 Poster: A snowHead
|
Just a very quick one!
Used my Blizzard Black Pearls ( women's version of Bushwhacker) yesterday in 8 inches of fresh powder.
These skis are amazing.
I've tried many skis over the years and I wouldn't normally post a review but these skis are so nimble and easy any ladies considering these.... Go for it!
I have them mounted with Dynafit ST Radical , length 159 , wanted shorter for touring and tight tree skiing , but honestly I could have gone to the longer 166 as they are so turny and manoeuvrable. They go where you look!
I am 5ft 3in.
These are very good on piste but I would defo go longer if piste skiing is what you do most.
BTW. Snow in Dolomites is great and empty pistes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Nice to hear you are enjoying them, I have mostly heard good reviews about Blizzard skis and the BPs seem to really popular with most women who try them, what were you skiing before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
susieski, did you find them stable and accurate in long sweeping turns at speed? I'm seriously considering these following so many recommendations. I'm 5'2" and 9st, ski almost always on piste (knee too shot to do much off piste these days) but have been skiing for (um..over 40) years - that doesn't make me an expert but I do like a longer ski with a bit of stiffness so I can keep up with the boys...but I like to turn as well without putting too much stress on the poor knee, went down to 159 Atomic Cloud 9 but they are a bit, well, wimpy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I bought the Black Pearl skis last year and totally agree withsusieski. We were skiing only on piste this Christmas, on mainly hard packed artificial snow, and the skis were great. In fact I enjoyed them just as much for fast skiing as soft stuff. I am 5 4" 9st 2 and have the 159 too, which I find are long enough. I'm never the faster skier but that's due to me, not the ski! I do find I catch up with everyone when it comes to the flat after a schuss and generally have the least poling - which is nice! Would definitely recommend them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Hi all ,
Yes the BP are very stable in turns and on hard pack which I was surprised and pleased with. So far I have experienced no squirreling either. I have owned Volkl Mantra, Volkl Aura, Line Prophet 90 (hard work), Atomic Access ( too soft and flappy) Lord knows how many others over the years.
Also have at the moment Atomic Nomad Blackeye ( non Ti) which I also love (they dance), do squirrel a bit at speed being non Ti ( proberbly lagather dust now! ) Atomic Crimson with Barons on- bit dead feeling though and bloody heavy.
BUT the BP have blown all of these out the water.
I am amazed frankly.
With the Dynafits on they are do light and will be my go to ski from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rachelb, susieski, I am convinced. Now, do I go for the 159 or the 166. I am not skiing till March this year, might wait for the end of season sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowyowl,
If it helps,
If I stand bare foot on the floor the 159 BP come halfway up my forehead, halfway between top of eyes and top of head.
I got mine from LD Mountain Centre, new graphics very cheap in sale. They also mounted the Dynafits for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I loved that shop when I was a student in Newcastle. Sadly now live 4 hrs from there...working on it. Probably 159 will be long enough but I can cope with 166 I am sure. I used to ski 175, way above my Head!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Across the pond here in the U.S....dealers cannot keep the Black Pearls in stock. They are super duper popular for a reason...people love them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love mine. Great skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
These are 166. I have just had a short session with a tape measure and I think as 3" above my head 166 is actually going to be too long. What a shame! The 159s will be fine I just need to find some....But thanks limegreen1, and someone on here will buy I'm sure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooo, something else to think about. I had completed my shortlist for new skis down to nordica wild belle or rossy temptation 78 (had thought 82 but they don't make them long enough. I had read snout these but I had a friend who had blizzard skis in the 90s and they were rubbish (well she thought so, actually came apart !)
The BP sound and look good, I will gave to check what lengths they do. My height us 182.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
NE1, the longest length on the womens is 172cm but the mens or unisex version is called the Bushwacker and comes in a 180cm which might be better, depends what you want them for, your skill level, weight etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
NE1, I find more difference in weight and ease of skiing between different skis than between the mens and womens version of the same ski. I've demoed a few womens K2 skis that were so heavy and the womens Volkl ski I own is stiffer than the Rossi mens ski I own.
I'm 175cm and like skis around head height for a do anything ski, probably longer for a pure off piste ski, remember the BP and Bushwacker are rockered so will ski a lot shorter than 172cm, maybe even shorter than your B2s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
....I don't really understand this rocker stuff. I thought it would be longer when you put weight on it.....maths and physics were never my strong point. At least I think that relates to maths and physics somewhere along the line
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
NE1, please, please, please don't bring maths and physics into it, there is enough of that on the technique threads, rocker means that the tip and/or tail of the ski is turned up, this means that the area that contacts the snow on a hard piste will be a lot less than with no rocker, off piste in chopped up snow I find rockered skis again a lot easier to ski as the turned up tips and tails makes it really easy to smear turns and can help you "float" over lumps of snow, it is only in deeper snow, you you are actually skiing more into the snow that the full length of the rockered ski would be in touch with the snow. Are you confusing rocker and camber?
Rocker, for an all mountain ski is generally in the tips and tails, a pure off piste ski may have full rocker or reverse camber, imagine a banana, in that case there will be very little ski in contact with the snow on hardpack. Camber is what you see when you have your skis lying on the flat and can see space under the bindings, when you stand on this you flatten it so it will be in contact with the snow.
This article is good if you are interested.
http://blistergearreview.com/features/rocker-101
In any case skiing a ski around the same height as you would be normal, if you find the ski too much to handle I would recommend a softer ski rather than going shorter, people say the ski doesn't know how tall you are just what you weigh which is true but I know how long the skis are and find a shorter ski less confidence inspiring unless it's something like a slalom ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
