they were significantly stiffer under the foot than I expected. Nimble, lightweight, chargers, I was impressed. Much stiffer then the Jeffery or Gunsmoke and charged through tracked up snow. Very underrated ski imo.

[XavierD]

Line Mordecai is... ...stiffer then the Jeffery or Gunsmoke and charged through tracked up snow.

Were you high when you skied it? Or just didn't notice the tips folding up in front of you and tail washing out in a turn?

[mall walker]

I'm amazed people really want that big of a backcountry ski.

Kick turns would be a bitch...

[tenB]

Were you high when you skied it? Or just didn't notice the tips folding up in front of you and tail washing out in a turn?

Have you skied them? For reference, other skis that I like; 192 cochise, 193 gunsmoke, 194 devastator, 191 billygoat. I stand by what I said, the 193 mordacai is no floppy jib ski. It is also significantly lighter than any of the above skis.

[undertow2]

That rumor may be unfounded - I wrote our product descriptions a couple weeks ago for Blizzard, and there's only one Gunsmoke on order. I plan on owning a pair, though.

This ski shocked the shit out of me... Thanks to Banditman I scored these 193s on STP for $219 shipped and absolutely love them... Fun as hell and have not found a weakness... Great in POW, charges and just makes terrain fun... And to boot it will rip groomers...

[wasatchback]

be deeper in the snow on 108s.

116-114? Like a touring/light construction Gunsmoke? Thats drool worthy! The Gunsmoke charges, and I heard rumors of two models of the Gunsmoke next year, one identical to the past few years and a stiffer one. If the stiffer model is available to the public, not just the athletes, Id replace my 3 year old Gunsmokes with that ski.

Ill see if my local shop can preorder them for me. If not I may have to go pay GregL a visit.

193 Gunsmoke is stiffer than the 186. Constructions are different. 186 is meant to be more playful, 193 is a more of a charger. This is how they always have been. I think Loic won his first title skiing the 186 but might have used the 193 more this year.

A replacement to the Gunsmoke won't be out until 17/18. Expect a similar thought process in that execution. First round of protos were tested last month in one size. Plenty of tweaks still to be made based on feedback from the guys on that trip.

Gunsmokes and Peacemakers are the most underrated skis in our lineup I think. Really fun but still have that stable dependable feel. Funny how the Gunsmoke has been out for 5 years now but people are finally starting to get out on it and realize it's pretty darn good.

[smooth operator]

Gunsmoke has been my favorite this season. I'm too small for a 193 but i think the 186 still rips!

Don't change it!

[XavierD]

While we are talking about skis Blizzard should build...or let me prototype...
-189-191cm sized 14/15 Bodacious! with a black top sheet similar to the current Spur or Shop Employee Cochise/Brahmas
and/or
-189cm 15/16 Bodacious with a slightly broader tip profile (less aggressive tip taper)
-116-120mm wide Gunsmoke.
- A longer Peacemaker

Have you skied them? For reference, other skis that I like; 192 cochise, 193 gunsmoke, 194 devastator, 191 billygoat. I stand by what I said, the 193 mordacai is no floppy jib ski. It is also significantly lighter than any of the above skis.

I have only skied the 186, and thought it was soft.

[tenB]

Cochise 192 vs 193

Long time Cochise skier here, chiming in on the difference of the new generation 15/16 vs the older versions. After skiing the new 192s for the better part of a season and having several years of skiing the older 193s, I thought I'd write up a review of the differences I felt.

For reference, both skis are mounted +2 from recommended line with sth16s. They both have the same tune/detune. I'm 6'2" 220.

First thing I noticed on the new 192 model while I was mounting them is that they appear more than 1 cm smaller than the original 193s. The tips on the new ones are significantly more tapered and drilling into them I could see that the construction was similar with two sheets of titanium, wood core etc. The new ones have much more camber than the old version, and the new ones appear to have less rocker in the tips and tails than original 193s. Weight seemed about the same, both are relatively heavy.

Ski test; The new 192s have much less tip flop compared to the old version, which is evident in the lift line. First run, it was obvious that the new version is a much more powerful turning ski and the camber makes turn initiation significantly quicker. The tails on the new 192s are much more powerful and you can finish turns and accelerate out of turns, where I thought the older 193s relied more on gravity to generate speed. The 192s are more of a hands on ski, and while still very easy to ski, they are not as surfy or intuitive as the original cochises.

In powder; This is where I thought the original Cochise showed its biggest weakness and why I never considered it a quiver of 1 ski. I always reached for wider skis when it dumped, especially in the pnw. The new version is significantly better in powder as the stiffer tip and tail let you power through it at mach speed. While I like more rocker in wider skis, the cochise at only 108 is really benefiting from a more stable platform in powder and crud. I would have no hesitation traveling anywhere in the world with only the new 192s in tow.

Chopped up snow, crud; This is where I thought the original cochise was in its element as you could just bash junky snow and let the ski do its thing. The softer tail took the shock out of bumps especially at speed and created a powerful nimbleness that I have yet to find in another ski. The new cochise loses out here, and while still plenty capable it takes more skill and forward style to ski similar lines and it is just not as smooth an operator in those conditions.

Groomers; Since this is my smallest ski, it has to be up to the task of ripping groomers when needed. While many thought the old cochise was too squishy a tail for groomers, I had a different opinion, especially skied with speed. The old 193s could be loaded harder into turns with higher angulation and they would truck along hunting the fall line. For tail gunners that rely on stiff tails to steer, these didn't work, but if you ski with middle of the ski and let the skis work away from the body, gs style, they were flat out awesome. The new 192s may lose a little in that smooth silky category, but they are absolutely crushers in their own right on groomers. They are more powerful, turn quicker, and still can straightline that mach steady that the original version was great at. Hands down my favorite aspect of the old 193s is the ability to go from 60-0 at will. It allowed me to ski the whole mountain faster knowing that I could shut it down whenever needed. They new 192s are very similar, but do take slightly more effort to shut down.

In conclusion; If I give the original version 4.5 stars, I would rate the new ones 4.75, mostly because they are slightly more versatile. They are more high strung than the original version which may better for some, although I would say they take a bit more skill, so no idea what that means as far as Blizzard sales. I disagree with Blizzard's marketing of the new version as an easier to ski cochise. Imo, the older cochise, especially in 185 was a very easy ski to ski well. Bottom line, I'm keeping both. I'll use the old ones early season, then switch to the new ones when the coverage gets better. I'll still keep a pair of bigger skis for storm days in the cascades.

[Lindahl]

I like your Bodacious suggestions. I'd like a narrower one though.

[skibrd]

Gunsmokes and Peacemakers are the most underrated skis in our lineup I think. Really fun but still have that stable dependable feel. Funny how the Gunsmoke has been out for 5 years now but people are finally starting to get out on it and realize it's pretty darn good.

Gunsmokes dont get the credit they deserve. They rock in everything from one head blower to icy crapy refrozen shit (very technical conditions). Sounds like Ill have to grab an extra pair or two if they are getting phased out.

[gregL]

Gunsmokes dont get the credit they deserve.

They do at my house. Spent more time on the Gunsmoke than anything else in the quiver last season.