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

2022 Blizzard Brahma 88

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,163
Location
Gloucester, MA
Speaking as a heavy weight (Clyde) I don't find the Brahma to be that burly, although it is often described as just that. For a burly ski, try the defunct Salomon XDrive 88. I have never skied a newish Monster 88, just an old Monster 78 with the crazy graphics on them. The old Monster seemed very damp to me.

I have a 2019 Brahma 88 in 187cm. It skis very long, but I like the ski a lot. It carves pretty well, and pivots pretty well. It can change its ski style on the fly, which makes it versatile. My buddy doesn't like the 2019 Brahma, which he owns, but does like the 2016 version, which I have skied and think its more like a recent Head Monster ski. More carve oriented and less pivoty.

I also have a CT 1.0 which I am still working out the tune issues. Finally had it ground, which really helped the ski a lot. I am still sorting out the CT and don't really have a good read on how I would characterize it yet. I will say I like it a lot in moguls now, and it is quite torsionally stiff and has very good edge grip. I just hand tuned the tips to sharpen up till the contact point, which I hope will get more tip engagement happening for me. Overall the CT 1.0 is a very good ski and I have high hopes for when I get it dialed for me. I am thinking about shimming the toe piece on my binding to get some weight off the tips of the ski.
 

jwilli

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Posts
280
Location
Oakland/Berkeley/or in the mountains
I had the chance to do a Brahma 88 183/Kendo 184/Enforcer 88 186 (2023 versions) back to back to back test at Mammoth a couple weeks ago.

Spoiler alert, I really liked all three.

Brahma probably fhe most demanding of the three but not significantly more so and really smooth. If I got a little lazy the tail would remind me it was there. The Kendo was fun to really engage the 3D sidecut and really have it come across the fall line. Enforcer 100 is my daily driver and I really liked the Enforcer feel in a quicker package. I would happy ski any of the three.
 

AlexisLD

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
366
Location
Quebec
RE: Soothski charts, cool I guess, but pretty big jump to translate that data to actual "on-snow" experience. Far too many other variables.

@Coolhand Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the missing variables?

In the case of the old vs new Brahma 88, it is a fairly easy comparison because they are different in only a few ways. The new one in 177 cm has a much longer running length (20 cm) than the old 180 cm, is 100 g heavier and is 15% stiffer. If you skied the old one, it might not be that hard to imagine how the new version will ski.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

Coolhand

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Posts
155
@Coolhand Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the missing variables?

Examples of Internal construction differences that influence ski performance and behavior.
  • Core material and makeup - i.e. a straight poplar wood core vs. poplar/beech vs. pawlonia vs. etc. Each core is going to damp differently, rebound differently, and "feel" different.
  • Internal laminate differences - i.e. carbon layers and/or additives and arrangement: fiberglass and resin types and configuration: metal type, thickness, and arrangement; dampening agent/layers type and placement.
  • Sidewall material and configuration.
  • Shape and rocker profile.
Those are just physical attributes of each ski model.

What about external variables/attributes? Examples like:
  • Overall edge tune and setup.
  • Grind and Wax
  • Binding/Boot Delta and Ramp
  • Snow Conditions
  • Snow Surface i.e. smooth and groomed soft vs. smooth/groomed hard vs. hard and rutted vs. 3D soft broken snow vs. 3D Hard Moguls or set up crud vs. etc.
  • Skier input, including physical mass, leverage, boot size - skiing style, timing, skill, etc., etc.
Looking at the soothski charts earlier in this thread. Many of the skis in this configuration are incredibly similar on the chart. But, on snow I find as many differences as similarities. The Brahma, Kendo, Enforcer and Maverick should ski pretty similarly according to the chart. They all feel very different on snow. For me, I would own only the Brahma out of that bunch. It is just so much smoother and damp, with stronger edge hold and stability, than the other models. For me... Your experience may well differ. That's fine. That's why they make so many different skis in very similar looking configurations.
 

AlexisLD

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
366
Location
Quebec
Examples of Internal construction differences that influence ski performance and behavior.
  • Core material and makeup - i.e. a straight poplar wood core vs. poplar/beech vs. pawlonia vs. etc. Each core is going to damp differently, rebound differently, and "feel" different.
  • Internal laminate differences - i.e. carbon layers and/or additives and arrangement: fiberglass and resin types and configuration: metal type, thickness, and arrangement; dampening agent/layers type and placement.
  • Sidewall material and configuration.

True, we don't measure that. But at the same time many of the things that you are talking about are reflected in the mass of the ski and its stiffnesses.

  • Shape and rocker profile.

We do measure and provide that.

What about external variables/attributes? Examples like:
  • Overall edge tune and setup.
  • Grind and Wax
  • Binding/Boot Delta and Ramp
  • Snow Conditions
  • Snow Surface i.e. smooth and groomed soft vs. smooth/groomed hard vs. hard and rutted vs. 3D soft broken snow vs. 3D Hard Moguls or set up crud vs. etc.
  • Skier input, including physical mass, leverage, boot size - skiing style, timing, skill, etc., etc.

I would argue that ski reviews and feedback you get from friends/forums are the most affected by these factors. I would even go as far as to say that measurements are the only way to get these factors out of the way. But maybe I am not creative enough!

Looking at the soothski charts earlier in this thread. Many of the skis in this configuration are incredibly similar on the chart. But, on snow I find as many differences as similarities. The Brahma, Kendo, Enforcer and Maverick should ski pretty similarly according to the chart. They all feel very different on snow. For me, I would own only the Brahma out of that bunch. It is just so much smoother and damp, with stronger edge hold and stability, than the other models. For me... Your experience may well differ. That's fine. That's why they make so many different skis in very similar looking configurations.

We provide more parameters than just stiffness charts. Even if you look at just the stiffnesses, you can see easily that the tip stiffnesses are way different, by as much as 2x. Beside that, running length are also way different between all these skis (from 101 to 144 cm), as well as weights (1694 to 2133g) and mount point (8 to 12 cm). They are all 88mm wide skis, but they are not the same at all. Together, these 4 skis cover about 30-50% of the spread with see for 88mm skis in pretty much all the parameters that we measure. No wonder they feel very different on snow! :)
 

tromano

Goin' the way they're pointed...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Posts
2,440
Location
Layton, UT

True, we don't measure that. But at the same time many of the things that you are talking about are reflected in the mass of the ski and its stiffnesses.



We do measure and provide that.



I would argue that ski reviews and feedback you get from friends/forums are the most affected by these factors. I would even go as far as to say that measurements are the only way to get these factors out of the way. But maybe I am not creative enough!



We provide more parameters than just stiffness charts. Even if you look at just the stiffnesses, you can see easily that the tip stiffnesses are way different, by as much as 2x. Beside that, running length are also way different between all these skis (from 101 to 144 cm), as well as weights (1694 to 2133g) and mount point (8 to 12 cm). They are all 88mm wide skis, but they are not the same at all. Together, these 4 skis cover about 30-50% of the spread with see for 88mm skis in pretty much all the parameters that we measure. No wonder they feel very different on snow! :)
They say the plural of anecdote is not data, and well... I am not sure how to use this data to extrapolate back to my anecdote of how a ski will perform, feel, whatever.
 

Johnfmh

Johnfmh
Skier
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Posts
554
Location
Arlington, VA
I have been skiing Brahma 88s all season, mostly at Timberline Mountain with about 5 days at Heavenly in hard snow conditions. I have found it to be a pretty decent East Coast all mountain ski In all conditions—especially crud and hard snow. The most ”powder” I have experienced this season is about 8 inches of fairly dry, WV soft snow. Brahma performed ok, but if the snow were more blower, and deeper, I would have preferred something with more rocker and a bit wider under foot. Nordica Enforcer 94 or something similar. I am not a big fan of pure play powder skis because these days, things get tracked out so fast, you really need an all mountain charger.

PS Forgot to mention that the Brahma is quite fun on snowmaking whales that are ubiquitous at Timberline when they are making snow, which is frequently these days thanks to the new ownership.
 
Last edited:

dwerdd

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Posts
21
Location
Bay Area
On the Brahmas in particular, there is a good reason Blistergear is slow to review (again) the revised Brahma. According to them, it has not changed since last year, when it was changed, to them, drastically, for the worse. (They are not elite bump skiers, so their opinion would tend to fit my own, more than likely, more than the perhaps more dialed in opinion of elite bump folks.)

The bottom line, for Blister, is the older Brahma was number one, winner of their "best of" awards year after year. It could carve the groomers, and had a perfect balance of carve/slarve/edge release for the bumps, to them.

And the newer version? It no longer gets their awards. They reviewed it last year, at least in their magazine; and don't want to again until it changes, more than likely.

Yeah it's been a bit strange to not see reviews on either the 2021-present Brahma or Enforcer 100 (or E94) given how their predecessors were stringing together multiple consecutive "best of" awards. Reading between the lines on their annual winter ski guide blurbs, it's pretty obvious they strongly preferred the older generation skis. Probably for the same reason too, it seems both the Brahma and Enforcer lost some of the ease of use/forgiveness in off-piste conditions (Brahma due to drastically shallower rocker lines, Enforcer due to a much stiffer tail).

Still strange though, they fully reviewed the full rocker (4th gen) Volkl Mantra even though they liked the generation before (and after) better. Seems like for skis which are so popular they should at least publish a detailed opinion on it so that buyers are well informed about de-facto "standard"/reference options in the segment.

EDIT: Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I don't mean to slander Blister, I actually think their reviews are extremely detailed and quite on-point especially if you can account for their skiing style preferences (e.g. certain reviewers prefer skis mounted more forward, have a more "slash" and "pop" style of freeriding, etc.).
 
Last edited:

ARL67

Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Life
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Posts
1,217
Location
Thornbury, ON, Canada
I'm surprised Blister doesn't have an east coast based reviewer or two, to provide more reviews of sub-90mm wide skis. Skiing an 80-88 wide out west sure ain't the same as a typical or cold day at K'ton or Tremblant.

The current Brahma 82 or 88 is a ski that would be in my wheel-house for where I ski, but certainly a departure from the earlier releases. Hence the Brahma is not garnering the same "awards" as it is now a ski for a different audience IMO.
 

dwerdd

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Posts
21
Location
Bay Area
I believe the current Brahma 82 still has a more similar shape and rocker profile to the 2017-2020 Brahma (88) as opposed to the 2021-present Brahma 88. For 2022 on the B82 they did update to the Trueblend Flipcore construction, but the sizes, rocker profile, and shape are still identical to before. I've looked at the 2022 Brahma 82 and 2022 Brahma 88 side by side in similar sizes in store and the rocker lines are indeed much deeper on the Brahma 82 (consistent with the 2017-2020 Brahma which had deep but low rise rocker).

I recently bought a pair of 2020 Brahma 82s on clearance precisely because I figured it would have similar performance to the old Brahma. I think it's a near ideal ski for firm but not completely icy/hardpack snow and can still hold its own in the afternoon when snow piles up (i.e. wide enough not to boot out). On ice the edge grip really can't compare to a full camber extended sidecut ski with a narrower waist (i.e. a full on carver, for me that's my Fischer RC4 WC SC).

Fully agreed on adding an east coast reviewer though.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Yeah it's been a bit strange to not see reviews on either the 2021-present Brahma or Enforcer 100 (or E94) given how their predecessors were stringing together multiple consecutive "best of" awards. Reading between the lines on their annual winter ski guide blurbs, it's pretty obvious they strongly preferred the older generation skis. Probably for the same reason too, it seems both the Brahma and Enforcer lost some of the ease of use/forgiveness in off-piste conditions (Brahma due to drastically shallower rocker lines, Enforcer due to a much stiffer tail).

Still strange though, they fully reviewed the full rocker (4th gen) Volkl Mantra even though they liked the generation before (and after) better. Seems like for skis which are so popular they should at least publish a detailed opinion on it so that buyers are well informed about de-facto "standard"/reference options in the segment.

EDIT: Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I don't mean to slander Blister, I actually think their reviews are extremely detailed and quite on-point especially if you can account for their skiing style preferences (e.g. certain reviewers prefer skis mounted more forward, have a more "slash" and "pop" style of freeriding, etc.).
On the three skis you first mention, it's a slightly different thing I do with Blister's reactions. I guess I just let them go their way and I go mine. For me, the overall handling, edge ride, carve and feel of different skis either clicks with me or not; has something that's a "wow" or not: it has to have something great - a standout something I can get excited about almost like doing a fun dance, for me to like it. In this respect, both the latest Brahma and the latest Bonafide lost me pretty much completely. Whatever they do, they've lost the rhythm for me: I can't freeride them on edge in a way that feels great, or that felt great with the earlier, more recent versions. So for me they are both "just another meh ski," one ski just like another, no standout.

On the other hand, the Enforcer 100, whatever its change, was to me enhanced, still a big deal in how it handles and feels. The one disappointment for me with the old version was its slight washout tail on piste. And that was changed, to me, exactly enough. So I still love that ski. And for the life of me, I can't notice any loss to how it performs off piste, in soft snow, or in powder/crud - still a rock star in crud in particular.

(The Enforcer 94, for me, is something else again: the older Enforcer 93 was to me just a ski without much character, a meh ski wherever it went. The 94 may be different, don't know: but I was basically so indifferent to the 93 that I would have had to hear from someone that the 94 was a major improvement. And not hearing anything so grand, I've ignored the 94 for now: there are too many skis, too little time.)
 

Coolhand

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Posts
155
My apologies to Soothski... Went to your website and pursued the tool. I'm glad there are people in the world that are engineers. Lots of data that may be very helpful to some people. Apparently, all the internal composition and architecture of skis are of secondary importance to ski performance. Interesting that when manufacturers talk about a specific ski model or series they focus on materials, and construction. Maybe I've been duped by the marketing departments thinking that it matters. Ultimately, it boils down to whether I enjoy skiing it or not. I'm too simple minded to make ski buying decisions based on numbers. I have to ski them. I just know that I like the current Brahma 88 more than any other 88mm waist ski that I have skied. It's stable and smooth with good edge hold and is very easy for me manipulate it's turn shape and use it both on piste and off. Works for this old guy.
 

AlexisLD

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
366
Location
Quebec
My apologies to Soothski... Went to your website and pursued the tool. I'm glad there are people in the world that are engineers. Lots of data that may be very helpful to some people. Apparently, all the internal composition and architecture of skis are of secondary importance to ski performance. Interesting that when manufacturers talk about a specific ski model or series they focus on materials, and construction. Maybe I've been duped by the marketing departments thinking that it matters. Ultimately, it boils down to whether I enjoy skiing it or not. I'm too simple minded to make ski buying decisions based on numbers. I have to ski them. I just know that I like the current Brahma 88 more than any other 88mm waist ski that I have skied. It's stable and smooth with good edge hold and is very easy for me manipulate it's turn shape and use it both on piste and off. Works for this old guy.

No need to apologize. I totally get that so many numbers are hard to interpret and we are working on ways to make it simpler to use.

I have the strong believe that most of the effects related to internal composition can be reduced to mass, stiffness and inertia. I could be wrong and will try to confirm that. For sure, it makes it easy for marketing departments to talk about a "new" material, exotic wood, flipping the woodcore, macroblock, "race" construction, graphene, special glue, titanium, piezo, rubber, unidirectional carbon fiber that increases torsional stiffness, tailoring, ... it all sounds like magic and keep the consumer confused.

You are lucky if you can demo all the skis that you want to purchase! :)
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,163
Location
Gloucester, MA
AlexisLD,

I am an Engineer and I for one appreciate what you are doing at Soothski. You have to study the data a bit to really know how to interpret it, but it sounds like you are on the right track.

You asked what else is needed, and my suggestion is a measure of damping, or rebound of a ski. It is probably hard to measure, but I am thinking of the wooden ruler clamped to a table and you pluck it. Maybe measure response by time to die out, or # of cycles or another way. That seems to be the only characteristic of internal construction that you are not covering.
 

BMC

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Posts
778
Revisiting an old thread, but having skied for around 4 or 5 seasons on a circa 2016 or 17 Brahma, and having skied the current Brahma this past Australian season, I think I can comment on similarities and differences,

Firstly, I thought my first Brahma was the best ski I ever owned. I loved it. I found it far more versatile than mny suggest and not the intimidating beast I imagined it might be. It ripped groomers, and killed it off piste. It’s precision required you to be attentive in bumps, but it wasn’t a bucking bronco.

So this year after a ski off with the K2 Mindbender 90ti, I replaced the old Brahma with the new Brahma. And frankly it’s far more similar to the old ski than different. You do notice the marginally shorter turn radius, but not much. It appears to initiate a turn earlier than the old one, but not by much. I felt it was more forgiving when transitioning from one type of snow to another - the tip felt like it may be more supple. These re all marginal differences. It turned out to be better in bumps than I expected, and arguably better than the old one, but again, not by much. It was great in new snow (better than the old ski) and slush. Where I felt it may be worse was in cut up, set up, reconsolidated or semi- reconsolidated snow. Probably most skis would struggle in those conditions but I felt the precise tip and tail and stiff flex meant the ski was more willing to take a path of its own than I’d have liked. I did have some technique adjustments in mind to play with when encountering those conditions again, but I only had the one day in those conditions. Pilot or plane at fault? It’s not known. Stay tuned for next season.

Anyway my take was Blister was way over the top with their critique of the allegedly diminished off piste performance of the ski, I felt it was more similar than different to the old one, and in most respects an improvement. It’s very much a “Brahma”. If Yiu liked the old ski I struggle to see how you could dislike the new one. Having said that my one reservation does echo Blister’s concerns (and other reviewers) so there is some basis to that critique. As I say though I just felt it was a bit over the top. Ultimately I think they give the impression the new Brahma is a piste specialist which I don’t think is fair comment at all.

If I was to improve the Brahma I’d just give it a touch more tail rocker. A smidgin. That’s it.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top