or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2012 Blizzard Bushwacker
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 Blizzard Bushwacker - Page 6

post #151 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
 


Not trying to pick a fight (it just the New Jersey in me)....  But Dawg that's for you - aren't you doing the advancing skier a disservice by making proclamations that sound like they apply to everybody: maybe someone prefers short radius turns or slower skiing (that's me) or wants to get better in the bumps.  I can't believe that the 180mm wouldn't be too long for anybody like this except for a very strong and/or heavy expert skier (then again that jump down to 173cm is pretty big).

 

Was the "jockey" you mention an expert skier, hard-charging advanced skier, or and advancing intermediate, cause if it's the latter a good argument could be made that the 166cm is more ski than they need (that ski is 6cm's taller than they are).  I'm just trying to understand this predilection (almost a bullying) around here to "go long".  Note - I'm probably just damaged goods trying to get even for all those years in the 60's and 70's when I was skiing 190 or 195cm skis and could never figure out why I couldn't get my skis to do anything 'cept go straight.


 He is a pretty fit guy, 60-years old though.

post #152 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
 

Another bump - I'm already discussing the BW and what length I should get at Thumbnail reviews from the 2014 SIA on snow testing: Sub 90mm category.  So Bushwackerin - I've been tempted to get the 166cm version at a killer $250 deal from STP.  However, some are recommending the 173cm even though I'm 130lbs. and I've been allergic to most skis near or above 170cm (their justification seems to be the long rocker).  Would you say that my 166 vs. 173 choice is similar to your 173/180 debate...in which case the short turner, bump/trees skier in me would probably go with the 166cm?  For reasons not worth going into I haven't tried the ski and won't be able to demo them to answer this question (at in time to catch the deal).  Thoughts?

 

 

I think you will be fine.  honestly with the exception of fast crud skiing there is not much loss going shorter.  since you got them already lets us know how they are when you get out on them in February.

 

in your last post I am not sure if you were aware that bushwackerinpa = Josh Matta. by the comment as you quoted me "bushwackerinpa" in all of his skiing prowness even liked the 173.

 

 

 

 

post #153 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

 

 

I think you will be fine.  honestly with the exception of fast crud skiing there is not much loss going shorter.  since you got them already lets us know how they are when you get out on them in February.

 

in your last post I am not sure if you were aware that bushwackerinpa = Josh Matta. by the comment as you quoted me "bushwackerinpa" in all of his skiing prowness even liked the 173.

 

 

 

 

for his style and tempo, this is the right length.  

post #154 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
 


If I was your size I'd be skiing the 173's also (you are almost 8cm taller along with being ~20lbs. heavier).  So why then would anyone assume that the 166cm is too short for me (rhetorical question...no need to respond...just being argumentative)?

 

So back to my central question (not necessarily for you lott42) - why are there so many of these "gotta have 'em" top-rated Buswhackers laying around unwanted from both 2012 and 2013?

Yes, I realize it's a rhetorical question but I want to comment any ways. I think the 166 are the right size for you :)

 

Personally, I'm not sure if the BW ever got enough "pub" on how good they are. They may not be the best "carver" out there(but what the hell do I know, I've only skied about 6-7 of the "newer" shaped skis myself). I came from the "old" 195-205 straight skis to these "shorter" skis. Boy, these things are easy compared to those older ones.
 

From my limited experience, they ski well for me. For me, being lighter, WEIGHT of the skis is a major factor for me. These babies are light and easy to ski. I can go 5-6 hours straight skiing without getting tired. My older Sultan 85's would wear me down after 3-4 hours.

post #155 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by lott42 View Post
 

Yes, I realize it's a rhetorical question but I want to comment any ways. I think the 166 are the right size for you :)

 

Personally, I'm not sure if the BW ever got enough "pub" on how good they are. They may not be the best "carver" out there(but what the hell do I know, I've only skied about 6-7 of the "newer" shaped skis myself). I came from the "old" 195-205 straight skis to these "shorter" skis. Boy, these things are easy compared to those older ones.
 

From my limited experience, they ski well for me. For me, being lighter, WEIGHT of the skis is a major factor for me. These babies are light and easy to ski. I can go 5-6 hours straight skiing without getting tired. My older Sultan 85's would wear me down after 3-4 hours.

Not a problem (it's not like I didn't hijack this thread anyway).  I'm glad to hear you like 'em and they feel light (I too like a ski that is "flickable" and it will be interesting to contrast I how like 'em given that the Sultan 85's didn't tire me (other than when it was playing porpoise in some fresh snow), since I tend to carve more than "smear" or slide.  And yeah, those old straight skis were a pain especially for us lightweights - I started skiing the first shaped skis offered by Volant way back when and have been going wider and shorter ever since.  Enjoy!

post #156 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

...in your last post I am not sure if you were aware that bushwackerinpa = Josh Matta. by the comment as you quoted me "bushwackerinpa" in all of his skiing prowness even liked the 173.

Well I'll be damned - how many alias's do I need to keep track of?

post #157 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 


 He is a pretty fit guy, 60-years old though.


Actually it's 58, but who's counting. Then again, oy, my aching back...which is on the mend...after which I intend to go out there and kick some young butts on them short BW's....:) 


Edited by ski-ra - 12/15/13 at 8:35pm
post #158 of 165

Dawg was referring to his customer :D

post #159 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

Dawg was referring to his customer :D


Oh - silly me...I now see that Dawg was directly answering my question - I'm not always prepared for that in these discussions...:o 

post #160 of 165

So I finally got to ski my 2012 Bushwackers (they are the same as the 2013-2015 versions except the graphics).  Have 3 days on them mainly in 3-6" new over all sorts of base conditions (firm, soft but consistent, and manky unconsolidated early-season bottomless).  If I can sum 'em up I'd called them mid-speed carvers with useful tip/tail rocker.  The ski is powerful underfoot so without the rocker they would definitely be pure-carvers though without the dampness and mach-speed ability of the Brahma's.  But under my 130# they are plenty powerful and reasonably damp and fast.

 

The tip/tail rocker definitely gives the ski a dual personality with some pluses and minuses.  The plus is that they handle fresh or crudded-up snow much better and are more forgiving in the bumps (compared with my Dyna Sultan 85's).  This suits my post back surgery ski style well.  The negative is that you must stay centered at all times - the tail will buck you but, due to the rocker, it won't otherwise help; and the tip will not help in engaging or drawing you through a turn.  And their carving preference means that in deeper snow they definitely want to be angulated and driven rather than smeared (therefore they were a handful in conditions over a manky/unconsolidated base).  On groomers they were fine for me (groomers aren't my thing) but again staying centered was key.

 

So, as long as I stayed centered, didn't rely on the tip/tail too much, and drove 'em like a carver through deeper snow I really liked them. They definitely are a better mixed snow ski than my Sultan 85's and also allow for a more relaxed ski technique especially in the bumps.  I hope to try them in some 8-12" over consolidated base types to see how good they are at more typical resort powder skiing (for these days when I'm not on my "real" powder skis).

post #161 of 165

(thread drift)

 

Ski-ra,

 

Good to see you back on line and back on skis. As one of the lighter skiers that used to comment regularly, I appreciated what you had to say (along with the other <150 lbr's I watch for comments from). Sounds like your back surgery was a success?

post #162 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallee View Post
 

(thread drift)

 

Ski-ra,

 

Good to see you back on line and back on skis. As one of the lighter skiers that used to comment regularly, I appreciated what you had to say (along with the other <150 lbr's I watch for comments from). Sounds like your back surgery was a success?


Thanks for the kind words.  I'd have to call my back surgery a "qualified success".  It's hard to complain given that I'm back and able to ski again.  However it has taken me well over a year of rehab (which I'm still working on - hence my phrase "post back surgery ski style"), while the surgeon said I'd be back to "normal" after 8 weeks.  Oh well - better delayed than never?

post #163 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
 

...I hope to try them in some 8-12" over consolidated base types to see how good they are at more typical resort powder skiing (for these days when I'm not on my "real" powder skis).

Finally got a chance to try my Bushwackers in 12" of fairly light CO pow over a packed base.  It hadn't snowed much over the last 3 weeks, so not only was the base firm (if not icy) but the bumps were huge, unforgiving and with "troughs-of-death".  I have often considered conditions like these to be the most challenging since a traditional/unrockered 80mm+ width ski tends to dive in the deep snow, while wider/rockered skis don't have the quickness, maneuverability and edge-grip to deal with the hard/tight bumps underneath.  These skis had a split personality that made them the best tool I've ever used in these conditions by a wide margin.  

 

Through the untracked snow the rocketed tip/tail allowed them to surf/smear like a powder ski and I experienced essentially no tip dive.  This allowed me to attack the slopes without fear of auguring in, while the tips/tails seemed way-more useful than on packed snow for making quick direction changes.  Meanwhile the ski's "carving" width and precision underfoot helped greatly with maneuvering through the tight moguls.  

 

Wow - I think I've finally found a reasonable example of a one-ski quiver for a light-weight skier (though I still ain't giving up my hard-pack or pow skis).:) 

post #164 of 165
I'm a light weight skier too. What skis do you use or what skis would you recommend for hardpack??
post #165 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by lott42 View Post

I'm a light weight skier too. What skis do you use or what skis would you recommend for hardpack??


My hardback ski is the Dynastar Sultan 85.  It's a nice combo of damp but lively, and precise but forgiving with good edge-grip.  Alas they haven't made this model for a few years so I can't speak to what Dynastar makes now.  It's also more of what I'd call a "western" hard pack ski - its edge grip probably isn't what is needed for east-coast packed powder (i.e., ice), so it kinda depends on where you ski.  There's a boatload of ski's in this class but I know very little about them, so hopefully another lightweight with a broader experience than me can pipe in (I'm not a "gear whore"), or search this forum for something that helps.  Cheers!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2012 Blizzard Bushwacker