What's Blizzard up to?

[Skistack]

Base bevel is 1 degree, but their side edge default is pretty aggressive. They quote a "range" but it averages out at 1 and 2.8. I detuned slightly to 1 and 2, rounded out the tip and tail edges just slightly past the contact points and they are great. I detune the R11 to 1 and 1.

The rockered sections on my pair were definitely less than 1 on the base bevel.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Flippo]

Base bevel is 1 degree, but their side edge default is pretty aggressive. They quote a "range" but it averages out at 1 and 2.8. I detuned slightly to 1 and 2, rounded out the tip and tail edges just slightly past the contact points and they are great. I detune the R11 to 1 and 1.

I did the samecon my R9, sharp 1/2 on the effective edge and slight detune past the contact points and they are great.

[skibrd]

Gents, Thanks for all the great advice. While I've found a pretty good deal on the 183 and 189, sounds like maybe I need to demo some skis.

Skibrd, Your advice (189) makes sense to me as I don't mind having to be 'on', and as you mentioned there is a lot of room to let em run here, and the bigger reviewers at Ski Essentials seem to agree, but then Blister says if one is in between, to size down, and there is tons of experience in this thread (SoVT Joey and GregL included (thanks)), that indicate the 183 should be more than enough. Then there's a review of the CMD 98 on the Moment site that says the 189 (Bones) were too much for one guy, but he folded the 183, and that the 188 CMD 98 was his goldilocks. Gah.

Re R9, TBH I've pretty much dismissed that ski until now, but the fact that there are bigger, strong skiers in this thread that really like it make me think I should get over myself and try it. I hated the 188 R10, did two runs on it and sold it due to it folding up (not alone on this opinion though); I did really like the 192 R11 as a DD but found in firmer conditions it was dictating the speeds I skied it, which is not a trait I love, even in a wider ski; great ski though. Sounds as though the three skis in the Rustler line clearly don't share all the same traits so prolly need to give the R9 a go.

I had the same issue with the R10, sold them almost as fast as I bought them. That’s why a few of us have been asking for an R10.5, beefing the R10 up so it skis more like the R9 or R11, instead of a drastically different ski. I feel the R9 skis beefer then the R10, not sure what is different but the tip of the R10 is just way too soft for someone our size.

See GregLs post, and the other posts, about the tune on the R9. I did something very similar to my R9s and they are awesome. That’s funny that a few of us all came to the same conclusion with the R9.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XavierD]

R9 has a longer piece of metal in it than the R10.

[uglymoney]

Since people are correctly talking about how truly awful the R10 is I'll add we had to grind and set at 1 2 both my Brahma 82's and the wife's Black Pearls to get them to ski well. I'm not sure it is just an r9 thing.

I'm still waiting for the heavens to open up and dump a bunch of 88 to 90ish skis on me to demo. The new Brahma seems more serious than I want. The R9 too clownish. The Enforcer 88 is intriguing.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

[XavierD]

R10 isn’t awful - it’s just a different ski than the R9/11 and aimed at a different skier group. Fantastic ‘wide’ everyday ski for your upper intermediate skier.

[Bandit Man]

R10 isn’t awful - it’s just a different ski than the R9/11 and aimed at a different skier group. Fantastic ‘wide’ everyday ski for your upper intermediate skier.

That’s actually fair. I have a 140-lb low-level advanced skier friend who loves the R10 and doesn’t understand why I hated it.

[gregL]

The rockered sections on my pair were definitely less than 1 on the base bevel.

Do those rockered sections ever touch the snow?

[skibrd]

Do those rockered sections ever touch the snow?

No, so round them completely off so they never catch on anything ever. They don’t need edges


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gregL]

No, so round them completely off so they never catch on anything ever. They don’t need edges

That's my philosophy with any ski - round it thoroughly so it's less likely to draw blood (tail, too).

[gaijin]

Since people are correctly talking about how truly awful the R10 is I'll add we had to grind and set at 1 2 both my Brahma 82's and the wife's Black Pearls to get them to ski well. I'm not sure it is just an r9 thing.

I'm still waiting for the heavens to open up and dump a bunch of 88 to 90ish skis on me to demo. The new Brahma seems more serious than I want. The R9 too clownish. The Enforcer 88 is intriguing.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

Marshall’s R87?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[J. Barron DeJong]

Marshall’s R87?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by serious, but I’m hoping the R87 ends up skiing more serious than a Brahma for me. The construction, weight, and 23m side cut certainly sound more serious than a Brahma.

[gaijin]

Yeah, I guess I didn’t read that correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Beder]

Since people are correctly talking about how truly awful the R10 is I'll add we had to grind and set at 1 2 both my Brahma 82's and the wife's Black Pearls to get them to ski well. I'm not sure it is just an r9 thing.

I'm still waiting for the heavens to open up and dump a bunch of 88 to 90ish skis on me to demo. The new Brahma seems more serious than I want. The R9 too clownish. The Enforcer 88 is intriguing.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

I have never skied the Enforcer 88 but have been on the E93 for several days in a row now. (also have a new 94 waiting in plastic) If the 88 skis like its big brothers I'd be a customer--solid ripping groomers but is nimble in the chalky bumps.
Since this is the Blizzard thread...I just couldn't make friends with the Bonafide 97, 183. Sometimes I just wanna easy does it thru the bumps, and this Bonafide wasn't having it. Too bad because 183 is my sweet spot for a ski of this type. I have owned the all red in 187 and the carbon tipped ones in 180. They were both better suited to me.

[meter-man]

Confirmed on the new Hustle page - 1950g for the 188

https://www.blizzard-tecnica.com/us/en/hustle

My 188 R11s weigh 2060g. Love that ski - will probably pick up some used R9s here to try them out - thanks for the strong suggestions people!

Hustle 11 - 164/172/180/188/192
Hustle 10 - 156/164/172/180/188
Hustle 9 - 157/164/172/180/188

Source: @blizzardskis on IG

Hustle 11 188 = 1950g
Hustle 10 180 = 1800g
Hustle 9 180 = 1750g

Source: @blizzimages on IG

[Sylvan]

Got out on my shiny new 189 Bones today and wanted to say thanks again for the sizing advice Went into the local shop to fondle a pair and randomly the Blizzard rep was there who talked me into the 189. I did mount at plus one, in part cause I was afraid of the length, but also cause most of my favourite skis the last few years have ended up around -10 (192 R11s at -2, CMD's x2 on the line and -2, now these), plus these will be firm only for me so wasn't worried too much about float.
Ripped some groomers and then did a Saudan/Quasar/Feather Trees lap followed by a Diamond lap on BComb, in mostly spring like conditions with refrozen shit everywhere the sun hadn't touched. In summary, for a guy my size (6'2/210) at a mountain with room to run, the 189 is the right stick. This, in conjunction with pretty much everyone saying the 183 is a brute, makes me think that perhaps the difference in 'TrueBlend' core is less between the 183/189 than the 177/183, and the stated weights seem to back that up (120 grams between 177/183 vs 90 grams between 183/189). ie. Sounds like the 183 is a brute for a 183; the 189, not so much.
From the moment I jumped on em all I kept thinking was how compliant they were; they were pretty automatic for me. They slarved much better than I expected considering the flat tail (similar to the M102 in that regard), but their ability to rail a turn, and feather or break free, and then go back to an almost hip dragging rail, was pretty remarkable. Variable steeps (perfect corn/blue ice/refrozen moguls), they were fantastic as well. Super confidence inspiring in no fall zones due to edge hold and weight. I also ran through a refrozen traverse in Spankys that I didn't see, going far too fast, and it was, gratefully, kind of a non event.
As far as mount, having been on them I now know I probably would have been fine on the line, but at plus one was super happy. Were there times I wish I had more ski out in front of me? Always. But I was also happy to have slightly less out front in one of the tighter entrances in Diamond, they were easy enough to flick around in feather trees, and the tail is stiff enough that its pretty usable back there in all situations.
The swing weight is slightly higher than my CMD 108s, but the combination of that weight with a slightly softer flex in the tips and tails compared to underfoot, make them ride like fucking Cadillacs on rails. I was also a little worried about the shorter radius (20m), but similar to the CMD 108s (23m), if you maintain shin pressure they track fantastically, don't hook, and they rip GS turns similar in size to the CMDs.
Clearly late to the Bonafide cult, but mostly just wanted to say, especially since they're starting to go on sale with the new one inbound, that if you normally like skis in the high 180s/low 190s, and you're at a bigger mountain, don't be afraid of the 189. Super happy I picked these up.

[mr_pretzel]

Great review Sylvan

[bry]

Agreed may be just what I needed to take the plunge at some point.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[vinnay]

I agree, great review Sylvan. I went through the same debate last spring - I'm smaller at 5'11'', 185, but also generally at bigger mountains and have been pretty consistently skiing 190ish skis for as long as I can remember. I went with the 183 based on feedback and have been super happy - exactly what I want in a low tide / no new snow charging ski, completely agree with what you wrote about GS turns (I laughed out loud several times the first day out) and also that they ended up being more maneuverable in tight spots and trees than I was expecting.

[XavierD]

Great review. I wonder if they have changed slightly since the pre production in spring ‘20. Those things only wanted to go faster.

[Reformed]

Ok mags, I'm looking for some input from the collective. I am pretty sure that I am looking for the unicorn that is the Rustler 10.5 or the Cochise 102 - you know, that ski that bridges the gap between the OG Cochise and the Rustler 10 that Blizzard doesn't make.
The OG Cochise is in this spot right now, and I love many things about it. If it was just a touch more willing to be bent into smaller turns on groomers and a little more willing to pop into the air off of its tails while retaining the ability to drift and smear at will while being so buttery smooth on edge at speed through whatever it is pointed at it would be perfect. Coming to life somewhere south of 60 km/h would be nice too.

Since Blizzard doesn't seem all that interested in making this ski I am looking at other options. Lead candidates from my reading of other threads etc are Nordica Enforcer 104FR, J skis Masterblaster, ON3P Woods 102 and Fischer 102. Input from anyone who has spent time on the OG Cochise and transitioned into any of these skis in this class of "slightly more playful/versatile, yet damp and stable skis" would be most appreciated, as I can't demo any of them. This will fill my low tide lift served spot in the quiver. I'll keep the Cochise and have other options for deeper snow, so pow performance isn't really a consideration. Not interested in going much narrower in the interest of off-piste/funk performance.

What say ye?

[skibrd]

Ok mags, I'm looking for some input from the collective. I am pretty sure that I am looking for the unicorn that is the Rustler 10.5 or the Cochise 102 - you know, that ski that bridges the gap between the OG Cochise and the Rustler 10 that Blizzard doesn't make.
The OG Cochise is in this spot right now, and I love many things about it. If it was just a touch more willing to be bent into smaller turns on groomers and a little more willing to pop into the air off of its tails while retaining the ability to drift and smear at will while being so buttery smooth on edge at speed through whatever it is pointed at it would be perfect. Coming to life somewhere south of 60 km/h would be nice too.

Since Blizzard doesn't seem all that interested in making this ski I am looking at other options. Lead candidates from my reading of other threads etc are Nordica Enforcer 104FR, J skis Masterblaster, ON3P Woods 102 and Fischer 102. Input from anyone who has spent time on the OG Cochise and transitioned into any of these skis in this class of "slightly more playful/versatile, yet damp and stable skis" would be most appreciated, as I can't demo any of them. This will fill my low tide lift served spot in the quiver. I'll keep the Cochise and have other options for deeper snow, so pow performance isn't really a consideration. Not interested in going much narrower in the interest of off-piste/funk performance.

What say ye?

Your unicorn is the Rustler 9. It’s what you are describing but in a 94mm wide package.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[nickwm21]

Try the new Cochise.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

What say ye?

Corvus if you want something similar to the Cochise, but with a bit more energy and less boring on groomers.

If you want something damp but easy (but with a speed limit) Enforcer 104.

[sf]

Since Blizzard doesn't seem all that interested in making this ski I am looking at other options. Lead candidates from my reading of other threads etc are Nordica Enforcer 104FR, J skis Masterblaster, ON3P Woods 102 and Fischer 102.

What sort of mount point works best for you? If the OG is perfect then the Nordica or the Fischer makes sense. The Masterblaster and ON3P is mounted a bit further ahead - similarish to the Rustlers.

I only skied the Woodsman among those you mention, and only a couple of times yet - but despite some sort of tune issue I really feel that they could be the 10.5 everybody wants. I tried the OG Cochise when they came out, and skied the Bonafide for a couple of years. Compared to those two the Woodsman can be loaded and bent at far lower speeds, and will feel like a rocket when it comes to pop - compared to the original flipcores.