Page 45 of 46 FirstFirst ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 1127
  1. #1101
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,881
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    I hated the folding tips on the Enforcers I tried a few years back (185 100's, I think). This is not a problem with the Rustler 11's at all. The 11's are very, very good skis. So easy yet so capable in just about any conditions. They are currently the benchmark ski to which I currently compare all others.
    I have only skied the R11 for a few runs @ Snowbasin demo day(they and Spurs were the stars of the show) so take with a slight grain of salt. I was struck by how similarly they skied to my Caylors. The R11 did not have resort crushing capabilities of the ON3P's. Not anywhere near as damp or poppy or fun. R11 is also not built nearly as robust w/ the balsa in the core. I do own a used pair that need repair work. Core shot in center of base basically dusted that area of the core and multiple bent edges from rock impact. I think the R11 makes for a great touring/side country tour ski, but if I was just going to mount regular alpine bindings and smash in the resort, I'd personally use the ON3P's as my measuring stick.

    CB- the Jeffrey 116 is the ski you seek

  2. #1102
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,881
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20200210_124744.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	907.6 KB 
ID:	337997
    R11 was the funnest ski I was on that day.
    These were very close second on a day they were highly inappropriate.

  3. #1103
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Posts
    207

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post
    For those diehard Gunsmoke and Peacemaker fans.... what is it about those skis that you miss? What is it that they did that say other skis don’t do? What do you like more about them than Rustler?

    I get it all the time from people and people with all sorts of different skiing styles. People that mounted them forward of the mark and more traditional skier who moved them back.
    They were fun skis for sure but I think people would be shocked by how few were actually sold. Granted they couldn’t have been any more challenged graphically.


    For me there was too much rocker, especially in the tail. If you got out of balance it was really hard to recover and you ended up tail wheelying all the time. Maybe that wasn’t an issue for people that mounted them further forward?

    Just interested to hear people’s perspectives. I will tell you that they won’t get re-released but Rustler will get some updates at some point in the future so you never know...
    I owned a few versions of the gunsmokes and a few versions of the peacemakers.

    Blizzard was selling two skis that had some crossover between their cochise and bodacious. They are obviously different skis, but depending on the skier and style of skiing, I think they could be used in the same situations (people were getting on the podium in the FWT with the gunsmoke more than the cochise or bodacious). IMO, I think they marketed the cochise line WAY stronger than any of their other skis and stole a lot of thunder away from the potential of the gunsmokes and peacemakers, hence the lower numbers on sales. Just look at the topsheets between the two - they even partnered and paid money to rodeos so they could use names and symbols on their skis.

    Gunsmokes/peacemakers appealed to me for a number of reasons:

    1. I do mount my skis forward. I mounted both skis at least 1.5cm forward and bought them in the biggest size they came in. I'm 6'1 when I don't slouch, and at 193 and 186, mounting them forward felt awesome. In a perfect world I would have probably gotten them in a 196 and 190. I think there's still some inclination to buy twin tip skis like you would a traditional ski. The rustler you could argue this with maybe, but NOT on the peacemaker and gunsmoke. IMO buyers should have been buying them larger knowing that the twintip makes them ski shorter. If you like powering off your tails, then a ski like the gunsmoke shouldn't be mounted traditionally. So either be okay with a shorter tip profile when you mount them forward or get a bigger size.
    2. the construction on both skis had titanal under the binding plate extending probably around 2.5 - 3 feet total. I would guess the intent was to give a nice solid mounting platform, but it had the additional effect of giving more torsional rigidity in the middle of the ski, as well as a nice stomp platform for landing airs. The end result was a ski that you could still blast through and control in crud, yet having a more malleable tip and tail profile that you could manipulate it through variable terrain contours. I could (and still do cuz I still have the ski ) watch and feel the tip flop around a bit, but underfoot I was still very stable. More flexible tips and tails also meant that if you landed backseat, backslapped, or made little mistakes, you could still recover or not get beat up. Blizzard, Volkl, and Stockli understand this idea the best I think.
    3. I think the side-cut of the ski was pretty well matched with the camber and reverse camber in the ski. Skiing the ski flat and/or pivoting on them allowed you to utilize the rocker in softer snow as well as in trees/bumps to get a lot of maneuverability. When you turned the ski over it was surprising how much edge grip you could get on them. To me it felt fairly similar to the Shiro and Gotamas that had the continuous, gradual rocker profiles (zero camber skis) - essentially, all these skis had a similar story when you turned them on edge; it engaged a lot more of the ski and gave you a lot more control. I think this is why a lot of companies are shying away from the 5-dimensional shape, and also why I never really liked that style of ski. Because no matter how far over you turn a 5-dimensional ski, you'll never engage all of the tip and tail profile for your turn. A mediocre ski will engage its reverse camber at certain thresholds, at which point usually the entire tip/tail profile will engage. A good ski will engage its reverse camber more as you turn it over more, giving the user predictability and control over the ski as well as a smooth transition.
    4. I think I still value the Gunsmokes/Peacemakers over the rustler series because of my style of skiing; I do like skiing backwards sometimes, I like a more centered mount, I like ski tips with a more predictable flex pattern and slightly playful, and I like a nice stiff platform underfoot. I think I also like them more because they were heavier.


    I do miss those skis, and I have a lot of holes in my gunsmokes now, so I don't know how much longer I'll feel safe skiing them. Like others have mentioned though, the M-Free line from Dynastar looks to be a good replacement. I skied the PROTO last season, so I know it won't be exactly the same, but the M-Free line has its own merits and still allows a lot of the similar feeling that the gunsmokes and peacemakers had. I'll probably be skiing the M-Free 108 closer to how I did the peacemaker and the gunsmoke, while the M-Free 118/PROTO I'll use as a more strict powder ski than the gunsmoke was.

  4. #1104
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    870
    Thanks DarthMarkus - that was a quality post with a much wider utility than just understanding the Blizzards in question. Thank you for taking the time to go in depth

  5. #1105
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,451
    DarthMarkus, that is very spot on. I almost had a two ski quiver with Shiros and Gunsmokes. That comparison hit home hard, and I haven’t been able to replicate a similar one two punch since my Gunsmokes died.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #1106
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    the Low Sierra
    Posts
    13,268
    I love my Gunsmokes. Stoked I scored a pair when I did. Looking at Icelantic skis recently, and the Nomad 115 seems like a likely replacement.

    At least you've got those Scouts back, eh?

  7. #1107
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,554
    Nomads (and most of Icelantics offerings) have always skied “plankey” and “dead” to me.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #1108
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Posts
    207
    I wouldn't look at icelantic if you like your gunsmokes. Check out the Faction Candide 3.0, ON3P Jeffrey 108, Dynastar M-Free 108 or 118, Moment Wildcat 108, and probably the Kastle ZX108.

  9. #1109
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthMarkus View Post
    I wouldn't look at icelantic if you like your gunsmokes. Check out the Faction Candide 3.0, ON3P Jeffrey 108, Dynastar M-Free 108 or 118, Moment Wildcat 108, and probably the Kastle ZX108.
    The Rossi Sender Squad should be on that list too. They hand flex stiff, but should be pretty close after a few days of skiing


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  10. #1110
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,451
    Anyone else really wish the R10 came in a 192/193 length? I keep eyeing mine up and wishing they were just a bit longer.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #1111
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    Anyone else really wish the R10 came in a 192/193 length? I keep eyeing mine up and wishing they were just a bit longer.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Not really, the short'ish turn radius they have works well for their length.

    I don't find long skis of moderate width with short turn radii to ski that well.

    I think you will like them.

  12. #1112
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    at work
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    Nomads (and most of Icelantics offerings) have always skied “plankey” and “dead” to me.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    The current Nomads in the longer lengths = yes. The shorter ones have more life from what hear. At 6’3”/ 210# The older Keeper is a very lively ski imho. I love my well used pair still.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    "What moves men of genius, or rather what inspires their work, is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough."

    -Eugene Delacroix

  13. #1113
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4

    Looking for some advice.

    I am look for some advice. I want to pick up a resort, more powder oriented ski and I have been looking at the Rustler 11, as well as the Nordica Enforcer 115, Moment Wildcat and 4frnt Hoji (due to my positive experience with 4frnt). I'd plan to put the new Look P15s on the ski.


    My daily driver is a 4frnt MSP 99, 181. I picked up a pair with some Look P14s back in 18/19 when they were running some great deals. I like the ski, but I have found in anything above 6”-8” of fresh snow, I am wanting something more.


    I am 5’11”, ~180 lb. and I would consider myself an advanced, more aggressive skier. With that said, I am not as aggressive as I was -- I have a young family -- but I am getting the opportunity to ski alone more and more, which is allowing me to ski the terrain that I want to. My home mountain is WP Mary Jane in CO -- trees, bumps, etc.


    I have read through a lot of this thread and I get the feeling that sometimes people wish they had purchased the 192 rather than the 188. For those that purchased the 188 or have skied both, would you recommend the 188 or 192 (I was originally thinking the 188)? Of the skis listed above (or any others you may recommend), would you go with the R11 or one of the others as part of a 2 ski quiver? Why?


    Thank you in advance!

  14. #1114
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,305
    Quote Originally Posted by stu2020 View Post
    I am look for some advice. I want to pick up a resort, more powder oriented ski and I have been looking at the Rustler 11, as well as the Nordica Enforcer 115, Moment Wildcat and 4frnt Hoji (due to my positive experience with 4frnt). I'd plan to put the new Look P15s on the ski.


    My daily driver is a 4frnt MSP 99, 181. I picked up a pair with some Look P14s back in 18/19 when they were running some great deals. I like the ski, but I have found in anything above 6”-8” of fresh snow, I am wanting something more.


    I am 5’11”, ~180 lb. and I would consider myself an advanced, more aggressive skier. With that said, I am not as aggressive as I was -- I have a young family -- but I am getting the opportunity to ski alone more and more, which is allowing me to ski the terrain that I want to. My home mountain is WP Mary Jane in CO -- trees, bumps, etc.


    I have read through a lot of this thread and I get the feeling that sometimes people wish they had purchased the 192 rather than the 188. For those that purchased the 188 or have skied both, would you recommend the 188 or 192 (I was originally thinking the 188)? Of the skis listed above (or any others you may recommend), would you go with the R11 or one of the others as part of a 2 ski quiver? Why?


    Thank you in advance!
    Ok...you are new here and found the right place to post. That scores you some credit. Your 188 vs 192 question is fair. We all want to need the 192, but most of us do not. I have 15-lbs on you and have skied the 188 Rustler 11 for the past three seasons. I’ve never really needed the 192, which is almost a different ski. It’s wider, has a bigger turn radius, and is stiffer. The handful of people who want the 192 are real full blown chargers or much bigger than you.

    Also, why would you talk about you resort having lots of bumps and trees and think the 192 is the right length?

    Final question, when you used to ski more aggressively, what skis were you on and in what length? That will help people quite you a bit.

    Finally, if you daily driver is a 181 MSP 99 and you don’t feel like you need more ski or more length, you most likely don’t need the 192 Rustler 11.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  15. #1115
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Ok...you are new here and found the right place to post. That scores you some credit. Your 188 vs 192 question is fair. We all want to need the 192, but most of us do not. I have 15-lbs on you and have skied the 188 Rustler 11 for the past three seasons. I’ve never really needed the 192, which is almost a different ski. It’s wider, has a bigger turn radius, and is stiffer. The handful of people who want the 192 are real full blown chargers or much bigger than you.
    Thank you for the incredibly fast response! I am glad I didn't screw up and post it in the wrong spot...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Also, why would you talk about you resort having lots of bumps and trees and think the 192 is the right length?
    This is a very fair question. I read some responses in this thread about the 192s being easy enough to turn in the trees/tighter spots. I was surprised by the posts and they peaked my curiosity. I was originally thinking the 188s because I still want to use the skis in trees and on terrain that usually has moguls, but with 6"+ fresh snow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Final question, when you used to ski more aggressively, what skis were you on and in what length? That will help people quite you a bit.
    The last skis that I rotated through were the Rossi Scratch BC 182 and the Head Mojo Mad Trix 181. I used to use twin tip skis much more than I intend to now. I am a little more cautious these days now that I have kids. I have enjoyed the MSPs for the added stability and ability to be more "relaxed" when skiing with my kids. My kids don't enjoy deeper snow yet (too young), so I will be able to ski more aggressively on these new skis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Finally, if you daily driver is a 181 MSP 99 and you don’t feel like you need more ski or more length, you most likely don’t need the 192 Rustler 11.
    This is helping to support my original thinking.

  16. #1116
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,803
    ^^^^^ For Winter park I'd go 188 for sure. I've skied my 188 11's there (I'm 5'10" 170) and it was a good match. The best thing about that length is they work quite well in bumps, which are inevitable where you ski.

    I expect with the 4FRNTs and Moments you'd get more pure pow performance and while the Nordicas and Blizzards will feel more natural when things are scraped out. Beyond that, you're looking at personal preference and skiing style.

  17. #1117
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,451
    The R11 is the most well rounded ski of the 4 you mentioned. All 4 are great in powder, but the R11 will be more fun when the skiing is tracked out.

    I think the 188 would be more appropriate with the terrain Mary Jane has. You don’t give up much in float but gain a lot of maneuverability. Now if you are 6’4” >200lbs, and we’re making trips to Squaw, Snowbird, Jackson, I’d say get the 192 for the stability when going fast, but for MJ, the 188 will be perfect.

    If you scroll back a few pages, I think someone brings up that the Blizzard Freeride pros are mostly on the 188. It’s just a bit easier to ski, and I’m sure they all could ski the 192 if they wanted.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #1118
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4
    Thank you to "Skibrd" and "I've Seen Black Diamonds!" for your responses! Most appreciated.

    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    The R11 is the most well rounded ski of the 4 you mentioned. All 4 are great in powder, but the R11 will be more fun when the skiing is tracked out.

    I think the 188 would be more appropriate with the terrain Mary Jane has. You don’t give up much in float but gain a lot of maneuverability. Now if you are 6’4” >200lbs, and we’re making trips to Squaw, Snowbird, Jackson, I’d say get the 192 for the stability when going fast, but for MJ, the 188 will be perfect.

    If you scroll back a few pages, I think someone brings up that the Blizzard Freeride pros are mostly on the 188. It’s just a bit easier to ski, and I’m sure they all could ski the 192 if they wanted.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    ^^^^^ For Winter park I'd go 188 for sure. I've skied my 188 11's there (I'm 5'10" 170) and it was a good match. The best thing about that length is they work quite well in bumps, which are inevitable where you ski.

    I expect with the 4FRNTs and Moments you'd get more pure pow performance and while the Nordicas and Blizzards will feel more natural when things are scraped out. Beyond that, you're looking at personal preference and skiing style.

  19. #1119
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Southeastern tip of lower New England
    Posts
    9
    Posted elsewhere as well, perhaps this is a better location for my question;

    I have a pair of 192 R11's and am looking to get either the 185 Cochise or 187 Bonafide's

    For reference I'm 5'10" 190 and fit.

    Thanks in advance for the feedback.

    Sand Yeti

  20. #1120
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Yeti View Post
    Posted elsewhere as well, perhaps this is a better location for my question;

    I have a pair of 192 R11's and am looking to get either the 185 Cochise or 187 Bonafide's

    For reference I'm 5'10" 190 and fit.

    Thanks in advance for the feedback.

    Sand Yeti
    IMO, the Bonafide is nowhere near the ski the Cochise is. [I've bent a pair of Bonafides. There's a thread about it.]
    Not that I didn't like them, but they simply aren't nearly as bomber.

    But you couldn't get the Cochise away from me for anything. (I've skied a bunch of different version of the Cochise, but currently I'm on the 185's from a couple of years ago.)

    I can ski the Cochise FAR harder without feeling like it's all going to blow up on me.

    But I suspect you'll prefer the Bonafide better on hard snow. Since you have the R11, that seems like when they'd come out.

    I'm 5'7" and ~145# - and I ski pretty hard, love most all burly stuff - Kastle MX/Cochise/Bodacious etc. So, My prefs may well not be yours.

    FWIW, GregL (among others) keeps trying to "convince" me to get an R11 instead of a Bodacious, and while I haven't skied the R11, I'm very much leaning toward the Bodacious in 185. (I currently have a pair in 177 and love them.)

  21. #1121
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Southeastern tip of lower New England
    Posts
    9
    Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Yeah they would be for firmer days with less fresh snow and perhaps tighter terrain, but i also have a groomer ski as well. I like burlier skis and to ski at speed but tend to want to turn as opposed to straight line. If i didn't have a groomer ski and the R11 the Cochise would be a no brainer, but since I have both ends of the spectrum covered its a tougher decision.

  22. #1122
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    369

    What's Blizzard up to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Yeti View Post
    Posted elsewhere as well, perhaps this is a better location for my question;

    I have a pair of 192 R11's and am looking to get either the 185 Cochise or 187 Bonafide's

    For reference I'm 5'10" 190 and fit.

    Thanks in advance for the feedback.

    Sand Yeti
    The new Bonafide in 189 (black topsheet) is a very very burly ski. Skis more like a wide Super-G ski than a powder ski. If you’re lookin for something to nuke down the mountains in firmer conditions you might enjoy it. I found the Mantra 102 more versatile and more similar to R11 regarding turn shape variation. The Bonafide is more locked into the turn but has a higher speed limit.
    I own all three, M102 in 184, Bonafide in 189 and R11 in 192. I‘m most happy on R11 on powdery days, on M102 in low tide conditions and on the Bonafide ripping groomers with my kids.

  23. #1123
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,954

    What's Blizzard up to?

    Rustler arrived today. Very light and same length as my 186 BG. Mount is -1 from BG and tail rocker splay is less. Tip is a bit lower but splay is very similar. I hope this may be a slightly more directional lighter BG. Not that I will ever sell my BG but some days They can out ski me as I get older


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  24. #1124
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,451
    There is a pair of 184 MX 98s for sale on here. Grab those. After 100 days they are just getting broken in to where they ski great. You’ll get another 200+ out of them.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  25. #1125
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by gregorys View Post
    FWIW, GregL (among others) keeps trying to "convince" me to get an R11 instead of a Bodacious, and while I haven't skied the R11, I'm very much leaning toward the Bodacious in 185. (I currently have a pair in 177 and love them.)
    Did I say "instead of?" I meant "in addition to."

    I still have 2 pairs of 186 Bodacious, 2017 and current re-issue black graphic, in the quiver, along with 2 pairs of 188 Rustler 11's.

Posting Permissions

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