Help me with the middle of my quiver!

[Daves not here]

The day has finally come. Looking to move my Bonafides (2015 first carbon version) out of the quiver. I love these skis - not sure if I sell them or put them on the wall - I love them so much!

So how did I get here? I have the Brahma 82 for my hard snow ski and it is great. Last year at Whitefish I found a smoking deal on the BMX 105 HP (Really liking these skis - more and more every time I ski them). The Bones sit in the middle. What I have come to realize is that 1) the Brahma and the BMX cover any days I use to take the Bones out (which use to be all of the time - regardless of conditions) and the BMX are easier for me to ski on the bigger snow days. 2) my knees like the other skis better than the Bones these days - they don’t want to charge all day long anymore 3) with my Brahma and BMX - I don’t really need a mid quiver ski - but I want one!

So I am thinking of something that will give me a little change of pace - looking at the Rustler 9 - but open to any ideas or thoughts.
thanks in advance!

 

[tch]

If you like the Brahma, the Rustler will be a BIG change of pace.

 

[BMC]

Nordica Enforcer 100. Accessible, but still with the wood core and metal laminate you’re used to with the Brahma and Bonafide.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

Nordica Enforcer 100.

Imho, that's way too much overlap to coexist in a sane quiver. Honestly, there just isn't that much space between a 105 and an 82. These work pretty well as a two ski quiver. But if you're going to do it, low to mid 90s is dead center. The Enforcer 94 would make more sense than the 100. But I think a ski with a fairly different personality would make even more sense because then the overlap matters less (say the aforementioned Rustler 9?). Or go in a completely different direction and make the Kästle the middle ski by buying a pow ski... Really depends what you're looking for.

 

[PowHog]

For a start....

 

[Tom K.]

For your existing quiver, I'd second the Enforcer 84. I love the 88 and 100, but 100 is awfully close to your 105.

Other 95s that I haven't skied, but still intrigue me, are the new Maverick and the Ripstick 96 Black.

It's OK to want something you don't need. You're among like-minded friends here!

 

[Daves not here]

I agree that my Brahma 82 and BMX 105 could be a good 2 ski quiver. Also agree that trying to split the difference and have it make sense is really tough to do. That is why I was thinking of a change of pace or personality. Rustler 9 was the first one I thought of since I had a demo run on it a few years ago. Ahhh - the search begins!

 

[Flo]

I have the Rustler 9 and I would say that it depends on your expectations for that ski. Bonafide / Brahma to me are great skis for groomers and crappy snow conditions and requires the driver to be focus. The Rustler is perfect on soft groomers and off trail in tight trees with up to few inches of snow. However it has a lower speed limit and prefer to be on edge at speed. I would say that it would be closer to your bmx (non-HP) than yo your Brahma/bonafide. To me the R9 makes sense if you want something when you don’t want to charge.

 

[Delicious]

I'm seeing zero overlap in this 2-ski quiver. I wonder if you might enjoy a 70-ish mm carving ski? Something with a flat tail and almost no tip rocker. For the days where you KNOW that you won't require the versatility of your Brahma 82.

The only other idea that I came up with is a freestyle/park ski.

 

[Flo]

I'm seeing zero overlap in this 2-ski quiver. I wonder if you might enjoy a 70-ish mm carving ski? Something with a flat tail and almost no tip rocker. For the days where you KNOW that you won't require the versatility of your Brahma 82.

The only other idea that I came up with is a freestyle/park ski.

It depends on his weight / location and preferences. Personally, I would have prefer a 3 skis quiver with something >115mm for those specials days. If the OP want to tone down from a Bonafide the R9 make sense but he might prefer an Evolv 90 or something similar with less tip and tail rocker. If he is 200lbs+ he could overpower the Rustler.

 

[Daves not here]

It depends on his weight / location and preferences. Personally, I would have prefer a 3 skis quiver with something >115mm for those specials days. If the OP want to tone down from a Bonafide the R9 make sense but he might prefer an Evolv 90 or something similar with less tip and tail rocker. If he is 200lbs+ he could overpower the Rustler.

I am 215 and overpowering is a concern I need to consider. I am looking for a ski that I don’t have to charge on as much as my Bones. I have a Nordica Patron for cat skiing days. Realistically - I have no need for anything bigger than my BMX as it does fine in deep snow and better than a wide ski does once the resort chop ( ~ 2 hours) shows up after a big dump.

 

[Daves not here]

I'm seeing zero overlap in this 2-ski quiver. I wonder if you might enjoy a 70-ish mm carving ski? Something with a flat tail and almost no tip rocker. For the days where you KNOW that you won't require the versatility of your Brahma 82.

The only other idea that I came up with is a freestyle/park ski.

Interesting. Had not thought to go that direction but that is why I asked the forum. Thanks.

 

[Flo]

I am 215 and overpowering is a concern I need to consider. I am looking for a ski that I don’t have to charge on as much as my Bones. I have a Nordica Patron for cat skiing days. Realistically - I have no need for anything bigger than my BMX as it does fine in deep snow and better than a wide ski does once the resort chop ( ~ 2 hours) shows up after a big dump.

In that case I would not consider the Rustler and look for something with more support.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

I'm seeing zero overlap in this 2-ski quiver. I wonder if you might enjoy a 70-ish mm carving ski?

If OP is into carving and hard snow performance, this could make some sense. Would still have a fair amount of overlap with the Brahma, and honestly for most skiers I don't know that there's actual much additional value there. Most skiers rarely, if ever, carve anyways and the Brahma will handle firm piste well enough for them.

Imho, the problem is that these skis are positioned extremely well for a two ski quiver, but in the wrong spots for a three ski quiver. For example, my three resorts skis are 70mm cheater GS for firm snow days, 115mm pow boards, and 93mm daily driver for everything else. But when you try to insert a ski between an 82 and 105, it's debatable if there's really enough of a gap between them for that extra ski to make sense. And you'd absolutely cover a broader spectrum if the wide and skinny skis were wider and skinnier, respectively. And coming at it from the other angle, the 105 is wide enough that adding a true pow ski is of questionable utility by OP's own statement. And you have the same problem on the narrow end with adding a carver.

Of course, someone will inevitably come along and talk about how they own 17 skis and have a distinct use case for each of them

My two cents is that you don't really "need" the middle ski. So either get a ski with a different personality entirely just to do it. Or plan on starting to space your skis out into more of a 3 ski configuration as you cycle through replacing them.

 

[Daves not here]

If OP is into carving and hard snow performance, this could make some sense. Would still have a fair amount of overlap with the Brahma, and honestly for most skiers I don't know that there's actual much additional value there. Most skiers rarely, if ever, carve anyways and the Brahma will handle firm piste well enough for them.

Imho, the problem is that these skis are positioned extremely well for a two ski quiver, but in the wrong spots for a three ski quiver. For example, my three resorts skis are 70mm cheater GS for firm snow days, 115mm pow boards, and 93mm daily driver for everything else. But when you try to insert a ski between an 82 and 105, it's debatable if there's really enough of a gap between them for that extra ski to make sense. And you'd absolutely cover a broader spectrum if the wide and skinny skis were wider and skinnier, respectively. And coming at it from the other angle, the 105 is wide enough that adding a true pow ski is of questionable utility by OP's own statement. And you have the same problem on the narrow end with adding a carver.

Of course, someone will inevitably come along and talk about how they own 17 skis and have a distinct use case for each of them

My two cents is that you don't really "need" the middle ski. So either get a ski with a different personality entirely just to do it. Or plan on starting to space your skis out into more of a 3 ski configuration as you cycle through replacing them.

You are correct. I don’t need a middle ski as the 2 cover all my needs. But I do want one ! So I am thinking of a different pace of play if you will. Different personality. Rustler 9 (as an example) would be more relaxed and playful but I am sure there are others as well. a ski that I won’t need to take out - rather a ski I choose to take out for a relaxing or playful day vs the chargers that I have.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

Rustler 9 (as an example) would be more relaxed and playful but I am sure there are others as well

You could consider something like a Sick Day 94, or even a QST 92. I don't know how any of these would hold up at your weight though, as I am pretty light.

 

[Ecimmortal]

Woodsman 96?

 

[Daves not here]

Woodsman 96?

funny - I was just looking at those. Shop in the area carries that brand - may inquire about hem.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

You might check out the Fischer Ranger 92. Definitely a different feel than your old Blizzards had. I got out last week on the Ranger 107 and was pleasantly surprised at how it felt on my knees compared to skis like the Mantra M6 and the Enforcer.

 

[DTSugarbushVT]

The Fischer Ranger 99's are great as well.