Blizzard Gunsmoke vs Line Supernatural 115

[Harry]

Someone else will have to comment on the Gunsmokes.

I have Gunsmokes and I love them.

[SkiDaddy970]

SkiDaddy -- may help recommendations if you tell people what your use purpose is.

My understanding for the first post is that you're looking for a ski on snowy days or during a storm cycle -- a powder-friendly ski that can still hang in the resort and isn't one dimensional.

And that you already have a 98mm daily driver in the Alibi?

All correct ... if it was slightly more versatile than a dedicated pow ski, that would be great, but my daily driver is the Alibi. I should also add, that I pretty much only ski inbounds.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SkiDaddy970]

BG is daily driver for UT but maybe not for CO

Spur is really fun on groomers and Mach in pow.

Can't comment on gunsmoke

So, would you say the Spur qualifies as an aggressive resort pow ski? A fat all mountain ski?

Is there anything the 16/17 Spur does not handle well besides jibbing, switch, and park?

The reviews I've read are compelling ...

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[skibrd]

I found the Spur to be a one dimensional ski, powder days over 6in only ski, the deeper the better. I've had some great days on them, but I was grabbing my Gunsmokes more often then not. I found the Spur to be overkill and not much fun, I'd spend all day trying trying to not go Mach looney, instead of having fun skiing. The Gunsmokes are almost as much fun when it's snorkel deep as the Spurs, and are a ton more fun then the Spurs when it's not crazy deep.

If you get the Gunsmokes, I highly recommend not mounting them on the line/suggested. Blister has a great review that suggests mounting them slightly forward, and the Gunsmokes have a thread buried somewhere on here where pretty much everyone agrees the suggested mount is too far back by 1-1.5cm. I've skied them at suggested and on open runs they are fun, but the tips do what they want when it gets tight. Since my pair came with Demo bindings I played with the mount point before putting Pivots on them, and found I liked +3 the day I was messing around. Plus 3 was alright, but after I while I realized it was too far forward by 1.5cm to be an every day ski. Two buddies and I all spend time on my pair this past spring (they were looking at a similar set up you are, but are including the Rustler 11 in their search) and came to the same conclusion that around 1-1.5 cm forward of suggested is perfect for our three different skiing styles (one ex-bump racer, one ex-jibber rat, and an ex-instructor carver). They are a different ski at +1 and +1.5 then on the line or at +3.

[gregL]

So, would you say the Spur qualifies as an aggressive resort pow ski? A fat all mountain ski?
Is there anything the 16/17 Spur does not handle well besides jibbing, switch, and park?

The 16/17 Spur isn't a resort ski at all unless your resort can guarantee deep untracked all day long and the terrain is big and open. It wants to rail rather than slarve, and wants to make large radius turns all the time. It's also not very damp and transmits a lot of energy to the skier - once it gets tracked out or if you happen to hit some harder snow under the pow it can be disconcerting. So not especially good for tight chutes, dense trees, or variable snow conditions with less than 12-14 inches of fresh.

The new asymmetrical 2018 Spur is much more versatile in terms of being manageable at any speed and absorbing chatter.

[utahpete]

Haven't skied the Blizzards, though I really liked their older "ones" and Titan Atlas. I never thought that I'd find a ski that suited me more than a Nordica Helldorado 185 (liked it enough to score the web for a spare pair) until I bought the Supernatural 115s at STP ($200, couldn't resist). My last 20 + days last season I skied the Supernaturals exclusively, new favorite ski ever ! 5'9" 205, ski the 186, for me they do everything well. Waist deep wasn't asking too much, yet ripped the groomers back to the gon. Short turning radius, but will hold a long radius, high speed turn when desired.

Sent from my i15-TG using Tapatalk

[SkiDaddy970]

Haven't skied the Blizzards, though I really liked their older "ones" and Titan Atlas. I never thought that I'd find a ski that suited me more than a Nordica Helldorado 185 (liked it enough to score the web for a spare pair) until I bought the Supernatural 115s at STP ($200, couldn't resist). My last 20 + days last season I skied the Supernaturals exclusively, new favorite ski ever ! 5'9" 205, ski the 186, for me they do everything well. Waist deep wasn't asking too much, yet ripped the groomers back to the gon. Short turning radius, but will hold a long radius, high speed turn when desired.

Sent from my i15-TG using Tapatalk

I've been hoping to hear from someone that skis the SN's - thanks for chiming in UtahPete!

So, I've got a few inches on you, but are you happy with the 186 vs the 192? Is there ever a time when you wished you had 6 more cm on your skis?

Do you ski them mounted on the recommended line?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[wildmanwillie]

If you get the Gunsmokes, I highly recommend not mounting them on the line/suggested. Blister has a great review that suggests mounting them slightly forward, and the Gunsmokes have a thread buried somewhere on here where pretty much everyone agrees the suggested mount is too far back by 1-1.5cm. I've skied them at suggested and on open runs they are fun, but the tips do what they want when it gets tight. Since my pair came with Demo bindings I played with the mount point before putting Pivots on them, and found I liked +3 the day I was messing around. Plus 3 was alright, but after I while I realized it was too far forward by 1.5cm to be an every day ski. Two buddies and I all spend time on my pair this past spring (they were looking at a similar set up you are, but are including the Rustler 11 in their search) and came to the same conclusion that around 1-1.5 cm forward of suggested is perfect for our three different skiing styles (one ex-bump racer, one ex-jibber rat, and an ex-instructor carver). They are a different ski at +1 and +1.5 then on the line or at +3.

I have mine at +2 and like them very much at that mount point. I haven't ridden them at other mount points but damn does +2 feel about perfect for me.

[smooth operator]

I found the Spur to be a one dimensional ski, powder days over 6in only ski, the deeper the better. I've had some great days on them, but I was grabbing my Gunsmokes more often then not. I found the Spur to be overkill and not much fun, I'd spend all day trying trying to not go Mach looney, instead of having fun skiing. The Gunsmokes are almost as much fun when it's snorkel deep as the Spurs, and are a ton more fun then the Spurs when it's not crazy deep.

If you get the Gunsmokes, I highly recommend not mounting them on the line/suggested. Blister has a great review that suggests mounting them slightly forward, and the Gunsmokes have a thread buried somewhere on here where pretty much everyone agrees the suggested mount is too far back by 1-1.5cm. I've skied them at suggested and on open runs they are fun, but the tips do what they want when it gets tight. Since my pair came with Demo bindings I played with the mount point before putting Pivots on them, and found I liked +3 the day I was messing around. Plus 3 was alright, but after I while I realized it was too far forward by 1.5cm to be an every day ski. Two buddies and I all spend time on my pair this past spring (they were looking at a similar set up you are, but are including the Rustler 11 in their search) and came to the same conclusion that around 1-1.5 cm forward of suggested is perfect for our three different skiing styles (one ex-bump racer, one ex-jibber rat, and an ex-instructor carver). They are a different ski at +1 and +1.5 then on the line or at +3.

Funnily, i mounted 1 or 1.5cm behind the line after reading the gunsmoke thread. I am on the 186 though, and I seem to remember most people favouring going forward on the 193 and going back on the 186. I should add I like a more traditional mount.

[skibrd]

The 186, I think, has a different core and flex pattern. It's really a different ski, more of a jibby ski, less of a pow ski. I think that's why people liked them back a bit. I haven't been on the 186, but a buddy was trying both last winter and liked the 193 more then the 186

[wildmanwillie]

The 186, I think, has a different core and flex pattern. It's really a different ski, more of a jibby ski, less of a pow ski. I think that's why people liked them back a bit. I haven't been on the 186, but a buddy was trying both last winter and liked the 193 more then the 186

Hmm interesting. Personally I wouldn't consider the 186 a jibby ski. It's damp with minimal pop, fairly stiff, and heavy as fuck compared to other skis of similar design. I do not particularly enjoy hitting jib features in the park with the 'smokes. Fucking around on the sides of runs and cruising through jump lines is fine, but not as fun as on other skis.

I have some MVPs coming in soon which I hope to find more playful and jibby.

My initial reaction to mounting behind recommended on this type of ski is you're fighting the design and a different shape may be better suited to your style and intended purpose. But ya know different strokes and shit.

[whyturn]

Playful charger is relative. Is it for pow days? The billy goat is playful and charges. Not great on groomers. Spur charges and can be playful at Mach with flick of tail. Great groomer ski. No ski is going to do it all well. BG is most versatile to me for pow days but to fly lhasa fat or my kusalhasa