First, let's just assume you are correct that the flex is the same, but the ski behaves like a much lighter, forgiving ski with a more pliable tip. This is what I originally said in my post: it feels 15% softer on the snow. That includes torsional rigidity; it is smearier at the top of the turn, more flexible, locked in underfoot, never railed though.
Now, regarding flex, Trekchick had stated a couple of years back on reviews of the Samba and Black Pearl that they were simply the Kabookie and Bushwacker with different topsheets. As the gear review editor, she would know. Are we now stating that the Samba and Black Pearl are the same flex as the Bonafide and Brahma? If so, that would scare off a lot of ladies. The next thing I expect to hear is that"we can neither confirm nor deny that the Kabookie and Bonafide have identical flex"
Whiteroom said the same exact thing about the Kabookie awhile back. Lighter skier was asking about the Bonafide being kinda stiff, he chimed in "or just look at the Kabookie" or something to that effect.
I did find this on Start Haus' website:
"Kabookie is a light-weight metal free version of the hugely successful Blizzard Bonafide, making it a great option for lighter skiers...."
The reason I like the Kabookie, being a lighter skier, is that I can flex it. Why else would being a lighter skier make the Kabookie more suitable to my needs? Why would Blizzard make 2 skis identical, one lighter than the other? With the way the industry is moving toward lighter cores, it would just signal the death of the heavier ski.
This is simply my opinion: If I am full of crap, then people will demo it, think it sucks, and write me off as an idiot or a guy not acting as an honest broker (perhaps I have a lot of Kabookies I can't unload, you just never know)
Heck! Even me at 210 pounds liked the Kabookie a lot in 40 cm of fresh snow! The problem is when we get on harder stuff ... then, I need something with more beef that can sustain an edge under my weight...