EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › (09/10) blizzard ski lineup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

(09/10) blizzard ski lineup - Page 2

post #31 of 49

I also have the 4x4's, curious to see how they compare with the Supersonics!

post #32 of 49

I demo'ed the Supersonics (174 cm) and the 4X4 (178 cm) at Stratton last Wed.  I'm 6'5", 200lbs, and level 8-ish.  Conditions were groomed hardpack (but not generally icy).

 

I was prepared to be wowed by the Supersonics based on what I have heard and read, and maybe my expectations were too high   I found them to be a decent ski, with very good edge hold and maneuverability.  They were very easy to ski and could turn quickly.  However, they felt a bit insubstantial to me.  I never got a solid feeling of confidence in high speed turns.  I wasn't inspired.  (Maybe I needed the longer length?)

 

By contrast, I found the 4 X 4 to be rock solid at speed, and was encouraged to push them hard.  They were capable in short, medium, and long turns.  Edge grip was excellent.  I felt very comfortable on them, and generally had a lot more fun with them then the Blizzards.  (I had previously skied the 4 X 4 in 6 inches of cut up powder, and they were a gas there also.)

 

Of course, your size, skiing style, and personal preferences could lead you to a different conclusion, but I ended up buying the 4 X 4's, and the decision was not difficult.

post #33 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

 

I've got a pair of Supersonics and 4x4's that I hope to ski back to back when spring conditions kick in.  I'll post my observations when I do but wouldn't be surprised to see SJ beat me to it.

 

 

 

At this point, I have no plans to review the Supersonics. It's not  not that I have any reservations about the ski, but it's not at all on my radar for next year. I'm only planning to carry three hard snow type skis for next year and I want to have three distinct choices. The three I am planning on at this point are.......

 

Nordica Spitfire (feels kinda slalomy)

Fischer Progressor (the gee essy one)

Contact 4X4 (the versatile one)

 

The Supersonics are very good but each of these three is so good at what it does, I just don't see much need to mess around with other stuff.

 

SJ

post #34 of 49

Is this the same tune for the 08 Argos? Going to do my first edge tune very soon on mine..................
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

 

 

One of the pluses if the IQ binding is its light weight. I agree that the Blizzards factory tune is very nice 1/3 out of the box. 


 

post #35 of 49

I'm interested in the "Answer".  SJ's review was definitely intriguing and I like the dimensions of the ski.  I have never owned a Blizzard and it is quite an expensive ski.  May have to try to demo it. 

post #36 of 49

So... the question is: Jim-  Do you think there is any chance of having a pair of Answers around for a demo?  I am intrigued enough at this point...

 

 

post #37 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 

So... the question is: Jim-  Do you think there is any chance of having a pair of Answers around for a demo?  I am intrigued enough at this point...

 

 

 

Sure.....I have the current 185 and 178 right now.

 

SJ

post #38 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

 

 

At this point, I have no plans to review the Supersonics. It's not  not that I have any reservations about the ski, but it's not at all on my radar for next year. I'm only planning to carry three hard snow type skis for next year and I want to have three distinct choices. The three I am planning on at this point are.......

 

Nordica Spitfire (feels kinda slalomy)

Fischer Progressor (the gee essy one)

Contact 4X4 (the versatile one)

 

The Supersonics are very good but each of these three is so good at what it does, I just don't see much need to mess around with other stuff.

 

SJ

What length did you ski the Progressor in? I found the 170cm to be sportier, much less GS'y than the 172cm 4x4 or Nordy Mach 3 Power 170cm.  175cm, different story, but I think you have to ski the 9+ around 5cm under head height for a good all-around feel.   

post #39 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

 

 

At this point, I have no plans to review the Supersonics. It's not  not that I have any reservations about the ski, but it's not at all on my radar for next year. I'm only planning to carry three hard snow type skis for next year and I want to have three distinct choices. The three I am planning on at this point are.......

 

Nordica Spitfire (feels kinda slalomy)

Fischer Progressor (the gee essy one)

Contact 4X4 (the versatile one)

 

The Supersonics are very good but each of these three is so good at what it does, I just don't see much need to mess around with other stuff.

 

SJ

I am intrigued by the idea of a 174cm SLR IQ as a frontside ski.  It feels more substantial than the Supersonic IQ, not as stiff as the GSR.  Not having skied it, I bet it would be a very fun ski.  

post #40 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

 

I am intrigued by the idea of a 174cm SLR IQ as a frontside ski.  It feels more substantial than the Supersonic IQ, not as stiff as the GSR.  Not having skied it, I bet it would be a very fun ski.  

 

I agree on that point, but with all the FIS SL & GS skis we carry, the "civilian" race type stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Honestly, the biggest reason that I'm choosing the Spitfire oner the Dobie SL or the Mach 3/4 is that we sell most of that ctaegory to instructors. Our hill rep at Northstar is a National D-team member and I asked him what he wanted us to carry for his instructor clients and without hesitation, he specified the Spifire.

 

BTW, I ski the progressor quite a bit and have been on most all sizes. I agree it's a nice nimble feel in the shorter sizes but it's still a more deliberate feeling ski than the Spitfire. I plan to play the racier nature of those two and have the 4X4 as the wider alternative. Sure, the 4x4 may in fact be the most potent of the bunch but the wider waist sets it apart from other two and gives it a different story.

 

SJ

post #41 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

 

 

I agree on that point, but with all the FIS SL & GS skis we carry, the "civilian" race type stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Honestly, the biggest reason that I'm choosing the Spitfire oner the Dobie SL or the Mach 3/4 is that we sell most of that ctaegory to instructors. Our hill rep at Northstar is a National D-team member and I asked him what he wanted us to carry for his instructor clients and without hesitation, he specified the Spifire.

 

BTW, I ski the progressor quite a bit and have been on most all sizes. I agree it's a nice nimble feel in the shorter sizes but it's still a more deliberate feeling ski than the Spitfire. I plan to play the racier nature of those two and have the 4X4 as the wider alternative. Sure, the 4x4 may in fact be the most potent of the bunch but the wider waist sets it apart from other two and gives it a different story.

 

SJ

I haven't skied the Spitfire, but there is a demo day coming up and assuming my leg is on schedule, I will be there to ski it.  4x4 is a great ski, so is the Progressor, so hard to go wrong with any of those.  

 

Has anyone you know free skied the SLR IQ (for general aggressive skiing, hardpack/groomers/bumps) and if so, what did they think?  The flex feels pretty soft compared to the SLR race stock. 

post #42 of 49

I skied the Titan Atlas yesterday at a Blizzard demo in Steamboat. The 'Boat had just gotten about 15" in the preceding two days and I had wind packed breakable crust, to knee deep untracked, to groomers, to bumps with 4" on top of ice to play with. I am 57, 5'8", weigh 140# and consider myself competent in almost all conditions at almost all speeds. I walked up to the demo tent wanting a powder ski as I had packed my Volkl All Stars based on the average of 3 weather reports, all of which missed the 4 days of snow that we wound up having. The rep sent me out on the 174 cm ((I may be off by a cm) based on my request. He sent me off with the recommendation that I "let them rip". Unfortunately, I had to quit at noon to catch a plane home, so I only spent about 1 hour on the Atlas. 

 

I don't like wind blown crust and the Atlas did not magically transform my technique. However, they did make the situation tolerable and I got off that stretch of Deso's Descent with a few linked turns. Lower down on Flying Z, in knee deep fresh powder less buffed by the wind, they were great, with good flotation and stability. The big surprise was when I screamed down the remainder of Buddy's Run at Mach 1 speeds and they held an edge like a front side carver. I was going so fast I started to scare myself while they just kept holding on and holding on. I don't think I came close to pushing them to the carving limit. However, they turn (IMHO) like a battleship, not as quick as my Head Monster 88s in the same length. Granted: different dimensions and different design aims. They were only OK in bumps, pretty much as you might expect from their dimensions. Over the prior three days I had spent quite a lot of time in Shadows and Closet but I just could not bring myself trust the Atlas enough to go in the trees. Perhaps with more experience, but with the limited time I had on them, I felt like the skis could very well motor me right into an Aspen.

 

So, I went back down to the demo tent and asked for a more tree friendly ski, and the rep put me out on a pair of Titan Eos, 166 cm, not telling me until I turned them in 2 hours later that they were a women's ski. I also didn't notice the length until I was on the chair lift; I had never thought about skiing an all mountain/powder ski that short. Well, I had an absolute BLAST on the Eos, and I am sure that the length had a lot to do with that impression as I linked turns through the trees at speeds twice what I had taken the day before, feeling like there was more space between the trees than I had previously noticed. I then took them through the same drill of wind blown crust and the knee deep untracked, finding that the softer flex accommodated my technique in those conditions more closely. I found that I lost very little in the trade down in length and width, certainly compared to the gain in edge to edge quickness. I again screamed down the groomed part of Buddy's run at only a smidgen less than Mach 1 and thought they held an excellent edge, though not as stable as the Atlas, of course. I absolutely loved the Eos in the bumps (well, at least what Steamboat had in the way of bumps that day), and again I am sure the length had a lot to do with that. When I had to quit for the day, I told the rep that I respected the Atlas, but loved the Eos. I am always on the lookout for the perfect ski to take on airline checked baggage trips, thinking 5 years ago that it was the Pocket Rockets, then last year that it was the Monster 88s. I'm giving serious thought to buying the Cronus/Eos to fit that role. I just don't spend enough days in open slope powder to justify buying the Atlas.

 

In summary, I found the Atlas to be a ski that seems to match well the targeted market segment of strong, capable big mountain skiers, perhaps with Snowbird or Jackson Hole as a home mountain. In the end, it did not match my particular style of skiing, particularly as I like a quicker turning ski that can also float so I don't wind up eating pine needles. Maybe the Atlas in a shorter length... Maybe if I were 30 years younger...


Edited by cosmoliu - 3/29/2009 at 07:06 pm
post #43 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

 


In summary... particularly as I like a quicker turning ski that can also float so I don't wind up eating pine needles. Maybe the Atlas in a shorter length... Maybe if I was 30 years younger...

 

Quick turning ski with good float and available in short lengths?  You just described the 168 Icelantic Nomad.  Might be worth checking out next time you're in CO.

post #44 of 49

Just quick comment about the Supersonic. At 165 lbs I was comfortable on the 174 length, one down from the top. Would only want the 167 for tighter places and eastern skiing. I suspect that your enjoyment of it will be an index of your size. I notice that rgeba who wasn't wowed by the same 174, weighs 200, and SJ, who weighs 195, don't see it as a marketable alternative to three skis I would rate as beefy. Not sure if Blizzard designed it to be so user friendly to light skiers, or if they forgot to add a layer of fiberglass. 

post #45 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

I'm giving serious thought to buying the Cronus/Eos to fit that role. I just don't spend enough days in open slope powder to justify buying the Atlas.

Interesting review. Keep in mind that an 88 mm waist will give you the same float as a 105 mm will give to a 190 lb guy here. Haven't skied the Eos, but would recommend the Cronus strongly for the same reasons. I've skied it everywhere from thawing refrozen crud on the backside of Copper to trees in New England, always found it precise, flat out great in bumps and other tight places, and surprisingly stable for a non-metal ski. Not my first choice for maching rough ice, but otherwise a great ski. 

post #46 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

 

 

 

Quick turning ski with good float and available in short lengths?  You just described the 168 Icelantic Nomad.  Might be worth checking out next time you're in CO.

 

Hmm... So many skis. So little time...

post #47 of 49

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

 

Interesting review. Keep in mind that an 88 mm waist will give you the same float as a 105 mm will give to a 190 lb guy here. Haven't skied the Eos, but would recommend the Cronus strongly for the same reasons. I've skied it everywhere from thawing refrozen crud on the backside of Copper to trees in New England, always found it precise, flat out great in bumps and other tight places, and surprisingly stable for a non-metal ski. Not my first choice for maching rough ice, but otherwise a great ski. 

 

The rep said the Eos and Cronus are the same ski. There is a single metal layer at the bottom, with the Atlas having two. Blizzard's web site lists the Cronus, but not the Eos. ?Eos discontinued?

 

I don't mach ice, at least not on purpose.

post #48 of 49

Unclear if the Eos is the same ski, suspect same construction but a bit softer like most women's versions. They stopped making this year but I think will have it again for 10. Trekchick and others really liked it. According to the Blizzard web site cutaway, there is no metal in the Cronus other than its edges. That fits with my experience, it has the same "carbon" feel as a Mojo 90 or the Fischer's I've skied that have carbon. But I've been wrong before, so...

post #49 of 49

I reviewed several of the 2010 Blizzards in this thread: http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/82714/2010-review-pt-2-k2-sidestash-blizzard-atlas-answer-magnum-and-supesonic-elan-888-dyna-4x4

 

Good skis, great range for the more aggressive skier.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › (09/10) blizzard ski lineup