EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Blizzard 8.7 Length Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blizzard 8.7 Length Question

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

Hello, i'm interested in the Blizzard 8.7. Unfortunately theres no retailers anywhere close to me so demoing is not possible.

 

 My stats: 6'2, 230, level 8, ski the small east coast mountains, 40-50 times per season

 

 Would the 174 or 181 suit me better? In my mind 174 seems a little short and 181 seems a little long. Thanks

post #2 of 29

I've got to say the 181's. While you could certainly ski the 174's, at your size the 181's would be more versatile on anything other than firm groomers....

 

 

btw.....A VERY nice ski 

post #3 of 29

It depends on what you like to do.  If you like to make a lot of turns the 174 might be good, even at your weight.  If you prefer longer radius cruising the 181 would be better.  I don't think you'd over power the 174 too much, but demoing is definitely a good idea.  In that regards the 181 is safer, it will work just fine, but you might prefer the turnyness of the shorter ski.

 

I've lost weight since then, but skied 170's very comfortably when I was about 203.

post #4 of 29

Small east coast mountain, what mountain, how small?

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 

Seven Springs, Blue Knob, Snowshoe, and Wisp regularly. Plus a week or two in Vermont

post #6 of 29

Buy both and sell the ones you don't like on epic. 

 

I might buy the 174's from you next season if you don't like them.

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 

 Buying both 174's and 181's just isn't gonna happen

post #8 of 29

The 8.7 is a beefy ski, either side will hold your big frame. I think while you could go with the 181, you will have more fun on the 174 considering the areas that you are skiing. You will just run out of room on the 181 on the smaller hills. The times you would want the 181, there are probably better choices of a ski to add if you were to start a quiver. 

post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

The 8.7 is a beefy ski, either side will hold your big frame. I think while you could go with the 181, you will have more fun on the 174 considering the areas that you are skiing. You will just run out of room on the 181 on the smaller hills. The times you would want the 181, there are probably better choices of a ski to add if you were to start a quiver. 


+1

post #10 of 29
Thread Starter 

I stumbled across a great deal on 8.1's in 179. How will the 8.1 do on ice and soft mid atlantic granular/slush?

post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by JParker View Post

I stumbled across a great deal on 8.1's in 179. How will the 8.1 do on ice and soft mid atlantic granular/slush?


*My bad, I was actually going to suggest that as a viable option. Go for it. You struck oil, now stop drilling 

 

 

 

 

 

*Did you know the late Manute Bol coined that expression? 

post #12 of 29

Agreed,  I skied the 7.6 magnums and absolutely loved them. Best east coast ski I'd been on.  They were 170 and I was about 190lbs  5'9".

post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post




*My bad, I was actually going to suggest that as a viable option. Go for it. You struck oil, now stop drilling 

 

 

 

 

 

*Did you know the late Manute Bol coined that expression? 


Since I can't be out on the slopes now, i'm getting my "fix" by over analyzing what ski i'm buying for next season. So i'm assuming the 8.1 is going to perform great in the sloppy slush and deep granular we have to deal with all too often around here?
 

post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Go for it. You struck oil, now stop drilling 


LIsten to the man. I've skied both the 8.1 and the 8.7 (172 and 174 respectively, weight 162 lbs) in east cost granular pow variable with ice underneath (eg, typical soft day). The 8.1 is a great choice, can handle 80% of everything you'll find back east, will be more fun on ice days than the 8.7 and not significantly worse float (we're only talking 6 mm here after all). These are beefy skis. Both lengths I skied were a touch long for me. The 179 is your correct length. 

post #15 of 29

They'll be great.  Go buy them.

post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the feedback and replies!

post #17 of 29
Thread Starter 

how does the Dynastar Sultan 85 compare to the the Blizzi 8.1/8.7 for an east coast ski? 

post #18 of 29

No. Wrong. Do not pass go. Midfat Dynastars are fine skis, but no comparison to Blizzards on hardpack or ice. Just what it is...Stop fighting the inevitable and buy the 8.1's while you can. 

post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

No. Wrong. Do not pass go. Midfat Dynastars are fine skis, but no comparison to Blizzards on hardpack or ice. Just what it is...Stop fighting the inevitable and buy the 8.1's while you can. 


What he said ^^^^^^

post #20 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

No. Wrong. Do not pass go. Midfat Dynastars are fine skis, but no comparison to Blizzards on hardpack or ice. Just what it is...Stop fighting the inevitable and buy the 8.1's while you can.

+1

post #21 of 29

The Blizzards are a stable beast on Hard pack Ice- ect.  A very smooth ride. Probabaly a good ride for a DH Event.  Peter Muller used them.

 

 

They have no snap or rebound..

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy View Post

They have no snap or rebound..

Blizzards have great rebound and energy. If you can't find it, likely that you're not bending them. Try a shorter length. 
 

post #23 of 29

I found them flat and stable at 60mph. A good solid ride.

 

Not as agile as the Head World cup R21's  in a 178 cm But the BLizzard is still a great ride and better at higher speeds.

 

 

 

 

post #24 of 29

Beyond,

 

The snap and rebound is based on speed and weight.

 

Lets  go to Cannon and tuck  Avalanch with my Atomic 214's.  The bindings are ajustible so you can try them.

 

I have a second set up made by atomic. I'll use that set up.

 

We will hit speeds of 75mph or more. It will be fun. 

 

Call me

 

 

978-468-7157

 

post #25 of 29

If you have some real bad ski issues call me or my old friend Mark Rolfs.

 

We have been there and did it all .  Often  it's not the ski for most people  but the boot to make skiing better.  I can ski on crap and If the boot is to large you will have a bad day.

 

 

Most often people who say they ski 15 days a year get a boot based on shoe size.

 

After the second weekend the boot is too big?

 

Why is this?

 

It felt goo goo good  in the ski shop. 

 

 

I won't get into it for a bunch of reasons..  I wear a 9.5 shoe and ski in a 7.5 ski boot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #26 of 29

Candy, appreciate your youthful exuberance and/or testosterone level, but you might work on reading comprehension. (Or wisdom, if you actually are posting your digits on the web to people you don't know from a rock). 

 

1) What produced my post was that you stated that Blizzards have no "snap or rebound."  I replied with a truism: Snap and rebound can be formalized into how much energy a ski stores and releases each flex. If you can't flex the ski enough, it will feel dead. This is a common problem for lighter skiers. Obviously, since you are WC caliber, and routinely ski at 60-75 mph at small NE resorts, and since F still = ma, then you will exert plenty of bending force. Suggest you notify the U.S. Ski team of their obvious mistake in overlooking you for Downhill, and stop messing around with Cannon. 

 

2) You then proceed to state "I found them (Blizzards, apparently) flat and stable at 60 mph." All good, happy for you, but unrelated to your original observation about snap. Or my subsequent post. You then, as far as I can follow all this, want me to borrow some Atomics to straightline Cannon. I deduce this is because you feel slighted, that I have challenged your manhood or womanhood or whatever by a comment concerning length and snap. So we should have a race off or something?

 

3) Suggest you breathe slowly, and rethink your argumentation. Since you're coming across as, oh, say 15 years old.  That about right? 

post #27 of 29

Skiing 214's I think Charlie is a he.

post #28 of 29

Charlie does ski fast but his coach  Candy does.

 

The Blizzards are a excellent ride.  be mistaken.and one of the best skis out there.

 

 

I Slap on a pair and instantly said smooth  ride.

 

Blizzard is on a major  comeback in my book. 

 

 

What I'm saying is the Head has a better snap off the tail if you get late on the gate and need to use  heal pressure to recover from a late turn. Speed off the tail.

 

Beyond , you sound like a guy from MIT who never got a flexible flyer sled for Christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

post #29 of 29

Snap out of the turn has a ton to do with the ski.  Some are just too flexible to thrust a powerful skier (like candy--i've skied Cannon and its is the beast of the east if you don't have time to hike to tuckermans.  i like mad river too) out of a turn.  Agreed that if you're not bending the ski, its not going to work for you BUT we can presume that if a writer is talking about rebound, they know how to flex a ski matched to their weight.

 

 

Does "beyond" try to pick fights with everyone?  I've always found cyber---(whatever) to be a rather silly way to socialize.  Good thing for "beyond" as he is hopefully more sociable face-to-face (though maybe not) and reads like a mysogynistic a$% hole on the computer screen.

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 8.7 Length Question