2012 Blizzard Bonafide - Page 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 
  One-ski quiver is a game of compromise, and I feel that the Bone hits that sweet spot very well for me.   

 

P.S. Yes, there is no snow, so we need a dump and then another one.  Then we will can stop reviewing 100mm skis on machine-made groomers and start having fun.  

 

 

No disagreement there! I wouldn't be sticking mostly to groomers if I had anything else to ski.  Yeah, I agree that the litmus test of a 98mm ski isn't hard snow, but I have heard some exclaim that the Bonafide is "as good as any carving ski" on hard snow, so it is worth noting what it does and doesn't do well.  I wasn't implying that is what your claims were, but have heard others say stuff like that, which completely contrasts with my experiences. I am just not a huge fan of hyperbole when it is used literally.  The reason my test was pretty illuminating is that the Rock n' Roll was an excellent carver, way above the Bonafide's performance, for me.  That is what impressed me; that a 94mm ski that is great in bumps and cruddy conditions (although not at the top level of the Bonafide at speed, as it doesn't have metal) was such a sporty, lively, powerful carver.  The difference between the 2 was, for me: in the current dry spell, I could go up, ski the Rock n' Roll, work on skills (not much else to do when limited to groomers), as well as let it rip, and have a really good time, sticking around the whole day.  On the Bonafide, when stuck on groomers, I would probably go up, ski a few runs, think "yeah, this is OK" and go home, without getting that ear to ear grin I was getting on the other ski.   Everyone has different expectations with a ski, and most people who are looking at the Bonafide shouldn't be too concerned about carving and hard snow performance.  If they need a frontside carver, Blizzard has a whole lineup of Magnums, and the Supersonic as well. 

Really, in the end, it doesn't matter what any one of us thinks.  Everyone is going to have their own expectations, and honestly, how many people skiing out there are even skilled enough to be taking advantage of what modern skis offer?  Mostly, it is about having fun, and if ski X or ski Y allows them to do so, then it is all good.  BTW, I will be keeping my 187cm Bones around as my crud crusher skis, but my more frontside skis will be more like the Apex, Rock n' Roll, or FX94. When I head down to Squaw, I will probably bring both pair, as I know that 187cm is going to work me in the bumps.

I'm not sure if this is a review or just a flawed experiment.  This weekend at Squaw, after having not skied since mid-April, I decided to try out my brand new Bonafides (thanks Phil), with whatever wax and tune the factory did.  Conditions were relatively hard: man-made snow, groomed almost everywhere, except the few icy bumps.  My other skis are Dynastar Legend 8000 (79mm underfoot, 172cm long).

Well, the first impression, not surprisingly, was "rusty".  Can't really blame this on the skis.  The first real test I put them to was to wedge down Squaw Creek with a terrified 50-lb boy between my legs.  That worked decently until he got his skis under mine.  Then, not so good.

Once I got to do some Red Dog laps, the skiing started getting better.  The Bones responded well when I skied well.  To me, the skis were the secondary factor to my form.  Once I started doing the things with my body that worked well with the Legends, the Bones started working much better.  That's pretty good for a 19mm wider ski on hardpack.  There were a couple of times when I laid the Bones over and they really brought me around quickly.  This impressed me as a good sign of things to come, especially for a wider ski.  I don't remember my Legends doing that.  Perhaps it's the rocker.

I can't wait to see how these do in deep snow.  At least I feel I'm not giving up anything on the hardpack.  True ice may be another story.

Data: 180cm Blizzard Bonafide with PX 12 Lifter Wide bindings; 5' 9" 150lb level 7 skier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

Scott-  I just realized that RockNRoll is most likely a reincarnation of Mojo94 (same dimensions to a mm), and that's a ski that I am very familiar with (this was the ski that I really liked and owned for a full season).   Mine was a 180, and it was an excellent carver, very damp ski.  However I am pretty sure that Mojo94 had some metal in it, so maybe it was a different ski.   So if I compare the hard snow feel of my old 180 Mojo94 with the 187 Bone, my impression would be almost an exact opposite of yours: The Mojo was an easier carver at low speeds, soft but still solid, and the Bone feels like a more athletic ski with a lot more of the top end.  Even the specs tell the story: The Bone is 21m even in 180, Head is 19m in 180.   Actually, I can totally relate to your statement- I have a ski that I can ski on groomers all day, let it rip, and work on the technique (which I need to do :-).  Only that ski for me is a Bonafide.  And I also skied it yesterday right out of the wrapper, so with a fresh factory edge (hopefully Blizzard knows their edges, Heads were known the require prep).  But I do agree that no 90+mm ski would ski like a dedicated carver, and it shouldn't because it has a different purpose. 

 

So I am again convinced that the major difference here is weight.  You really need to try to get on the 180 Bone or maybe even shorter size and see what it feels like on hard snow.    I still cannot wrap my mind around a 155lb guys skiing a stiff long wide 187 ski on groomers. Sure, Sean Petit (sp?) likes longer skis, but I bet he does not use them on groomers.  

 

P.S. Hope to be able to catch of few turns with you at Squaw this season... 

As far as I know, the Rock n' Roll is a completely different ski.  They have a new production process with the core (pressing it then turning it over for the layup phase) and the flex of that ski is completely different.  Plus, the Mojo had a ridiculous (for all-mountain use) 2.5 degree base bevel, whereas the Rock n' Roll is a solid 1 degree, so I skied it out of the wrapper, as I did the Bonafide.  We also skied the 180 the other day (not during this review, but a few days prior) and it felt similar: shorter, but I still had that same feeling I was describing.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by smails 

 

However, for hard snow the 180 Bonafide didn't get it done for me. I am 6' 1" 200 and it may be that the 187 is the ticket, but I couldn't get on it.  Anyway, I just didn't want a ski this smeary or pivoty on hard snow.  When I stood on it I wanted it to be there, not pivot away.  Compared to the 186 Gotamas I tried or my old beat up P100s, the Bone just didn't feel natural.  I felt like I was on snowblades. On softer flatter conditions it was much much better.  But back to hard snow, coming from a racing background I like to "stand" on a ski and have it be there and not always need to get the ski up on edge first and feather a turn.

 

That was exactly what I was trying to describe.  The ski felt smeary/pivoty; like it wanted you in the center of the ski, turning from under the boot (pivot/swing style turn), and not moving fore/aft to flex and load it up, like a decent hard snow ski does. I couldn't drive it, and it wasn't there when I really loaded it up; it didn't engage naturally like the others.  Again, in soft snow, it wasn't an issue, but on hard snow, I felt it to be a weakness.

I suspect my technique is similar to yours.  From what I would think as my "technique", it is much more "race" in form (I was running gates alot back when I was learning to really ski, plus it is super fun to load up a ski early and nail a steep turn with an aggressive carve). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by smails 

SierraJim or anyone who has tried both, is the p98 a more solid 100 and worth a look?  

While the flex is relatively similar, the P-98 is better than the P-100 in almost every way. The P-100 was built along Lines' "new schoolers" thinking which was an all mountain ski built by a park ski company. For all that, the P-100 was a very good ski and I owned one for a year in 186. The P-100 was very nimble and had plenty of grip but it was just too turny in crud for my tastes. (hence the 186 which is longer than I normally need for this category of ski). The difference is that the 98 has a more conventional tail for a longer aft running surface and (I think) a slightly more rearward waist and mount location. The result is that the P-98 is much more useful (for my tastes anyway) as an all around tool.

SJ 

I would choose the P-98 in the 179......no question.

SJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by smails 

 

Well put.  This is exactly what I was feeling about the ski.  I don't want to have to turn it from under the boot, I want to turn it from the front of the ski and drive it.

 

It sounds like from some of the other posters that this may be more possible with the 187.  If I could get on a pair, I wouldn't rule out the Bones, but I also don't know that I would be willing to take a flyer on it without first skiing the 187 given my experience with the 180.

 

As I said in my earlier post, I am a believer in flip core for soft snow and the Cochise is still high on my list, just not for everyday east coast skiing.

 

I skied a newly mounted pair of Bushwackers in 180 and FX94's in 176 today (again with Chris), and had similar thoughts to the earlier Bonafide and Rock n' Roll thoughts, but the Bushwacker was a much better ski on hardpack than the Bone was.  Since it is a narrower, slightly softer ski, but similar in design to the Bone, it was easier to flesh out the differences between the 2 designs.  Bushwacker: liked to be tipped at equal edge angles, leading with the inside foot, but had to keep the feet more under the hips, as they didn't track that well when loaded up; the inside ski didn't track consistently, so I had to use muscle tension to keep it loaded, and keep it from too extreme of an edge angle.  This is mostly due to the tip; you have to lay it way over to get it to engage.  Chris was watching me from below and really noticed this: even though I was getting good edge angles, the tip was definitely not tracking as well as the FX was.  It really liked short to medium radius carved turns, provided the speed is kept at a reasonable one; it didn't like to be laid out at big arcs, or over-pressured; it had an on-off feel, especially in chop, which made me want to keep it in the fall line more, and ski it as dynamically as I could. GS arcs and over-pressure could result in a bit of chattering as the tail would want to give way.  The tail was washing a bit in those turns, because it wasn't full engaged in chop; I felt like it was only partially there. It was super easy to ski and turn, but could be overpowered a bit if you were really driving it, which was exactly the same feeling I got on the Bone.  The Bone also has that on/off feel; it is really tough to feather.  The FX94 was much different: I had to be stronger at the top of the turn (think White Pass release) and more active fore/aft with my feet to get it to really bite.  With a powerful, aggressive top-of-turn release, this ski was solid, but if I got a bit lazy, it could make me work.  The inside ski did track much better than the BW, which gave me more confidence to get short w/inside leg and long outside leg, and drive it harder, just like a race ski. It was as "at home" in the fall line, but had more pop in the tail, and was much more stable in GS arcs at speed, in rough snow, as I could feather it more and it had a consistent edge surface, something the BW didn't have.  The plus for the Bushwacker was that it was quicker and more manageable at slower speeds, edge to edge, in tighter turns, and much more adept at a pivot style turn.  The FX94 was more powerful, more grippy, and quite a bit more top end.  It wasn't really an example of one ski being better than the other, each had their strong points, but it really depends on how you ski hardpack.  The BW is primarily a soft snow ski; they don't make the Magnum 8.7 for nothing, so with that considered, it's groomer performance is at least adequate. 

On soft groomers last spring, it was a different story with regards to the BW: the tip would engage readily, and the tail wouldn't cut loose; snow was softer, and with the longer effective running length, I could give it more edge angle with confidence. The FX94 skied basically the same, and was still superior on groomers in terms of stability and feel, but it was a lot closer.  As one would expect; there are bound to be drawbacks of skiing such a short effective running surface on hard snow.  If I could change anything; I have a feeling that eliminating the early rise tail would really increase the horsepower on the BW.  I could manage with the tip not engaging first (as I am used to on most any other ski on hard snow: you release, pull back, and tip to engage the new turn, but on the Flipcore stuff, the tipping doesn't have the same engagement); I simply got used to pressuring the ski differently.  I think the ski wanting to cut out on hard snow, in the belly of the turn at speed (in GS arcs mostly) was a direct result of the tail not being engaged enough, as it was only on big, long turns, where you are moving quite a bit toward the tail of the ski and really loading it up before releasing and getting forward at the top of the next turn. This is why it was more at home in small to medium sized fall-line arcs.  With a flat tail, you could ride that GS arc aggressively too. I wouldn't be surprised if what I was lacking on the Bone was the tail more than the tip, as well.  The other all-mountain skis with an early rise tail I am really familiar with (The One, Rock n' Roll, BMX98, Slicer) all hold up better in that bigger GS arc, and all have barely any early rise at all in the tail; just enough not to be grabby. Not sure if this is why we felt it was cutting loose, but might be. 

As I mentioned earlier, take this with a grain of salt.  I didn't see anyone on the hill trying to lay their skis over like we were today.  If really trying to pull big G's out of a turn and arc out like you are running a GS, then this review probably doesn't apply to you. It is just that the four of us in our regular skiing group all have race backgrounds, and that is how we like to ski on hard snow.  

Wow, it has been a while since I have been in this thread and in that time I have been skiing my Rossi E88's and having fun on them...it has been dry here in Tahoe for the past couple of weeks. This thread reminds me of how much I like my Bonafides and tomorrow, I think I will need to ski them. Nothing like falling in love again...for the first time. I do not disagree with JH, Flipcore is marketing, while it might be a lot of marketing genius...it is working for Blizzard...and there is some very good substance behind the marketing. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

I skied a newly mounted pair of Bushwackers in 180 and FX94's in 176 today (again with Chris), and had similar thoughts to the earlier Bonafide and Rock n' Roll thoughts, but the Bushwacker was a much better ski on hardpack than the Bone was.  

I will disagree with you here. I think the metal in the Bone makes the difference in hard snow performance...now I do think the Bush is a fun ski and along the lines where I like the E88 over the E98..for my quiver..although I think the E98 is a better ski..but if there wasn't a Bone, I might agree with you. 

That made sense to me...I hope it does to everyone who reads it.