184 4frnt devastator vs 185 blizzard cochise

**02sedona** · 12-08-2013, 11:16 PM

Wondering if anyone who has tried both these skis can help describe any differences between the two skis. I enjoyed my 185 cochise last season until one ski delaminated and broke. Looking to replace it with a 184 or 194 devastator. I have skied the older 4frnt 182 and 189 turbos. I liked the 189 more. Never tried 193 cochise. I also have a 196 bodacious for pow and 186 dynastar lp's for hard snow. Wanting a ski that fits in between the two for everyday.

**verbier61** · 02-05-2014, 04:20 AM

Spent a lot of days on the 185 cochise and one single day on the devastator so far. The devastator is way more nimble, easy and fun, and after this single day haven't reached its limits. The cochise is a stellar ski, but certainly not the one you can sleep on. Would like to explore more the devastator to find differences on different terrain.

**Banh Mi** · 02-12-2014, 06:33 PM

blister gear says the cochise is lighter, more nimble and forgiving, while the devastator is more ski to handle. Why such opposite takes ?

**Lindahl** · 02-12-2014, 06:38 PM

Probably depends on skiing style - where your weight is. One might be more forgiving of backseat driving, while the other may be a lot more nimble when tips are driven hard.

**Smails** · 02-12-2014, 06:40 PM

Would love to hear more on this too.

Not to thread jack, but would love to hear a three way comparison that includes the Katana too.

**Banh Mi** · 02-12-2014, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Probably depends on skiing style - where your weight is. One might be more forgiving of backseat driving, while the other may be a lot more nimble when tips are driven hard.

Sounds right, but whos skiing backseat and whose driving hard, verbier or blistergear. Or which ski likes to have its tips driven more, cochise or devastator.

Would also like to see a threesome comparison between the mid 180s katana, cochise, and devastator. Specifically as a daily driver on the west coast.

**Smails** · 02-12-2014, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by vailszendrei

Sounds right, but whos skiing backseat and whose driving hard, verbier or blistergear. Or which ski likes to have its tips driven more, cochise or devastator.

Would also like to see a threesome comparison between the mid 180s katana, cochise, and devastator. Specifically as a daily driver on the west coast.

My guess that they are BOTH relatively nimble skis for their size and purpose and that reasonable minds can disagree on the "feel" of a ski, particularly when one is a metal laminate ski and the other is not.

As for driving the tips, it seems the Blister boys seem to demand that from a ski. For example, they seemed to find the Nordica Patron to be a foldy/floppy ski despite that just about any other review out there on that ski seems to be glowing. But it sounded like the soft tips just didn't agree with the Blister guys.

But back to the Devastator . . .

**Banh Mi** · 02-12-2014, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Smails

My guess that they are BOTH relatively nimble skis for their size and purpose and that reasonable minds can disagree on the "feel" of a ski, particularly when one is a metal laminate ski and the other is not.

As for driving the tips, it seems the Blister boys seem to demand that from a ski. For example, they seemed to find the Nordica Patron to be a foldy/floppy ski despite that just about any other review out there on that ski seems to be glowing. But it sounded like the soft tips just didn't agree with the Blister guys.

But back to the Devastator . . .

I had the 193 patron and hated it, also found it floppy and wierd for how heavy it was, did not like the balance of the ski but everyone has a difference in opinion. Less chargey than my 196 Governor and less playful as well, idk how that works. I bet the bibby pro blows it away. Although the patron did rail groomers well.

True maybe just the lightness of the cochise is what blister was talking about, and verbier is talking about the flex pattern of the devastator without metal.

**tpacent** · 02-12-2014, 10:41 PM

Blister compared the 194 devastator and the 193 Cochise. 194 devastator is longer and is 111 underfoot while the 193 Cochise is 108 cm. Basically more ski. I think that the 185 Cochise and the 184 devastator are a different comparison than their bigger brothers. Both skis are 108 under foot and the length is almost the same. I have skied the 185 Cochise and found it pretty nimble and am dying to try the 184 devastator.

**verbier61** · 02-13-2014, 02:23 AM

Skied the devastator in pow. It's really more fun than the cochise. So far I'm more and more impressed...

**Banh Mi** · 08-24-2014, 09:26 PM

anyone have any more info on the 184 devastator? Is it a lot more playful than the cochise, while still retaining 80% of the crud busting ability?

**Timberridge** · 08-25-2014, 11:26 AM

I did a mini review on the Devastator thread (184) here...somewhere--can't compare it to the Cochise because I never skied the Cochise.

I see the '13/14 going for $325 at BC though--you be hard pressed to find something better for that money, I'd think.

**allTandA** · 08-26-2014, 10:02 PM

i ski the 193 cocheese and find it pretty damn nimble and playful considering its a metal laminate battleship that fears no crud. also- anyone with time on long one will tell ya mount point makes a big dif. i am +1.5

just saying.

**roQer** · 08-27-2014, 12:51 PM

I own and ski both, 193 cochise and 194 devastator. Both are stout and heavy planks for raging all over the mountain. Both are quite easy to ski, though extremely stable and without a speed limit. The cochise is more fun on hardpack due to it's nearly zero camber. The fully rockered devastator is better in powder. The recommended mounting point on devastators is really weird for an obvious charger. I mounted mine at -2 and felt still uncomfortable with a lot of tail. Next time I'd rather go -5 or something. At current prices for the 13/14 model the devastators are no brainers, even if for just landings on shit.