Weird, I thought I would like them. I bought them to be a more versatile than the 118 width, almost 30m radius Bodacious (the tapered tip one w/o metal). Those I got really cheap , thanks STP, and replaced 186 Gunsmokes. Seemed to have traits I would like. More directionall, some tail rocker but not a TT. Metal underfoot.
Skied them on an 18” overnigh, 30”storm in UT, so it was deep. First thing was the tips seemed really short, I was tentative to push them as I thought the tips would just submarine, they didn’t though. What I did noticed was the shovels got bounced around in deep chopped up snow, the SR’s go right through. I didn’t think they were very damp. They also felt kind of reminiscent of the Gunsmokes I got rid of. Also, if you got bucked, that tail was not really supportive (I guess with the rocker).
Perhaps they aren’t my cup of tea, really just felt not too dissimilar to the old Gunsmokes to me.
I moved my Enforcer mount back 1.5 and liked them, so maybe I’ll do that - frankly though, I’ll probably just sell them.
Anyone looking? Drilled one time Pivots, @ 316
I think the tune is off too, felt sketchy on the catwalks back to lift. Maybe do that first.
(I was happy with mounting the Rustler 11s (180, 188, 192) on the line. Usually I experiment with mount point, using Schizos on fat skis.)
It's just a fact o' life that often, we are skiing the tune as much as the ski. At SIA, for instance, the Stockli booth was the only one with multiple burred up tunes, some worse than others. (I had only one other poorly tuned ski in two days of demoing, and that one was only a little off, not like at least two or three of the Stocklis.) With a few of the Lasers, it was a good thing I already knew how well they skied and thus did not hold the tune against them. But with a pair of SR 95s and another of SR 88s, at least, the tunes were badly off, and your description of skiing the Rustler 11s reminded me of that. The SR 88s, in particular, were poorly enough burr-tuned or edge-high tuned to be dangerous.
FWIW, at an earlier demo this year, I skied on a powder/crud day three lengths of the Rustler 11s one after another,
all on the line: 180. 188, 192. I can concur that the 192 was noticeably more stable in chop/crud - more like the Bodacious than the Gunsmoke or Peacemaker. But the other two lengths surprised me with how well they did in at least colder snow chop crud, on the line. At the same time, the 188 to me was not as stable, and it lacked the slow-it-down playfullness of the 180s - definitely not as stable as the best powder/crud skis, to me.
On the other hand, we've had some really heavy, wet snow deep days this past month here in Colo, and that's forced me to re-evaluate powder/crud skis. Some of my go to powder/crud skis worked much better in that unusually deep/heavy stuff when moved back a bit: 3/4 cm to 1 1/4 cm back. And a few of my shorter "go to" powder skis just got overwhelmed a bit on those days. (While some didn't.)
So, by the way, I definitely disagree with Doug Briggs on this, though often would defer to him practically on principle: the ability to move powder skis forward and back is a big deal, wonderful and obvious at times - not a bit subtle enough to be subject to the placebo effect. And it depends on the ski whether or not, say, moving 1/2 cm forward or back is an an obvious big deal or not. For some fat skis, it is. Others, not so much.
Also, the amount of "slip" detectable with a demo or Schizo binding in powder, but also elsewhere - now, that, to me, is subtle enough to be either undetectable or placebo effect material for real, even though I understand that at times there have been demo models that are a problem in this way.
I am of the POV that most skis will ski well mounted on the 'recommended' mark. I feel that people's boot alignment, skiing style and general ability to ski dynamically has more to do with how a ski skis than mounting point; within reason, of course. Mount a ski an inch or two the wrong way and it will ski like crap. Move the binding a cm or two fore or aft of recommended and most, in a blind test, wouldn't notice. The problem is that moving a binding is never blind test and the user will 'prefer' a different mounting position because they 'feel' it is what they are looking for.
On a related note, because you mention it, similar length skis will have different recommended mount points because of their contact points, rocker, camber and other features of the ski. Back in the old days when shapes were nearly identical on all skis, you'd expect mount points to be similar with similar sizes. Not anymore.
Extra holes in your (modern) skis are not a problem. Today's construction methods and in many cases wider profiles make skis much more durable and able to withstand multiple mounts. Properly plugged, extra will not be apparent when you ski them. They only problem they introduce is the ability to remount bindings but even then, 2, 3 or ever 4 mounts won't be a problem for most skis.