• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Rustler 10 vs Line SFB

Jeremy Collum

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
7
Hi, I'm looking to get a mid-fat pair of skis. I'm 6' 190lbs and a fairly strong skier. I'm torn between the 180/188 Rustler 10 or the 184 Line SFB. I'd appreciate it if anyone could advise me on the relative strengths of the two. I'm leaning toward the SFB but would be a bit concerned about how it would ski on groomers/icy conditions.
 

Doeschna

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Posts
76
This was just my take on them demoing them both in Michigan. The Bacon will be a better freestyle ski as it is a near semetric twin. Held a pretty good edge but is still pretty surfy. Could definitely be used as a park ski (best park skier I know strictly rides bacons in Michigan). Not the best when really cranking up the speed but still very good. The rustler was more stable at speed, still very good in the air and I could really shut it down when things got sketchy. Definitely more directional. As far as the actual carving in the ice, I skied the bacon a little better. You would definitely be on the 188 rustler and the 184 Bacon.
 

LewyM

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Posts
126
Location
PNW
Hi, I'm looking to get a mid-fat pair of skis. I'm 6' 190lbs and a fairly strong skier. I'm torn between the 180/188 Rustler 10 or the 184 Line SFB. I'd appreciate it if anyone could advise me on the relative strengths of the two. I'm leaning toward the SFB but would be a bit concerned about how it would ski on groomers/icy conditions.

@Jeremy Collum, based on your other post (you found the Soul 7 too long in 188), you would definitely want the Rustler in 180. Without demo'ing that ski, but having spent a lot of time on Blizzard flip cores, I would bet that the 188 Rustler would be even more ski than the Souls. So if you want a lightweight, more directional, solid ski, the Rustler in 180 makes sense (on paper). The Bacon is historically a very lightweight, playful ski. I have not been on the newest version (104 underfoot), but the last version (106 underfoot) skied very short and was mounted quite forward, making it more spinny and jibby. In that one, I'd say 184 is fine (because the 178 would feel tiny), but only if you want something that freerider'ish. Maybe the new version is more directional - you'd have to confirm that with someone with actual demo experience.

But like I said in your other thread, don't get hung up on the number on the topsheet. It seems like you might be optimizing to find a length you are proud of, rather than a ski that suits your style that you will like. Choose the ski that you want and get the suitable length in that run. And if you are still worried that the ski is too short, lie down and let the feeling go away. Because ultimately, if your 188 Souls feel too much, there isn't going to be any mid-100s ski in the upper 180s that will work for where you are at.
 
Last edited:

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
Hi, I'm looking to get a mid-fat pair of skis. I'm 6' 190lbs and a fairly strong skier. I'm torn between the 180/188 Rustler 10 or the 184 Line SFB. I'd appreciate it if anyone could advise me on the relative strengths of the two. I'm leaning toward the SFB but would be a bit concerned about how it would ski on groomers/icy conditions.

Where do you intent to use it mostly? (East, West?)
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
mainly Sunshine Village/Lake Louise -these hills get a moderate amount of snowfall.

Im about your size and I would go for the 188 since the Rustler 10 is not a heavy ski. For powder and open spaces the 180 seemed a bit short. Great for tight trees though.
 

LewyM

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Posts
126
Location
PNW
Im about your size and I would go for the 188 since the Rustler 10 is not a heavy ski. For powder and open spaces the 180 seemed a bit short. Great for tight trees though.

@Ken_R, your recommendation makes sense in isolation. . . but you have to read @Jeremy Collum's two posts here together. If the Soul 7 in 188 was too much ski, the Rustler in 188 is going the wrong direction. Rustler in 180 might be the solution, because you lose some of the length that was hanging the OP up in tight spaces, keep the light'ish layup, but get a ski with more spine that can be ridden a bit shorter without feeling puny. I think that the Kore 105 in 180 also fits this bill. Making a straight comparison based on skier size misses some important data that is both explicit and implicit in both of these threads.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
@Ken_R, your recommendation makes sense in isolation. . . but you have to read @Jeremy Collum's two posts here together. If the Soul 7 in 188 was too much ski, the Rustler in 188 is going the wrong direction. Rustler in 180 might be the solution, because you lose some of the length that was hanging the OP up in tight spaces, keep the light'ish layup, but get a ski with more spine that can be ridden a bit shorter without feeling puny. I think that the Kore 105 in 180 also fits this bill. Making a straight comparison based on skier size misses some important data that is both explicit and implicit in both of these threads.

Oh yeah, in that context definitely. 180. I also demoed the original Soul 7 in 180 and it was a super easy ski to ski. The flapping tips turned me off but the middle of the ski was solid. I cant imagine the 188 Soul being much more of a ski so yes, the 188 Rustler, being a much stouter ski than the original Soul might be too much.
 

Sponsor

Top