# Blizzard Brahma 173 or 180?



## midwestfabs (Feb 23, 2015)

Torn on which size and would like some input from forum members.

Im 5'9" 190lbs advanced intermediate skier. Ski about 30-35 days a year with about 20-25 of the time being in the hills of MN, the other out west and next season out east ad well. Im torn between 173 or 180 lenght. After reading a plethora of post talking to several ski shops its about 50/50. Those advocating the 180 say so because they ski about 5cm shorter and the 173 would be way to short.

I demoed the 173 and liked them but didnt get to demo the 180. I did demo the experience 88 in 174 and 180 and felt the 180 was too much ski. I like the brahma more than either of the exp88 skis.

Im Not t a really agressive skier, but everytime i do go west do get into harder terrain, learning bumps, ect and felt comfortable in the 173 brahma not so much in the exp88 180.

Being that the vast majority of my skiing will be in MN and this will be my one ski quiver not sure if the 180 would be too much ski.

I have read that brahma skis more true to lenght and per most charts im in the 175 range, but given the brahma skis bit shorter will i be giving up what the ski should be by going with 173 vs 180 or before ng it is a stiffer ski the 'sking shoerter' would benefit in MN but when out west and putting more umph on the ski it would nbe more adequate to my height and weight?

Sorry for the long explanation and truly appreciate in advance any feeback you could offer.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 23, 2015)

i don't have the blizz but if you skied the 173 and you liked the 173 then get the 173 and enjoy.

i'm shorter and heavier than you, personally i went longer... moved up from 170 84mm nordica to a 179 Line Prophet 98.  the length likes speed


----------



## Jersey Skier (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm your size and own the 180's. No problem here, but I never tried the 173 before buying these. Never wished they were shorter.


----------



## Edd (Feb 24, 2015)

I use the 180 as a daily driver. I'm 5' 11", 175 lbs. the ski handles like dream but I never tried the 173. My last ski was a fully cambered 170 Kendo and these are no harder to drive.


----------



## WoodCore (Feb 24, 2015)

I would go with the 173. Shorter skis are more fun!


----------



## dlague (Feb 24, 2015)

IMO - I would stick to the 173 - you pointed out that you are not a very aggressive skier and still learning bumps.  If you were more aggressive and leaning more toward Advanced-Expert then I would suggest the 180.  Most of the calculators out there suggest 173 as well.  

However, the calculators suggest something different then what I ski.  Suggested length for me was 176 and I ski a 186 and a 184 and love the length and prior to this season I skied a 179.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Mar 2, 2015)

FWIW - I am 5' 7", 165 and I demoed both sizes. For me, I found the 173 more fun and had a bit more "pop".  In the end, a 173 Bonafide was more to my liking but if I was stuck on the Brahma, I'd have gone 173 no question.


----------



## Edd (Mar 4, 2015)

Edd said:


> I use the 180 as a daily driver. I'm 5' 11", 175 lbs. the ski handles like dream but I never tried the 173. My last ski was a fully cambered 170 Kendo and these are no harder to drive.



Something I've discovered about these. I've skied them about 15 days this season. I'm on my third ski day in a row and my legs are beat. Today, bending these things is almost impossible for me. Conditions are extremely good, too. 

I find myself wishing for a softer ski or better conditioned legs. Makes me curious how much more manageable the 173 would be.


----------



## mishka (Mar 7, 2015)

Edd  stiffness  is only one part of the ski design/performance and imo cannot be taken out of total design "package". One of my skis is extremely stiff but it doesn't take much more effort in turning compare to other softer skis I got of similar length.

from looking on Brahma skis I would suggest 173. In my experience this design require more effort from you specially in tight quarters. That can be compensated by shorter skis or different design with more pronouns tip/tail rocker


----------



## midwestfabs (Mar 7, 2015)

Kind of what i was thinking. Given these skis are bery stiff, even though with the rocker it 'might' ski short as some have sugeested on reviews and other forums, will these actually ski more true to length. also, would then there wouldnt be that much given up in stability of the ski , but gain little more meneauverability otherwise lost in the 180.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 7, 2015)

My only concern sizing down like that would be loss of float.  If you don't ski much powder, that's obviously not a big deal.


----------



## mishka (Mar 8, 2015)

88  underfoot skis 173 or 180 will not make a substantial difference on floating in pow.


----------



## xwhaler (Mar 8, 2015)

mishka said:


> 88  underfoot skis 173 or 180 will not make a substantial difference on floating in pow.



I respectfully disagree Mishka.  In deep pow longer is better for float and overall stability IMHO all else being equal


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 8, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> I respectfully disagree Mishka.  In deep pow longer is better for float and overall stability IMHO all else being equal



+1

That 88 will float like a low 80s ski with that loss of surface area to support weight.


----------



## mishka (Mar 8, 2015)

I don't want to argue for the sake of argument. above remarks based on my tests.

mid 80s hardly can be considered pow skis by now day standards and the deep snow performance is not important here imo. 
Loss of surface is not significant to make significant change. Way a longer skis made they are can be slightly stiffer compared to same shorter skis and can contribute to stability mentioned but require more effort to muscle them around as Edd mentioned


----------



## midwestfabs (Mar 8, 2015)

Thanks for the replies so far, been very helpful.

Since the majority of my skiing is in the midwest that would not be an issue, i.e. Looking for a ski that floats better. Since I'm looking for a ski that will still be above average in the west and/or east for the yearly trip(s) i didn't want a ski that would be too much for the midwest (~350ft of vertical on avg). Given the research I've done online and at local shops it seems like the 173 (height wise is more appropriate) vs 180 ( weight-wise more appropriate) would be a better compromise. The 173 would provide better maneuverability in the conditions i ski most here and out east and appropriate maneuverability out west due to the shorter size w/o getting too agressive, while still give me enough stability due to the stiffness of this ski, 173, but not on the top end like the 180 might. 

Think science does dictate that longer skis would give more volume and help in deeper snow. If i would find myself searching for and skiing deeper snow i imagine a longer and wider ski would be more appropriate, but unfortunately thats not the case. With the brahma having the rocker tip and some tale it does provide adequate float up to a certain point i suppose or at least a lot more than my old skis.

I have been looking for one ski quiver and not have several skis, especially if they would only get used occasionally if a trip to more interesting ski areas do materialize. Out west its almost a for sure thing every year and going forward out east will most likely become a second trip as well.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 8, 2015)

It's one thing that when I only got a chance to fondle in the late Fall...(it was a 180), with its stiffness, had me scratching my head wondering just what Edd mentioned...around our weight....with some of their skis Blizzard seems to, once in a while, leave a little gap for performance smoothness for some of us....but then it could of been my rustiness..and not actually skiing on them, just mind games...lol.
fwiw..


----------



## Edd (Mar 10, 2015)

I pulled kind of a crazy move today. I bought a pair of 180 Blizzard Bushwackers in North Conway. I'm going to switch the bindings over from the Brahmas. 

I skied Cranmore today and it was beautiful but the Brahmas just require me to be too on point or else they buck me around. When I'm on top of them they're so great but I don't want to work that hard that often. 

The Bushwackers are the exact same ski minus the metal. I also bought some Soul 7s in a 180. I'm having everything mounted up this week and hopefully hitting some fresh snow Sun - Tue next week with two brand new sets of skis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 10, 2015)

Baller


----------



## Edd (Mar 10, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Baller



I know, I am awesome. I'm going to throw a carving ski into the mix by next season. I don't need my all mountain ski to be so goddamn stiff. If it's that boilerplate, it's carver time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 10, 2015)

I'd like to try the Bushwacker.  I think I'd also enjoy it more than the Brahma for the type of skiing I like to do.

The only type of ski I'd want metal in is a hard snow specific carved as you say.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 10, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd like to try the Bushwacker.  I think I'd also enjoy it more than the Brahma for the type of skiing I like to do.
> 
> The only type of ski I'd want metal in is a hard snow specific carved as you say.



Bushwacker still has metal.  Only under the binding, rather than double metal under binding , and single layer tip and tail.

The Bushwacker was my first rockred ski, and I was a big fan of them.  My only complaint was they were a bit soft for my liking.  I replaced them with the Volkl Kendo.  If the Brahma had come out sooner, I may have gone that route instead.  I personally like a full metal ski with alot of rocker as my everyday such as the Brahma/Kendo.


----------



## Edd (Mar 10, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> The Bushwacker was my first rockred ski, and I was a big fan of them.  My only complaint was they were a bit soft for my liking.  I replaced them with the Volkl Kendo.  If the Brahma had come out sooner, I may have gone that route instead.  I personally like a full metal ski with alot of rocker as my everyday such as the Brahma/Kendo.



Since I really enjoyed my 170 Kendos, I strongly suspect the 173 Brahma would have been ok for me. But, I was digging the extra length and rocker of the 180. I wanted to hold onto that and lighten the work load.


----------



## mishka (Mar 11, 2015)

Edd said:


> I pulled kind of a crazy move today. I bought a pair of 180 Blizzard Bushwackers in North Conway. I'm going to switch the bindings over from the Brahmas.
> 
> I skied Cranmore today and it was beautiful but the Brahmas just require me to be too on point or else they buck me around. When I'm on top of them they're so great but I don't want to work that hard that often.
> 
> The Bushwackers are the exact same ski minus the metal. I also bought some Soul 7s in a 180. I'm having everything mounted up this week and hopefully hitting some fresh snow Sun - Tue next week with two brand new sets of skis.



wow somebody win lottery? lol
   brahma so bad?
you could've ask.... I could've make for you one pair skis ..... you would've have better skis....would've been cheaper and better for you in the long run


----------



## Edd (Mar 11, 2015)

mishka said:


> wow somebody win lottery? lol
> brahma so bad?
> you could've ask.... I could've make for you one pair skis ..... you would've have better skis....would've been cheaper and better for you in the long run



Actually, the Brahma is a great ski. But, I didn't realize how hard I was working until I was dog tired one day. After that, it was hard not to focus on the stiffness. For an all mountain ski, I need something that'll be easier for ungroomed. 

A bigger or more skilled guy is more suited for that ski as a daily driver. I've never changed my mind about a ski  so quickly but it was sort of an epiphany.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 11, 2015)

So zen


----------



## Edd (Mar 11, 2015)

And I hope to buy a ski from you one day Mishka. You make good shit.


----------



## Edd (Mar 11, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> So zen



Just for that you can't demo ski my new Bushwackers.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 11, 2015)

I look forward to your review/comparison on the Bushwacker and the Brahma.  Did you own the rockered, or pre-rocker Kendo?

Ifeel you will love the Soul 7 as well, as they are my powder/BC ski.


----------



## Edd (Mar 11, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I look forward to your review/comparison on the Bushwacker and the Brahma.  Did you own the rockered, or pre-rocker Kendo?
> 
> Ifeel you will love the Soul 7 as well, as they are my powder/BC ski.



Pre-rockered, for 3 seasons. I'd like to try a rockered 177 sometime. 

Yes, I've demoed the Soul 7 twice, once on pow, and feel great about those.


----------



## baballahyoonesi (Mar 14, 2015)

Edd said:


> I use the 180 as a daily driver. I'm 5' 11", 175 lbs. the ski handles like dream but I never tried the 173. My last ski was a fully cambered 170 Kendo and these are no harder to drive.


[emoji6] [emoji605] [emoji614] [emoji250]


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 14, 2015)

baballahyoonesi said:


> [emoji6] [emoji605] [emoji614] [emoji250]



excellent first post to AZ!


----------



## Edd (Mar 14, 2015)

baballahyoonesi said:


> [emoji6] [emoji605] [emoji614] [emoji250]



Yup, I stand corrected, but I honestly didn't realize that I was expending more energy. I was occupied with having fun. Sounds weird, I know.


----------



## graham418 (Mar 19, 2015)

Let me say, I was in the same situation. 173 or 180. I'm 200lbs , 5'-8". Pretty good skier, level 2 instructor. spend most of my time in Ontario and Quebec with some  skinny carving skis. I got some brahmas in the 180 because that's what everybody in the forums were recommending. I got them for trips out west. Usually when I go west, there might be a couple of powder days , but mostly its the skied out stuff. I spend a lot of time in the bumps and trees. I thought these skis would be the cats behind. I wish I got the 173. I found the 180s hard to turn and really had to work. On the groomers they were great, really railed. On the flats with chuffed up snow, rock solid. But on the steeps, lots of bumps or in the trees, I struggled to turn these things.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 19, 2015)

Edd said:


> Actually, the Brahma is a great ski. But, I didn't realize how hard I was working until I was dog tired one day. After that, it was hard not to focus on the stiffness. For an all mountain ski, I need something that'll be easier for ungroomed.
> 
> A bigger or more skilled guy is more suited for that ski as a daily driver. I've never changed my mind about a ski  so quickly but it was sort of an epiphany.



I went to a 15-16' demo this past Monday.  Blizzard was on of the companies there, and I was planning on skiing the Brahma, and Bushwacker back to back for comparison.

I know the differences have been discussed, but lets start off with the differences between the 2 models.  They have the same shape and construction.  The only difference between these 2 models is the metal layering in the skis.  The Bushwacker has a single layer of metal, however it is only located under the binding.  The Brahma, also has this under foot sheet of metal.  It ALSO has a full layer of metal running tip to tip. So double metal under foot, and single metal out to the tips.

I am a big guy....6', and between 280-290# depending on the time of year, so I have the weight to bend a ski.  I started out with the Brahma 180cm.  I was very happy to be on these.  To me, they were quite playfull with all of the tip rocker that they have.  When I decided to open them up and ski them hard and fast they held rock solid under my feet.  There was no chattering or floppy tips.  To me they are the perfect type of ski for a everyday ski.  Around 90mm under foot(88mm to be exact), metal, 1/3 rockered, and flat.
Next I went down to try the Bushwacker in a 180cm.  I was having trouble finding them in the rack, and was unfortunately informed by the rep that they have been discontinued for next season..... (This section of the review is from memory from when I owned the Bushwacker during its first season in existence).  The ski is quicker/easier to maneuver than the Brahma because of the softer tip/tail.  When cranking high speed GS style on a groomer the start chattering much faster than the Brahma does.  Also the tips have alot of floppiness to them.
My choice between them would come down to how I skied.  If I spent more time off trail at slower speeds, I would want the Bushwacker, more time on groomers give me the Brahma.
I did demo the Bushwacker's replacement as well.  I do not remember the exact name but something like "Letigo".  It is a full single layer metal ski, 78mm under foot, and equal rocker to the Bushwacker/Brahma.  The length was slightly shorter at 177cm.  I HATED these skis.  They were way to narrow under foot for my liking.  It felt like I had a rounded pipe under my foot, and as soon as I let off one side of the edge, it just flopped over to the other side edge.  (I regularly ski stuff narrower than these, my GS ski is 70mm and I ski on SL's as well).  They did not feel comfortable to me at all, so I never really pushed it to see how hard I could go before chattering.

As a extra bit of info I also demoed the 15-16' Kendo.  The dimensions and construction are the same as the current ski, however they have now rockered the tail of the ski.  In a 177cm length the tail rocker came in from the tail about 7-8" I would guess.  Personally they felt almost the same as my current Kendo, but with a slightly less stiff tail, as it is now rockered up.


----------



## Edd (Mar 19, 2015)

I've had two days on the 180 Bushwackers and first impressions are very good. The snow was soft on both days so it wasn't a test for edge hold. I'm enjoying the flex and lightness, though. A word that keeps popping in my head while skiing is "bouncy". 

Hawk, could you see replacing your Kendos with the Brahmas?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 19, 2015)

Edd said:


> Hawk, could you see replacing your Kendos with the Brahmas?



If the Brahma had come out 1 year earlier than they did I would have bought them instead of my first Kendo.
As to now, I could see myself doing it as well. I am not crazy about the 15-16' Kendo having a rockered tail.

Glad to hear you are enjoying the new skis.


----------



## prsboogie (Mar 19, 2015)

Hawk, I picked up a set in 187 and I absolutely love them, I'm 6'3" and in the same lb range as you and find them very easy to rail but still rockered enough to be very playful. I like them so much I sold my prophet 98s which I always found planky. Think I actually found a ski I'm gonna keep around for a while!!


----------



## ss20 (Nov 13, 2015)

Thread bump!  Yeah!

Very interesting... wish I had seen this thread a few months ago!  I was in a similar situation to the OP... 5' 8", 200lbs.  Went with 181cm Icelantic Keeper SKNY's rather than 171cm.  Never skied on something so long.  Very intimidating to look at them.  Felt some buyer's remorse for a few weeks thinking I had gone too long.  Now that it's getting close to ski season I feel empowered with the longer skis.  Looking forward to skiing on them within the month!

This didn't add to the discussion at all... probably won't be any posts in this thread till I get out there and try them out.  I'll report back then


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 14, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Thread bump!  Yeah!
> 
> Very interesting... wish I had seen this thread a few months ago!  I was in a similar situation to the OP... 5' 8", 200lbs.  Went with 181cm Icelantic Keeper SKNY's rather than 171cm.  out.  :



I have the keepers not the SKNYs and love them. Looked over the summer for some deals on the SKNYs  but couldn't find anything reasonably priced. 
I'm sure you will love them, great skis !
Light and bullet proof and the edges are awesome on hardback and ice. 



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## ss20 (Nov 14, 2015)

JDMRoma said:


> I have the keepers not the SKNYs and love them. Looked over the summer for some deals on the SKNYs  but couldn't find anything reasonably priced.
> I'm sure you will love them, great skis !
> Light and bullet proof and the edges are awesome on hardback and ice.
> 
> ...



Glad to hear you like them!  I got them for $299 in August.


----------

