What's Blizzard up to?

[Gweilo]

It does indeed ! Actually did the upgrade and they do ski way better [emoji1303]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Flippo]

It does indeed ! Actually did the upgrade and they do ski way better [emoji1303]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Did you size up/down? I used to have the old R9 in 180cm and I loved how it skied but did not like the tip of the ski flapping at speed. I think that the new design solved that and I am about to buy it in the offseason as bump / steep offpiste ski. I was thinking to dowsize to 174cm for that use what do you think?

My other skis are the 176cm line blade (fun on low angle stuff) and 179cm Deathwish (newish snow) and I am 5"9' 165lbs. Thanks!

[Gweilo]

Did you size up/down? I used to have the old R9 in 180cm and I loved how it skied but did not like the tip of the ski flapping at speed. I think that the new design solved that and I am about to buy it in the offseason as bump / steep offpiste ski. I was thinking to dowsize to 174cm for that use what do you think?

My other skis are the 176cm line blade (fun on low angle stuff) and 179cm Deathwish (newish snow) and I am 5"9' 165lbs. Thanks!

Sorry I was actually talking about the updated zero G 105 [emoji51]

Dunno abt the R9 but the new R10 does ski longer than the previous gen and that’s a good thing considering the rockers.Although I did not try both (I’d rather ski Brahmas for those type of conditions) I would probably not size down [emoji2371]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Flippo]

Sorry I was actually talking about the updated zero G 105 [emoji51]

Dunno abt the R9 but the new R10 does ski longer than the previous gen and that’s a good thing considering the rockers.Although I did not try both (I’d rather ski Brahmas for those type of conditions) I would probably not size down [emoji2371]


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

My bad. Thank you for your input!

[skibrd]

Sold my red R9s and need to replace them. Is the new/current R10 fixed? Sounds like it is, but I’m still nervous about replacing my last gen R9s with the current R10s as my fun goof around ski. I’m keeping my Kastle MX88 and MX98s as my charging hard skis.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gregL]

Did you size up/down? I used to have the old R9 in 180cm and I loved how it skied but did not like the tip of the ski flapping at speed. I think that the new design solved that and I am about to buy it in the offseason as bump / steep offpiste ski. I was thinking to dowsize to 174cm for that use what do you think?

My other skis are the 176cm line blade (fun on low angle stuff) and 179cm Deathwish (newish snow) and I am 5"9' 165lbs. Thanks!

Get the 180. I'm about the same size and think the new 180 Rustler 9 is right on.

[gregL]

Sold my red R9s and need to replace them. Is the new/current R10 fixed? Sounds like it is, but I’m still nervous about replacing my last gen R9s with the current R10s as my fun goof around ski. I’m keeping my Kastle MX88 and MX98s as my charging hard skis.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I think the new Rustler 10 is "fixed" but it's still not really a replacement for the Rustler 9 on firm snow - I'd get a new R9 instead.

[skibrd]

I think the new Rustler 10 is "fixed" but it's still not really a replacement for the Rustler 9 on firm snow - I'd get a new R9 instead.

What about slush, corn, sandy manmade slop, general spring conditions? I have the MX88s and MX98s for firm snow, Shiros for if it ever snows again in the North East, need something in the middle if that makes sense?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gregL]

What about slush, corn, sandy manmade slop, general spring conditions? I have the MX88s and MX98s for firm snow, Shiros for if it ever snows again in the North East, need something in the middle if that makes sense?

That would be the Rustler 10. Pretty much described the conditions at Mission Ridge last week to a "T" - Slush and corn over ice, light rain, and standing water in places on the runs . . .

[skibrd]

That would be the Rustler 10. Pretty much described the conditions at Mission Ridge last week to a "T" - Slush and corn over ice, light rain, and standing water in places on the runs . . .

Thanks Greg, now to find a pair of 192s on sale. I’m sure soon enough


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gregL]

Thanks Greg, now to find a pair of 192s on sale. I’m sure soon enough

Sounds good. Hit me up if you ever make it back to Seattle!

[skibrd]

Sounds good. Hit me up if you ever make it back to Seattle!

Hopefully next winter, had to take some time to concentrate on work. Definitely miss checking in and skiing out west


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Spooky]

Did you size up/down? I used to have the old R9 in 180cm and I loved how it skied but did not like the tip of the ski flapping at speed. I think that the new design solved that and I am about to buy it in the offseason as bump / steep offpiste ski. I was thinking to dowsize to 174cm for that use what do you think?

My other skis are the 176cm line blade (fun on low angle stuff) and 179cm Deathwish (newish snow) and I am 5"9' 165lbs. Thanks!

I would stick with the 180. I demo'd a pair a week or two ago in the 180 and it skied fairly short to me. FWIW I usually ski on older gen 188 Rustler 11s, 180 Rustler 10s, 180 Bonafides.

[PhishingME]

Anyone been on the new series?

[VTskibum]

Does anyone make what would be a Rustler 8?

I'm a few years in on older R9s, Line Blades, and some wide skis when needed. I Like the current R9s and have skied Brahma 82, wondering if a Rustler 8 type ski would be? Living where I do in PA, like the mix of playful with some of the solid underfoot. Actually think the hingey nature of the older R9s worked pretty well to take the edge off tail release and turn engagement, especially in bumps and trees. Have other skis for really laying trenches, but the new R9s getting wider isn't making me want to replace w/ new ones.

[SchralphMacchio]

I’ve been wondering that myself for my low tide junk snow ski. Was thinking E88s/E89s might not be too far off because they do have a decent amount of tip and tail rocker (though also more camber than Rustler series). I ended up getting a deal on E94s and moving forward. The E94 seem to have more of a go fast and crush personality than my R11 though. I still think the Rustler series could use an 8 for low tide off piste tooling around and a 12 for deep days.

[noslow]

That new Anomaly 84 looks like a more playful Brahma 82 with its increased tail splay and slightly more forward mount point.
SkiEssentials did a video on it and thought it was easier off piste and smoother on piste than the Brahma 82.
So maybe in-between a Brahma 82 and Rustler 8?

[SchralphMacchio]

That’s pretty encouraging for those who want a Rustler 8. I’ll keep that A84 in mind as a more playful, partly metal complement to my E94. Seems like for the Brahma lovers however, losing some tail grip and metal and turning down the throttle may not be what they want?

I can’t be the only one who thinks an R12 is called for as well? Part of the issue is that in 180 the R11 is only 112mm - I love that ski for storm skiing early (fresh but not deep) or late (when it’s been packed down but is still soft) in a storm cycle, but not after a deep dump. I would love a 122mm ski at that same mount point that loves to carve, smear, or pivot in pow, and wants more to pop off of pillows than to smash through them at Mach 11.

[Gweilo]

That’s pretty encouraging for those who want a Rustler 8. I’ll keep that A84 in mind as a more playful, partly metal complement to my E94. Seems like for the Brahma lovers however, losing some tail grip and metal and turning down the throttle may not be what they want?

I can’t be the only one who thinks an R12 is called for as well? Part of the issue is that in 180 the R11 is only 112mm - I love that ski for storm skiing early (fresh but not deep) or late (when it’s been packed down but is still soft) in a storm cycle, but not after a deep dump. I would love a 122mm ski at that same mount point that loves to carve, smear, or pivot in pow, and wants more to pop off of pillows than to smash through them at Mach 11.

Looks like you are talking abt the spur here, asymmetrical or green one


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[SchralphMacchio]

Weren’t those always only available in the long 180s? I need like 179-182 cm as I’m only 140 lbs and 5’ 8”. Also I had always thought the Spur was marketed as more chargey and a bigger Bodacious? Maybe I just misunderstood the lineup.

[Gweilo]

Weren’t those always only available in the long 180s? I need like 179-182 cm as I’m only 140 lbs and 5’ 8”. Also I had always thought the Spur was marketed as more chargey and a bigger Bodacious? Maybe I just misunderstood the lineup.

I find the green one pretty surfy and smeary with plenty of float at 127 ! Also it starts at 159 all the way to 189 so you might want to check it out.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[SchralphMacchio]

I find the green one pretty surfy and smeary with plenty of float at 127 ! Also it starts at 159 all the way to 189 so you might want to check it out.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Thank you!

[meter-man]

For nerd posterity: I just weighed a pair of unmounted 188 Hustle 11s at Tahoe Sports Hub. They averaged 2170g/ski. I was inspired to measure because my 22/23 188 Rustler 11s weigh 2060g/ski, and I had read on Skialper and other sites that the Hustles were weighing in the same or more than Rustlers. I couldn't believe it, so had to verify. Wild.

I also weighed 184 Katana VWerks (avg 1900g/ski) and 188 QST Echo 106s (avg 1910g/ski).

I still would like to try the Hustles, but can't imagine buying them for a touring ski at that weight and usage.

[dwoovre]

The Blizzard website is truthful and agreed with your measurements. It’s puzzling that they spent time and money to design a product that not only misses a major requirement for consumers for its intended purpose, but is actually worse in that respect than another product that they already made.

…and it’s not like they have no experience designing lightweight skis.

[gregL]

The Blizzard website is truthful and agreed with your measurements. It’s puzzling that they spent time and money to design a product that not only misses a major requirement for consumers for its intended purpose, but is actually worse in that respect than another product that they already made.

…and it’s not like they have no experience designing lightweight skis.

Seconded. I'm a Blizzard guy, and own all the Rustlers plus all the Zero G's (plus some Bonafides and Bodacious) . . . and no Hustles.