EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Cochise is just a great ski!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cochise is just a great ski!!

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

I have a really solid quiver:

 

2012 Kastle MX78 in 178

2012 Kastle LX82 in 172

2013 Kastle FX94 in  176

2013 Blizzard Cochise in 177

2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon in 184

2012 Line Mr Pollard's Opus in 178

 

I probably don't need all these but I love gear.  I use the MX and LX in Michigan.  And the rest I use on my trips out west.  I went to Snowbird/Alta in early February and skied my FX94's all 4 days and had a great time on these ski's but demoed the Cochise for a few hours on that trip.  I had so much fun on the Cochise when I got home I found a brand new pair and had them mounted with brand new Griffon's.  I got a killer deal on the set, under $600.  So me and my buddy took another trip out to Utah from March 26-31.  I skied the Cochise 2 of the 5 days and have to say I had more fun on these ski's than my the Opus and FX94 which I also brought.  If I would have known I was going to have that much fun I would have only brought the Cochise.  The day I skied Alta I skied on my Opus.  The Baldy Main Chute was open that day so we did the hike and skied it.  However In hindsight I wish I would have had my Cochise because I think it would have been the proper ski for that day and especially the Main Chute.

 

I now know that the Opus will only be pulled out on days of over a foot of snow.  The Cochise and FX94 will be used on all other days.  The SFB and Opus are very similar and I really don't need both but my lust for gear got the best of me this winter.  What I really like about the Cochise is that it has no speed limit but still is an extremely manageable ski that still holds a huge fun factor for me.  To be honest I think that the stability adds to the fun factor.  I had to change my style a tad to more of a pivot and smear turn instead of jumping turns.  I have always wanted to have more of a fluid style when making turns on steeps.  I have always been more of a jump turner but the Cochise gave me the confidence to make more pivoty and fluid turns.  That style is much more proficient and saves a lot of energy and doesn't wreck as much havoc on the knees. 

 

Another thing that the Cochise does is it really holds an edge well on the hard pack.  I wasn't expecting that because it is the first full rockered ski I have ever owned.  I can't tell you how happy I am that I bought these skis.  I was actually worried after buying them even though I demoed them because early in the season I bought a pair of Bonafides and hated them.  They seemed way to stiff and lifeless.  I skied the Bones a few days in Northern Michigan and just didn't gel with them.  They didn't seem to respond the way I wanted them too.  Not sure if it is because the Bones are 180's and the Cochise are 177's.  Or maybe because the Cochise is a full rockered ski it makes them ski smaller.  The positive thing about the Bones was I sold them for the same price as I bought them new for.  Supply and demand is a great thing.

 

Whatever the reason I am sold on the Cochise and know it will become my go to ski in every condition save a foot or deeper.  It will be hard though sometimes to choose between the Cochise and FX94 because I really do enjoy both.  However I do like the way the Cochise instills confidence in me to make more pivoty turns on the steeps and the FX I do more of a jump turn.  Thinking of selling the SFB since it seems like to much overlap with the Opus.  Just thought I'd share my enthusiasm of the Cochise here.

 

Regards,

 

Chuck

post #2 of 17

Wow I am extremely jealous of your quiver. Nice review on the Cochise, how would you compare the weight and edge to edge quickness to the SFB?

 

And selling the SFB would make sense since the Opus is just a slightly wider and stiffer Bacon.

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

Wow I am extremely jealous of your quiver. Nice review on the Cochise, how would you compare the weight and edge to edge quickness to the SFB?

 

And selling the SFB would make sense since the Opus is just a slightly wider and stiffer Bacon.

 

The SFB is definitely quicker edge to edge.  To me they are extremely different skis and excel at different things.  If I didn't have the Opus I'd say the SFB would be my powder ski.  The weight for my skis are almost identical.  But remember my Cochise is 177 and my SFB is 184 and my SFB has the Griffon Schizo binding which also adds weight.  So I'd say if I had the SFB in 178 and had just the regular Griffon binding like I have on my Cochise the SFB would be a lot lighter.  However the Cochise doesn't feel heavy to me at all.  The way it turns and ski's make it effortless for me.  I did not get that feeling on the Bonafides.  The Bonafides I struggled with and thought they were heavy and lifeless.  The Cochise is definitely a great fit for me.

 

Chuck

post #4 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

However the Cochise doesn't feel heavy to me at all.  The way it turns and ski's make it effortless for me.  I did not get that feeling on the Bonafides.  The Bonafides I struggled with and thought they were heavy and lifeless.  The Cochise is definitely a great fit for me.

 

That's a head scratcher to me.  The Cochise (which I own) are noticeably more heavy than the Bones.  To each his own.

post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

That's a head scratcher to me.  The Cochise (which I own) are noticeably more heavy than the Bones.  To each his own.

Maybe the OP means 'ski' light as opposed to 'carry from the parking lot' light. My Cochises weigh a ton on my shoulder but feel pretty nimble on my feet.

post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castle Dave View Post

Maybe the OP means 'ski' light as opposed to 'carry from the parking lot' light. My Cochises weigh a ton on my shoulder but feel pretty nimble on my feet.

 

Yes, of course.  I don't think the Cochise feel particularly heavy on my feet, but the Bonafides feel even lighter.

post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

That's a head scratcher to me.  The Cochise (which I own) are noticeably more heavy than the Bones.  To each his own.

Chuck can elaborate for himself, but my guess is that some of his experience with the two skis is a function of relative length and skier weight.  I recall that he is (a) on the lighter side and (b) owned the Bones in 180.  The analog size in the Cochise would be the 185.  The analog size to a Cochise in 177 is the Bone in 173.  Due to the rocker profile, the Cochise skis noticeably shorter relative to its stated length.  Also, more with the Bonafide, less with the Cochise, lighter skiers tend to be less impressed.  I've noticed, here on this board and in the real world of demos, that a little bit of weight seems to be a strong predictor of reaction to the Bonafide (especially at the 180/187 lengths) - which says nothing about the quality of the skier.

 

So the comparison wasn't really apples to apples. 

 

That said, in my experience, the Bone and the Cochise are very different skis.  It is completely reasonable to like one more than the other, or to like them both for different reasons (which I do, fwiw).  The Bone is not a scaled down Cochise (in the way that the Brahma is a scaled down Bone).  While the Bonafide and Cochise share a similar snow feel, probably due to similar layup, same factory, same engineers, etc. . . they have a different shape and ski very differently. 

 

I tend to agree with the Blister-view that the Cochise is somewhat "easy," "easier" to ski than the Bonafide.  That is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, neither more "expert" nor less "expert."  It is just a function of the shape, the rocker profile and how the Cochise can pivot and slide around, which allows you to recover and adjust really easily.  The Cochise responds really well and powerfully to good skiing, but it also has a wide, versatile performance band, maybe thanks to the "magic" of flip core, or maybe just plain quality engineering.  But it is forgiving only to a point, it is still a damp, stiffish, metal-laminate ski that really isn't all that appropriate for intermediates, imo. 

 

On the flip side, the Bone has more camber, and more "shape" giving it a more traditional feel, and more precise carving capability.  It isn't that the Cochise can't "rail" groomers.  It is actually pretty shockingly good at speed on groomers.  But it is slower edge to edge to edge and doesn't have the traditional pop you get out of a cambered ski.  But if you allow it to slip around and roll up on edge at speed, it holds beautifully and is super-stable in long radius turns. 

 

I just think that the Bonafide and Cochise are different tools.  There is some overlap to be sure, but they are optimized for different conditions, different terrain.  I see the Bonafide as a stronger ski for firm snow conditions, great versatility off-piste and in soft snow with reasonable on-piste capability.  The Cochise feels like a bigger mountain ski, optimized for bigger lines, longer radius turns, more stable at speed in variable conditions, more powder performance (but short of a true powder ski).  For PNWers, as a OSQ, I think that the Bonafide is more of an Alpental ski, the Cochise is more of Crystal ski.  Both work in either place, both are great, but they are different.

 

I own the Bonafide, and I'd love to own the Cochise. . . . It would be another great flavor to have.  I just don't have an obvious need for it between the Bonafide and a powder ski and I like being married.  But the Cochise would have been killer at Crystal this past weekend (especially Saturday and post-lunch Sunday), although I wasn't missing anything using the Bonafide on Saturday and the Chetlers on Sunday.  But if I were heading up to Whistler (or a similarly big mountain like Snowbird/Alta) and could only have one ski in my bag, the Cochise would be at the top of my list.  Maybe next season. . .

post #8 of 17

^PM me if you are looking for a pair 185 drilled once from this year.

post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

Quote:

  However the Cochise doesn't feel heavy to me at all.  The way it turns and ski's make it effortless for me.  I did not get that feeling on the Bonafides.  The Bonafides I struggled with and thought they were heavy and lifeless.  The Cochise is definitely a great fit for me.

 

Chuck

 

 

That's a head scratcher to me.  The Cochise (which I own) are noticeably more heavy than the Bones.  To each his own.

Being a woman who own's the Dakota (cochise) and Samba(Bonafide), and quoting someone who own's the Cochise and has skied the Bonafifde, let me say......

I think the Dakota skis really easily, (and light) in certain circumstances, like in chutes and steeps, because its lack of camber makes it quick to pivot and turn in those situations.

The Sambas are a whole lot lighter and more nimble if you like to engage the tip and decamber a ski. 

 

On a daily basis I take out the Samba, but the Dakota is a super fun part of my quiver. biggrin.gif

post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewyM View Post

Chuck can elaborate for himself, but my guess is that some of his experience with the two skis is a function of relative length and skier weight.  I recall that he is (a) on the lighter side and (b) owned the Bones in 180.  The analog size in the Cochise would be the 185.  The analog size to a Cochise in 177 is the Bone in 173.  Due to the rocker profile, the Cochise skis noticeably shorter relative to its stated length.  Also, more with the Bonafide, less with the Cochise, lighter skiers tend to be less impressed.  I've noticed, here on this board and in the real world of demos, that a little bit of weight seems to be a strong predictor of reaction to the Bonafide (especially at the 180/187 lengths) - which says nothing about the quality of the skier.

 

So the comparison wasn't really apples to apples. 

 

 

 

I agree 100% with this statement.  I think when I bought the Bonafides I bought the wrong size.  I probably should have bought them in 173 and would have loved them.  It doesn't sound like much but I think the 7 cm makes a huge difference.  Bottom line is I have the Kastle FX94 to cover the ground that the Bones would and I love the FX's so no need to try the Bones in 173.  I am so delighted with my Cochise 177's that I couldn't be happier.  It is just a great ski.

post #11 of 17
Blizzard makes some very fine skis, but I think they are very weight specific. I'm around 110 lb, and I vastly preferred the Blizzard Black Pearls (Bushwhacker equivalent) to the Sambas (haven't tried the Dakotas). I just don't weigh enough to ski the Sambas well, but I love the Black Pearls and also really enjoyed demoing the Blizzard Viva (magnum) 8.0 as a carver. I have a pair of Atomic Century (Access) that are my powder/crud ski, so I like some 100 waist skis, but the wider Blizzards are a little much for me, although for others they are clearly the cats meow. One thing that I think is interesting is that for many of these skis the men's and womens are essentially the same, except for different topsheets.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

I have a really solid quiver:

 

2012 Kastle MX78 in 178

2012 Kastle LX82 in 172

2013 Kastle FX94 in  176

2013 Blizzard Cochise in 177

2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon in 184

2012 Line Mr Pollard's Opus in 178

 

 

That's not a quiver, that's a ski shop.

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

I have a really solid quiver:

 

2012 Kastle MX78 in 178

2012 Kastle LX82 in 172

2013 Kastle FX94 in  176

2013 Blizzard Cochise in 177

2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon in 184

2012 Line Mr Pollard's Opus in 178

 

How do you determine which skis you're actually going to bring on a trip?  From your OP, it sounds like you live in Michigan?  Do you just throw everything in the car and take road trips to Utah?  I can't imagine the hassle of trying to fly with multiple pairs.

post #14 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

 

How do you determine which skis you're actually going to bring on a trip?  From your OP, it sounds like you live in Michigan?  Do you just throw everything in the car and take road trips to Utah?  I can't imagine the hassle of trying to fly with multiple pairs.

 

I have a hard case that fits 2 pairs.  This year when I went to Utah I went with a friend who has a double bag but only owns one pair of skis. So I used my hard case and he put one pair of my skis in his double bag.  So I was able to take 3 pair to Utah each trip.  So the first trip I took Opus, Bacon's and FX94's.  The second trip I took Opus, Cochise and FX94.  The Cochise was so good that next trip I'll just take the Opus and Cochise.  The MX and LX Kastle's are just my Michigan skis.  I wouldn't take them out west.  I have my Sir Francis Bacon's on ebay right now trying to sell them.  This year was really just a year to try a bunch of different skis out and then get it down to a few pair for Michigan and few for out west.  I figured I'd rather buy them then deal with demoing.  I have found that a lot of times you can't find the skis you want to demo.  Also when I go out west I'd rather spend my time on the hill then dealing with a shop trying to get a demo ski.  I got really good deals on all of my skis so I am basically losing on the sale about the same amount it would have cost to demo.

 

Chuck

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valli View Post

Blizzard makes some very fine skis, but I think they are very weight specific. I'm around 110 lb, and I vastly preferred the Blizzard Black Pearls (Bushwhacker equivalent) to the Sambas (haven't tried the Dakotas). I just don't weigh enough to ski the Sambas well, but I love the Black Pearls and also really enjoyed demoing the Blizzard Viva (magnum) 8.0 as a carver. I have a pair of Atomic Century (Access) that are my powder/crud ski, so I like some 100 waist skis, but the wider Blizzards are a little much for me, although for others they are clearly the cats meow. One thing that I think is interesting is that for many of these skis the men's and womens are essentially the same, except for different topsheets.

Perhaps this where the camber/no camber comes into play. The Cochise has no camber whatsoever - flat as a pancake. Therefore skier weight is not an issue to engage the edges tip to tail or to pivot the skis. My wife has skied the 177 Cochise the last 2 seasons, is 5'5" and 105 lbs. and loves them. Disclaimer - she is an expert's expert skier and could ski 2x4s but never the less lighter experts might actually prefer the Cochise or Dakota over the Bones.  Skill and some strength are required but weight not so much.

post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

 

I have a hard case that fits 2 pairs.  This year when I went to Utah I went with a friend who has a double bag but only owns one pair of skis. So I used my hard case and he put one pair of my skis in his double bag.  So I was able to take 3 pair to Utah each trip.  

Chuck

Hope you offered to carry both ski bags. 

post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Hope you offered to carry both ski bags. 

 

Nope.  Mine has rollers and doesn't need to be carried.  He was completely fine carrying the other bag.  He is in great shape and I let him use a pair of my skis while in Utah.

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 › Cochise is just a great ski!!