Page 106 of 109 FirstFirst ... 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 LastLast
Results 2,626 to 2,650 of 2711
  1. #2626
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,041
    If the 94 is anything close to the old 93 I’d say they’re pretty different.

    Neither are demanding, but the 93 didn’t really float that well, but was very easy to bend into a carve

    The Rustler has more tail rocker and a more «modern» mount point as well, so that should be taken into account, but neither is «better» as such

    It carves pretty well though

  2. #2627
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    ut
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by PhishingME View Post
    By "rounder flex" I suspect they worked thru the lack of transition from tip to underfoot of previous R9. Sort of notchy.
    You do sort of need to stay centered on them too. After some nasty injuries my charging days are sort of behind me. My hardpack is a Brahma 82 which can handle some soft too.
    Correct. They have roughly the same amount of metal as the previous gen but it’s been redistributed. Having the two strips of metal that run on either side of the ski but never join gets rid of the hinge but still allows for the similar torsional flex that the previous gen had in the tips and tails. They don’t need to be “driven” to have fun on them at all but they have a bit more stability at speed and in cruddier snow as the tips don’t deflect nearly as much.

  3. #2628
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,415
    Quote Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post
    They don’t need to be “driven” to have fun on them at all but they have a bit more stability at speed and in cruddier snow as the tips don’t deflect nearly as much.
    Sounds like I should be deciding between the new R9 or E94 then!!!
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  4. #2629
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    Sounds like I should be deciding between the new R9 or E94 then!!!
    By the way. I’m not sure if neither is what I’d choose for «refrozen junk».

    I’d rather look at some of Volkls offerings

  5. #2630
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,415

    What's Blizzard up to?

    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    By the way. I’m not sure if neither is what I’d choose for «refrozen junk».

    I’d rather look at some of Volkls offerings
    Yeah I have the K88 high on my list. Longer effective edge with not nearly as much tip rocker as Enforcer or Rustler though, so I would downsize in length for that one.

    Mostly I skied some warm/high density dust on crust yesterday where some of it had been collected into packed pockets where a 94mm ski would be more capable/smeary, while still having most of the bite of an 88mm ski on the scalped underlying boilerplate.

    Also I try to spend as little time on groomed runs as possible, so I’m not looking for a flat tailed carver that has beef, more looking for a settled and not too locked in all mountain ski that has damped bite on garbage while being fun off piste.

    Gotta love low elevation coastal snow skiing
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  6. #2631
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    555
    Has there been any changes to the Zero G 105 in the last few years? Just snagged a pair of the 188cm that amazon said were 2022's. They look like black tips that fad to blue top sheet in the picture.

  7. #2632
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Danby
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Pabst View Post
    Has there been any changes to the Zero G 105 in the last few years? Just snagged a pair of the 188cm that amazon said were 2022's. They look like black tips that fad to blue top sheet in the picture.
    the 22/23 which I think are the ones you are talking about got an updated core. The trublend wood core. Supposed to take the carbon feel away some what.

  8. #2633
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    105
    It does indeed ! Actually did the upgrade and they do ski way better


    Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

  9. #2634
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo View Post
    It does indeed ! Actually did the upgrade and they do ski way better


    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!

  10. #2635
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Flippo View Post
    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

    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


    Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

  11. #2636
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo View Post
    Sorry I was actually talking about the updated zero G 105

    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


    Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
    My bad. Thank you for your input!

  12. #2637
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,342
    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

  13. #2638
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Flippo View Post
    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.

  14. #2639
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,369
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    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.

  15. #2640
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,342
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    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

  16. #2641
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,369
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    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 . . .

  17. #2642
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,342
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    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

  18. #2643
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,369
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    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!

  19. #2644
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,342
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    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

  20. #2645
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Banff, AB
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Flippo View Post
    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.

  21. #2646
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Masshole
    Posts
    752
    Anyone been on the new series?

  22. #2647
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,667
    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.

  23. #2648
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,415
    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.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  24. #2649
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    438
    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?

  25. #2650
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,415
    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.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

Posting Permissions

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