What's Blizzard up to?

[mr_pretzel]

192’s are more or less the same as the 193s. They can both charge.

[couchsending]

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

Bases can't be more durable. The last 3 years they're made of 4000 base material. The most durable
made. We will never use extra thick bases, it screws with the performance and makes the skis really dead.

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

Yup, same goes for R11 (and R10 for that matter)

Longest lengths are stiffer construction and wider, next size down is slightly softer and slightly narrower. It's not necessarily the layup as much as it is the core thickness, but I'm not 100%
positive on that.

[markcjr]

I forgot to say I wanted the OG Cochise back. Basically in a 188 to 190. Pretty sure those weren't the most durable bases. Somehow I thought this was the other thread where we were talking about bringing back katanas and OG cochises and you would have already read that but different thread. It's all so confusing sometimes. Anyway, no camber, that ski didn't need it in my opinion

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[prsboogie]

I had the R10s in 188s in full on spring corn last week and they were completely stable, they hold an edge well but like a neutral centered stance. Once I got right with this I had a ton of fun on these. I an hoping we get the goods this Wednesday on the east coast so I can get them out in some fresh snow, and yes NY and southern Vt did just get a ton but of course I was in New Hampshire! I do feel like these are going to be a daily ski for me except for those days when I need to be on 72mm ice skates.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

[meepmoop24]

I have the Cochise with carbon tips/tails. I'd like it to be rocker, flat, camber, similar to how the old Spur is (I have a pair of those and love how easy they are to pivot).

Regarding the comment about bases, I don't think the bases on any of my Blizzards are that durable, especially when compared to Moment or ON3P. The Cochise isn't exactly an energetic ski to begin with, so not sure how using a thicker base material would make it "dead" either. ON3P doesn't use metal in their skis, but they do have extra thick bases and a lot of their skis are still energetic, so it can definitely be done.

[TahoeJ]

I was going to say, ever skied a Praxis or ON3P? Their skis are damp but far from dead...

[smooth operator]

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.

OG cochise is still a favorite here. Bring that one back. Perhaps slight increase in tip splay to improve powder performance, but otherwise it is awesome as it is.

[trex_9]

Bases can't be more durable. The last 3 years they're made of 4000 base material. The most durable
made. We will never use extra thick bases, it screws with the performance and makes the skis really dead.




Yup, same goes for R11 (and R10 for that matter)

Longest lengths are stiffer construction and wider, next size down is slightly softer and slightly narrower. It's not necessarily the layup as much as it is the core thickness, but I'm not 100%
positive on that.

Thanks for clarifying. I too read the same thing re older gunsmokes, which i thought was from someone inside blizzard. Guess it was just that they are different construction, a bit stiffer, but not any more metal. Either way, they are awesome skis..

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[adrenalated]

Bases can't be more durable. The last 3 years they're made of 4000 base material. The most durable
made. We will never use extra thick bases, it screws with the performance and makes the skis really dead.

More dead provided you don't change the core materials, that I believe. Otherwise... no. You really need to ski something (anything) built by ON3P. Every ON3P I've skied has much more pop and life than any Blizzard I've skied, and they use extra thick bases. It's certainly possible.

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.

Camber underfoot, rockered tip, low rise tail, turn radius at least 25m, and a size available around 182-184cm true length (actual length tip-to-tail after the ski is pressed), flex similar to or a bit stiff than R11. Don't need to be light.

[roQer]

More dead provided you don't change the core materials, that I believe. Otherwise... no. You really need to ski something (anything) built by ON3P. Every ON3P I've skied has much more pop and life than any Blizzard I've skied, and they use extra thick bases. It's certainly possible.



Camber underfoot, rockered tip, low rise tail, turn radius at least 25m, and a size available around 182-184cm true length (actual length tip-to-tail after the ski is pressed), flex similar to or a bit stiff than R11. Don't need to be light.

Go and ski your ON3Ps. You obviously do not understand what makes the Cochise so special. We don’t need another fuckin rocker-camber-rocker ski with pop and mid 20 radius.
OG Cochise should be back, ideally with another size option between 193 and 185 like 188-189.

[gregorys]

Go and ski your ON3Ps. You obviously do not understand what makes the Cochise so special. We don’t need another fuckin rocker-camber-rocker ski with pop and mid 20 radius.
OG Cochise should be back, ideally with another size option between 193 and 185 like 188-189.

And don't forget a short version for us more hobbit-sized folk.
High 170's, or 180 at max.

[swissbro]

I skied my Rustler 11 188s today. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything that has been posted about it. It is such an easy ski to ride that it feels almost effortless at any speed. I also found it skied well on steep terrain straight down the fall line with any radius turn. Coming from several years on the OG Cochise and Bodacious I kept waiting for it to reach a speed limit due to how light it feels. Never happened. I also made a few runs on boilerplate in the shade where I expected a harsh, rough ride. I thought it was as smooth or smoother than my Cochises. I have them mounted on the line. I'm 5'11" 185.

[AGbanjo_74]

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

Pick either 185 or 192, I've skied both and the 185 skis just as hard and fast as the 192 with the added benefit of being a little quicker. Also the Cochise does not need more tip splay at either end—the essentially flat tails are wonderful for skiing crud

[markcjr]

I just want the OG Cochise back. That's really all I want. No camber and Metal.

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[Eluder]

anybody play with the mount point on their rustlers? Im thinking about moving back from recommended on my 11's

[ticketchecker]

anybody play with the mount point on their rustlers? Im thinking about moving back from recommended on my 11's

I’m considering it with my 10’s. Got them used and was able to use existing mount which has me +.5.

Was skiing them Friday in 5” new on top of prior days 20” and was crossing my tips all over the place. Switched skis after five runs and no more crossing.

If I keep them I’ll probably go -1

[TahoeJ]

Go and ski your ON3Ps. You obviously do not understand what makes the Cochise so special. We don’t need another fuckin rocker-camber-rocker ski with pop and mid 20 radius.
OG Cochise should be back, ideally with another size option between 193 and 185 like 188-189.

I have probably 70-80 days on the OG Cochise. Great skis but tips didn’t have enough splay in powder. Regardless, that doesn’t make adrenalated wrong about skis with thicker bases being capable of being just as lively.

[JaytaeMoney]

More tip splay on the OG? Hell no. #NotMyCochise

[Hicks]

If I keep them I’ll probably go -1

That's where I mounted mine and they ski $$$$ in all conditions. Should work perfect if you are a more traditional skier.

[TahoeJ]

More tip splay on the OG? Hell no. #NotMyCochise

If you’re using a different ski for deep days then sure, that makes sense.

[ticketchecker]

That's where I mounted mine and they ski $$$$ in all conditions. Should work perfect if you are a more traditional skier.

That's me, face first no spinny

[kicool]

Anyone ski the 188 r11 +2cm or more from of recommended?

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[couchsending]

I think there could be something done to the tip design to help them plane better in deeper snow. The first gen tip profile is so low that it just tended to submarine. Not sure it needs more "rocker" just potentially a better tip shape of some sort.

[mr_pretzel]

Anyone ski the 188 r11 +2cm or more from of recommended?

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

I'm skiing the 192 at +2 and love it. Feels like the ski has quite a large sweet spot to mount on too.
I've seen on instagram that a bunch of the pros also mount the 188 +2.

[toast2266]

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.

I'd be happy with any of the first 3 years of Cochise coming back. Maybe forgo the Texas / stars topsheet this time around.

That said, if I was going to tweak it, I would (in order of importance)
1) Don't make it lighter. The 185ish length should be a 2400g ski.
2) Don't fuck with the OG Cochise's shape. No tip taper / pintail. That's how Dynastar went wrong. And the radius should stay pretty close to 30m, or even a bit longer.
3) I'd prefer a ski that's heavy and damp and not that stiff over a ski that's super stiff but lighter and less damp. There's no shortage of skis that are decently stiff due to a bunch of carbon, but they're light and harsh.
3) The ski would be ok with a very moderate amount of camber, but it's probably better if it's flat or full reverse.
4) If I was going to mess with the flex, I'd maybe soften the tips just a tiny bit to help them plane up in pow a little better.