2014-2015 Blizzard Cochise

Wind Crust / Breakable Crust / Variable Snow

The current conditions in Canterbury allow you to hit a variety of snow conditions in one run. A recent line from the “Col to Nowhere” down through “Main Chute” at Temple basin illustrates this well, and highlights the versatility (and confidence-inspiring nature) of the Cochise when you’re unsure what type of snow you will encounter.

The top few turns were chalky and smooth until the aspect changed slightly to the North, yielding a few sun-softened spring-like turns. A short bootpack to another section started as supportable wind crust, then finished with breakable wind crust mixed with a few refrozen tracks.

The run finished with some breakable crust leading into a couple hundred meters of a tight, steep chute (it was 3-4meters wide at its narrowest sections) that was a mix of edge-able, scraped-off, hard snow to water ice. And in these conditions, I can’t think of another ski I would have rather been on.

The Cochise has enough dampness and stability to ride a hard edge, can be easily broken free to scrub speed, has enough rocker to keep the tips up in the breakable stuff, can be easily ollied over rocks, and is nimble enough to bang out quick jump turns in tight places.

Based on my experience in NZ so far, the Cochise is a predictable ski that excels in unpredictable conditions.

Some Thoughts on Length: 185cm Cochise vs. 193cm Cochise

I have owned a pair of 1st generation, 193cm Cochise for the past three seasons, and have used them as my go-to, non-powder-day resort ski at Alyeska and Arctic Valley ski areas during that time. I’d never before skied the 185cm Cochise till this current trip to New Zealand.

It’s been 3-4 months since I’ve been on the 193cm Cochise, but based on my recollections of the 193, I would echo Will Brown’s sentiments in his review of the 193 Cochise, that it is substantially more ski.

As expected, the 193cm version is more stable at higher speeds, and is more unflappable when riding fast in variable conditions—especially when riding bases flat or at lower edge angles.

The 193cm Cochise also takes more work to toss it around in tight spots. Direction changes are more challenging on the longer ski, with the most noticeable difference being that it takes a bit more effort and technique to break the tails of the 193 free to drift or brush speed.

For use at the New Zealand club fields, it’s hard for me to pick a clear winner, but I think I might prefer the 185cm model given the current conditions and terrain. I don’t get the opportunity to billy goat and jump turn in tight, rocky places all that often back home in Alaska, and I’ve quite enjoyed doing so here in New Zealand. The 185s are a little better and more fun in such situations, and I don’t think the performance difference when skiing open terrain is significant enough to make me prefer the longer boards in a place like Canterbury.

Paul Forward reviews the Blizzard Cochise, Blister Gear Review
Paul Forward on the Blizzard Cochise, Temple Basin Ski Area.

Bottom Line

The Cochise has been such a great ski that when Blizzard announced that it was making some changes to the ski, it made some skiers understandably nervous.

Based on my initial experience in varied snow conditions, that nervousness isn’t warranted, and the 14/15 Cochise continues to shine in the growing, increasingly competitive class of damp, versatile, ~105mm directional skis.

 

NEXT PAGE: ROCKER PROFILE PICS

35 comments on “2014-2015 Blizzard Cochise”

    • Lots of folks curious about the Cochise vs. Supernatural 108, so I’ll jump in.

      We haven’t yet skied the new Cochise on groomers, but my suspicion is that THAT is where the two skis might end up feeling the most different. The 108s are extremely fun to carve. We’ll see about the new Cochise. But we’ll A/B-ing the two skis back in the USA as soon as possible.

    • New Cochise vs. Old Cochise:

      Hi Jonathan and all. I just did a side by side comparison the new 14/15 Blizzard Cochise (185 cm) vs. the old 2012 Cochise (my daily driver). Well, there is definitely a noticeable difference. Here’s my take…

      Snow Conditions (Snowbird, Utah):
      The groomed runs were relatively soft carving with man-made harder surfaces here and there. Terrain off the beaten path (un-groomed) was a mix of soft settled snow, wind worked denser crud and stiff crud with a few bumps. Sadly I was unable to ski deep crud or un-tracked pow. (waiting for the next storm).

      How I tested:
      To test the original Cochise vs. the 14/15 new Cochise I swapped out skis half way down each run with my brother.

      Test Results:
      The first thing you notice about the new 14/15 Cochise is it’s smooth. Really smooth. It’s softer, incredibly calm and really silky rolling over everything. The old Cochise is also very smooth but has a more solid feel when it’s tipped on edge. Result: The old model Cochise has a much better carving bite on hard snow. How much better? Well, my 2012 Cochise’s have about 175 days on them, the 2014/15 Cochise I tested were brand new. My old pounded Cochise’s carved hard snow much better. For me, the new Cochise is no longer a one ski quiver. Don’t get me wrong,

      The 14/15 Cochise carves well enough for a ski that’s 108 under foot. However, the solid Cochise feel on edge has changed (less torsional stiffness). The new model is simply not as grippy and will skid on firm surfaces. Perhaps this is a double edged sword (so to speak)…

      Many described the old Cochise as a fabulous smooth crud ski that happened to ski everything else really well. The new 14/15 Cochise is even quieter and smoother. It has a very big sweet spot. It’s ridiculously calm going blisteringly fast (pun intended) on softer snow. However, it’s not as dynamic when edging on firm snow and there is less snap when it’s loaded up.

      Frankly, I missed the hard snow bite immediately. My brother (awesome skier) felt the same way. Granted, it was not Utah deep and soft snow while comparing the two skis (I have a feeling the new Cochise will slay that stuff). But it was not icy conditions either. The original Cochise was great in the soft AND held a carve on the firm. For me, that edge grip was partly why the original Cochise was loved.

      I’m sure many will disagree with me as there is a trend toward softer, easier skis. The new 14/15 Cochise is more accessible to more skiers (still not intermediates). All that said, if you’re able to swing funds for the super smooth 14/15 Cochise (softer days) AND a second ski to rip the firm faces you’ll have a very sick two ski quiver.
      ***********************************

      PS: I suspect many people try the Cochise in too long a length. Then describe it as a burly charger. Try the 177 cm if you weigh less than 185 lbs (old or new model). It’s still completely stable and really fun. If you mount it 3/8 inch back it will charge like a bigger ski. Of course for large humans and/or wide open Ragers… longer will make you smile.
      *************
      About me: Started skiing at 3. Race train and competitions up to college (Maine). Then 25 years ago I moved to Snowbird/Alta to ski powder and make tram laps with the local Bro’s. Stats: 5′ 9″ 172 lbs. .

      • The 14/15 Cochise has zero change in torsional stiffness from the first generation. It still
        Has the exact same construction except for a small change in glass layup which affects the longitudinal flex and has zero affect on torsional stiffness. We’re talking 10% – 15% softer max in the 185, the 193 is slightly more. The new ski actually has more grip on hard snow than the old one.

  1. Paul I’m looking hard and long at the 14/15 Cochise and Supernatural 108. I’m 5’11 225lbs advanced intermediate. I read Jonathans comparison of the 13/14 Cochise to the Supernatural. Do you feel the 15% softer of this years Cochise would put these on equal ground (as for overall stiffness)? Or does the Cochise still have stiffer shovels for crud bashing?

  2. Can you comment on differences in stiffness compared to previous versions? There are unproven rumors around that it’s got stiffer since it 1st came out, I skied only the 2nd year 12/13 (dark red) and currently own the 3rd year version 13/14 (blue/red) I haven’t noticed any difference between demoing the 12/13 and skiing the 13/14 but most people insist to say the 13/14 version is stiffer and the 15% softer 14/15 was supposed to bring the ski to its original 11/12 stiffness, but no one knows exactly since Blizzard doesn’t speak about the first 3 years getting stiffer, the only comment is about 14/15 being softer. Also the camber is really weird, since based on the picture profile it doesn’t look any difference than my 13/14 version which also shows a small bit of camber!

    • Short answer: No.

      Longer answer: Yes, lots of rumors and statements out there (and by the way, that “15%” number – perhaps it really is 15% and not 14% or 16%, but how they arrived at that specific percentage … I have trouble believing that “15” is more than an approximation in any case.

      So more important: Will Brown and Paul Forward and I all feel like this Cochise is skiing really well, and none of us view it as a significant departure from the Cochise we’ve skied in the past. If you’ve liked the Cochise in the past, you’ll like this one. If you haven’t liked the Cochise, none of us can yet point to anything we’ve experienced on snow to say that you’ll now clearly like the 14/15 Cochise.

  3. Looking forward to a comparison to the Supernatual 108. I’m looking for something for tracked out powder and crud. The bumps form quickly here so should be able to handle those in a pinch also. I ski185cm hell and backs most days in Aspen, and Line Influence 115 on the powder mornings. Any insight would be appreciated.

    • Hi, Dave – I jumped on these first down in NZ, and we got on snow before things softened up. Skiing hard, variable off-piste stuff, the edges definitely felt sharp. But the hard granular snow seemed to be doing their own detune job, so I just kept skiing them. By the 2nd half of day 2, the skis very much had that distinctive, almost buttery feel of the Cochise that we thought was so interesting when we reviewed them a couple seasons ago. Long answer, but true story.

  4. I would be interested to see a detailed comparison/contrast with the earlier models, as well as other skis in the category, including the Line Supernatural 108. A lot of people held off on buying the Cochise upon learning that there were some changes for the upcoming season. Are those changes really significant and worth the extra money? Or are the differences negligible and earlier seasons’ models are not too different (except top sheets)? Who is going to be most pleased with the changes brought in this season’s model? Thank you.

  5. Jonathan ~ You answered my question before I knew it! Do the slight modifications to the Cochise, including the addition of some camber, bring this ski closer to the Bonafide? Is this now the wider “big brother” or do both skis still remain far enough apart in their charateristics? Thank you.

  6. The Bonafide and Cochise have very different sidecuts. Cochise will make a much longer turn and will be easier to throw sideways and scrub speed especially in variable snow. They are still two different skis even though the slight tweaks brought them theoretically closer in design. However the Brahma, which Blister will be reviewing here in the upcoming months, is very similar to the Bonafide just 10mm narrower underfoot.

  7. I love your ski reviews, they’re pretty much the reference in the business right now when it comes to attention to details and asking the right questions when testing. It’s not an easy task, but you do it extremely well. Great job, guys and girls.

    But being a picky prick, I would like to see a more detailed definition of the respective skis mounting locations. Most skis are tested on the factory recommended line, which is fine and the way I think skis should be tested initially. But it would be great, and make the reviews even better, to know where that factory line is located from true center. It says a lot about the intended character of the ski, and, well, us geeks have another thing to geek out about.

  8. Looking for some sizing feedback.
    Have decided the Cochise makes sense to add to my quiver. I’m an east coast skier. Have an excellent front-side carver. I have a dedicated powder ski that works if we get dumps and is competent enough to handle deep stuff for cat trips to BC. Would like to add a mixed condition ski – something to grab when I miss the storm by a couple of days, something for when we are getting snow during the day that tends to pile and bump quickly. You know – just variable conditions. I’d also like this to be a quiver of one ski for quick trips to CO and UT. I’ve been eyeing the Cochise for a while, and think it make sense (though have been reading reviews of the Supernatural 108 and 100). I’m 5′ 8″, 175lbs; I’d say advanced but not as aggressive as I used to be. Curious whether you guys think: 1) the Cochise makes sense and 2) would the 177 or 185 make more sense?

    • Hi, Mark:

      Q #2: for how and where you plan to use the ski, go 185, if you really will use it as a western 1 ski quiver, and you’ve already got a carver.

      Q #1: for you, it’s very nearly a toss up. I keep saying that in variable conditions, I can’t yet say that one of these skis is clearly better than the other. I suspect that the 108 may still have the advantage on groomers, but you already have your carver, so you might not care. Sorry that isn’t very helpful, but I can’t yet say anything more definitively.

  9. Hey Paul & the Blister crew (yes, I mean you, Jonathan, Will and Jason)

    First and foremost, thank you for running the best review site on earth. [Period… Full stop.]

    I just demoed the 2014/2015 Cochise and it was awesome. While skiing it, I was actually thinking I’d be interested in a bit more ski (and this was on pretty rough conditions.) There are still a few deals left on the 2013/14 version of the Cochise… which sounds perfect. That said, “15% stiffer” (or rather, if you do the math, 18% stiffer) sounds like it could be a big change. You and others at Blister have said that you haven’t noticed a big difference between the 2013/14 and 2014/15.

    So here’s my question: if I’ve demoed the 2014/15 Cochise (185 cm) but am looking at buying the 2013/14 Cochise (185 cm), how similar/different are they?

    As a reference, I’m currently skiing the the Line SFB 184 and a pair of Atomic 181 GS race skis (27M radius). I love the playfulness and balance of the SFBs (although I am a directional skier) … but as Jason has said, they aren’t chargers. The Atomic race skis are fun on ice and groomers, but are a ton of work off piste. The 2014/15 Cochise was an amazing balance between the two.

    Thanks,

    Rob

    • Thank you, Rob!

      I’m afraid that we don’t have a pair of 13/14 Cochise to directly A/B against the 14/15. Of course, you can see AltaBird’s comments above, but beyond that, you can read Paul Forward’s review of the 14/15, our 3 reviews of the 13/14 185cm Cochise, and our A/B comparison of the 14/15 Cochise and the Supernatural 108. That’s the best we can offer at the moment.

      • Quick update: I went ahead and picked up a pair of the 2013/14 Cochise – which are absolutely amazing! It was about 4 weeks between skiing the two – so not the A/B comparison that AltaBird did. Wasatchback’s explanation makes sense – they are 10-15% stiffer in one direction (longitudinal.) And, yes, you can feel it. But, the overall effect seems to be more like a 5% stiffer ski. The 2013/14 was a bit more work in bumps, but still very manageable (this was actually the thing I was most worried about.) But in my two days on the 2013/14 Cochise, I’ve never wanted more ski (which I did a couple of times on the 2014/15.)

  10. Dear Blister dudes,
    My guess is that you are at SIA right now schmoozing with industry folks. After several cocktails this weekend please go to the blizzard booth and request the new cochise and bodacious. If they refuse you, grab 2 pairs, sprint out of the convention center, mount, ski and review. Very interested to see how the carbon tips and tails, taper, and reduced side cut will effect two awesome skis. Hope it improves cochise soft snow performance and bodacious deep snow performance.

    Thank you,
    Tom

    • Tom, when you’re note came in last night, we definitely weren’t schmoozing – I was replying to reader comments while Will finished his Helix review.

      As for getting drunk and stealing stuff, we are not, in principle, opposed to that.

      But I don’t think it will come to that. We just want to make sure before we go spend time on these skis then spend an eternity writing the reviews that Blizzard has models ready that will (ideally) be exactly what will go to production in a few months – or at least be very, very close to production-ready. So that’s the short version of the longer answer to Marcel’s question above…

  11. Hey jonathan,

    It seems like i cant make up my mind on either the 185 cochise or the bc q lab(183 or 190). Im a strong skier who skis fast, but I also do a lot of tight chute & trees, and like to jump a lot. This will also be my backcountry ski (mainly for kicking horse slackcountry and alaska) with the g3 ion binding that i already have.

    Any kind of advice will be appreciated, thanks again for your great review!

    • Hi Emile (or others) if it helps…
      I have a pair of 2013 Cochise (185) w/ Marker Jester bindings I will sell for a very good price. They are In fantastic condition. If interested leave a message here that says “interested” and we’ll figure out best way to talk. Thanks.

    • Emile

      The two skis you mention are a little different. The Q BC lab is the lightweight version of the Q lab. The Q lab and the Cochise would be more of a comparison. If you want a lightweight ski that is more comparable to the Q BC lab check out the new Zero G 108. It’s the lightweight version of the new 15/16 Cochise. It is weight comparable to the Q BC Lab however it is 108mm under foot.

  12. Sorry guys, my mistake: im hesitating between the 190 q lab or 185 cochise. The bc q lab is my old ski that i used to tour with, but i dont like it, too soft and cant handle high speeds so im hesitatin. Between those two even if they are way heavier then the bc one to tour with

  13. What’s up y’all,
    Many thanks for the great review and insights. Wanted to get your feedback in the mix while I contemplate purchasing the 193 Cochise’s.

    I’m a 6’8″, 230lbs hard charger looking to upgrade from my 2010 k2 Coomback 188’s. I ski primarily in Tahoe and CO, but also have trips planned to Montana this winter. Looking for a playful ski that doesn’t sacrifice on-piste performance. The Cochise sounds like almost exactly what I’m looking for, but some of the comments about it’s dampness give me pause.

    Currently debating between the Cochise or the last generation of Super 7’s, admittedly pretty different skis straddling the line between one-ski quiver/driver and playful surfer. Previously demo’ed the Super 7’s in 10+ of fresh in Steamboat a couple years ago, loved ’em, but would really like a ski I can rip on groomers and in variable conditions while still catching some at least slightly surfy vibes on powder days.

    I’m leaning towards the Cochise, but wanted to get some opinions and “devil’s advocacy” before making a decision. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!

  14. Hi all, thanks for this awesome review! I am wondering if you could shed some insight on my particular situation.
    I just bought the 14/15 Cochise at a ski sale, at 177 cm.
    I have been skiing the 178 cm 09/10 Volkl Mantra since, well 09/10, with a chunk of edge missing for the last couple.
    well I have a job now so time to get myself properly strapped in, but before I get bindings on these I have a concern…

    My question is: am I going to be missing the length? will the early rise in the Cochise compared to the mantra of the same length feel significantly shorter?
    I am 6’1”, about 180 lbs, and thought the mantra 178 was just about perfect, if not maybe a little small. I liked how i could really pull them in for tight jump turns in sparsely snowed chutes of Alberta, but also I like to charge through crud.

    any thoughts you have would be appreciated if you can any make sense of that!
    thanks, James

Leave a Comment