or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Blizzard - brahma for a light guy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blizzard - brahma for a light guy?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I'm 5'6" and 135 lbs. ski out west 1-2 x a year but mostly Vermont. Will ski anything but backcountry. I have been skiing Rossi b1 bandits since 2007 (160 length, 74 underfoot). Looking to upgrade to tip/tail rocker and a bit wider underfoot (85-90). The brahma seems to be getting a lot of positive reviews. Will demo when I get a chance but would it seem like a good fit/should I be considering something else based on my weight? Thanks
post #2 of 10

Welcome to EpicSki.  Based on your weight, I would highly recommend the new Head Strong Instinct Ti, at least I think that's what its called, 83mm underfoot anyway and they only make one that's 83mm.  I forgot exactly how many skis are in this series, five, IIRC and not all constructed alike.  I skied three different ones at the demos at Copper Mountain and I will be buying a pair of the 83mm ones.  They're lightweight, very quick edge to edge, stable, handled 4-5" of fresh powder like it wasn't there, skied bumps pretty well, was very quick in trees, and was just a lot of fun to ski.  Head has not updated their website for these as yet and it might be hard to find a demo but you really ought to try.  MSRP is not going to be ridiculous on these either.  Unfortunately 83mm is as wide as they make, but for a lightweight person they'll be like having an 88-90mm ski.  They also have a bit of early rise in the tip

 

I'm about 5'7" 150 pounds, ski mostly off piste but when I have to get on a groomer, I seriously enjoy carving GS type turns at a fairly high rate of speed.

post #3 of 10

It also depends which length ski you were considering buying, as well as your ski "style" if you're lighttouch finesse or if you're powwweeer skier and you're 135lbs of lean mean muscle and you're pressing your skis hard every chance you get.

 

If you're skiing your height or less and looking at the smallest or 2nd smallest offering then you're actually at "ave" weight (or only slightly below).  Your BMI is 21, you not really that "underweight" you are normal.  So for that offering you are normal too (who else is the smallest or 2nd smallest ski for?).  

 

But if you like your skis the same length as for bigger people, like the high 170s+, that's  then you need to worry more to make sure the ski fits your style.

 

if you want their "lite" offering, then take a look at bushwacker 

post #4 of 10

Who said the OP was underweight?  The rest of that, well...

 

I've skied the Bushwacker, demoed them twice before I rejected them and bought my Steadfasts.  The Head is a much better ski, more lively and more fun, IMHO.

post #5 of 10

Both Brahma and Bushwackr have what Blizzard calles 'tail rocker', but is is minimal. If you really want some decent splay in the tail, I would have a look at all-mountain twintips. Atomic Alibi comes to mind, maybe Nordica Soulrider? You can play with the mounting point...

 

If you're not an agressive skier, have a look at the Fischer Ranger 88 TI as well. The best 88 ski in powder that I tried (I'm not light, but a bit of a 'lazy' skier with not much muscle going into my style). I use it as my daily driver in Europe, and much better in bumps, powder (up to 1 foot or so) and on hard pack than other skis in that range, IMO. Nordica Nrgy 90 comes in second with a bit more power. Could also be a good choice I think.

post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 
Mtcyclist - didn't know about the Head ski. Thanks will def take a look

Raytseng - I ski pretty aggressively, not the fastest person down when skiing with legit experts but hold my own. my 160 rossis come to mid forehead. I like that length so was thinking 166 would be fine. Not really sure how much to add with tip rocker? Is the only diff between the bushwhacker and brahma ski weight?
post #7 of 10

Metal is the difference. This means more stability, beefiness and weight for the Brahma. Dimensions and rest of the construction are the same. 

post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weber2886 View Post

I'm 5'6" and 135 lbs. ski out west 1-2 x a year but mostly Vermont. Will ski anything but backcountry. I have been skiing Rossi b1 bandits since 2007 (160 length, 74 underfoot). Looking to upgrade to tip/tail rocker and a bit wider underfoot (85-90). The brahma seems to be getting a lot of positive reviews. Will demo when I get a chance but would it seem like a good fit/should I be considering something else based on my weight? Thanks

Same size and ski habits as you. First thing to understand is that, even working on a full camber basis, 160cm is 5-10cm too small for you in a forgiving all-mountain ski like the Bandit (was), unless you are a particularly slow or unambitious skier. So build a little length adjustment time into your experiments with other skis. Don't go too short.

If you are fixated on Blizzard, it would be ideal to demo the Bushwacker AND the Brahma in 166 AND 173. We are kind of between sizes on those skis. My prediction is that you will like the 173 Bushwacker. The Brahma is going to feel like a lot of ski after the Bandit, but maybe you will like that extra beef. In that case I'm guessing you are right about the 166 being a good length.

I have a good friend who is nuts about his Dynastar Powertrack 84s. Suggest checking that ski out in a 169. It has a pretty forgiving construction like the Bandit and the Bushwacker, but with a more state of the art shape. They don't get raves here because we all eat gravel for breakfast, dontcha know. But for actual skiers it's a good candidate. In the same vein, people who have ridden the Fischer Ranger 88 have liked that ski a lot in the "take it easy, but take it" category.
post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weber2886 View Post

I'm 5'6" and 135 lbs. ski out west 1-2 x a year but mostly Vermont. Will ski anything but backcountry. I have been skiing Rossi b1 bandits since 2007 (160 length, 74 underfoot). Looking to upgrade to tip/tail rocker and a bit wider underfoot (85-90). The brahma seems to be getting a lot of positive reviews. Will demo when I get a chance but would it seem like a good fit/should I be considering something else based on my weight? Thanks

 

The Brahma in a 166 may be a good option for you.  I've sold a few of those to lightweight skiers, in fact I sold one yesterday to a guy who's coming off a Rossi Bandit.  He had a chance to demo it at our shop and loved it.  It was our last 166 Brahma. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Welcome to EpicSki.  Based on your weight, I would highly recommend the new Head Strong Instinct Ti, at least I think that's what its called, 83mm underfoot anyway and they only make one that's 83mm.  I forgot exactly how many skis are in this series, five, IIRC and not all constructed alike.  I skied three different ones at the demos at Copper Mountain and I will be buying a pair of the 83mm ones.  They're lightweight, very quick edge to edge, stable, handled 4-5" of fresh powder like it wasn't there, skied bumps pretty well, was very quick in trees, and was just a lot of fun to ski.  Head has not updated their website for these as yet and it might be hard to find a demo but you really ought to try.  MSRP is not going to be ridiculous on these either.  Unfortunately 83mm is as wide as they make, but for a lightweight person they'll be like having an 88-90mm ski.  They also have a bit of early rise in the tip

 

I'm about 5'7" 150 pounds, ski mostly off piste but when I have to get on a groomer, I seriously enjoy carving GS type turns at a fairly high rate of speed.

Good option, but that ski is unavailable just now. 

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weber2886 View Post

I'm 5'6" and 135 lbs. ski out west 1-2 x a year but mostly Vermont. Will ski anything but backcountry. I have been skiing Rossi b1 bandits since 2007 (160 length, 74 underfoot). Looking to upgrade to tip/tail rocker and a bit wider underfoot (85-90). The brahma seems to be getting a lot of positive reviews. Will demo when I get a chance but would it seem like a good fit/should I be considering something else based on my weight? Thanks

Same size and ski habits as you. First thing to understand is that, even working on a full camber basis, 160cm is 5-10cm too small for you in a forgiving all-mountain ski like the Bandit (was), unless you are a particularly slow or unambitious skier. So build a little length adjustment time into your experiments with other skis. Don't go too short.

If you are fixated on Blizzard, it would be ideal to demo the Bushwacker AND the Brahma in 166 AND 173. We are kind of between sizes on those skis. My prediction is that you will like the 173 Bushwacker. The Brahma is going to feel like a lot of ski after the Bandit, but maybe you will like that extra beef. In that case I'm guessing you are right about the 166 being a good length.

I have a good friend who is nuts about his Dynastar Powertrack 84s. Suggest checking that ski out in a 169. It has a pretty forgiving construction like the Bandit and the Bushwacker, but with a more state of the art shape. They don't get raves here because we all eat gravel for breakfast, dontcha know. But for actual skiers it's a good candidate. In the same vein, people who have ridden the Fischer Ranger 88 have liked that ski a lot in the "take it easy, but take it" category.

This is the ski I came in here to suggest and at $499 flat Before sale prices), it is a great option. My suggestion for a ski about the same dimensions as the Brahma would be the Volkl Kink, even though it is billed as a park ski, it has a minimal twin tip design but early rise, camber and some rise in the tail, plus the ski bends really well. 

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 › Blizzard - brahma for a light guy?