Brahma 88 vs Enforcer 88 - help me decide

[newlyn]

Help me decide. This will be an east coast ski . I have been getting back into skiing after a 15 year hiatus. I am 45 yo, 195 lbs. I am currently a high intermediate to low expert skier, and regaining my former skills rapidly. I spend most of my time on piste, but I also love challenging myself in the trees, on moguls, and in the terrain park.

I demoed the Brahma (166) for a few days in December at Stowe. Conditions varied from icy to a little bit of fresh snow and sleet. I love how well the Brahmas handled icy and patchy conditions. The felt very strong and solid. They did OK on moguls -- I wished they had just a bit more finesse/playfulness -- but that may be a function of user skill. They did fine in the terrain park for my purpose, which is just getting some air. There wasn't much snow in the trees, so I didn't get to try them there, but I suspect short quick turns would take a bit of effort on the Brahma.

I really enjoyed the Brahmas, and was about to pull the trigger, but then someone here suggested I take a look at the Enforcer 88. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a demo pair to try on my next trip to VT, and I'd really like to just buy some skis before I go, as I have already spent close to the cost of a new pair of skis on demos over the past year.

I understand the Enforcers may be a bit more playful and lively (which is the one thing I wished the Brahma had), but I have also read they require the "skier to drive the ski more, it's less automatic feeling."

It looks like the Enforcer has much more rounded tail and more rocker on both ends, which would help in moguls and trees, but I wonder how much on piste performance I will lose. I don't want to lose too much of the assurance I felt on the Brahmas.

Finally, length. I was headed towards the 173 Brahma. I understand the Enforcer may ski a little shorter. If I went to the Enforcer, 172 or 179?

All advice appreciated.

 

[Philpug]

I know a few higher ups at the Tecnica Group that don't care which one you buy, just that you buy one of these two. You will be just telling them which pocket to put it in, the left or the right.

Simply, if you are staying more on piste, the Brahma, if you want to stay more on the groomers, the Brahma if you want to venture more into the trees, the Enforcer, but I am talking 60/40 either way.

 

[rocdoc]

Chiming in as somebody without any expertise, but who has recently been through a similar choice process and received a lot of advice - so take all this with whatever size salt grain you think appropriate. My main decision was between the Volkl Kendo and the Enforcer, but the Brahma was in the discussion as well. I ended up with the Enforcer. As I posted in the thread with @Philpug's review, these skis seem to have made me love moguls, which I did not think possible. They are really great for bumps and trees. I have not demoed the Brahma, so I can't really give you a comparison. Re: length, I also felt like the Enforcers ski a touch short. And I'm quite a bit lighter than you, at around 170 lb. I have the 172. They are fine, but on piste when having to trust their edge hold on fast turns on hardback I found myself wondering if the 179 might have been better - so for you that may be the ticket.

 

[rocdoc]

BTW I'm curious about Phil's or anyone else's opinion on the magnitude of difference in terms of piste performance only. My understanding was that the differences between Enforcer, Kendo, and Brahma in this respect were rather subtle, but I'm curious if that's true. I do like my Enforcers, but I wonder if, for the hard pack alone, one of the others would have been significantly better.

 

[DocGKR]

It is hard to go wrong with many of the 88-90 skis currently available. At 6 ft 210 lbs I went with the 186cm Enforcer 88--it works extremely well all over the mountain here in the West, including bumps, fresh snow up to at least 8", punches through crusty/clumpy cut-up snow, handles slushy spring conditions, and while not a true carver or "racerish" ski, the Enforcer 88 holds its own on hard-pack groomers which many recreational skiers were calling "icy". I found the Enforcer 88 a bit more versatile compared to both an older pair of 180 Brahma's I had, as well as compared to the current orange 180 Bonafide. I would also look at some of the offerings by Liberty--they are proving quite impressive...

 

[James]

 

[Wilhelmson]

Being a good size dude in the northeast the brahma would be the conventional choice. "Strong and sold" as you say. When I get stuck on some skinny ass 25 degree goat path I wish for a little more butter to make my life easier. But in regular trees and moguls and such you get used to what you're using and the rigidity can be very useful in these conditions.

In venturing into the world of adult skis for my lightweight teenager I'm also looking for that match of an easy going charger but there are always compromises.

 

[Fuller]

I'm thinking that the 166 Brahma that you demoed was way too short for a 195 lb skier. I'm a 160 lb old guy and the shortest ski I have is a 170cm iTitan.

 

[newlyn]

I'm thinking that the 166 Brahma that you demoed was way too short for a 195 lb skier. I'm a 160 lb old guy and the shortest ski I have is a 170cm iTitan.

Probably, yes, although I enjoyed it and didn't notice any real downside to the shorter ski.

I am 5'10 (178 cm), and I am pretty strong and stocky (as opposed to just fat). If I go with the Brahma, I was thinking I would go with the 173. If I go with the Enforcer, I was thinking the 179, as I hear it skis short. I'd rather have the forgiveness of a slightly short ski, than regret something too long. But if I am way off with my lengths let me know.

 

[Andy Mink]

I always wonder what these discussions would look like 35 years ago: "Should I get the 205 or 210 in anyone's ski?" So. Many. Choices. Now.

 

[PinnacleJim]

I always wonder what these discussions would look like 35 years ago: "Should I get the 205 or 210 in anyone's ski?" So. Many. Choices. Now.

So true! Back then, it was either get an SL or GS ski. That was about it other than maker.

 

[Andy Mink]

So true! Back then, it was either get an SL or GS ski. That was about it other than maker.

And there weren't a whole lot of them! Not like today.

 

[EmperorMA]

I always wonder what these discussions would look like 35 years ago: "Should I get the 205 or 210 in anyone's ski?" So. Many. Choices. Now.

Definitely get the 210.

 

[Uncle-A]

I always wonder what these discussions would look like 35 years ago: "Should I get the 205 or 210 in anyone's ski?" So. Many. Choices. Now.

Their would be other questions as well.
Should I get wood core, foam core, or honeycomb core?
Should I get fiberglass or metal
Should I get fiberglass sandwich or wet wrap?
Should I get a solid edge or cracked edge?
Should I get a racing ski or a recreational ski?
Should I get a SL, GS, Freestyle, or Bump ski?
Do I need to go on?

 

[newlyn]

Follow up: I decided to go with the Brahma in 173, primarily because I expect to spend more time on piste, particularly given that this is an east coast ski. Also, when I laid the 173 Brahma next to the 179 Enforcer, the shorter Brahma appears to have a fair amount more effective edge because of the pronounced tip and tail rocker on the Enforcer. My thinking is I will have the benefit of a shorter ski, with more effective edge.

 

[rocdoc]

Awesome, let us know your impressions when you give them a few good runs on snow!

 

[bremmick]

Follow up: I decided to go with the Brahma in 173, primarily because I expect to spend more time on piste, particularly given that this is an east coast ski. Also, when I laid the 173 Brahma next to the 179 Enforcer, the shorter Brahma appears to have a fair amount more effective edge because of the pronounced tip and tail rocker on the Enforcer. My thinking is I will have the benefit of a shorter ski, with more effective edge.

Do you have some feedback on these Brahmas and your thoughts on them?

 

[Miller]

I have debated about these two skis for awhile. I had planned on picking up a pair this year, but I might hold off due to limited skiing that I am going to get in this year. I am currently on a pair of Brahma CAs (173 cm) from two years ago. I generally like the skis, but I just wish it had a touch more "oomph" and a bit more edge hold. The reason I went with CA vs the standard Brahma is that I do not like skis that feel planky.

These skis would be my Mid Atlantic / East Coast skis. I am 47, advanced skier, 5'7", 165 lbs who likes to ski equal time making fast GS turns on hardback and looking for the more challenging terrain on the mountain. A perfect run would have the first half be technical skiing like the runs off the Castlerock chair at Sugarbush immediately followed by a high speed twisting and rolling blue groomer back to the chair.

 

[Tom K.]

I am currently on a pair of Brahma CAs (173 cm) from two years ago. I generally like the skis, but I just wish it had a touch more "oomph" and a bit more edge hold.

Moving from the CA to the "standard" Brahma is half a step forward in performance, and moving to the latest version from the previous is likely another half-step (see Blister for details: https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2020-2021-blizzard-brahma-88).

I haven't skied them but I do own the Enforcer 88 and am thrilled with it in every regard. Carving, crud, bumps, whatever. Unflappable at speed. It's only negative really isn't one: it makes me want to go faster.

I'm not sure how you could go wrong with either. From too much reading, I at least suspect the Enforcer may be a bit more forgiving.

 

[Dougb]

I'm not sure how you could go wrong with either. From too much reading, I at least suspect the Enforcer may be a bit more forgiving.

Never skied the Enforcers, but I skied the Brahmas two years ago. However, I spend far too much time reading about a sport I will be lucky to do 2-3 weeks this year. And that is my impression of the Enforcer 88. We could also start a whole separate thread on the differences between the Enforcer 88 and 93!