or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2012 Blizzard Skis Preview
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 Blizzard Skis Preview - Page 3

post #61 of 89

Ah, thank you Noodler! :-)

post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post

I was lucky to get a day in Vail with about 2 ft of fresh powder back in December, so I rented the Rossignol S110W (rockered and reverse camber) which I think is the women's version of the men's S7. I loved it!!! Floated in the back bowls. I ski on Blizzard Viva Magnum 7.6 on my weekend mountain in Maine. Last weekend I was able to demo next year's Blizzard Crush, but on hard pack. No problems, liked them a lot. But, can anyone offer thoughts on how they would compare to the Rossignol's on a good powder day?



I have skied the 177 "the one" and the 188 Rossi s7. In new light fresh snow both skis rock but the Rossi's rock more. In breakable crust the rossi work and the blizzards wont work, in heavy manky snow the blizzard are alot of work, and the Rossi's are less. the blizzards get the nod for everything else, groomers, bumps, skied out woods, park, slush bumps where the Rossi do well in various types of difficult untracked snow and heavy but not cruddy tracked snow.

 

If you can justify both I would do it;)

post #63 of 89
I have had a slightly different experience than Josh... Probably due to lengths skied. I have owned the 176 S7 and the 177 Crush. I hadn't skied the Crush in truly deep snow until just the past few days in Utah, where we had everything up to mid- thigh deep over a few days. I was very pleased with the Blizzard in all conditions, even heavy mank and crust. I would probably want a wider ski if I were going to be in thigh deep snow ALL day, but for the really deep shots here and there, they did fine. In the light deep snow, I sunk in farther than with the Rossis, and frankly that's just more fun. When the snow got heavier or wind-compacted, I floated and didn't get stuck too low, so it was the perfect combination of being able to sink or swim, as needed. We didn't have true breakable crust, but there were some spots of wind- and/or sun-affected layers.

The S7s I didn't like so much in used powder. I demo'd some 185 JJs a while ago, and they seemed to fix that deficiency, but I didn't really want that much ski in conditions other than open bowl skiing. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure I'm not as big as Bushwacker, so there is probably a good reason for the different takes.

I guess the best way to put it is that I don't really even notice my skis when I'm skiing. They just do what they're supposed to do. Under certain circumstances, the S7s would annoy me. Haven't discovered that yet with the Crushes.
Edited by segbrown - 3/30/11 at 7:08am
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

I have had a slightly different experience than Josh...


Don't worry........EVERYBODY has a different experience than Josh.......biggrin.gif

 

SJ

post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post





The Viva 8.1 is still in the line with the added benefit of a bit of early rise. 



I get to demo these this weekend--the 2012's :D Wanted to take the Black Pearl out but they don't have them at the wee little mountain of Brian Head.

post #66 of 89

GF just demoed the 2012 Blizzard Crush (163 cm) on Saturday and loved them.  Are they unchanged from 2011?  If so, does anyone know of any deals on new or demo 2011's?

Thank you,

BB

post #67 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boisebob View Post

GF just demoed the 2012 Blizzard Crush (163 cm) on Saturday and loved them.  Are they unchanged from 2011?  If so, does anyone know of any deals on new or demo 2011's?

Thank you,

BB



Which is also the same ski as the 163 ONE. Shoot SierraJim a PM, I think The StartHaus still has A pair left. 

post #68 of 89


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

I have had a slightly different experience than Josh... Probably due to lengths skied. I have owned the 176 S7 and the 177 Crush. I hadn't skied the Crush in truly deep snow until just the past few days in Utah, where we had everything up to mid- thigh deep over a few days. I was very pleased with the Blizzard in all conditions, even heavy mank and crust. I would probably want a wider ski if I were going to be in thigh deep snow ALL day, but for the really deep shots here and there, they did fine. In the light deep snow, I sunk in farther than with the Rossis, and frankly that's just more fun. When the snow got heavier or wind-compacted, I floated and didn't get stuck too low, so it was the perfect combination of being able to sink or swim, as needed. We didn't have true breakable crust, but there were some spots of wind- and/or sun-affected layers.

The S7s I didn't like so much in used powder. I demo'd some 185 JJs a while ago, and they seemed to fix that deficiency, but I didn't really want that much ski in conditions other than open bowl skiing. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure I'm not as big as Bushwacker, so there is probably a good reason for the different takes.

I guess the best way to put it is that I don't really even notice my skis when I'm skiing. They just do what they're supposed to do. Under certain circumstances, the S7s would annoy me. Haven't discovered that yet with the Crushes.


Thank you for the great post! I'm still thinking.... but leaning toward the Crush,

post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post


 


Thank you for the great post! I'm still thinking.... but leaning toward the Crush,

Sorry to continue the hijack.... but,

but why? You were effusive about the Rossignols and tepidly happy with the Crush. The Crush is 98 underfoot. It will not be as much of a Powder Ski as the Rossi. I personally am with SegBrown on the Rossis, but you loved them and that's what counts.

 

post #70 of 89


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom View Post



Sorry to continue the hijack.... but,

but why? You were effusive about the Rossignols and tepidly happy with the Crush. The Crush is 98 underfoot. It will not be as much of a Powder Ski as the Rossi. I personally am with SegBrown on the Rossis, but you loved them and that's what counts.

 

 

I did love the Rossis. It was the first time I'd ever been on skis wider than 76 underfoot . .. and in the 2 ft of powder, I was thrilled. So, maybe that had something to do with it. But, I trust the quality of Blizzard skis over Rossi --- because I own the Viva Magnum 7.6 and because of some of the things I've read. I guess I'm concerned about that, so it makes me lean toward the Blizzards.

 

The 2012 Crush was fine on the steepest stuff I ski on with hardpack conditions. Since I didn't get to ski them in powder, I thought I'd ask here. The Rossis are 105 underfoot. Is 98 underfoot going to be a significant difference in powder?

 

Thanks! (I'm sorry too about the "hijack", but I thought it was ok since this thread is about Blizzard skis)

 

Thanks again for the input!

post #71 of 89

1. I was stoked to see SJ has adopted my terminology of "twips", which I believe I coined several years ago in these very pages.

 

2. I personally think the flat tails on the Bushwacker and the other freeride models is sweet, makes them much more versatile for A/T set-ups

 

3. Looking forward to trying the BW as my T9s are starting to wane. 

 

4. Looking forward to trying the new 8.7 as I've been test driving this year's model for the past several days as a teaching ski and it's pretty solid, at least on the groomers and teaching lower level skiers the basic turn mechanics.

post #72 of 89

I agree  The graphics look like a 6th grade art project.  I hope that they hire a qualified graphic artist for 2013.

post #73 of 89

Phil called and told me my Bonafides are in = stoked.  If they ski as well as everyone says, and they're as ugly as they look in the pics, then I'll just put a bunch of stickers on them...

post #74 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post

Phil called and told me my Bonafides are in = stoked.  If they ski as well as everyone says, and they're as ugly as they look in the pics, then I'll just put a bunch of stickers on them...


Frankly. I am getting used to the graphics. LOL. 

 

post #75 of 89

In high school, we used to paint our skis flat black to keep people from stealing them.  Same tactic might work for those that hate the graphics.  I had a friend that had a pair of Blizzards...he took great care to paint-connect the bottom of the L to the bottom of the I to make them Buzzards.

post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post

Phil called and told me my Bonafides are in = stoked.  If they ski as well as everyone says, and they're as ugly as they look in the pics, then I'll just put a bunch of stickers on them...



they sparkle what more is there to ask.

 

IN all honestly my bushwacker's get more compliments on their graphics than any other ski I have ever owned.

post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post





they sparkle what more is there to ask.

 

IN all honestly my bushwacker's get more compliments on their graphics than any other ski I have ever owned.

I wouldn't say they get more compliments as much as they get noticed.  There is a difference but I don't care as long as they ski  as well as these do!


 

 

post #78 of 89

They may (probably are) an advance over my old cream/green Titan Cronus, but the graphics are a major thumbs-down. The tails look like some tagger took his spraypaints to a watea, and the tips like some 8-year-old who's seen too many Jason Pollack exhibitions. Blizzard needs to catch a clue.

 

post #79 of 89

Jimintokyo, did you hear the story about why they have the bull graphic?

There is a reason for it and it comes from the heart, doesn't change whether or not its not pleasing to your eye, but it is a cool story.  

I, personally, love the Black Pearl and the Bull gives me some extra RAWR when I need it!

 

post #80 of 89


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimintokyo View Post

 the graphics are a major thumbs-down. The tails look like some tagger took his spraypaints to a watea, and the tips like some 8-year-old who's seen too many Jason Pollack exhibitions. Blizzard needs to catch a clue.

 

Jason pollack:

10009442.jpg

Graffiti Tag:

Tags.jpg

 

Blizzard Bonafide:

e442fb7b_BlizzardBonafide

 

Maybe I'm not an artiste, but I'm not seeing what your seeing.

post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Jimintokyo, did you hear the story about why they have the bull graphic?

There is a reason for it and it comes from the heart, doesn't change whether or not its not pleasing to your eye, but it is a cool story.  

I, personally, love the Black Pearl and the Bull gives me some extra RAWR when I need it!

 



post #82 of 89

I showed my 14-year-old son a picture of the Bonafides and his response was "Now *that* is bad ass!"

post #83 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff2010 View Post

I showed my 14-year-old son a picture of the Bonafides and his response was "Now *that* is bad ass!"



See!! That was my response to the Blizzard Black Pearls!!

 

 

 

post #84 of 89

Hey out there in TV land I was wondering if anyone had gotten the chance to demo the 2012 Gotama and the Cochise side by this past winter. I love my Volkl skis, (Mantra, 2011 Bridge), but I demoed the Blizzard Bonafide last year and they were awesome. Truthfully I thought I should trade both my Mantra and Bridge in for it.I liked it that much. I'm wondering if the Cochise is that good too, when compared side by side to the Goat. Any info would be appreciated. 

 

post #85 of 89

Anyone have any binding suggestions for the new Bones, I was kind of thinking about a pivot 14.  Any ideas??

post #86 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyg1011 View Post

Anyone have any binding suggestions for the new Bones, I was kind of thinking about a pivot 14.  Any ideas??



You struck oil. Mount em up. 

post #87 of 89

Any opinion on these Knee bindings I've been reading about the past couple years?

post #88 of 89
Thread Starter 

There is a good thread HERE to discuss The KneeBinding. 

post #89 of 89



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post


 

 

I did love the Rossis. It was the first time I'd ever been on skis wider than 76 underfoot . .. and in the 2 ft of powder, I was thrilled.

 

The 2012 Crush was fine on the steepest stuff I ski on with hardpack conditions. Since I didn't get to ski them in powder, I thought I'd ask here. The Rossis are 105 underfoot. Is 98 underfoot going to be a significant difference in powder?

 

 

 

Thanks again for the input!



    My daughter has the Crush. She is a very good skier. It all depends on your weight for ski width in powder. My daughter is 160LBS and the Crush at 98 under foot floats her no problem in a foot of fresh the other day. Crude was also no problem near the end of the day. She technically only needs a ski at her weight of 78 under foot to float and not hit the hard packed under the powder. So any depth of snow from 1ft to 4ft shouldn't make any difference floating this ski at her weight. The Rossi at 105 under foot will allow you to ski even more near the surface as the width will have even more up force. The sacrifice the wider ya go than you need will be hard snow performance. So I would say its a little redundant to have a ski that's to far over your floatation needs. It just means lesser snow performance will be a bit less.

 

    My daughter also skied a few days since she got them on icy groomers and she could lay them on edge linking turns with very good hold. She and I are very impressed with the crush. Any women between 110-180 lbs could easily make this ski there one ski quiver!!!  My daughter is 5ft1 160lbs. Heavy strong racer girl. She actually didn't mind the way they skied on the icy groomers at very high speeds over her Atomic Race stocks.

 

    See I went over kill on the powder ski. Mine are 127 under foot. Though fine in powder they are to wide every were else. I only need a ski 110-117 under foot to float me at 225lbs. So the new Bodacious is very interesting to me as oneish ski quiver. i haven't hear how a heavier guy like me skied them on groomers yet but I'm thinking they might just be the trick. I don't think anyone under 200lbs could ski them very well on groomers because they would be to light for this ski except as a powder ski. But a guy 220+ could get that edge in on ice I'm sure. i can try a pair soon Ill let ya know. My Blizzard guy her up north says there discontinuing the IQMax system because its very expensive to make. Its a great ski system but the price point because of all the prosses into it make them pricey to make so proffit margins are less with the IQ Max rail skis unless they could sell them for there full MSRP. I know you can get them for less but all the IQ Max skis are MSRP over a grand! The new flip cores are all under that price and very good also and cost less to make. I hear they dont pay there graphics guy anything. {Kidding]:]

 

    That was also one reason I bought her the 163 Crush. When I can get the right deal I plan on getting back country binders for them also. That way we can skin together without the need for another ski!! That's cool. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2012 Blizzard Skis Preview