What's Blizzard up to?

[stuckathuntermtn]

The only people that bought Gunsmokes and Peacemakers were shop employees and people who got deals... good skis but they had some decent shortcomings that weren't hard to remedy just needed to redo the molds. The twin design was old and rocker flared way too much at the ends of the ski. New Rustler skis are far from burly. I think if you talk to anyone that's skied them they're pretty damn easy to ski but still let you ski fast and have good grip and dampening when condition require it. They are also built differently depending on the size. Longest ones are wider and stiffer. They get narrower and a little softer as you get shorter.

What are the dims, again? Not a twin? Gooooood gooooood.

[straightlineorbust]

Wait... what's this rumor business about only 150 pairs of Bodacious. I really want a new pair but really wasn't wanting to pay retail on them. Oh damn.

[roQer]

The beauty and the beast.

[roQer]

Skied the new Spur the whole day in very variable but mostly shitty conditions. I'm still not really conclusive whether I liked the old one better. I can't say that the asymmetry has an effect at all on turn execution. I skied one half of the day regularly and then switched the skis. I found that they turn better with the short edge inside, at least on hardpack and in mixed snow, so I stayed for the rest of the day like this. Kind of cool side effect to be able to choose the maneuverability depending on conditions and terrain.
The skis might be more damp than the old Spurs but seem to be torsionally more rigid as well. This doesn't feel good on steeper hardpack while edging hard because then the skis start nasty to buckle. I can't remember this was as noticeable with the old version. But anyway, it might be somewhat weeny to expect too much versatility from a dedicated powder weapon.
Side note: I mounted the asym Spur on -2. With the longer edge inside this doesn't feel really great. I'll probably remount on the line.

[gaijin]

The beauty and the beast.

We're definitely going to need some profile pics... Very sexy thus far!

[dkny2la]

Hey roQer, those are some sweet lookin boards! Kinda off topic but, you have any comments on how the Tyrolia Attacks compare to the Look/Rossi Pivot clamps?

[roQer]

This is an Attack 16 with metal toe and heel. I couldn't tell any difference in the skiing performance between those two. Both very solid binders. Attacks have a cleverly constructed and very solid brake which unlike the brake on Pivots gets really out of the way. I'd still consider the Pivots more trustworthy because of the vertical release at the toe. Attacks don't have this. Pivots just didn't fit on the Spur without additional shims so I went for the Tyrolia.

[abraham]

I like the weirdly squared off tips, maybe people won't ask about mine so much in a season or two

[dkny2la]

This is an Attack 16 with metal toe and heel. I couldn't tell any difference in the skiing performance between those two. Both very solid binders. Attacks have a cleverly constructed and very solid brake which unlike the brake on Pivots gets really out of the way. I'd still consider the Pivots more trustworthy because of the vertical release at the toe. Attacks don't have this. Pivots just didn't fit on the Spur without additional shims so I went for the Tyrolia.

Interesting - thanks for the info. Why do the Pivots require a shim to fit new Spurs?

[gaijin]

Interesting - thanks for the info. Why do the Pivots require a shim to fit new Spurs?

Look closely. The underfoot area has raised sidewalls. The Look mounting plate is too wide.

[roQer]

Interesting - thanks for the info. Why do the Pivots require a shim to fit new Spurs?

I did explain this in one of my posts above.

Oh boy, the new Spur is quite disappointing. I have now 2 days on them, yesterday in absolutely variable conditions and today in 20-30 cm powder. It has an annoying speed limit in anything hard & steep or hard & uneven. The tails have no backbone anymore. Gone is the big mountain powder charging character of the old Spur. The asymmetry is good for nothin, maybe besides the possibility to make the skis more turny by switching the sides.
IMO Blizzard screw up another great ski, unfortunately.

[XavierD]

who the fuck judges an Asymmetrical 124mm ski based on how it performs on hard and uneven snow? That's like bitching about a full size truck's poor gas mileage and cornering ability. It is a pure dedicated powder ski, not a big mountain charger and no one has marketed it as anything else. It's supposed to be compromised in hard and uneven snow.

Plenty of current Spurs and Bodacious in shops if you want to buy one.
On sale too: http://www.evo.com/skis/blizzard-spu...s-2016-189.jpg
http://www.evo.com/skis/blizzard-bod...s-2016-177.jpg

[roQer]

Than Blizzard should give it another name. I don't expect a Hyundai if I buy a BMW, to stick with your automobile analogy.

The other point is, from a company like Blizzard I'd expect the ability to make a dedicated powder ski which performs well also in non-powder conditions like the OG Spur. The funny thing is, the asym Spur skis powder not even better then the old one.
But wait, in 2 years they bring back the OG Spur like happened with the Bodacious.

[geo039]

who the fuck judges an Asymmetrical 124mm ski based on how it performs on hard and uneven snow? That's like bitching about a full size truck's poor gas mileage and cornering ability. It is a pure dedicated powder ski, not a big mountain charger and no one has marketed it as anything else. It's supposed to be compromised in hard and uneven snow.

Plenty of current Spurs and Bodacious in shops if you want to buy one.
On sale too: http://www.evo.com/skis/blizzard-spu...s-2016-189.jpg
http://www.evo.com/skis/blizzard-bod...s-2016-177.jpg

And the industry chugs on. Shops bend over and companies keep flooding the market. Fun fun.

[wasatchback]

The concept of the Spur is that it's a constantly evolving powder ski.
It will always be changing and never the same. This was the goal from the beginning. If you want the old Spur there will be plenty for you to buy on sale cause it was too much ski for way to many people. Even our guides in AK didn't want to ski it cause it was too one dimensional. Athletes moved away from it after the first year as well. Awesome at going fast but that's it. The new one was never touted to be what the old one was. It was touted to be the opposite. A fun playful, true powder ski. And they are waaaaaay more fun at so many more things in pow other than going fast. Way more maneuverable, poppy, playful. Easier to shut down and ski in tight spaces and personally I've had a way better time even skiing cut up leftovers as you can jump from place to place so easily. The old Spur worked for the first two runs in the resort then they were useless, new ones could be easily skied all day in resort in pow.

It is a powder ski, not a crud ski, not an everyday ski.

[roQer]

That's right. My skiing style is not exactly poppy or playful. I do not much other things in powder besides going as fast as possible and occasional hucking.
Apropos hucking, seriously, why did you make the tail of the new Spur so whimsy soft? Who asked for that? I just truly hate to wheel out of sketchy landings.

[Toadman]

Had the chance to demo the Rustler 11 at Crystal yesterday. Conditions were 11" of cut up pow and crud off-piste, and firm groomers up high, and soft mushy down lower. They only had the 180cm in the tent when I showed up, so took them for a few laps up in Green Valley.

First off it's a light ski. It's got tip rocker and some tail rocker. It also has a short turning radius at 112mm width for the 180cm version, I think it's rated at 19m. It was really easy to ski in the 180cm length. What impressed me is how it blasted through the chopped up crud in Green Valley. The tip rocker, and the stiffness up front made it a blast to just let it rip. Never felt squirrely, or never felt like I was going to get pushed back if I stood on it and put some forward tip pressure. It could carve or schemer with just a simple change in balance and ankle flexion. Had good float in the little bits of untracked I found. I had heard complaints about the old Gunsmoke not having enough stiffness to really let it rip in variable conditions. For me at 170lbs, there was no issue with enough muscle to do the job. I'm guessing the 188cm length would be just that much more stable and floaty for fairly big days. The fact that it just has a small amount of camber in it made it all that more amazing on how well it carves. Went through a few inches of wet mank on Lower Ferk's and it just ate it up. I like that the tip rocker is on the moderate side, and with just a subtle bit of tail rocker, it is easy to schemer and release the tails. Never felt any sense of tip flap in the ski. Didn't really look for a speed limit but it's probably just as fast as I want to go. Very fun ski to be on for the conditions at Crystal yesterday. Despite the short turn radius, it never felt hooky in the tips or tail. Just an all around solid ski with enough energy for me. Pretty much just click in and go. I felt right at home from the first turn to the last. I could see this being the type of ski that you could take on a two week ski trip to Europe and not regret wishing you had something else to ski on, whether it be a 15" powder day, or three days afterwards with no fresh snow. I'd be interested to hear anyone else's take on it who has skied the Gunsmoke. My one time on the Gunsmoke a few years back was that it was a bit too soft for firmer conditions, and not that stable in cut up heavier crud type conditions that you generally encounter in the spring. I'd say Blizzard has scored a hit with this version.

[Toadman]

So I got to ski the 193 gun smoke today and gosh darn is that a fun ski. Chargers hard while being super easy to ski at the same time.
Is the rustler 11 going to be even better??

Based on my recent experience, I'm going to say yes.

[XavierD]

Sorry, I had the 188s for a minute.

I'all be getting a pair. floats just as well as my old Bodacious without the harshness in crud. I think I'll be putting kingpins on them.

[mr_pretzel]

Rustler 11 compared to a 193 gunsmoke, would you get the 188s or the 192s?
Hopefully I get to try out a pair soon.

By the way XavierD i recently saw you posted about length choices of the cochise, saying that they should be about as tall as you. Do you reget getting the 192s instead of the 185s?
For whom is the 192cm a good candidate for compared to the 185s?

[XavierD]

I would likely ski the 185 a lot more than the 192s.

I thought the 188 Rustler 11 was enough ski for me. No reason for me to get the 192.

[Toadman]

IMO, the Rustler is so easy to ski, that going longer shouldn't be an issue. I like skis in the 184-186cm range, and I would go for the 188cm for me. It is interesting the size choices for the Rustler series but they have their reasons. I would have gone with maybe 164/170/178/184/190.

[skibrd]

IMO, the Rustler is so easy to ski, that going longer shouldn't be an issue. I like skis in the 184-186cm range, and I would go for the 188cm for me. It is interesting the size choices for the Rustler series but they have their reasons. I would have gone with maybe 164/170/178/184/190.

190 is a short ski for tall people (me included). 193-195 is a sweet spot for taller skiers and people who rip hard. Most ski companies longest skis are around 193-195. I believe only Praxis, Faction, and DPS have production models over 195 cm, and I could argue that all 3 have a combined smaller market share then Blizzard does.

Personally, I wish the Spur or Rustler 11 came in something between 200 and 205 cm. In big open terrain, it's easy to out ski a 192, hence why I'm looking to pick up an extra pair of 203 cm Shiros.

[Andyski]

I have 6 days on 180 Rustler 10s, 3 touring (Dynafits/Vulcans) and 3 in bounds (Solly/Lange rx130). Conditions were shin to knee deep powder some of 4 of those days, sun crust, windjack, deep slop, hard groomers, soft groomers and Alpental glue on the rest.

I like them. They're not magical yet, but this is the most sidecut I've been on in several years, so that's an adjustment.

They're excellent and intuitive in powder, doing better than I thought they would for a 102 underfoot ski. But you don't get these for that.

I found them really hooky and nervous in harder snow until I worked the full length of the edges with a gummy with gusto. Much better now.

They're playful, but not super nervous, which is quite fun. They've been good in crud for their weight (lack of tip taper is a plus), but not a Katana, obviously.

I do have the manage the side cut in the front of the ski at times. If you get to aggressive with edge angles and forward pressure on the tips (like you might dicking around in spring bumps or just sloppy corn) those tips will whip across far more sharply than I'd like, sometimes throwing me off balance, but I'll get that figured out.

They feel pretty damp so far, but I haven't really tested them in coral reef/icier kinds of shit.

Got these to tour volcanoes and actually have fun skiing, and am confident they'll rule at that.

[PhishingME]

How different are the 18 Brahma vs 17?