or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Powder Bowls, Cochise?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

I am considering the Blizzard Cochise for deep power bowls, and looking for opinions, or a different choice.

 

First about me:  Front side expert (grew up in Minnesota) and a back side advancing intermediate.  5'9" 145 lb athletic skier.

 

My all mountain skis are 178 Dynastar 94 legends, which are  great with 8 inches of new powder on top of a base, but they are too much work for walls and moguls, and want to dive in the deep powder.   After a day of 3 feet of powder at Vail I felt like Apollo Creed in Rocky IV. 

 

I am looking for a back side ski to ski deep powder, walls, and moguls - a ski that I can develop my skills.  Also a ski that I can play with on the the front side.    (I have front skies for carving and going fast)

 

I am thinking of the Blizzard Cochise in a 170.   It is 108 underfoot, rocker shovel and seems to have fairly uniform flex.  

 

The tail seems a little stiff and they have a 23 meter radius.  On the front-side this is preferable, but I dont know enough about deep powder to know if this is a concern?  I would appreciate any opinions and input.

 

Thanks!  Windy!

post #2 of 11
Cochise.... Charger? Yes. Stable? Yes. Crud buster? Yes. Smooth flex? Yes. Damp? Yes. Turny? Can be when tuned right. Groomers? can rail. Speed limit? nope. Good ski for deep pow and moguls? Not ideal for either condition... But could work, especially at your weight. I'd demo if possible. Cochise is a better variable snow crud buster than a "deep pow and mogul ski". Dont get me wrong, it is a VERY capable on the whole mountain, but interestingly you are picking two of its biggest weaknesses IMO.
post #3 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeebum View Post

Cochise.... Charger? Yes. Stable? Yes. Crud buster? Yes. Smooth flex? Yes. Damp? Yes. Turny? Can be when tuned right. Groomers? can rail. Speed limit? nope. Good ski for deep pow and moguls? Not ideal for either condition... But could work, especially at your weight. I'd demo if possible. Cochise is a better variable snow crud buster than a "deep pow and mogul ski". Dont get me wrong, it is a VERY capable on the whole mountain, but interestingly you are picking two of its biggest weaknesses IM

 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/103555/blizzard-cochise-review-185cm-193cm here is my review of the 185 and 193

post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 

Skeebum,

 

Thanks for the great response!

 

As I said before I am a front side skier so naturally drawn to the characteristics of the Cochise.  And not a powder skier, so  not sure what makes a great pow ski.  I was thinking in a 170 I could advance my powder bowl skills as it would be shorter than what I normally ski...they would be a big improvement over my 178 Legend 94s. 

 

I skied a Power North Loaded, super easy in the powder, but could not get past the extreme early rise.  Surprisingly how well they carved.  I could go that direction, but before I do I would like to find a ski more in the dimensions of the Cochise..if that makes sense.

 

I would appreciate any recommendations along the line of the Cochise...possibly the Peacemaker.  I am thinking that if the Cochise had a softer tail and deeper side cut it would fit my needs better?

 

I am trying to find a demo pair in the summit area where I live.

 

Thanks again!  Cal

post #5 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windyducat View Post
 

Skeebum,

 

Thanks for the great response!

 

As I said before I am a front side skier so naturally drawn to the characteristics of the Cochise.  And not a powder skier, so  not sure what makes a great pow ski.  I was thinking in a 170 I could advance my powder bowl skills as it would be shorter than what I normally ski...they would be a big improvement over my 178 Legend 94s. 

 

I skied a Power North Loaded, super easy in the powder, but could not get past the extreme early rise.  Surprisingly how well they carved.  I could go that direction, but before I do I would like to find a ski more in the dimensions of the Cochise..if that makes sense.

 

I would appreciate any recommendations along the line of the Cochise...possibly the Peacemaker.  I am thinking that if the Cochise had a softer tail and deeper side cut it would fit my needs better?

 

I am trying to find a demo pair in the summit area where I live.

 

Thanks again!  Cal

170 is way too short for you. I'm 5'5" / 150 lbs and I fell good skiing the 177. Cochise is a burly ski but easy to ski! Don't be afraid to go longer! But as said, the cochise would be better as a crud/charger ski than powder ski!

 

take a look at the Line Sick Day 110, go for the 179. Should be great for what you are looking for... Even the twin tip Gunsmoke will be a better ski for what you are looking for. 179 should be your size.

 

salomon quest 115 the 178 size is 113 underfoot. I ski them all over the mountain, great ski!

post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

170 is way too short for you. I'm 5'5" / 150 lbs and I fell good skiing the 177. Cochise is a burly ski but easy to ski! Don't be afraid to go longer! But as said, the cochise would be better as a crud/charger ski than powder ski!

 

take a look at the Line Sick Day 110, go for the 179. Should be great for what you are looking for... Even the twin tip Gunsmoke will be a better ski for what you are looking for. 179 should be your size.

 

salomon quest 115 the 178 size is 113 underfoot. I ski them all over the mountain, great ski!

mfa, thanks.  I seem to agree...the 177 as a frontside all mountain would be best.  I am looking for a reason to replace my 178 Dynastar 94s and the Cochise seems to be the reason.  I am going to be in Keystone this week and see if the have the quest or Line to demo.

 

Thanks!  Cal

post #7 of 11

I really don't think the Cochise is a good fit for you based on your description.  They are a lot of work in the moguls and you'll want something softer for pure powder.  At your size I don't think you want to go any wider than 110mm if you intend to use these on groomers too - something in the 98 - 106 range is going to be considerably more versatile.  Tons of options there.  Consider...

 

Rossi Soul 7

Solly Q 105

4FRNT Cody (twin tip)

Atomic Access

Blizzard Peacemaker (twin tip and softer than the Cochise)

Line Sir Francis Bacon (same width as Cochise but twin tip and much softer)

Moment PB&J

 

... and there's a bunch of others in this class too.  Weighing 145 pounds you'll get a ton of float out of all of these - no need to get something 115mm.

post #8 of 11
I would agree with all the comments above from your colleagues. I'll throw out one other option... At your weight you might want to consider the 2012 Rossignol sickle 174. You can get it half off online (around $350) The 186 was discontinued and is sold out everywhere. But the 174 would likely be perfect for you at your weight. It is buttery smooth, stiff enough to rail on groomers and gentle enough on all landings and amazingly good float in pow. At that length it would be awesome in bumps and trees/tights. It's the most beloved ski by Jason Hutchins on blistergearreview.com. It is his reference by which all skis get measured. For the price - it may be hard to beat. I own the larger one, plus have a new backup pair. It's a ski that shocks a lot of people by its amazing versatility. Skis narrow than 110 on groomers and floats better than 110 in pow. Super super fun ski. Hope that helps. Best...
post #9 of 11

Makes a big difference if you are replacing the Legends or adding to them. The Cochise is a good Western one ski quiver for a strong fast skier. Some people find them too stiff. At your weight if you go short it's still going to be stiff and it won't give you the float you say you want in deep powder. If you were going to add a ski and keep the Legends you might want to go wider, softer, and more rockered than the Cochise for pure powder. If you are looking to replace the Legends than maybe the cochise would be good for you but I would demo first to be sure it's not too stiff for you. And I think it's going to be hard to find a ski thats great in deep powder and in the bumps both. 

post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeebum View Post

I would agree with all the comments above from your colleagues. I'll throw out one other option... At your weight you might want to consider the 2012 Rossignol sickle 174. You can get it half off online (around $350) The 186 was discontinued and is sold out everywhere. But the 174 would likely be perfect for you at your weight. It is buttery smooth, stiff enough to rail on groomers and gentle enough on all landings and amazingly good float in pow. At that length it would be awesome in bumps and trees/tights. It's the most beloved ski by Jason Hutchins on blistergearreview.com. It is his reference by which all skis get measured. For the price - it may be hard to beat. I own the larger one, plus have a new backup pair. It's a ski that shocks a lot of people by its amazing versatility. Skis narrow than 110 on groomers and floats better than 110 in pow. Super super fun ski. Hope that helps. Best...

 

 

we just found a pair of 174 for my GF for 225 bucks with free shipping. 

post #11 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post


we just found a pair of 174 for my GF for 225 bucks with free shipping. 

Such a sweet ski! Totally flew under the radar for many years - almost until blister gave it such high praise that many became intrigued, demoed it, loved it, but then Rossi discontinued it to the disappointment of so many. Like I said, I have a backup 186 pair sitting in my office.

Josh I'd love I hear what she thinks. Report back will ya?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion