The most honest and in-depth reviews of outdoor sports equipment on the planet.

2013-2014 Blizzard Cochise, 193cm

Jonathan Ellsworth reviews the Blizzard Cochise, Blister Gear Review

13/14 Blizzard Cochise

Ski: 2013-2014 Blizzard Cochise, 193cm

Dimensions (mm): 135-108-123

Actual Tip-To-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 191.2cm

BLISTER’s Measured Weight Per Ski (grams): 2,527 & 2,543

Sidecut Radius: 30 meters

Boots / Bindings: Atomic Redster Pro 130 / Marker Jester (DIN 10)

Mount Location: +1

Test Location: Taos Ski Valley, Alta Ski Area

Days Skied: 4

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 12/13 Cochise, which remains unchanged for 13/14, except for the graphics.]

Preface & Caveats

In my review of the 185 Cochise, I am on record saying that I wouldn’t need to size up on this ski. So given that, some of my findings here aren’t going to be a surprise.

In short, the 193 Cochise is more ski than I need.

And the truth is, this ski has kicked my ass in some situations.

(This is where you say something snarky like, “No kidding, genius. What did you expect? If the 185 felt perfect, did you think the 193 would feel…more perfect???)

(And this is where I would attempt some sweet comeback like, “Whatever. You look funny in those goggles.”)

But we’ve been very curious to check out this ski, mostly because we were so impressed with how manageable the 185cm Cochise is given how hard you can push it.

But for bigger guys, what about the 193 Cochise? Proportionally speaking, is the 193 Cochise the same story as the 185, a relatively easy charger? We needed to know, especially since I’ve lost count of how many times we’ve encouraged bigger guys to check out the 193 if they were looking for a ski that could charge but that would still not be seriously demanding.

So this review may say a whole lot more about all 185 pounds of me, and less about the 193 Cochise. But hopefully you can still draw some useful conclusions, and I really hope that some of you who’ve been skiing the 193 will post up your two cents in the Comments section below.

Plus, immediately following my review, Will Brown will weigh in with his own impressions of the 193 Cochise.

Smooth Groomers / Slightly Bumped-Up Hardpack

Most important thing to say here: on groomers, the 193 Cochise will make your home mountain seem a lot smaller. These things absolutely haul.

These skis run very fast, and I needed a lot of speed to really get them up on edge. And then, once I was up on edge, I could go crazy, crazy fast. On long, steep groomers, I was definitely beginning to scare myself a little at the speed, but not because the ski couldn’t handle it. The Cochise shines at speed, and in this regard the 193 didn’t feel too dissimilar to the 191 Volkl Katana, though the shovels of the 191 Katana feel a bit stiffer.

No real surprise here, but I found that the 193 Cochise wants a lot more speed than the 185 Cochise, unless you are okay with sliding on your bases. The 193 Cochise can do that very well, but, really, the 193 feels like it was born to run.

Mount Position

I started skiing the 193 Cochise on the recommended line, and I immediately felt that I wanted to be more forward on the ski. It just felt like I had a whole lot of shovel out in front of me that I wanted to quiet down and get on top of. Bigger guys might feel different and be fine on the line, but I wanted to get forward.

My other impression was that, while I felt like I had more shovel than I wanted, if I was going to stay at the recommended line, I’d prefer to have a bit more stiffness through the shovels. To me at least, the 193s didn’t feel noticeably stiffer through the shovels than the 185 Cochise, just longer. And so in that regard—when mounted on the line—I personally haven’t felt like I can charge harder through big, variable terrain on the 193 Cochise than the 185. (Again, your experience may vary, so please weigh in below if it has.)

While the shovels of the 193 didn’t strike me as stiffer than the 185, the tails did strike me as stiffer. As you’ll read, Will Brown didn’t have this same sense, but I felt the shovels to be a bit soft, and the tails to be stiff. On the 185 Cochise, the overall flex pattern felt a little more balanced to me—the shovels didn’t feel like beasts, but there was nothing about the tail that seemed punishing. When I’d get off my game on the 193 Cochise, however, those tails would let me know.

 

54 Comments

  1. Aaron January 4, 2013 Reply

    Managed to hop on a demo pair of the Cochise last week and largely agree with what’s been said. My only gripe, and it’s a personal one, is that the ski lacks a certain “poppiness” that I was really hoping for, presumably due to the 2 metal sheets. I also managed to get on a pair of the GunSmokes for comparison. Tons of fun in the pow and chop, but tail washed out pretty easily when I tried to drive the ski on really firm snow. I was kinda left wishing there was an in between ski.

    I haven’t been on any of the Moments; clearly you guys are big fans. Do you suppose something like the Bibby might be that in between? Effectively looking for a slightly more playful Cochise. Love a ski that can plow through crud & chop, turn quickly in the trees, has decent float for 6+” powder days, but still feels lively edge to edge while carving. I thought the Cochise satisfied all of these criteria but the last. Btw, I’m 5’11″ and 155lbs. Pretty aggressive skier and ski primarily CO, UT and PNW.

    Any and all ideas welcome. Will be demoing skis in CO over MLK wkend. Love what you guys are doing here. Keep up the killer work!

    • Author

      Thanks, Aaron. And just to be clear, you demoed the 193 Cochise or the 185?

      • Aaron January 7, 2013 Reply

        I was on the 185 Cochise. I know what I’m asking for is approaching the holy grail. Effectively, I’m wondering if there’s a ski out there in the 106-116mm underfoot segment(s) that is a little more playful/poppy than the Cochise, but doesn’t sacrifice its awesome crud busting ability.

        • Author

          The 184 Bibby would be worth checking out, though it’s a 116mm ski with tail rocker, so you shouldn’t expect it to handle like a 98mm race-oriented ski on groomers. (I mention it only since you didn’t like the tail of the Cochise washing out on you.) I presume you’ve looked over Will Brown’s 184 review, and the comments sections of the 185 Cochise reviews?

          • Aaron January 10, 2013 Reply

            It was the tails of the GunSmoke that washed out on me driving on hardpack, not the Cochise. Really liked the tails on the Cochise, just wished the skis weren’t SO damp, which I felt deadened some of the skis’ playfulness. As for the GunSmoke, I found them to be a ton of fun in pow, deep chop and even crud. Downsides were performance on hardpack and thought they were a bit sluggish making tight turns through trees in pow.

            I’ve read the Bibby review and the Squad 7 review comparing them to the Bibbys. I think I have a pretty good sense of how they ski, but little point of reference for comparison. There were many nods to the playfulness of the Bibby while still being able to charge beautifully through crud. Sounds to me like they’re just the ticket. Always want to demo for myself though and these are a tough one to track down in Colorado.

  2. gl January 6, 2013 Reply

    Interesting differences between the 185 and 193. Any chance you’ll take a look at the 186 Bodacious? I’d love to hear how it fits with the rest of the lineup. Love the site.

  3. Pippo January 7, 2013 Reply

    Hi guys,
    Your reviews are very helpful. Could you compare groomed/hard performance of cochise 193 and squad 7? Do you think I could consider the squad as a solid candidate for being the most used ski in my quiver for skiing in Chamonix (steep not always pow but rather hard).
    Furthermore, any plans of reviewing black crows skis?
    Thanks

    • Author

      Hey Pippo – I love the Squad 7, but I have trouble imagining it being a good “everyday” choice for Chamonix. For Chamonix, I’d want a ski that handles very firm and nasty variable very well. I don’t know your height / weight, but personally, I could see the 185 Cochise being an excellent “most used ski” in Chamonix, and good in steep, techy, billy-goat situations, too. I definitely wouldn’t want to be on the 193 in those situations, nor the Squad 7.

      Both the Squad 7 and the 193 Cochise are fine and fun on groomers, so if that’s all your asking about, I don’t have reservations.

  4. Blister Member
    Vince Carbone January 20, 2013 Reply

    Noticed the 185 and 193 Cochise getting a lot of discussion so thought I would chime in on the 177cm Cochise. As Will Brown said this ski does not do anything you don’t tell it to do. I just trust it all over the mountain so am willing to take a more aggressive approach to terrain on which I would normally be more tentative. This is my first rockered ski and I really like the the versatility that rocker brings in this ski. Been on it 3 days so far. The first two were at Mt Bachelor in unusually cold weather for the PNW, 5-10*F. It hadn’t snowed in a few days so lots of groomers and soft chopped powder. On groomers just put it on edge and if follows a graceful arc the size of the turn determined by how much you angle it. In soft chopped powder and steeps it was really stable, though being new to rocker wasn’t sure when to smear and when to carve. Still have to figure that out. Yesterday was skiing up at Mt Hood in unusually warm PNW, 45-50*F due do an inversion. The inversion had been around for about 4 days so we had full on spring conditions. Groomers were now corn and slush had no problem carving on this. Also took it on some mellow terrain that was sastrugi, styrofoam and ice crust. I would not normally even go on this stuff but figured I would see what the Cochise could do. The dampness and the rocker really shined here, carving in the styrofoam, going flat over the sastrugi absorbing a lot of the uneveness. It was actually fun. Looking forward to have it in typical PNW Cascade Concrete to see what it can do. I did find that the ski needs some speed to perform. When picking my way through tight trees I really had to work them. I am 5’4″, 155lbs so going by height had been steered toward the 170. When it came time demo there was only 177’s available and went with that. Had no problem with them and ended up buying a pair.

  5. Jonathan January 21, 2013 Reply

    hi guys–

    thanks for the excellent and in-depth reviews– I have read and re-read them in consideration of purchasing either a 185 or 193 Cochise. As for me– 6’4″, maybe 225-230lb dressed to ski, low-level advanced (i.e. given the choice I’d spend all my time off piste, but still avoid suicidally gnarly situations when possible). I was on 186 P100’s for 3 seasons, damn happy, but now wanting an upgrade in (i) float, (ii) crud-stomping chaginess, and something with less hooky tails in pow. I was sold on the 193 Cochise as the golden ticket, but after your review maybe I wonder whether the 185 would be enough? I want a fun, lively, maneuverable ski which will allow me to charge-ass when I want– not a planky mega-missile that I’m gonna have to fight to keep in check. I guess another option would be the Influence 105, but that’s playing it kinda same old-same old– your advice & recommendations would be very, very helpful- thanks in advance!

    • Author

      Hmmm…fun, lively, maneuverable which will allow you to “charge-ass” when you want. And you’re 6’4″, 230….I don’t think you’ll want to go the 105 route, it won’t be enough ski.

      If you aren’t spending time in big bumps and tight trees, then I think the 193 could work well for you. My only other thoughts would be the 188 Salomon 115 or the 192 DPS Wailer 112 RPC. I think the 193 Cochise will be the best of the bunch for “crud stomping charginess,” the 188 115 would be the easiest but MAYBE not enough ski, and the RPC would be easy, great on groomers, super maneuverable and lively, while not demolishing crud as well as the Cochise. I’ll be very curious to hear what you decide to go with and what you think.

    • Jason October 17, 2013 Reply

      What did you end up getting I am 6’4″ and 240. looking for a ski for bumps, trees, and Powder.

      Have some old Gotama’s now but only 103 under foot and need more ski for powder.

  6. Ian January 23, 2013 Reply

    Great reviews man! How does the Cochise compare with the Moment Belafontes/PB&J? How would you order the stiffness between those 3 skis? I’m an intermediate to advanced skier and debating between these 2 as my one ski quiver. I like skiing mostly steep faces or open bowls where I can go fast, no interested at all in skiing in the park or trees.

    • Author

      Hi Ian – are we talking 185 or 193 Cochise? And what length Belafonte & PB&J? And what’s your height / weight? (And I assume you’ve already read all of our reviews on the Belafonte – where Will Brown makes the direct comparison to the Cochise – and the PB&J? Just don’t want to tell you what you’ve already heard us say.

  7. Ian January 24, 2013 Reply

    Jonathan, I’m looking at the 185 Cochise and 182 Belas and PBJs, I like the stiffness of the belafontes but I also like a slight tail rocker which is why I am looking at the PBJ and Cochise. As for my weight and height I weigh 165 and 5’11.

    • Author

      Hi, Ian, since you say, “I like skiing mostly steep faces or open bowls where I can go fast, no interested at all in skiing in the park or trees,” then I would definitely steer you toward the Belafonte or Cochise. Their strong suits are fast and open, while the PB&J would be easier in trees, and world’s better in the park. We’ve written so much about the Belafonte and the Cochise, I can’t honestly say which you’d prefer, and your best bet would be to read all of that stuff again. What you should probably also do is just detune the tails on both skis (perhaps especially the Belafonte) to loosen it up a bit. Let us know what you decide to do and how it goes.

  8. Sandy Miller February 10, 2013 Reply

    Hi there,
    Thanks for the great reviews. Shame this one came out just after I bought my 193cm Cochise. I am about 6’4″ and 183lbs, and I mounted mine on the line. I have found them to be a lot of ski. They are fantastic when there is space to get them up to speed, but when things get slow, or tight they are just a lot of work.

    I am now wondering whether to take the hit and sell them on, or try a re-mount at +1. Did you notice any significant loss of float at +1?

    Also I read that you had intended to try some Factions. Have you been on them yet as the 3.zero may be something I can get as a replacement if I accept defeat?

    Thanks again for the great resource.

    • Author

      Hey, Sandy. This isn’t a floaty ski to begin with, so I’m not worried about going +1 in that regard. Not sure that it will feel like a much different ski at +1, but might be worth trying. And unfortunately, we have yet to test any Factions, though I’m told that’s supposed to change soon. And the 3.zero is at the top of our list. But that review wouldn’t be out for probably 4-5 weeks, best case.

  9. Jonathan March 3, 2013 Reply

    Hi Jonathan–

    just a follow-up to my prior query regarding which ski length of Cochise to purchase– the 193’s or 185’s. I wanted something that would ‘charge-ass’ but was also playful and maneuverable, which is a bit of a chore to find considering my size (6’4″, 230lbs). Well– I spent the afternoon on the 185’s in soft / fresh snow, and they rocked my face off! Going back to the lift I could let them run as long and fast as I wanted and found only the tiniest evidence of a speed limit– yet they were extremely maneuverable in trees and super-damp in the chop. I never tried to purposely overwhelm them, but they seemed quite capable of absorbing day-in-day-out pushing for the way I ski. These were exactly the step up from the P100’s that I was looking for– very happy camper here.

  10. Tom May 27, 2013 Reply

    For the big guy (220+) looking for a versatile charger, do you see any logic in choosing a 186(?) Bodacious over a 193 Cochise. Do they make a Bodacious shorter than 196? What do you think?

    • Author

      Hey, Tom – I skied the 196 Bodacious in the (fairly tight trees of) Japan – not the ideal place for that length of ski. I haven’t skied the 186 Bodacious, but yes, if you’re okay with the greater width, I think it could be worth a try. And given that I love the 185 Cochise, I personally would roll the dice on the 186 Bodacious, given the choice between it and the 193 Cochise. But one of our photographers is about your size, and he loves the 193 Cochise as an everyday ski. You’ve got a lot of people weighing in in the comments here, offering some really useful perspective. I only weigh 180-185 lbs, so glad to have bigger guys offer their take.

  11. TroutRunner July 17, 2013 Reply

    Great reviews on this entire site!

    For whatever reason I’m already thinking about snow, I know it’s only July. Trying to decide which length Cochise is for me. 185 vs 193. I’m 6’2″, 200lbs, almost 40 years old. I can ski any terrain in front of me, don’t huck many cliffs but will give it a go if the powder is deep. Been spending more time on the groomers with the family but whe I head off will find some trees ans some moguls. Like going fast. I primarily ski Purgatory with the possible trip to Wolf Creek or Taos.

    I also snowmobile a lot and plan on using it to run laps in the back country. I doubt I’ll do any skinning, just use 2 sleds and take turns running the terrain.

    What do you think? 185 vs 193?

    Thanks,

    TroutRunner

    • Ian July 17, 2013 Reply

      Hey Trout, I’ve got the 185s and I love them. However, I don’t ski trees or moguls with them because I think they’re too much work. I feel they were made to bomb down the mountain and destroying whatever snow is in your path. Again, reiterating what everyone’s pretty much said about this ski, it is super stable at high speeds. If you’re gonna ski a lot of moguls, unless you’re going over the top of them, its not nearly as much fun, at least to me.

      I prefer the salomon 108 for trees/moguls, I prefer a more forgiving ski if I’m gonna be skiing trees.

  12. Sandy Miller July 17, 2013 Reply

    Sorry I know this is not a forum, and the question was directed towards Blister not me, but I thought I may be able to help with your question TroutRunner. I am a very similar size to you, and I am a technically pretty solid skier (150ish days a year for the last 11ish seasons, the last 6 of which have been in Verbier). I bought a pair of 193cm Cochise for last season, and I spent about 6 days on them before giving up on them. They were just too much work to be playful or fun. They were amazingly solid at speed, but from what I have read so are the 185cm version. I think the 185cm version will be a much more enjoyable ski for you based on my experiences and what you have said.

    • TroutRunner July 17, 2013 Reply

      Thanks for the info. There was another poster who was taller and heavier than me who decided on the 185 and liked it. He didn’t mention how he skied though.

      Currently, I’m on an 8 year old pair of Rossi Bandit B3’s, in 176. I went too short and they are fun to rip around on, but don’t tolerate me pushing them hard. Looking to upgrade to something that will accept me pushing them but won’t kick me in the teeth if I’m chilling with the family.

  13. Jonathan July 17, 2013 Reply

    hi TroutRunner–

    pull the trigger on the 185’s! though I have somewhat limited experience on them (maybe 6 or so days I was able to squeeze in later this season, with 2 very young kids at home…), I was able to get out in several different conditions, ranging from crusty hardpack to velvety pow– they soared in all conditions; only ever so slightest hint of a speed limit, turn on a DIME, and the flipcore makes them extremely manageable in soft snow (for those of us north of 2 bills, it’s an absolute no-brainer threading these things through trees– assuming there’s soft snow in which to drive them).

    I never overpowered them, though I never specifically tried to. They could bite in for any length of turn at any speed; no hints of washing out when slamming on the brakes– the nadir of the inverted flipcore U-shape bit like hell into the snow– this gave me a good sense of control, and made shorter turns feel pretty lively.

    I too was skeptical of the shorter length, but they are plenty, plenty tuff. I do not (yet) huck cliffs, but I enjoy high speeds, and sampling as much of the mountain as I can (I estimate I might be a ‘low level advanced’ skier, if that helps). They delightful in powder (at least boot-to-knee deep), and they instilled great confidence all over.

    cheers, and happy hunting-
    Jonathan

    • TroutRunner July 17, 2013 Reply

      Sounds like I should go for the 185’s! I’m in the stage of fun skiing over getting nutty, so, shorter seems to fit the bill. I just didn’t want to make the same mistake I made 8 years ago since all the rocker skis ski shorter.

      TR

      • Author

        Thanks Ian, Sandy, and Jonathan for weighing in – it’s always much appreciated when people who have actually skied this stuff share their experiences. And yeah, TroutRunner, you’re getting some solid advice. Plus, especially since you’re coming off of a 176cm B3, the 185 Cochise will feel like a nice step up. I think you’ll love them. And the 185 Cochise is one of my absolute favorite Taos skis – see you up there!

        • TroutRunner July 18, 2013 Reply

          Thanks for everyones help.

          I know the Line Bacon is a much softer ski, therefore a completely different tool. For my style of all mountain, occasional backcountry snowmobile trips, fun with the kids, hunting powder and jibs….would this be a reasonable approach as well? I see that Line has the SFB in a 190 now. How would that be in Taos?

          I know they are different skis but I’m torn between getting the charging ski or semi-laid back poppy fun ski.

          Thanks,

          TR

          • Author

            Two very different skis, but I was surprised by how much I liked the 184 Bacons at Alta. At your size, I think the 190s could work for you, though you won’t ski them like you could the Cochise. In short, the 190 Bacon will be the more playful, more soft-snow oriented ski. My hunch is that I could have a lot of fun on the 190 Bacons at Taos, though for how and where I ski … I’d personally stick with the 185 Cochise. Though I’m really looking forward to getting on the 190 Bacon this fall.

  14. Toño July 20, 2013 Reply

    Hello, thanks for the great reviews, looking for new skis this winter, I’m currently on line p98 172, looking for an only ski for the alps, but looking for more float and not loosing hard pack capabilities. Do you think the Cochise 177 would be a good bet? I’m 5’7 and 160lbs advanced-expert.
    Thanks again for your help

    • Blister Member
      Vince July 21, 2013 Reply

      See my review of 177cm Cochise a few posts back. I’m 5’4″ and 155lbs. I was previously on a Prophet 100 @ 165cm, which I purposely went short on, could easily been on a 172. Last season went with a 177cm Cochise with no problems. If you are concerned that 177cm is too short I found them to be really stable at speed on-piste and work really well in boot to knee high powder. It doesn’t have any camber so there is little rebound out of a turn, don’t know if a stronger or heavier skier would get it to be more lively. One area where I felt I was too light for the ski though is in working the tail. It has a lot of energy but I only experienced it when I accidentally got in the back seat. Then it really popped me forward. Thinking that I was too light or not strong enough skier to get that energy in a more forward stance.

  15. Toño July 21, 2013 Reply

    Thanks Vince, I had already taken notice of your review. I appreciate your information about the floating capacities of the ski, which is my main concern, as I’ve read they lack some floatation for it’s size, I would appreciate any more information about this topic.
    Kind regars

    • Author

      Hey, Toño – if you’re really looking to maintain hard pack performance but still handle 1-2 feet of pow (for a skier of your height & weight), I think you would do well to take a look at the Salomon Quest 105. The Quest 105 carves very well, though isn’t as good as the Cochise in off-piste variable. But I would rather ski the Quest 105 than the Cochise in 1-2 feet of pow. So Cochise wins for off-piste variable, but the Quest 105 probably gets the nod for groomers & pow.

      • toño July 22, 2013 Reply

        Hi Jonathan, thanks a lot for your input, in fact it was another option I was considering, and although it may sound a bit stupid I’ve always hated capwall skis so that sets me away from salomons.
        By the way it doesn’t make much difference but when typing my size I got it wrong I’m 170lbs, I’m Spanish so I calculated it from Kg and did it wrong, well basically i guesstimated it and got it wrong…
        I’ve also started considering the cochise in 185, do you think the added length will give an overall better only ski? or you think for someone my size it would be too much? how much does the rocker “shorten” the cochise?
        Thanks again for your advice and help

        • Author

          I would definitely go with the 185cm length. But I still think the Q105 sounds like the better fit, given what you say you’re looking for.

          • Toño January 20, 2014 Reply

            Hello again, I finally went for the 177 Cochise, I know this means I misheard all your advices, but there was too much good information about the ski. As I said salomon was not an option for personal reasons, so it was choosing about length only. I went for the 177, as I felt that I would have more piste days and I would like.
            I have to say that so far I’m very pleased, on piste they work great, due to the stiffness in them, and they handle anything on the hardpacked and groom terrain, without problems. I haven’t had deep days so far, a few 1 foot overnight days, in where the 177 gave plenty of float, and thrased throug everything after lunch, when everything was already beaten to pieces.
            So in conclusion I heave to say I’m very happy, maybe the 185 would’ve been a better option, but this leaves me room for a more especific pow ski here in Europe, while I can take the skis to the slopes without worrying about having too much ski.
            Thanks again for your help and great reviews!

  16. jim August 14, 2013 Reply

    Hi blister,
    I’m thinking of getting some cochises for next season and not sure about the size! I’m 5 foot 10 and 160 lbs. I live in chamonix so need a ski that can handle tight and steep skiing as well as open lines. I’ve been skiing on 178 dps 112s which I have generally found too short but fun and playful. I’m looking for more stability and a damper ski that can handle crud better. I was wondering if the 177 would still give increased stability and variable performance and if the 185 would be too much ski in tight spots.Any advice would be great.

    Thanks for all the great reviews, keep up the good work!

    • Author

      Thanks, Jim! I would encourage you to go with the 185 Cochise. It will be a big jump in stability over your 112s, and while it won’t feel as quick as the 178cm 112s, I think the stability is totally worth the tradeoff. And the 185 Cochise isn’t THAT demanding. Plus, you’re already saying that the 178 112s often feel too short. Go 185, and let us know what you think.

  17. Marshall December 2, 2013 Reply

    I purchased the 193 Cochise last year and absolutely love them. I am 6’0 180lbs and they are the best resort ski I have ever been on. I place a premium on stability so I opted for the 193. They are the perfect Squaw Valley ski and you will see a lot of them on the hill. They are a little much in tight bumps but that is not what this ski is designed for, so that is to be expected. I was so impressed how easy it is to dump speed on these skis. They are easy to maneuver in a variety of conditions. The decision on which length to go with is less about a persons size and more about how they like to ski. I like to make long open turns so I went with the 193. If you prefer to make shorter turns the 185 is the ticket. Either way I cannot imagine anyone being disappointed with this ski. Nice work on all of the reviews fellas. Love the website!

    • Author

      Thanks, Marshall. And really glad to get more people who’ve skied the 193 chiming in. Our reviewer Paul Forward really likes the 193 (though he hasn’t skied the 185), while Will Brown & I lean toward the 185. So good to get more people’s take on this.

  18. Peter January 29, 2014 Reply

    I feel like I f’d up after reading all of these reviews.

    I’m 5’10 200 lbs expert skier. Over the years, I’ve progressed from 190 K2 Extremes to 184 Volkl Vertigo G3s to 177 Volkl AC40. I decided to get the atomic automatic 186 for my powder ski last year and freakin love them – can ski on it in almost any conditions, but wanted something with grip for my annual week long utah vacation with no new snow.

    So… I demo’d the Rossi Experience 98’s (180) the Bonifides (180) and then the Cochice (177) this past week in Utah.

    I loved, and ended up getting, the Cochise 177s. I could tear up the steep chalky moguls and felt stable enough at speed,

    Now reading all of these reviews, I’m thinking I should have gotten the 185s!!!!!!!!!!

    I haven’t mounted them yet. I bought them in Utah so unless I go back this year I probably can’t return them. Maybe I could find a friendly ski shop in SF that will do an honest swap. I got a good deal so I could just sell them on eBay and get the 185s / eat the difference also….

    Should I be freaking out so badly over this?? sleep over this? Or should I just mount em up, rip em up, and chalk it up as a mistake for not doing the right research and demoing the longer length…. Ughhhh

    • Author

      Two things, Peter: (1) I find it kind of mind blowing how many ~200 lb. and heavier skiers are reaching for such short skis. There is no way I would ever have recommended the 177 Cochise for you. (2) Having said that, you said you LOVE the 177s. And so isn’t that the most important factor here, regardless of what I or anybody else might say? If you truly didn’t find the 177s lacking in any respect, then why not stick with them and enjoy them? If you are skiing at moderate speeds and putting a premium on quickness, I guess I can imagine why you liked the 177s. But honestly, don’t second guess the length if you didn’t find them wanting.

  19. Brian February 4, 2014 Reply

    I have demo’d the 185s twice at Mt Bachelor in very different conditions and loved them both times … But my local ski shop has a sweet deal on a pair of 2012/13 193s that is very tempting … I am 5’11”, 210 lbs, skiing for 30+ years … Like going fast, but also like to play around in tight trees and the occasional mogul run … Worried that the 193s might be too much work in those situations … As another data point, I tried the 186 Bodacious and although they were great out in the open, I couldn’t make them do anything quick and felt that taking them in tight places would be a suicide mission … Skiing Fischer AM79s now in 176, but my prior boards were 210 Blizzard GS planks which I took everywhere … Any thoughts? Thanks!

    • Author

      Brian – one of the dumbest ways to save money, I think, is to buy a ski you like in a length OTHER THAN the length you skied and KNOW you love. I understand the temptation, but resist it. Every day you are out on the 193s, rather than fully enjoying the day, you will think to yourself, “I’m on the wrong ski.” I’ll bet you $100 that your worries about the 193s will be validated in tight trees and bumps, especially since you found the 186 Bodacious to be way too much. Seriously, pay the extra for the 185s, enjoy the hell out of them, and don’t throw good money at a pair of 193s that I guarantee (given what you’ve said) you will like less than the 185s.

  20. BW Esposito February 20, 2014 Reply

    I’m still no closer to making a decision on this- 185 or 193 cm? I skied the 185 over 4 bottomless, and crudded, and bumped-up days a couple weeks ago at Breck. I loved it. No one had the 193 to try.
    I did wonder if the 185 was a bit short. I could have floated some more. I would have liked a bit more GS cruisiness on the groomers. Perhaps the crud could have been parted with a touch more authority.
    The last time I had a favorite ski was in 1997, I think; the first incarnation of the Rossi Bandit XXX, 193cm (maybe it was 192cm, I’d have to dig it out of my closet to see). I’m an expert, lived-in-lots-of-ski-towns, 41yr old skier. I’m 6′, 200#. I haven’t slowed down much, if at all. I weigh about 20 more muscled lbs. than I did back then. Which length Cochise should I get? I’m only on one pair of skis these days; no more quiver from which to choose. I think those are all the relevant factors- what to do?

  21. BW Esposito February 20, 2014 Reply

    The more I think on it, the more I’m thinking the 185 is the way to go.

    • Peter February 20, 2014 Reply

      I went with the 185s and they are amazing in the steeps but a bit long for me on the ungroomed flats (full disclosure, the flats I’ve been skiing have been incredibly bad sierra cement conditions). Will report back after aspen / Japan over the next 2 weeks.

      5’10 200 lbs – aggressive expert skier

  22. Kyle February 28, 2014 Reply

    I’m looking at the Cochise. I’ve skied the Volkl AC50 177 for a few years. I’m looking for something that works better in the bowls and powder. I love going fast and carving too. I like how the AC50 feels at speed. I’m 6’2, 200 and can ski most terrain comfortably. I’m pretty strong and I like the stiffness of the AC50. I realize mainly I want to be able go fast down steep/powdery/tracked out stuff. I want more stability at speed in those situations. I also like a few tree runs but I’m not nuts about moguls. I live in Denver and ski mostly front range. Would you recommend a 185 or 193 Cochise?

    Thanks!!

    • Kyle February 28, 2014 Reply

      Forgot to mention, I’m looking at some 2012 Cochise’s. I understand they’re not as stiff as the 2013/14. Is that correct? Thanks.

  23. Matt August 22, 2014 Reply

    I’m looking at the Cochise. Sound perfect for me. I’m an advanced+ skier, love open powder and charging through crud, happiest in the trees, also want to be able to have a good time on the groomers (I hate a ton of sidecut and don’t mind having to press a little to get turns there) and mess around a tad on the jumps in the park. Cochise sounds good for my style too, as I tend to ski with a more centered stance. I don’t like leaning on the front of my boots a ton.

    One concern is that I’ve gotten my wife hooked (!), but she’s a beginner, and I’d like to have a twin tip so I can start learning to ski switch and have something to entertain myself with when I’m noodling around on the greens and blues with her. Considered the Moment Belafontes but I’d want the 187s and they’re out of stock everywhere.

    Any advice anyone?

  24. Clayton September 14, 2015 Reply

    Stats:
    6’5″
    195 lbs

    Current Skis:
    2007/2008 Volkl Katana 183cm mounted on the line
    Tyrolia Peak 15, DIN 10
    These are the original Katanas with the “powder channel” and camber under foot. I got them new for a good deal and there were no 191’s to be had for said deal. Mounted on the line doesn’t leave much tail on these skis but the tails are stiff enough that I’ve never wished for a more forward position.

    Resorts I’ll be skiing this season:
    Winter Park, Copper Mountain, Crested Butte, Steamboat

    Skiing Style: ex-racer, powerful charger. I like to use all parts of the ski, the front half for forcing the ski to bend into tight turns, the middle of the ski for railing through chop/crud/tops of bumps, the tails for popping out of turns or tail ollies. I drop small cliffs sometimes and like rail through rough stuff, no big drops tricks or switch riding. I rarely get untracked snow, call it laziness or having a day job.

    I just ordered a pair of new in package 2014/2015 Blizzard Cochise skis on ebay in the 193 length. I have been going back and forth between the 185cm and 193cm and went for it on the longer ski because I’ve often wished I had the 191cm Katanas instead of 183cm. I’ve never skied the 191 Katanas but I often find the speed limit on my 183’s.

    Did I make the right choice sizing up or should I have gone with the gold-standard 185 length?

    I’m looking for some good bindings to pair with them now (Tyrolia AAAttack 16 maybe?) and per the Blister reviews I’m thinking of mounting 1cm forward.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*