EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Tenica Cochise 110 vs Bushwacker 110?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tenica Cochise 110 vs Bushwacker 110?

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

I assume this is more of a general gear discussion as opposed to a boot guys question-- since this isn't directly a fit question. But if a moderator thinks this is a Boot Guys thread, feel free to kick it over there.

 

Quick question:

 

Does anyone know what the major difference is between what I assume is the older Bushwacker 110 and the current Cochise 110 AT boots? All I can find is the potentially gimmicky air-bladder thing (point of failure?) in the Bushwacker. Both at least claim a 110 flex, use Triax materials in the shell, and seem to have similar walk modes and DIN/TECH soles. 

 

I'm currently looking for a solid AT boot that doesn't weigh a ton and has a comfortable touring mode. Will be used with Barons on a pretty heavy setup (so DIN for now; maybe tech later), but I'm light, both in the resort and touring in the Alps (primarily Tirol). I'm a little tired of doing 3,000+ ft vertical days in Alpine boots while trying to maintain a smile next to those buddies of mine rocking Tech. I'd actually consider any of the Cochise line, 110, 120, Light-- except for anything at 130 flex. I'm a bit light for that. 

 

So, should I be on the lookout for a Bushwacker too as I shop? I'm mainly looking for something from a previous year's cache, or lightly used without modding. Part of the reason why I'm asking is because while I can shop in the U.S. (parents), I'm based in Munich, Germany, where the retail/shop culture is different (read: less informative), but where I have access to a few places currently discounting heavily since it's August. 

post #2 of 8
Same boot other than air bladder color and name change. I will say, I haven't seen a failure in any bladders from the Bushwackers so if you do find a pair, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. If you pump up the Bushwacker with hot air, the boot will be warmer, if you use helium, the boot will be lighter. There has been no know problems with bladder breakage bringing a fully inflated bladder from sea level to elevation or in a pressurized cabin. (Please note that the last few points were purely tongue in cheek)
post #3 of 8
Thread Starter 

You mean I can't just buy a pair that are five sizes too big, inflate with helium, and then float up the mountain instead of skinning? Damn!

 

Are the bladders removable? And in that case-- would it literally be identical aside from the paint job? 

 

So for some reason they got rid of the bladders. Wonder if they aren't very effective, or just cost too much to build or support.

post #4 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by justruss View Post

You mean I can't just buy a pair that are five sizes too big, inflate with helium, and then float up the mountain instead of skinning? Damn!

 

Are the bladders removable? And in that case-- would it literally be identical aside from the paint job? 

 

So for some reason they got rid of the bladders. Wonder if they aren't very effective, or just cost too much to build or support.

The Bladders aren't removable.  

I had the Bushwacker a couple years ago and only used the air bladder a few times on super warm spring days after having 80 days in the boot.  You really don't know its there unless you decide to snug up the heel pocket a little bit. 

post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 

Any idea on what these weigh? Can't seem to find that.

post #6 of 8

My Bushwackers, size 23.5 are 8.9lbs. 

post #7 of 8
Thread Starter 

Small feet! 

post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by justruss View Post

Small feet! 

I got nuthin' to prove. biggrin.gif

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 › Tenica Cochise 110 vs Bushwacker 110?