EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Blizzard Bushwacker vs Black Pearl
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blizzard Bushwacker vs Black Pearl

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi, I've heard two opinions on the differences between the Bushwacker and the Black Pearl (obviously I'm not talking about the graphics):

1) they are exactly the same

2) Bushwacker is 20 % stiffer and has a better edge grip

Who's right? Or is there another opinion?

 

Thanks

post #2 of 18

I wondered the same, as the Black Pearl frequently appears on popular lists.  The BW not as much.

post #3 of 18

The Bushwacker and Black Pearl are the same construction. 

post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 

So, if they are the same construction, they should have the same stiffness, I guess. Thanks

post #5 of 18

They do.  I have often told women who've demo'd the Black Pearl and can't find it in the desired size that they should just buy the Bushwacker. 

Seems to be working out well for them. biggrin.gif

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thanks Trekchick. Since I like graphics on BW better and I found a great deal, now I know what to do smile.gif

post #7 of 18

(Bump.)

 

I am thinking about buying a pair of 2012 Bushwackers length 173.  Seems a little long, but these things are rockered evidently on the front end and are said to ski short.  I weight 130 lbs, and have happily skied Solly X-Wings at 170 as my daily driver before with no issues.  

 

Any advice on the 173 length?  I do want to take them into New England trees.  Have not demo'd and won't be able to.

post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

(Bump.)

 

I am thinking about buying a pair of 2012 Bushwackers length 173.  Seems a little long, but these things are rockered evidently on the front end and are said to ski short.  I weight 130 lbs, and have happily skied Solly X-Wings at 170 as my daily driver before with no issues.  

 

Any advice on the 173 length?  I do want to take them into New England trees.  Have not demo'd and won't be able to.

 

The rocker in this ski is not significant enough to take it into consideration in the length.  

My choice in this ski is 166, I weigh 135lbs. 

post #9 of 18

Thanks, TC.

post #10 of 18

I think 166 is the size for you LF. You X wings may be alittle long...

post #11 of 18

That's what people tell me.  I haven't noticed 173 being too long.  

 

Got platinum a buncha times doing Nastar weekly on them, which means I was bending them for sharp turns.  Taught in them, too, so I can swivel them around just fine.  Learned to do pivot slips while I was using them.  Loved getting rebound and air from my turns on hard snow with these skis. Skied heavy chopped up stuff with no issues.  No discernible problems, just that people kept telling me they were too long.  

 

When a ski is too long, what negatives does one notice?

post #12 of 18

Skis too long may hinder short radius turns and nimble movements in tight spots.  

If you're using them for a long(isn) radius race course they're probably pretty stable at speed, but they aren't idea for someone your size for every day skiing or tighter courses. 

post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

That's what people tell me.  I haven't noticed 173 being too long.  

 

Got platinum a buncha times doing Nastar weekly on them, which means I was bending them for sharp turns.  Taught in them, too, so I can swivel them around just fine.  Learned to do pivot slips while I was using them.  Loved getting rebound and air from my turns on hard snow with these skis. Skied heavy chopped up stuff with no issues.  No discernible problems, just that people kept telling me they were too long.  

 

When a ski is too long, what negatives does one notice?

 

 

it might not be too long then, and in that case a 173 bushwacker should not be hard to handle.

post #14 of 18

Liquid Feet, I totally understand that you're looking for input from people who have actually been on that ski, and you're getting it from some of our real stalwarts here. So far, so good. I suppose you don't need me to tell you this, but at the same time you're getting the expert outside advice, I hope you're using it judiciously, to flavor and nudge your decision, not to make it for you. Because if you are racing at the Nastar Platinum level, you probably already know a lot more, at a fairly refined level, about what works and doesn't work for you in skiing than the most of us here on the board. You want to make sure to listen to that voice, too. :)

post #15 of 18

Whoah.... reality check.  

Platinum in a Nastar race - for me - takes into account "dinosaur" points (I'm old), and "girl" points (I'm female).  

It's still platinum, but it's calculated by Nastar's very generous algorithm.  Still, I can turn them left and right inside the gates.  

Anyway, I am being public with my indecision (do I get "girl" points for that?) and am hoping for enlightenment any hour now.  

post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

Whoah.... reality check.  

Platinum in a Nastar race - for me - takes into account "dinosaur" points (I'm old), and "girl" points (I'm female).  

It's still platinum, but it's calculated by Nastar's very generous algorithm.  Still, I can turn them left and right inside the gates.  

Anyway, I am being public with my indecision (do I get "girl" points for that?) and am hoping for enlightenment any hour now.  

 

I would like to say "I've skied with you and you need the 166"  But I'm betting that you and I have both changed our skiing a lot since the last time we skied together. 

 

The interesting thing to me is that I'm skiing softer and shorter skis than I was on when we met, and I'm skiing a whole lot more confidently in terrain that I wouldn't have thought of skiing back then. 

post #17 of 18

Yes, I remember that.  I do ski quite differently now.

That weekend I was on 36" of fresh powder which I'd never skied on before, and had narrow skis 160 in length.  It was a fail in many ways.  

post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

That's what people tell me.  I haven't noticed 173 being too long.  

 

Got platinum a buncha times doing Nastar weekly on them, which means I was bending them for sharp turns.  Taught in them, too, so I can swivel them around just fine.  Learned to do pivot slips while I was using them.  Loved getting rebound and air from my turns on hard snow with these skis. Skied heavy chopped up stuff with no issues.  No discernible problems, just that people kept telling me they were too long.  

 

When a ski is too long, what negatives does one notice?

LF,

If you are skiing tight trees and think you will end up hooking them with either the fronts or the backs then they are too long, also sometimes get caught up in mogul ruts but those consequences aren't nearly as bad as eating bark. There was a poster years back on here from Jay whose tag line was "ski good or eat wood" , I always find that to be very appropriate. I skied with a friend this past spring and she was out on her Viva 7.6 in spring junk, wet stuff and having trouble, I asked her why she wasn't on her Black Pearls that she brought that day also. She switches up and skied great and had so much fun the rest of the day, The Black Pearl and /or Bushwacker is a great ski. She is small 5' less than 100lb and was on the 158cm for comparison purposes.

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 › Blizzard Bushwacker vs Black Pearl