• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Blizzard Brahma 173 or 180?

midwestfabs

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
3
Points
0
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
11,500
Points
38
Location
CO Front Range
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
159
Points
28
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
6,537
Points
113
Location
Newmarket, NH
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
3,241
Points
48
Location
CT
I would go with the 173. Shorter skis are more fun!
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,608
Points
0
Location
Augusta, Maine
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
6,537
Points
113
Location
Newmarket, NH
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

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
3
Points
0
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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.
 

xwhaler

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
2,943
Points
38
Location
Seacoast NH
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
 

mishka

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
3
Points
0
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
4,882
Points
38
Location
Bangor and the state's woodlands
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
6,537
Points
113
Location
Newmarket, NH
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.
 
Top