Thread: 185 Blizzard Cochise observations...................questions

First off, YES I HAVE SEARCHED AND READ ALL RELATED THREADS.
this seems to be the most comprehensive/current one out right now. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=185+cochise

On with it....
I finally got to take out the pair of 185 Cochise I picked up earlier this season.
My first pair of rockered skis, but have a set of Titan Pros with drivers and a set of Titan 9's in 181 w/ H-Heads as my current quiver.


My impressions are that this ski is REALLY EASY to turn and SKI , pretty much any size/shape of turn you want; carving, slarving any size or shape.

Combined with FANTASTIC EDGE HOLD............I mean SHOCKING how well it hooks up this is a BLAST to run across the fall line at speed.
I could hear/feel the hardpack and icy sections as I crossed them, but never felt the ski deviate from direction once on edge.
VERY different from my Pros, which do not care for ice at all.

IMO the ski does NOT LIKE to be ridden flat, which is another way to say very stable on edge. I guess I am biased as the Pros love PTex down.
Has a damp feel, but I was able to get some slight pop from the tail loading it, but overall more of a “damp” feeling. With 2.5 sheets of Ti, that makes sense.
Not particularly fun in the bumps, but @ 108 under foot, I should expect that, as I am pretty weak bump skier to begin with.
What I found was that I felt more often I was driving the ski from my foot , as opposed to the shin/boot tongue. Actually, driving with the shin/boot (“old school” style) would really make the ski respond; seemed the harder I pushed, the tighter radius the turn it would make. I found that I ended up staying much more neutral and centered than really driving these most of the day.
The boards absolutely KILLED the crud/chopped/leftover snow; really stable and solid through SOFT choppy snow. I assume most metal rockered skis would do that however.

I really enjoyed these boards……….except for a couple of “issues”.
The flotation seemed less than what I was expecting (given the “mid-fat” designation); to the point where I felt I had to go from neutral/on the center to a bit “backseat” to keep the tips from diving.
I also saw some tip flap, which I was really surprised by, given the info I have gotten from TGR and EPIC reviews
Which leads me to my dilemma……...
I struggled on picking the 193 vs. 185, and went conservative as I was right inbetween the two sizes in height and weight.

At 5’10”, and 190#’s, I think I should have bought the 193’s
My style of skiing would be the standard TGR, aggresive/charging type ski style, but am lucky to ski 20 days a year.
I am coming off 16 years on Tele gear, and am a much better snowboarder than I am skier.
The last time I rode alpine gear was in 88', so there is that piece.
Which could mean I am a total hack bastard and am missing something here.

Has anyone of similar size ridden these/own these?
Opinions/ experience on sizing or ski characteristics?
Other boards to look at given my "issues"?

Thanks Mags.

I think you would maybe prefer the 193's. I'm 165# and haven't seen any tip flap - at all, so maybe it is the extra weight. Even when busting through crud. Flotation is fine. They're not Pontoons, of course, but you mentioned this is your first pair of rockered skis - here's the thing, you have to resist going back seat and trust the rocker (especially a low rise profile) to do it's job.

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I think you would maybe prefer the 193's. I'm 165# and haven't seen any tip flap - at all, so maybe it is the extra weight. Even when busting through crud. Flotation is fine. They're not Pontoons, of course, but you mentioned this is your first pair of rockered skis - here's the thing, you have to resist going back seat and trust the rocker (especially a low rise profile) to do it's job.

I actually weighed 180#'s when I bought these, so I might be over the edge "FAT" wise

On the rocker, I very well could have just been impatient with them.
I never really opened them up in the untracked (too many tree branches and what-not still sticking out of the snow), so maybe it had some element of not enough speed associated with it too.

thanks for the feedback

I'm 5'11" 215lbs And have the 185. I do notice some tip flap if I'm running them flat and doing Mach schnell on a firm groomer. Put them on edge tho and it goes away. Thoroughly happy with these. The dampness and low rise rocker works pretty well for me, especially in crud. Haven't had them out in deep powder yet so can't comment on that... Yet...

i'm 6' 185 and have the 193's. we've had a ton of pow this year so i've had them in a lot of different kinds of snow. They're a solid ski in most conditions and like to go fast. they have a lot of energy and generate a lot of lateral force btw turns which is super fun. For a 193 they're quick enough in tight spots but, as expected, definitely take more work than my powder skis with more exaggerated rocker. I have been surprised at how little floatation i get from them. i've gotten used to big rockered powder skis that i can lean into the tips even in deep snow. on the cochise i find myself driving the tips under all the time. even when there's only 4-5 inches of dense pow i still find the tips buried all the time. even at high speeds they dig in when i hit soft patches. going to a more neutral or backseat position helps but i feel like i lose some of the power and responsiveness of the ski. my take is that they're a rad ski for going fast in cut up or firm snow or blasting through variable conditions but are not much of a powder ski. mounted boot center at recommended mount point.

I've skied my 185 Cochises a decent amount this season, and I think they're a great all-around resort ski (I'm 5'11", 185lbs). I have noticed some tip flap, but it doesn't affect the ride quality, so I ignore it. As far as float, I haven't had them in any bottomless pow, but I've had several days in anywhere from 7" to 14" of medium density pow, and they floated just fine, though in a different way from my Bent Chetlers. The Chetlers are a more center-mounted pow ski, fatter underfoot (123mm vs 108mm), and with more aggressive rocker, so they tend to float more from underfoot and pivot a bit easier, whereas the Cochise has a narrower waist, more mild tip rocker profile, and a more rearward mount, so they tend to float the tips while sinking the waists slightly more. Still, I have been impressed with the float and have been happy skiing them in any pow I've encountered so far. Bear in mind that it takes some speed to plane the tips - you can't just inch forward and expect the tips to pop to the surface. The flip side is that the Cochise is much better on groomers, at speed, and in crud, so overall a better balance of skills. I'd still pick the Chetler for pure pow fun though.

Originally Posted by peeforward

i'm 6' 185 and have the 193's. we've had a ton of pow this year so i've had them in a lot of different kinds of snow. They're a solid ski in most conditions and like to go fast. they have a lot of energy and generate a lot of lateral force btw turns which is super fun. For a 193 they're quick enough in tight spots but, as expected, definitely take more work than my powder skis with more exaggerated rocker. I have been surprised at how little floatation i get from them. i've gotten used to big rockered powder skis that i can lean into the tips even in deep snow. on the cochise i find myself driving the tips under all the time. even when there's only 4-5 inches of dense pow i still find the tips buried all the time. even at high speeds they dig in when i hit soft patches. going to a more neutral or backseat position helps but i feel like i lose some of the power and responsiveness of the ski. my take is that they're a rad ski for going fast in cut up or firm snow or blasting through variable conditions but are not much of a powder ski. mounted boot center at recommended mount point.

Boot center @ rec mount also.
I wonder if going back a hair would make it any different, or if the skis are just too stiff to float, or have too little rocker and waist width.

Either way, I think I will be selling these and looking for a 193 Cochise, or even a Wren or Bela.

Originally Posted by crank54

I've skied my 185 Cochises a decent amount this season, and I think they're a great all-around resort ski (I'm 5'11", 185lbs). I have noticed some tip flap, but it doesn't affect the ride quality, so I ignore it. As far as float, I haven't had them in any bottomless pow, but I've had several days in anywhere from 7" to 14" of medium density pow, and they floated just fine, though in a different way from my Bent Chetlers. The Chetlers are a more center-mounted pow ski, fatter underfoot (123mm vs 108mm), and with more aggressive rocker, so they tend to float more from underfoot and pivot a bit easier, whereas the Cochise has a narrower waist, more mild tip rocker profile, and a more rearward mount, so they tend to float the tips while sinking the waists slightly more. Still, I have been impressed with the float and have been happy skiing them in any pow I've encountered so far. Bear in mind that it takes some speed to plane the tips - you can't just inch forward and expect the tips to pop to the surface. The flip side is that the Cochise is much better on groomers, at speed, and in crud, so overall a better balance of skills. I'd still pick the Chetler for pure pow fun though.

cool, thanks crank.

I'm 180 x 83 and totally happy with the way 185 cochise works. Imvho it's not an epic day ski, but an incredible tool as a resort ski. It's supereasy to turn, keeps an edge on hard and ice as no one else in its category does, rip crud and crust as only metal skis can do... and tip flap is truly minimal.
I'd like to compare them with w112 and hoji in the future.

Originally Posted by gASSyrOBOt

Boot center @ rec mount also.
I wonder if going back a hair would make it any different, or if the skis are just too stiff to float, or have too little rocker and waist width.

Either way, I think I will be selling these and looking for a 193 Cochise, or even a Wren or Bela.

A longer ski might help you, but if you feel the 185 cochise is too stiff I don't think you'll like wrens either. I own wrens, have tried cochises --> wrens are a different beast. I'm considering going the other way next year.
I don't know how cochises compare to belafontes, but my impression is that wrens and belafontes are pretty much the same flexwise. But then again....if you're looking for float, why go down in waistsize from the cochise?

Originally Posted by sf

A longer ski might help you, but if you feel the 185 cochise is too stiff I don't think you'll like wrens either. I own wrens, have tried cochises --> wrens are a different beast. I'm considering going the other way next year.
I don't know how cochises compare to belafontes, but my impression is that wrens and belafontes are pretty much the same flexwise. But then again....if you're looking for float, why go down in waistsize from the cochise?

Wren is 113 waist, Bela is 106.
Pretty much the same as 108 AFAIAC.

The "too stiff" comment was referring to the lack of float in the Cochise.
I ski a Titan Pro, so the Cochise is easy to turn and flex compared to the TP (was under the impression that only a handful of skis rival the TP in flex XXL, Tanker, Squad, etc.)

I am just suggesting, if I cannot get a mid fat that has decent float, I would just get a charger and deal with the tip dive; simply expected to have better flotation given the 108mm mid fat designation.

What I really want is a charger that can hold a great edge, blast crud/chop/variable, has enough girth to give the ability to not bottom scrape on DEEP days (the Cochise does this), but there are other boards that have a higher speed limit.
I would personally work HARDER on the ski, to gain that greater speed.

Maybe the 193 Cochise is that ski, but I do not feel the 185 Cochise is..................FOR ME anyway.




The Cochise is a "more forgiving" ski............which is great, but flappy tips and no float seem like I just as soon use a burlier and/or longer set of boards.

193 is definitely a different animal than the 185. At your height and weight the 193 would allow you to charge harder and you would definitely get more float. I've got you by about 20lbs and 2" and the 185 would definitely dive on me and had a bit of a speed limit. Unfortunately I busted myself up before the 193s showed up last spring but the feedback I get from people that are on them is that the 193 is much more of a charger than the 185 especially if you're kind of in between sizes. 193 was going to be my ski this year but I'm still not able to flex a boot so hopefully next year.

Originally Posted by wasatchback

193 is definitely a different animal than the 185. At your height and weight the 193 would allow you to charge harder and you would definitely get more float. I've got you by about 20lbs and 2" and the 185 would definitely dive on me and had a bit of a speed limit. Unfortunately I busted myself up before the 193s showed up last spring but the feedback I get from people that are on them is that the 193 is much more of a charger than the 185 especially if you're kind of in between sizes. 193 was going to be my ski this year but I'm still not able to flex a boot so hopefully next year.

This is what I was hoping to hear.

sorry to hear your busted up, but as you know, this year has kinda' sucked BALLZ.
I know it is not really any comfort, but worst year I can remember here in Colo since like 92 (maybe one or two years in the late 90's).

Thanks for the input, you were one of the few guys that really seemed to "know" this ski when I was doing research earlier this season.