2023/2024 Rustler 9 Review

[Vinnie]

I now have 12 days on the 2024 R9 in various conditions. In soft snow conditions they work great and can do all sorts of turns from carving to quick pivots, not so much big GS turns. This may seem obvious, but if you stay flexed in your boot with a reasonable forward stance they provide a stable platform for handling chop and crud when skiing it with ‘finesse’ as opposed to trying to blast through it. These are not Bonafides or Mantras and not designed to be that type of ski.

 

[TahoeWarrior]

I have both, the previous version of the Rustler 9 and the new 2024 version.

I’ll agree with much of what others in this thread have said about the two versions. However, overall, I think the new version of the Rustler 9s are much more different than they are similar to the previous version.

I bought a pair of the previous Rustler 9s several years ago in 180cm. I’m 5’ 10”, 180 lbs, and am fortunate to ski 5 to 6+ days a week. (Home mountain: Palisades Tahoe). I liked the previous version of the R9s, but they skied noticeably short for me so I sold them and got a pair in 188cm. I found the 188cm to ski more like what I was expecting from the 180 cm. Don’t be afraid to size up with the Rustler line.

Overall, I found the previous version of the R9s to be a fun, playful ski that didn’t demand a lot of attention. But after a few times skiing them I began to wish Blizzard had extended the tapered center metal piece a few more inches in the tip and tail to give the ski a bit more stiffness.

I didn’t ski the R9s much last year, but got on them again a few weeks ago after foolishly putting core shots into two different pair of Stocklis. I forgot how much fun and playful the Rustler 9s were, but was quickly reminded of their soft tip and tail shortcomings. A few weeks ago I stumbled across the Ski Essentials review of the 2024 Rustler 9 and it peaked my interested in the new version. After watching and reading several other reviews I purchased a pair in 186cm.

For me, as mentioned above, the new Rustler 9s are more different, in some ways much more different, than they are similar to the previous R9s. The new R9s are noticeably stiffer, especially in the tip, but in a good way. However, they lose a bit playfulness of the older model, especially at slower speeds. But after skiing them in just about every condition Tahoe is known for over the past week or so I came away smiling. I always felt the older version of the Rustler 9s were a great ski for a strong intermediate/advanced skier, or an expert skier that knew they weren’t going to spend the day pushing it. The new R9s demand more attention, feel more directional, rip when you lay them on edge, cut through crud much, much better and are way more comfortable at speed. For me, stability at speed was one of the major noticeable differences. And although they’re wider than the previous model they feel a bit quicker edge to edge.

I think the previous Rustler 9 is a a really fun ski and if the characteristics of that ski appeal to you I would definitely take advantage of any deals you can get on the older model. If you already have a pair of the previous Rustler 9s and are looking to replace them don’t expect that you’re going to get the same ski if you decide to go with the 2024 model.

For reference here’s my current quiver:

Head E-SL (165 cm)
Blizzard WRC (180 cm)
Stockli SX (181 cm)
Stockli Laser AX (175 cm)
Stockli Montero AR (180 cm)
Stockli Stormrider 95 (182 cm)
Blizzard Rustler 9 (188 cm) Previous version
Blizzard Rustler 9 (186 cm) 2024 model
Blizzard Rustler 10 (188 cm) Previous version
Blizzard Hustle 11 (188 cm)

Good detailed review! And, nice ‘portfolio’ of skis. I share several of yours….including my newest SR 95….how do you like yours?

 

[Evan's Dad]

I skied the new Rustler 9s this weekend at my local hill. Conditions were wet but firm which softened a little throughout the day on Saturday. Sunday the snow was soft & spring-like. I agree with another post that they are a lot more different than similar to the old R9s. I didn't really care for them most of Saturday, but over time I started to adjust and ended the weekend really liking them. Old R9s were decent carvers but the new version is much better. Softer snow and bumps were more difficult at first but I adjusted my technique over the 2 days and ended up really liking them. They definitely require better form, but it became second nature over time. I think they reduced the skier range in a way with lighter and lower-skilled skiers and expanded it in another with heavier and carve-focused skiers. I will have to It will be interesting to see how they ski in fresh powder & crud. Again, I'm on the light side at 150# and a fast but finesse-styled skier. I'm still missing the old ones, but I don't think I need to look any further for a replacement.

 

[raytseng]

I skied the new Rustler 9s this weekend at my local hill. Conditions were wet but firm which softened a little throughout the day on Saturday. Sunday the snow was soft & spring-like. I agree with another post that they are a lot more different than similar to the old R9s. I didn't really care for them most of Saturday, but over time I started to adjust and ended the weekend really liking them. Old R9s were decent carvers but the new version is much better. Softer snow and bumps were more difficult at first but I adjusted my technique over the 2 days and ended up really liking them. They definitely require better form, but it became second nature over time. I think they reduced the skier range in a way with lighter and lower-skilled skiers and expanded it in another with heavier and carve-focused skiers. I will have to It will be interesting to see how they ski in fresh powder & crud. Again, I'm on the light side at 150# and a fast but finesse-styled skier. I'm still missing the old ones, but I don't think I need to look any further for a replacement.

Did you do any new ski prep? I would be interested to see if you feel the ski changed, say in 5 days after the tips and tails detune a little bit and the ski wears in a little bit and loosens up

 

[Evan's Dad]

I slightly de-tuned the tips/tails and checked the bases & edges. Slightest sliver of light on the bases but almost perfect, and the side edges were nearly 3* (for some odd reason, Blizzard skis are 2.8* from the factory). I was going to get them ground and the edges set to 3* but a knowledgeable boot/ski tech at the shop suggested I ski them first. I'm happy with them, but was surprised at the personality change. I'll be skiing in WV nearly every weekend until mid March then going to Alta/Bird in April. I'll let you know how they come along.

 

[ProLeisure]

Good detailed review! And, nice ‘portfolio’ of skis. I share several of yours….including my newest SR 95….how do you like yours?

I don't want to derail this thread, but I really like the new SR 95. I've had the last 4 versions and the changes they made this year really make the ski much more off-piste friendly; mainly moving the mount point up and changing the shape of the tail allowing for an easier release.

 

[Flo]

I slightly de-tuned the tips/tails and checked the bases & edges. Slightest sliver of light on the bases but almost perfect, and the side edges were nearly 3* (for some odd reason, Blizzard skis are 2.8* from the factory). I was going to get them ground and the edges set to 3* but a knowledgeable boot/ski tech at the shop suggested I ski them first. I'm happy with them, but was surprised at the personality change. I'll be skiing in WV nearly every weekend until mid March then going to Alta/Bird in April. I'll let you know how they come along.

do you ski the 180cm?

 

[BigSlick]

I skied the new Rustler 9s this weekend at my local hill. Conditions were wet but firm which softened a little throughout the day on Saturday. Sunday the snow was soft & spring-like. I agree with another post that they are a lot more different than similar to the old R9s. I didn't really care for them most of Saturday, but over time I started to adjust and ended the weekend really liking them. Old R9s were decent carvers but the new version is much better. Softer snow and bumps were more difficult at first but I adjusted my technique over the 2 days and ended up really liking them. They definitely require better form, but it became second nature over time. I think they reduced the skier range in a way with lighter and lower-skilled skiers and expanded it in another with heavier and carve-focused skiers. I will have to It will be interesting to see how they ski in fresh powder & crud. Again, I'm on the light side at 150# and a fast but finesse-styled skier. I'm still missing the old ones, but I don't think I need to look any further for a replacement.

The '24s respond to your stance, which is sounds like you experienced. If you use a more directional forward stance and drive the tips, they will rip groomers and drive through variable snow and crud when on edge. If you use a more progressive/centered stance in bumps and trees, they pivot like a dream. Once that becomes more intuitive, you'll forgot all about the prior generation.

 

[Vinnie]

I’ve been skiing the R9s in Hokkaido this week in boot and knee deep conditions. Very Dry cold snow. In untracked, soft chop, whatever, I can only report that I don’t notice them. That is they are working great.

 

[Evan's Dad]

do you ski the 180cm?

174. I'm 5-10/150#.

 

[Evan's Dad]

The '24s respond to your stance, which is sounds like you experienced. If you use a more directional forward stance and drive the tips, they will rip groomers and drive through variable snow and crud when on edge. If you use a more progressive/centered stance in bumps and trees, they pivot like a dream. Once that becomes more intuitive, you'll forgot all about the prior generation.

I skied them again last weekend and I think I've got them dialed in. I did notice a very big improvement in carving & edge hold. I haven't gotten them in the trees and real bumps yet (not enough snow in the woods and any real bumps get groomed out on local hill). I'm LIKING the new version...we'll see how they ski in powder/bumps/trees in Utah this spring.

Thanks all for the responses!

 

[Pdub]

Looking for sizing advice on the New Rustler 9.

I'm 5'6" and 140 pounds. Current daily driver is Nordica Enforcer 88 at 172 cm. They seem perfect, no issue with size. But it snowed a lot on a recent Utah trip and I realized I was working a lot in heavier powder and chopped up older snow. Hoping for something a little easier to maneuver and a little more more deep snow friendly, but still capable of ripping groomers and snaking through soft bumps.

Going forward the R9 would be the one ski western quiver, and the Enforcer 88 the one ski Eastern quiver. I tried the old R9 and it was just too unstable at speed to be an all arounder for me out West. I ski everything from groomers to trees to chutes and of course pow if there is any. I'm late 50's so top speed on groomers is about 35-40 mph these days. Very distant racing background (the avatar is my son!) I ski around 40 days/year of which 10-15 are Western.

The new R9 seems to solve the groomer issue that held me back previously. Since I'm good with the E88 in a 172, and need stability at speed on the groomers, I am leaning toward the 174. But I wonder if that's too much ski for a lightweight like me. And the Ski Essentials guys seem to suggest downsizing if you're in between.

I may get to demo soon, but was hoping for input on sizing if anyone has experience on these skis.

Thanks!

 

[raytseng]

Rustler 9 has significantly more tail splay as compared to enforcer 88, so going slightly longer should be ok and has shorter effective edge. In fact it may feel shorter than your e88 172.
I would vote 174.

 

[Mel]

I’m 168cm tall (5’6”), 77kg (170ish lb), and I’m on the 168s. My max sped is roughly 60-65kmph, and I ski quite a few bumps. I like the 168 length, but I’m also used to mid 160s skis (only my powder skis are >170cm). I suspect you’d be fine with either 168 or 174.

 

[Pdub]

Thanks
Should have clarified I'm between the 168 and 174. Def leaning to 174

 

[BigSlick]

Spent 3 days last weekend in Park City on the Rustler 9s. Having a narrow pair of front side skis in the morning, would’ve been fun on the firm groomers. However, they did just fine, feeling plenty stable at 45mph. They were a blast off piste in some leftovers and in the trees, as well as the bumps and damp enough to plow through some refrozen cut up stuff. Love these skis as daily driver.

 

[Pdub]

Spent 3 days last weekend in Park City on the Rustler 9s. Having a narrow pair of front side skis in the morning, would’ve been fun on the firm groomers. However, they did just fine, feeling plenty stable at 45mph. They were a blast off piste in some leftovers and in the trees, as well as the bumps and damp enough to plow through some refrozen cut up stuff. Love these skis as daily driver.

What's your weight (if I may ask!) and what length in the R9? Did they ski true to size, long or short?

 

[raytseng]

What's your weight (if I may ask!) and what length in the R9? Did they ski true to size, long or short?

I already gave my advice that the R9 174 will ski about the same or even shorter than your enf 88 172. If you like your enf 88 length, go with 174.
This is a loaded question, as long and short are all relative to the class of ski you are comparing against.
If you are comparing to the same class of ski, meaning a rocker camber rocker freeride, then they are "true".
If you are comparing against a true powder or twin tip then they will be long.
If you're comparing against an allmtn, tip rocker/flat tail, or full camber frontside then they will be "short" to "very short".

If you have nothing to compare against, then you can go with tshirt sizing.
If you are a small you pick the smallest length, medium pick the medium length etc.

 

[BigSlick]

What's your weight (if I may ask!) and what length in the R9? Did they ski true to size, long or short?

180lb, 180cm height and I ski the 180 in the R9. I could probably get away with skiing the 186 if I was just skiing groomers, open bowls and a lot of fresh snow. I agree with @raytseng. If you are skiing the enforcer in 172, definitely go with the 174 in the Rustler due to the additional rocker and splayed tail. You might want to consider the R10 since it is only 102 in the 168/174 length if that is going to be your widest ski and will be skiing in UT and CO. 88 and 96 are not that far apart in terms of quiver spacing.

 

[BigSlick]

@Pdub - jump on these: https://www.skitalk.com/threads/2024-blizzard-rustler-9-174cm.33830/