or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bushwacker 173 or 180cm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bushwacker 173 or 180cm?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
5'9"/155#

No issues with long or short skis (have owned 155cm FIS SLs to 190cm FIS GSs). I just want to get the right length skis for exploring away from groomers--ie, bumps, trees, bowls, chutes, etc. Off-piste versatility is the name of the game. As a background, I'm told I have good forms and discipline on SL and GS turns. I ski carefully but hard on groomers. I'm old/risk-averse so won't be doing crazy stuff off-piste.

Last year, I found rockered SR88 177s to be just the perfect length for black soft bump runs (note: not buying the sr88). Fully cambered 180cm VXLs felt too long for making tight turns on the choppy snow. I used to have 2012 FX94 166s and they were way too short (and fat) for my taste. My store guy who saw me skiing on SR88s recommended 180cm if I wanted Brahmas--they don't carry the Bushwackers.

With rocker on both tip/tail on the Bushwacker, I'm thinking it'll feel/ski shorter than the length. With all things considered, I'm leaning towards 180cm, but a little bit apprehensive about it.

Any first handed experience/insight on the Bushwacker to share? Thanks
post #2 of 16

5'8" and 140#. Sounds like you and I ski alike. 173 is perfect for me, and I got a lot of time on them last week in a three day bump clinic. However, I have to admit that I have not tried a different BW length. FWIW, I personally like to stay on either side of 170 cm, with the few skis at 180 I have tried being hopelessly planky. My longest skis currently in the quiver are 175 cm Armada JJs. I also think that is a good length for me in that ski. The only thing is that they actually get very little snow time, particularly in the last couple of (dry) seasons. :(

post #3 of 16
5'6 150 44yo ski like you. Currently on 173 BW and length is perfect for me for East. If I was out west with more room I'd consider 180. Why aren't you going with the SR's? They were on my short list before I decided on the FX84.
post #4 of 16
I'd go 180! Demoed brahma and bushwacker and my size would be 173, but I'm 5'5" / 150! at your size the 173 will be too short!
post #5 of 16
I'm 5'8" 150 and 173 works for me
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

However, I have to admit that I have not tried a different BW length. FWIW I personally like to say on the eithet side of 170cm.
My length preference for rockered AM skis is 175cm or slightly longer. 173cm would be acceptable if it weren't rocked on both tip/tail. I'm just afraid 173 would feel too short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubesteak View Post

If I was out west with more room I'd consider 180. Why aren't you going with the SR's?
I've never skied in the east but wouldn't you rather have 180s for the east with all the snow that you guys have been getting? SR88 is a great ski but no more S's in my quiver. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post

I'd go 180! Demoed brahma and bushwacker and my size would be 173, but I'm 5'5" / 150! at your size the 173 will be too short!
Did you actually get to demo them in 180?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lott42 View Post

I'm 5'8" 150 and 173 works for me
You're probably the closest to my dimensions. I border round 5'8-9" / fluctuate between 145-160lbs. Does the BW ski shorter/longer/true to the size?
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post


My length preference for rockered AM skis is 175cm or slightly longer. 173cm would be acceptable if it weren't rocked on both tip/tail. I'm just afraid 173 would feel too short.
 

If you think you might be up at Mammoth next weekend, you're welcome to try my BWs  :ski

post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

If you think you might be up at Mammoth next weekend, you're welcome to try my BWs  ski.gif
aww that's very nice of you to offer. I don't know yet, but thank you.
post #9 of 16

5'5" 160 and I ski 173 in Bonafides and 170 in Latigo and they are dialed for me.  Also have time on the 173 Brahma and Bushwacker and they were right length also.  I'm east coast and like to ski bumps and poke around in tight trees though.

post #10 of 16

I own 180 Bushwackers and I am a lot bigger than you, 6'2" & 230lbs. They have some rocker in the tip, if they have rocker in the tail that is news to me. I think they ski true to size, unlike Gunsmokes where I had to size up. The 180's feel perfect for me.

post #11 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post
 

5'5" 160 and I ski 173 in Bonafides and 170 in Latigo and they are dialed for me.  Also have time on the 173 Brahma and Bushwacker and they were right length also.  I'm east coast and like to ski bumps and poke around in tight trees though.

Thanks...There is power and truth in numbers. My ear is now keen and tuned to the voice.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister K View Post
 

I own 180 Bushwackers and I am a lot bigger than you, 6'2" & 230lbs. They have some rocker in the tip, if they have rocker in the tail that is news to me. I think they ski true to size, unlike Gunsmokes where I had to size up. The 180's feel perfect for me.

Yes, I double checked on the Blizzard website. The trip rocker must be very slight if you can't even notice it.

 

----

 

Bears have spoken, and the verdict has been remarkably consistent. To recap, bears of similar stats (150+/-) feel 173 cm BWs to be "dailed-in", "perfect" , "perfect in bumps", "true to size", etc. My preliminary conclusion is to go with 173 cm. 

1) I'll likely be happier with 180s on the goomer, but that's not what BWs are for. 

2) I'd like to ramp up fast on bumps and trees, and it seems prudent to go shorter than longer.

3) I can buy a used pair and trade up if/when I want to go longer. 

post #12 of 16
4. Dawg, has a Great price on the 173 too
post #13 of 16
Thread Starter 
Yes I saw his thread on gear sale. No real hurries on my 88 AM ski acq. given the hill condition in Socal and my new addition. BTW, I happened to talk with a few shop guys and they were quite sure 180 cm is the right size, putting me right back to where I was. I'm not that familiar with rocker skis so it seems like a demo is due, which I tried to do without...
post #14 of 16

I'm 5'9" and 148.  I've had the 173 BW for a year now and have no regrets.

post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

I'm 5'9" and 148.  I've had the 173 BW for a year now and have no regrets.
where do you ski on bws the most?
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post


where do you ski on bws the most?

 

We (my kids and I) are often in the trees or doing moguls.  But getting to them means we're also on groomed or semi-groomed runs part of the time.  I would not want a longer ski for maneuvering in trees.  

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 › Bushwacker 173 or 180cm?