Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 LastLast
Results 976 to 1,000 of 1012
  1. #976
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps
    Posts
    545
    Playful is not the first word that comes to mind when talking about the bodes, but i am about half your size so maybe you'll feel different about it. I've never been on a shiro, but have gunsmokes that I like, except for the tail rocker. Maybe I should get some Rustlers: are they the middle ground between smokes and bodes? Or I should just shut up and go skiing, it is finally dumping again

  2. #977
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calgary/Golden
    Posts
    5,586
    Quote Originally Posted by roQer View Post
    Loved my OG Bodacious as well but to tell the true Rustler 11 is far superior in soft conditions. More agile, floats as well or even better, any turn shape possible, and donít give much up in terms of stability, at least in the 192 length.
    I thought about adding a Rustler, but instead went with a 193(Spuríd) Bodacious. I think that will be different enough from my 186 Bode in the soft stuff.

    I like how easy the 186 is to pivot and slarve and how nimble it is, but how stable they are when you stand on them and let them run. Mntlion has to remind me to ďwatch my speedĒ in unfamiliar areas.


    Sent from inside the house
    It doesn't matter if you're a king or a little street sweeper...
    ...sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper
    -Death

    Kaz is my co-pilot

  3. #978
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    366

    What's Blizzard up to?

    Any beta on mounting the new true core (or whatever they call it) Brahma? Measured my pair and it comes out at -11.5 cm from center recommended. Seems to my pretty far back. Any thoughts from those who skied them about mounting at +2, i.e. -8.5 from center?
    Iíve got the Brahma in 189 cm.

    Edit: sorry, itís the Bonafide. I always confuse them.
    Last edited by roQer; 02-07-2020 at 01:00 PM.

  4. #979
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,281
    I wouldnít go forward, plenty of tail as it is. Hang on when you open them up. Feels like there is a rocketship on the tail which just takes over just before the apex of the turn. 183 was more versatile in non groomer firm snow and turn shape. 189 just wants to go down the hill in the fastest way possible.

    Different core per size. 189 isnít just a longer 183.

  5. #980
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,269
    Anyone been on the new Cochise yet?

  6. #981
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I wouldnít go forward, plenty of tail as it is. Hang on when you open them up. Feels like there is a rocketship on the tail which just takes over just before the apex of the turn. 183 was more versatile in non groomer firm snow and turn shape. 189 just wants to go down the hill in the fastest way possible.

    Different core per size. 189 isnít just a longer 183.
    Thanks for the insights. I meant Bonafide not Brahma. Always confusing them.
    IĎm a little bit in doubt now because I didnít click with skis mounted further back than 8-9 cm for a while now. I was 2 days on a Mantra 102 in 184 and found it not really well balanced with not much tail support. It could be the 184 was just to short for me. I guess the longer tail on the Bones with almost non existent tail rocker should work better. Appears to me a tad stiffer as in M102 as well.

  7. #982
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    ut
    Posts
    777
    Quote Originally Posted by roQer View Post
    Thanks for the insights. I meant Bonafide not Brahma. Always confusing them.
    IĎm a little bit in doubt now because I didnít click with skis mounted further back than 8-9 cm for a while now. I was 2 days on a Mantra 102 in 184 and found it not really well balanced with not much tail support. It could be the 184 was just to short for me. I guess the longer tail on the Bones with almost non existent tail rocker should work better. Appears to me a tad stiffer as in M102 as well.
    I would not go any farther forward than 1.5. The sidecut and construction is based off that specific mourning point. If you go too far in either direction from said point the skis donít feel right IMHO. How big are you? (Sorry if youíre answered that recently. ) The 189 skis pretty big in my opinion.

  8. #983
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post
    I would not go any farther forward than 1.5. The sidecut and construction is based off that specific mourning point. If you go too far in either direction from said point the skis donít feel right IMHO. How big are you? (Sorry if youíre answered that recently. ) The 189 skis pretty big in my opinion.
    Thanks, thatís something to work with. Iím 185 cm/85 kg.

  9. #984
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    Anyone been on the new Cochise yet?
    I was able to spend a couple days swapping through the new Blizzard lineup last month at Big Sky. I spent the most my time on the 185 and 177 Cochise. We got lucky and hit a low crowd 8" pow day with some gate drops that let us ski up untracked snow for more than half the day.

    Im 37, 5'7" 140 lbs, former racer blah blah. I tend to like skis with a little bigger radius that can be made to turn shorter by the skier.

    Current skis in the quiver over 100mm that I still use on the regular.
    2014-2015 177 Cochise
    2017 186 Blizzard Peacemaker
    2020 180 Dynastar Menace Proto

    My 2015 cochise's have hundreds of days on them at this point and I have been searching for a replacement for several seasons but just didn't get along with carbon tipped and tapered current version. Depending on conditions i current bounce between these skis going to cochise when its cut up or warmer snow that needs some muscle. The spot where I always wished the old version did a little better was in fresh snow, its well documented that they kinda submarined when it started to get a little deep.

    For me the new 106 performed noticeably better in fresh snow, I've read that there is less rocker in this version but the profile of the rocker and balanced flex of the ski is just superior in fresh snow. I found this the case in both the 185 and 177 versions. I can happily ski either length of ski, for my terrain in Whitefish I think the 177 makes more sense for me but if I was local to a bigger mountain the 185 would be my choice. I noticed the bigger radius and stiffer flex right off the bat with the 185 but the ski has a great ability the shut down quick and change direction that was kinda laking in recent past versions. I found that if you got in the back seat on the past skis you went for a ride and that just doesn't happen on this ski. I agree with what the blizzard marketing team has said about this ski, that it is more accessible but not dumbed down. A lot of core skiers will read that line as bullshit but in this case its actually true, the ski still rips but is easier to get your self out the those "oh fuck" moments that happen when you are trucking.

    A quick synapses for me is Its ability to blast cut up snow is top notch but now with improved soft snow characteristics. That being said this is no powder ski.... I'm getting a pair.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  10. #985
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11
    Wasatchback...you've got some great intel...thank you for sharing.
    Couple questions on that new cochise. I've been on the OG's since 2011...had about 8 of them now.
    I'm on my last pair so wondering; 1) does the top sheet of titanal span full length tip to tail (like OG's) or stop short w/binding plate (like latest iterations)? and 2) I've loved the heavier wood cores with the full 2 1/2 sheets of titanal and am a bit disheartened to hear of the switch to the lighter Rustler type core...can you comment on the comparison of stiffness/dampness?
    Thanks !

  11. #986
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    ut
    Posts
    777
    Quote Originally Posted by cderose View Post
    Wasatchback...you've got some great intel...thank you for sharing.
    Couple questions on that new cochise. I've been on the OG's since 2011...had about 8 of them now.
    I'm on my last pair so wondering; 1) does the top sheet of titanal span full length tip to tail (like OG's) or stop short w/binding plate (like latest iterations)? and 2) I've loved the heavier wood cores with the full 2 1/2 sheets of titanal and am a bit disheartened to hear of the switch to the lighter Rustler type core...can you comment on the comparison of stiffness/dampness?
    Thanks !
    So on the previous generation of Cochise the top sheet of metal doesnít extend right to the edge for durability purposes. It stops 3-4mm short of the edge past the underfoot section but it goes tip to tail just not right to the edge.

    The first gen Cochise actually had a pretty lightweight core. Issue was the two top sheets of metal created too much torque when the ski would really compress and the core would actually explode. All those ones where it looked like the top sheet ripped off, it was actually the core detonating inside the ski due to the force created by the two top sheets of metal. First solution was to make the core stronger (and heavier) but honestly the skis got too heavy with that much metal. Engineers then found that if they added a really thin piece of rubber between the two top pieces of metal it helped the metal layers shear so they wouldnít create as much force on the core and the skis wouldnít pull apart. This allowed us to go back to a lighter core like the original design. New Cochise was tested with the new heavier Trueblend core but everyone felt the ski was just too heavy. It lost a lot of the versatility at that weight so decision was to go with the R11 core. Which Iím glad we did.

    I think the first gen Cochise (11/12, 12/13, 13/14) weighed slightly less than the present one. 2250 to around 2300 on the new one.

  12. #987
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11

    2021 Cochise

    Quote Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post
    So on the previous generation of Cochise the top sheet of metal doesnít extend right to the edge for durability purposes. It stops 3-4mm short of the edge past the underfoot section but it goes tip to tail just not right to the edge.

    The first gen Cochise actually had a pretty lightweight core. Issue was the two top sheets of metal created too much torque when the ski would really compress and the core would actually explode. All those ones where it looked like the top sheet ripped off, it was actually the core detonating inside the ski due to the force created by the two top sheets of metal. First solution was to make the core stronger (and heavier) but honestly the skis got too heavy with that much metal. Engineers then found that if they added a really thin piece of rubber between the two top pieces of metal it helped the metal layers shear so they wouldnít create as much force on the core and the skis wouldnít pull apart. This allowed us to go back to a lighter core like the original design. New Cochise was tested with the new heavier Trueblend core but everyone felt the ski was just too heavy. It lost a lot of the versatility at that weight so decision was to go with the R11 core. Which Iím glad we did.

    I think the first gen Cochise (11/12, 12/13, 13/14) weighed slightly less than the present one. 2250 to around 2300 on the new one.
    Thanks! That is really interesting info...I guess I was lucky as none of mine exploded! I've found the OG's really durable along with the OG Bodacious and the 2nd gen Bonifides...those are all I ski...I stocked up each of them. So, looks like the new Cochise will be about 100 g lighter then the current version...does it still ride as stiff/damp? I love that heavy/damp ride and wondering if I should stock up on the old one before they are all gone. Thanks for the quick reply!

  13. #988
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    74
    Posted to gear swap too but there's a new set of 2018 192 Spurs on evo right now for $480. Thought I'd pass it on in case someone's looking.

    Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

  14. #989
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    492
    Ok, I change my mind.

    I'd said that I wasn't very interested in a 180's Cochise/Bodacious.
    I'm not sure how I'll like a Bodacious, but I've spent a couple of days on a 185 Cochise, and I'm rather astonished at the step-up in stability.
    I'm an old, 52 - 140#, 5'7" (and shrinking)

    My last time on a mid 180cm ski was a pair of 2014 Mantras. They were fine, but seemed kind of cumbersome.

    But the last two days on 185 [the current carbon tips - the blue ones] have been pretty eye opening. I haven't had them into really steep, technical terrain, where I'm sure I'll feel they are not ideal, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to live with them. Landing airs has a lot wider of a sweet spot vs the 177/179 (I can't recall exactly how long).

    This is thread drift, as this is all about what's new with Blizzard, but I want to just bring it up so others might consider a length they think is a little nuts, and just too long.

    I'll start shopping for a cheap Bodacious in 186. I might not ski it in trees, but above treeline and on larger open faces, it may well make me very happy. [And more happy than the R11. Though I should demo the R11 this year, just to see. I just know when I've tried different stuff - more tank-ish vs more fun - I almost always like tank-ish++ more.]

  15. #990
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    366

    What's Blizzard up to?

    After one day on the new 20/21 Bonafide in 189 here my initial impressions:
    I skied the Bones with a Pivot 12 mounted at +1. Snow conditions ranged from soft mank to 20 cm of powder. Iíll draw some comparisons to a Mantra 102 in 184 which I skied for 2 days in similar conditions up to now.
    The Bones ski much more like a fat GS ski than M102. Whereas M102 likes to pivot and turn across the fall line the Bones like to go with big turns down. Scrubbing speed is not an easy task so you have better to commit to your line.
    On hard snow I found the Bones to be damper and quieter. The tips of M102 are kinda pingy there, at least acoustically. I could easily carve trenches on the piste without ever feeling coming close to the speed limit of the ski. There was no way I could overpower the tails like in the M102.
    In powder the Bones were OK but didnít float as well as M102. Given the minimal tail rocker and very conservative tip rocker as well as 5 mm narrower waist in the Bones, this could be obviously expected.
    In summary, I like the easy pivotability of the M102 but with the Bones I can ski faster. The 189 length of the Bones suits me much better than the 184 of M102. I think at my size the Bones for hard snow conditions/piste and the new Katana in 191 (or Cochise?) as DD will be a awesome combo covering everything outside of big dump days.
    Last edited by roQer; 02-16-2020 at 12:21 PM.

  16. #991
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,373
    Interesting data point for me - I skied the 183 Bonafide and found it tip heavy, balky and hesitant to turn at any speed below full gas. Then, on the advice of the reps (who know me fairly well), I tried the 177 and it was right on. Surprising, as the 185 Cochise and 183 Brahma were great, and my daily driver is a 188 Rustler 11.

    roQer's summary of the Blizzard vs. Volkl style is also spot on, both superior skis but the M5/M102 come across as edgier and quicker while the Bonafide is damper and more confidence-inspiring at high speed.

  17. #992
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Interesting data point for me - I skied the 183 Bonafide and found it tip heavy, balky and hesitant to turn at any speed below full gas. Then, on the advice of the reps (who know me fairly well), I tried the 177 and it was right on. Surprising, as the 185 Cochise and 183 Brahma were great, and my daily driver is a 188 Rustler 11.

    roQer's summary of the Blizzard vs. Volkl style is also spot on, both superior skis but the M5/M102 come across as edgier and quicker while the Bonafide is damper and more confidence-inspiring at high speed.
    I was really surprised how much of a full gas charger the new Bonafide turned out. I was thinking they mellowed it down a bit and made it more accessible but damn, this ski is far far away from easy going.
    Sizing down might help but the 189 is a beast for sure.

  18. #993
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by lake_effect View Post
    Posted to gear swap too but there's a new set of 2018 192 Spurs on evo right now for $480. Thought I'd pass it on in case someone's looking.
    I'll sell my 19/20s for cheaper.
    Last edited by DarthMarkus; 02-19-2020 at 12:13 AM. Reason: Cuz I suck at computers.

  19. #994
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Skied the 196 Arnie tribute Bodacious today and I get them, but am not a fan. Got my ass kicked. Cool ski but not getting a spot in my quiver.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  20. #995
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Aspen
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post
    The first gen Cochise actually had a pretty lightweight core. Issue was the two top sheets of metal created too much torque when the ski would really compress and the core would actually explode. All those ones where it looked like the top sheet ripped off, it was actually the core detonating inside the ski due to the force created by the two top sheets of metal.
    Interesting, this happened to one of my OG pairs. Didn't look like the top sheet ripped off though, it was very clear the core exploded. I of course attributed it to my hard charging badassery instead of the ski construction, however.

  21. #996
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    Skied the 196 Arnie tribute Bodacious today and I get them, but am not a fan. Got my ass kicked. Cool ski but not getting a spot in my quiver.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I really like the 186, but the idea of that ski in a 196 sounds a little bit terrifying. I do only weigh about 165lb, so that's that.

  22. #997
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    I really like the 186, but the idea of that ski in a 196 sounds a little bit terrifying. I do only weigh about 165lb, so that's that.
    Iím 210 naked and for the chutes and tight spots I was in today, then 196 is terrifying. The 186 would of been better. I hope someone grabs them and enjoys them.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #998
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    I really like the 186, but the idea of that ski in a 196 sounds a little bit terrifying. I do only weigh about 165lb, so that's that.
    The 186 is one of my favorite skis ever. I've always wanted to try the 196 but I can't imagine skiing it very often and enjoying it. 5'11" 180lbs fwiw.

  24. #999
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by snowaddict91 View Post
    The 186 is one of my favorite skis ever. I've always wanted to try the 196 but I can't imagine skiing it very often and enjoying it. 5'11" 180lbs fwiw.
    I got a pair of 196s Iím sure we can figure out how to get into your hands.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  25. #1000
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,508

    What's Blizzard up to?

    I Fing love my 196 Black OG Bodes... That ski has been grabbed more than many of my bigger sticks and it just kicks ass... It honestly shocks me that you did not dig it Skibrd - I do not think of it as a over demanding ski... I def keep them out of bumps and tight trees...!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •