Love the videos! I have a some 2021 rustler9’s 188. I got my hands on the new 24’ 180 version and was wondering your thoughts on length for me, an upper intermediate skier. 6’1 245. As a bigger guy, do you feel the 180’s are too short? Would you recommend the rustler 10’s instead? Thanks!
I'd say the 186 in the new 9 is the say to go based on your stats. I don't think there's a need to go with the 10 unless you find yourself in soft snow more often than not.
Thanks for the great review as always! I'm looking at getting a pair of Rustler 9s for my 20yr old son who skis mainly in the east, but a couple trips out west each year. He's an expert skier, but only 5'6.5" (169.25) cm tall and 150 lbs. Stuck between sizes, and not sure if I should get him the 168 or 174 - any suggestions? He currently skis a pair of 170 cm Volkl RTMs for reference.
I'd go 174 in that ski, mainly due to the level. If it was size alone, maybe the 168 would be better, but if he's an expert, the longer length will offer better stability and performance.
Hi, I've been skiing the 2020 rustler 9 and I've enjoyed it. I've been eyeing the rustler 10 just to give a little more versatility in softer snow, but I've been worried about sacrificing the versatility on groomers for those slower days. With the 96mm waist, does this new rustler maintain the ease on groomers and add better performance in soft snow?
I'm assuming you're meaning the Rustler 9 (you indicate 10 in the question) and in that case, I don't think there's much demand here for groomers--it's a very clean and round-turning ski in an on trail format. At the same time, it does have plenty of rocker to handle softer snow and powder, but we're impressed with how approachable and smooth it is in a carved turn on groomers. While it doesn't carve like a race ski, that's probably not what you're looking for anyway. The main benefit here with Rustler is the versatility.
I used to ski the old R9 in 180cm. I now have a line blade (176cm) and moment Deathwish (179cm) and I am looking for a ski to fit in between (mostly for tree bump skiing between storms in Tahoe). I think that a slightly shorter length of the old version would be perfect (I am 5’9” 165lbs). Do you think that the increased rocker make them ski a bit shorter than before or should I size down to 174cm?
Hey guys, nice review. I’m debating on getting the Rustler 9, the Line Optic 96 or atomic bent 100. I want something versatile and playful for east coast conditions without sacrificing to much on stability. Thanks
We have found the Bent 100 to be more playful than stable, while the other two skis on your list do a better job of blending those attributes. Between the Rustler and the Line, the Rustler feels more consistent from tip to tail due to the new metal laminates. Both have pretty significant rocker and playful lines, but the Rustler's metal extends all the way along the edges from end to end while the Line's metal is found in the central part for most of the ski. This gives the Line more flex and more play in the tips and tails with a strong and stable underfoot zone. Rustler feels like a more composed ski overall. Hope that helps!
Thanks for the review! I demoed the 174 cm pair in Colorado last month, and as a lower-intermediate skier, I found them to be quite accessible for my ability. As most of my skiing is done in local hills near the Twin Cities, would the Rustler 9 make sense? Or would you recommend something skinnier?
It's tough to argue against your experience. In a vacuum, sure, I'd say something narrower in the 88ish range would be better, but if you like the 96, I'm not going to talk you out of the 96. If you were to go narrower and like the overall character of the Rustler, I'd check out something like the Elan Ripstick 88 or the Volkl Blaze 86. Have fun!
Great videos. I am a east coast skier and I am looking to replace my Enforcer 94 in 180 length with something that is less demanding. I'd like pair of skis that is slightly less groomer oriented. I don't ski backwards. I also have a pair of Deacon 84s in my 2 ski quiver. What skis would you recommend?
You're in the right place with the Rustler 9. If you're looking to stay in the mid-90's, you could go with something a bit more engaging and poppy--the Elan Ripstick 96, Atomic Maverick 95, or the Rossignol Sender 94 Ti all make good sense in this realm.
Great review again. Could you compare the differences between the new Rustler 9 and Hustle 10 please? I am going to put a pin binding on them, less for out and out touring, more for walk to ski purposes. I am an advance but not agressive skier. 65kg 168 height. Thanks.
Do you plan on being somewhere near firm snow or resort-accessed skiing? If that's the case, I'd lean to the Rustler with the metal in it. If you're going up one way and coming down another, mainly with fresh snow, the lighter and wider Hustle will offer more flotation and a driftier spirit on the way down.
The Ripstick still has more directional pop and energy, especially in a carved turn on-trail. Off-trail, the Rustler is easier to pivot, smear, and drift, and that adds to the playful nature of the ski. If you spend more time on-trail, there's a lot to like about the Ripstick.
How would this Rustler compare to the Enforcer 94? Currently on a bonafide 97 wanting something more versatile which can handle a wider range of conditions. Thanks!
The Enforcer 94 is more similar to the Bonafide than the Rustler. If you're looking to switch it up a bit, and it sounds like you do, the Rustler will offer a greater variance in application. The new Rustler 9 is considerably more comfortable in softer snow, powder, and trees than the Bonafide--way easier to turn and a lot more playful. I'd lean that route. Have fun! SE
Thank you! I'd go 168 in that ski unless you know you prefer longer skis. The 168 will be just below head high on you, and I think that's a good place to be on the new Rustler 9. Have fun! SE
Hi Jeff and many thanks for your review! Could uýou pls stake out the differences with Salomon QST 92 with regards to quick turns, deep snow, ice and mogul performance? Thanks!
The QST 92 is easier to get all the performance while the Rustler is a bit trickier. You have to have a bit better balance and skill to max out the Rustler 9 due to the metal laminates involved here. That said, if you can put more in, you'll get more out so there is a higher ceiling with this Rustler. Most skiers will appreciate the quickness and mogul performance of the QST 92 while the Rustler can float better and grip better for more advanced skiers.
Hi! I am an intermediate advanced skier. I want to get my first pair of all mountain skis and between QST 92 22/23 and rustler 9 22/23. Which one would you recommend as best ski for “everything”? Thank you in advance
Hi Folks, Just wondering how this compares to the Sheeva 9. I am male 168 and 64kg, so light. Is there a big difference with the Ti compared to the fibreglass underfoot? I have tried the Sheeva 9 168 (and liked it) as the Rustler was not available, but is the Rustler much more ski? Thanks .. and love the reviews.
Hello guys, Thank's a lot for all your incredible videos !! I would like to buy new all mountain skis and i don't know what to choose between the Rustler 9 and the Maverick 95TI... Is there one that you recomand more than the other ? Have a good day !!
The main difference here is that the Maverick is a stronger performer on groomers and in firm snow while the Rustler is a better option if you're spending more time in the bumps, trees, or in softer conditions. If most of your skiing is done in an on-piste format with a bit of exploration and adventure, I'd lean to the Maverick, but if adventure and off-piste are a bigger part of your skiing repertoire, then the Rustler makes more sense. Both will accomplish versatile all-mountain skiing, just on slightly different paths.
A few questions. First, I need some length advice. 5'8, 175 lbs. I ski east and take western trips, ski over 50 days/season, fairly advanced, love short turns and edges on the trails, 65 yrs and athletic, not so much in trees anymore, no longer hitting the high speeds of 60 mph or higher (generally 45 or under), and no longer bumps since back surgery in 2021. Now have Enforcer 93. Looking for stable ski, fun, a little lighter than enforcers. Have always skied 168 to 172 since I love short turns. Second, how would it compare with the Line Optic 96? Last, perhaps I should consider the Rustler 10. How would it compare?
Answering the last question first, I do not think the 10 is a better option if you're looking for one set of skis for all applications. The new Rustler is now 96 mm underfoot, and that's catching up to the 10's 102 mm waist pretty quickly. If you like shorter turns, the more agile and grippy 9 is the way to go among those skis. The Line is more playful and floaty--if you had bumps and trees on your list, that'd be a good sign for the Line, but if not, the Rustler does most other things more competently with more sophistication. I'd look to the 168 in the Rustler 9.
Thanks. Compared to last year's Rustler 9, would you say it is little stiffer and more capable when carving and handling crud? I skied last year's 9 and felt like it needed just a little more while still providing the playfulness.@@SkiEssentials
@@tedcatranis I'm sure some people feel that way, but not me, and mainly because I only got on the 180, and at 6/2 225, that's on the short side given the more rockered profile vs. last year's ski. I'd have to give the 186 an honest try, especially stacked up against the times I skied and loved the 188 in the Rustler 9 last year--that was stiff and strong enough to handle variable conditions and terrain for sure. This year's ski feels more playful, mainly due to the extended rocker and also due to the wider waist.
Hey guys! 6 foot, 170 to 175lbs, athletic, intermediate/advanced skier. Ski all blues and some blacks on the east coast. I’m not good in the bumps as of yet. Do you think the 174 or 180 makes sense for me? I do currently have the 2021 Rustler 9 @ 180 and no complaints but wonder if it could be more nimble by going a bit shorter since the newer model has more emphasis on turns and carving. Thanks in advance!
Watch so many of your videos! Really appreciated this review! I'm a East Coast skier, but looking for something I can use for trips out West, I'm a pretty small male skier, 163cm tall and 135lbs, athletic and a strong to solid intermediate skier who likes to ski 50/50 on and off piste. Considering either the Rustler 9 in 162cm, the Sheeva 9 in 156cm, or the Fischer Ranger 102 in 155cm. Any recommendations? Thanks :)
I think the Rustler is such an easy and good choice, although I do like the sound of the Sheeva as well. Not a huge difference structurally--just fiberglass underfoot rather than metal, but there's still the metal arms long the sides. I would think the slightly shorter 156 is a better fit for your stats and application here.
@@SkiEssentials Appreciate the response very much! Have been contemplating between the three for a week or two now and really difficult to make a decision. Helps a lot coming from y’all, thanks for all the content you put out! 🙂
It's right there! I find the Camox to have a quieter overall feel, and the longer radius makes it more traditional. It's not as round as the Rustler, and some skiers like that more than others. There's a lot more tip and tail splay in the Rustler which helps in powder, but isn't as direct of a connection to the snow as the Camox has.
Hi SE! Would this rustler 9 be kind of in between the qst92 and the qst 98? 45 yo 5’8,5 150, i would take the 92 in 168 and 98 in 176 but the 174 R9 looks very interesting… any advices? Thx!
I think this is a fair placement of the Rustler 9. You may get some more smoothness and stability in a carved turn due to the metal laminates here, but not the flotation or quickness of the QST's. If you're in deeper snow more of the time, I'd go with the 98. If not, then the Rustler 9 is a stronger and more capable ski while the 92 is quicker and more energetic on firmer snow.
Hey, I’m 5’8” and 150lb intermediate east coast skier. Right now I have old 170cm skis and thinking of getting these. Not sure whether to get 168cm or 174cm. I spend my time about 60/40 split between groomers and trees so not sure how to go about it
I think the Rustler skis pretty true to size, and the 174 might be on the long side. They're reasonably stable and smooth, so unless you're very aggressive or seeking speed, going with the slightly shorter length is a fine idea. I'd lean to the 168--I don't think you'll find them too short.
I'd say 174 is fine for your stats and application. Compared to an M6, I'd say there's about a 20% drop in carving power and ability, but I'm really just guessing at that figure.
Hi guys, I have been snowboarding until this season and I want to jump into skiing. Looking at picking up a pair of the Rustler 9's due to it's all-mountain versatility. I rented a pair (172's were the longest they had) from my local resort out here in California to see how I like it and I am told that I am somewhere in the intermediate level. I fall between the 180 and 186 size. I want a pair that best meets me at my current abilities and then I can always trade after a season or two. Seeing that these have a longer rocker profile, would you suggest sizing up for people that fall between sizes? 6'2" and 200-210 lbs skiing in California. Thanks for the help!
Alright, thanks, I already bought the 186 rustler 9 which arrived a week ago, I think I should return them and get salomon qst 92 184 to save some bucks and get the skis mounted in the same order (last ones unmounted since I didn't have boots). But someone said my size were too big for a soft ski like salomon qst 92. So I should maybe get 98 instead. Also, qst didn't change since last year right? @@SkiEssentials
Hey Guys, Looking at either these or the Rossignol Sender 94. Skiing Whistler and looking for a fun all mountain, advanced level. I'm 5'8 and 174 lbs so would be looking at the 168. Seems like a hard choice!
The Sender has more of a directional and fall line mentality to it while the Rustler is more creative, and when it comes to softer snow and trees, it's also more versatile. If you spend most of your time on trail and in carved turns, you'll probably like the Sender, but if you're more adventurous and find yourself in the woods and bumps more, the Rustler is more progressive.
The new Rustler will give you a lot more to like in those zones than the Mantra. While the Rustler still won't touch the Mantra when it comes to groomers and carving, it still manages to make very clean and round carved turns, just not with the same level of stability or grip. It certainly sounds like you're interested in making the move to a slightly more playful ski, and in the 96 mm range, the Rustler is a great choice. If you're looking for more of a similar shape to the Mantra just with an easier feel, I'd also check out the Elan Ripstick 96 or the 96 Black Edition--those skis are more directional in nature, just like the Mantra.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply. I’m 5’4” and weigh 155 lb. I typically ski 169-172cm skis. What length of Rustler 9 would you recommend?Would the 162cm be too short? Thanks again.
They're both wonderful, but there's something special about the Unleashed and its ability to carve a clean turn on groomers. For a 98 mm twin tip, there's nothing like it. Rustler is a bit lighter and more mobile, so if you're looking for something slightly easier to use, that's a great choice, but for a mix of performance and playfulness, it's tough to argue against the Nordica.
Overall it just feels like more ski. It's a bit less quick and agile, but the length has more to do with that than the width. The smoothness is the biggest difference--the 186 just wants to make smoother and longer turns than the 180 which, going back to that size, feels like a little rally car.
Can anyone tell me what the 174 measures straight line tip to tail? Recently measured 2 skis from two different companies and one was labelled 175 and one 178 and the 178s were shorter than the 175s
Super helpful, thanks! @@SkiEssentials Came across a faction 178 that was shorter than a Salmon 175 in a shop the other day. (measuring tip to tail straight line)
The QST is a better floater. It has more taper and longer rocker so there's more playfulness built in. I feel this works better for powder and trees, but not by a whole lot--the Rustler is still great in this zone, but it also has more carving control due to the metal over the edges of the ski and underfoot.
I'm biased as I own a Kore 93 for my Vermont personal ski. I love how it blends light weight, stiff flex, and excellent responsiveness. I do thoroughly enjoy the Rustler 9 as well--no issues with that ski at all--the Kore just fits what I like to do a bit better. If you're looking for a bit more mobility in tighter spaces and a more flexible and playful ski with more splay in the tips and tails, I'm not going to talk you out of a Rustler.
The K2 is more directional and fall-line oriented. It's a more pure carver and has more stability and power at speed. The Rustler is more creative and playful, offering greater mobility and agility in tighter spaces. The terrain in which you ski most of the time should accurately assist you in your final decision.
I got the skis and at the bottom of the skis it says engineered in Austria and in the middle it says made in Ukraine. Is that right. And I have a little QR qode on my skis.
The Bonafide has a denser and thicker wood core, two and a half sheets of metal, to go along with a less rockered shape for more directional skiing. The Rustler uses a metal frame style and a lighter wood core. Combine that lighter build with a more rockered profile and tapered shape, and you get a more playful and soft snow oriented ski. The Bonafide is considerably more stable and powerful in a carved turn.
u cant go wrong either way imho. i was on the same boat ended up with unleashed. if you can find 2023 unleashed u can get a good bargain, like $450 pair. 2023 rustler is different as jeff mentions. 24rustler and 22-23-24 unleashed 98 sound very similar to me
The Unleashed does have a longer camber profile while the Rustler is more dramatic in this regard. This gives the Unleashed the edge when it comes to carving smoothness and power. The Rustler, even though slightly narrower, is a better soft-snow performer with greater wiggle factor and playfulness. That said, given what I do personally, the Unleashed is a better fit.
I'm assuming QST 98 here. The Salomon is so quiet and smooth. The Rustler is a bit more precise and reactive, and this equates to fantastic groomer performance and carving capabilities, especially when adhering to the intended radius. The Salomon is a very accomplished turner, but does a lot better in softer snow and other non-icy conditions. I'd put them both on very similar levels, but the Rustler has more hard snow benefits while QST is the softer snow benefit.
Just think, there is actually a job up there in mittersill, to come up with new bologna names. Hum, what do you think we will do today? Change twin tip to bi tip? There we go.. ugg
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the videos! I have a some 2021 rustler9’s 188. I got my hands on the new 24’ 180 version and was wondering your thoughts on length for me, an upper intermediate skier. 6’1 245. As a bigger guy, do you feel the 180’s are too short? Would you recommend the rustler 10’s instead? Thanks!
I'd say the 186 in the new 9 is the say to go based on your stats. I don't think there's a need to go with the 10 unless you find yourself in soft snow more often than not.
Thanks for the great review as always! I'm looking at getting a pair of Rustler 9s for my 20yr old son who skis mainly in the east, but a couple trips out west each year. He's an expert skier, but only 5'6.5" (169.25) cm tall and 150 lbs. Stuck between sizes, and not sure if I should get him the 168 or 174 - any suggestions? He currently skis a pair of 170 cm Volkl RTMs for reference.
I'd go 174 in that ski, mainly due to the level. If it was size alone, maybe the 168 would be better, but if he's an expert, the longer length will offer better stability and performance.
Hi, I've been skiing the 2020 rustler 9 and I've enjoyed it. I've been eyeing the rustler 10 just to give a little more versatility in softer snow, but I've been worried about sacrificing the versatility on groomers for those slower days. With the 96mm waist, does this new rustler maintain the ease on groomers and add better performance in soft snow?
I'm assuming you're meaning the Rustler 9 (you indicate 10 in the question) and in that case, I don't think there's much demand here for groomers--it's a very clean and round-turning ski in an on trail format. At the same time, it does have plenty of rocker to handle softer snow and powder, but we're impressed with how approachable and smooth it is in a carved turn on groomers. While it doesn't carve like a race ski, that's probably not what you're looking for anyway. The main benefit here with Rustler is the versatility.
I used to ski the old R9 in 180cm. I now have a line blade (176cm) and moment Deathwish (179cm) and I am looking for a ski to fit in between (mostly for tree bump skiing between storms in Tahoe). I think that a slightly shorter length of the old version would be perfect (I am 5’9” 165lbs). Do you think that the increased rocker make them ski a bit shorter than before or should I size down to 174cm?
I would think the 174 is a better choice for your stats and application despite rocker.
Hey guys, nice review. I’m debating on getting the Rustler 9, the Line Optic 96 or atomic bent 100. I want something versatile and playful for east coast conditions without sacrificing to much on stability. Thanks
We have found the Bent 100 to be more playful than stable, while the other two skis on your list do a better job of blending those attributes. Between the Rustler and the Line, the Rustler feels more consistent from tip to tail due to the new metal laminates. Both have pretty significant rocker and playful lines, but the Rustler's metal extends all the way along the edges from end to end while the Line's metal is found in the central part for most of the ski. This gives the Line more flex and more play in the tips and tails with a strong and stable underfoot zone. Rustler feels like a more composed ski overall. Hope that helps!
Thanks for the review! I demoed the 174 cm pair in Colorado last month, and as a lower-intermediate skier, I found them to be quite accessible for my ability. As most of my skiing is done in local hills near the Twin Cities, would the Rustler 9 make sense? Or would you recommend something skinnier?
It's tough to argue against your experience. In a vacuum, sure, I'd say something narrower in the 88ish range would be better, but if you like the 96, I'm not going to talk you out of the 96. If you were to go narrower and like the overall character of the Rustler, I'd check out something like the Elan Ripstick 88 or the Volkl Blaze 86. Have fun!
It looks like I did watch your longer video... I should check it out..
Great videos.
I am a east coast skier and I am looking to replace my Enforcer 94 in 180 length with something that is less demanding. I'd like pair of skis that is slightly less groomer oriented. I don't ski backwards. I also have a pair of Deacon 84s in my 2 ski quiver. What skis would you recommend?
You're in the right place with the Rustler 9. If you're looking to stay in the mid-90's, you could go with something a bit more engaging and poppy--the Elan Ripstick 96, Atomic Maverick 95, or the Rossignol Sender 94 Ti all make good sense in this realm.
The rushers need to keep turning, I had enforcer 93, they were damper, the rustler is way more playful. Maybe you should demo a pair befor you choose
Great review again. Could you compare the differences between the new Rustler 9 and Hustle 10 please? I am going to put a pin binding on them, less for out and out touring, more for walk to ski purposes. I am an advance but not agressive skier. 65kg 168 height. Thanks.
Do you plan on being somewhere near firm snow or resort-accessed skiing? If that's the case, I'd lean to the Rustler with the metal in it. If you're going up one way and coming down another, mainly with fresh snow, the lighter and wider Hustle will offer more flotation and a driftier spirit on the way down.
@@SkiEssentials Hustle it is. Thanks for your advice
Great review!! This sounds similar to the Ripstick 96… any thoughts on the similarities/differences there?
The Ripstick still has more directional pop and energy, especially in a carved turn on-trail. Off-trail, the Rustler is easier to pivot, smear, and drift, and that adds to the playful nature of the ski. If you spend more time on-trail, there's a lot to like about the Ripstick.
How would this Rustler compare to the Enforcer 94? Currently on a bonafide 97 wanting something more versatile which can handle a wider range of conditions. Thanks!
The Enforcer 94 is more similar to the Bonafide than the Rustler. If you're looking to switch it up a bit, and it sounds like you do, the Rustler will offer a greater variance in application. The new Rustler 9 is considerably more comfortable in softer snow, powder, and trees than the Bonafide--way easier to turn and a lot more playful. I'd lean that route. Have fun!
SE
Best ski review channel on the planet! I’m 5’7” 170 pounds, advanced level. Would you recommend 168 or 174 length? Thanks!
Thank you!
I'd go 168 in that ski unless you know you prefer longer skis. The 168 will be just below head high on you, and I think that's a good place to be on the new Rustler 9. Have fun!
SE
@drewsykes8152 End up getting the 168s? Ski them yet?
Hi Jeff and many thanks for your review! Could uýou pls stake out the differences with Salomon QST 92 with regards to quick turns, deep snow, ice and mogul performance? Thanks!
The QST 92 is easier to get all the performance while the Rustler is a bit trickier. You have to have a bit better balance and skill to max out the Rustler 9 due to the metal laminates involved here. That said, if you can put more in, you'll get more out so there is a higher ceiling with this Rustler. Most skiers will appreciate the quickness and mogul performance of the QST 92 while the Rustler can float better and grip better for more advanced skiers.
Hi! I am an intermediate advanced skier. I want to get my first pair of all mountain skis and between QST 92 22/23 and rustler 9 22/23. Which one would you recommend as best ski for “everything”? Thank you in advance
You're in a great spot between these two, but the QST 92 is my standard go-to for "everything". Have fun!
Hi Folks, Just wondering how this compares to the Sheeva 9. I am male 168 and 64kg, so light. Is there a big difference with the Ti compared to the fibreglass underfoot? I have tried the Sheeva 9 168 (and liked it) as the Rustler was not available, but is the Rustler much more ski? Thanks .. and love the reviews.
It's not a whole lot more ski, it's really only that underfoot plate that's different.
Hello guys,
Thank's a lot for all your incredible videos !!
I would like to buy new all mountain skis and i don't know what to choose between the Rustler 9 and the Maverick 95TI... Is there one that you recomand more than the other ?
Have a good day !!
The main difference here is that the Maverick is a stronger performer on groomers and in firm snow while the Rustler is a better option if you're spending more time in the bumps, trees, or in softer conditions. If most of your skiing is done in an on-piste format with a bit of exploration and adventure, I'd lean to the Maverick, but if adventure and off-piste are a bigger part of your skiing repertoire, then the Rustler makes more sense. Both will accomplish versatile all-mountain skiing, just on slightly different paths.
Would you say the Rustler 9 is a more forgiving ski for an intermediate even if most of your skiing is New England piste?@@SkiEssentials
@@johnw5983 I would say the Rustler 9 is more forgiving than the Maverick for an intermediate on-piste New England skier.
A few questions. First, I need some length advice. 5'8, 175 lbs. I ski east and take western trips, ski over 50 days/season, fairly advanced, love short turns and edges on the trails, 65 yrs and athletic, not so much in trees anymore, no longer hitting the high speeds of 60 mph or higher (generally 45 or under), and no longer bumps since back surgery in 2021. Now have Enforcer 93. Looking for stable ski, fun, a little lighter than enforcers. Have always skied 168 to 172 since I love short turns. Second, how would it compare with the Line Optic 96? Last, perhaps I should consider the Rustler 10. How would it compare?
Answering the last question first, I do not think the 10 is a better option if you're looking for one set of skis for all applications. The new Rustler is now 96 mm underfoot, and that's catching up to the 10's 102 mm waist pretty quickly. If you like shorter turns, the more agile and grippy 9 is the way to go among those skis. The Line is more playful and floaty--if you had bumps and trees on your list, that'd be a good sign for the Line, but if not, the Rustler does most other things more competently with more sophistication. I'd look to the 168 in the Rustler 9.
Thanks. Compared to last year's Rustler 9, would you say it is little stiffer and more capable when carving and handling crud? I skied last year's 9 and felt like it needed just a little more while still providing the playfulness.@@SkiEssentials
@@tedcatranis I'm sure some people feel that way, but not me, and mainly because I only got on the 180, and at 6/2 225, that's on the short side given the more rockered profile vs. last year's ski. I'd have to give the 186 an honest try, especially stacked up against the times I skied and loved the 188 in the Rustler 9 last year--that was stiff and strong enough to handle variable conditions and terrain for sure. This year's ski feels more playful, mainly due to the extended rocker and also due to the wider waist.
Hey guys! 6 foot, 170 to 175lbs, athletic, intermediate/advanced skier. Ski all blues and some blacks on the east coast. I’m not good in the bumps as of yet.
Do you think the 174 or 180 makes sense for me? I do currently have the 2021 Rustler 9 @ 180 and no complaints but wonder if it could be more nimble by going a bit shorter since the newer model has more emphasis on turns and carving. Thanks in advance!
I'd go with the 174, mainly if you're putting agility at a higher point on your priority list.
Is there a significant difference (other than 2mm wider underfoot) between the 180 and 186?
Not structurally, the 186 obviously feels like a more substantial ski overall, but I wouldn't say there's a drastic difference in terms of flotation.
Watch so many of your videos! Really appreciated this review! I'm a East Coast skier, but looking for something I can use for trips out West, I'm a pretty small male skier, 163cm tall and 135lbs, athletic and a strong to solid intermediate skier who likes to ski 50/50 on and off piste. Considering either the Rustler 9 in 162cm, the Sheeva 9 in 156cm, or the Fischer Ranger 102 in 155cm. Any recommendations? Thanks :)
I think the Rustler is such an easy and good choice, although I do like the sound of the Sheeva as well. Not a huge difference structurally--just fiberglass underfoot rather than metal, but there's still the metal arms long the sides. I would think the slightly shorter 156 is a better fit for your stats and application here.
@@SkiEssentials Appreciate the response very much! Have been contemplating between the three for a week or two now and really difficult to make a decision. Helps a lot coming from y’all, thanks for all the content you put out! 🙂
Im a 6 foot, 165 lbs advanced skier and i have been looking to get these for a while. Would you recomend 180 or 186?
I'd go 180 based on your stats. I'm 6/2 225 and skied the 180 with a lot of success.
Hi. Love your review. How does it compare to the Camox?
It's right there! I find the Camox to have a quieter overall feel, and the longer radius makes it more traditional. It's not as round as the Rustler, and some skiers like that more than others. There's a lot more tip and tail splay in the Rustler which helps in powder, but isn't as direct of a connection to the snow as the Camox has.
@@SkiEssentials thank you for your response!
Hi SE!
Would this rustler 9 be kind of in between the qst92 and the qst 98?
45 yo 5’8,5 150, i would take the 92 in 168 and 98 in 176 but the 174 R9 looks very interesting… any advices? Thx!
I think this is a fair placement of the Rustler 9. You may get some more smoothness and stability in a carved turn due to the metal laminates here, but not the flotation or quickness of the QST's. If you're in deeper snow more of the time, I'd go with the 98. If not, then the Rustler 9 is a stronger and more capable ski while the 92 is quicker and more energetic on firmer snow.
Hey, I’m 5’8” and 150lb intermediate east coast skier. Right now I have old 170cm skis and thinking of getting these. Not sure whether to get 168cm or 174cm. I spend my time about 60/40 split between groomers and trees so not sure how to go about it
I think the Rustler skis pretty true to size, and the 174 might be on the long side. They're reasonably stable and smooth, so unless you're very aggressive or seeking speed, going with the slightly shorter length is a fine idea. I'd lean to the 168--I don't think you'll find them too short.
I’m 5’8 160 lbs (advanced-expert), would you say 174? Also compared to an m6 mantra would you say that it is much weaker for carving?
I'd say 174 is fine for your stats and application. Compared to an M6, I'd say there's about a 20% drop in carving power and ability, but I'm really just guessing at that figure.
@@SkiEssentialsthank you so much
Hi guys, I have been snowboarding until this season and I want to jump into skiing. Looking at picking up a pair of the Rustler 9's due to it's all-mountain versatility. I rented a pair (172's were the longest they had) from my local resort out here in California to see how I like it and I am told that I am somewhere in the intermediate level. I fall between the 180 and 186 size. I want a pair that best meets me at my current abilities and then I can always trade after a season or two. Seeing that these have a longer rocker profile, would you suggest sizing up for people that fall between sizes? 6'2" and 200-210 lbs skiing in California. Thanks for the help!
The pair I rented were not Rustlers ^
Great ski! I'd think the 180 will work great for your stats and application.
@@SkiEssentials Should I get the 186 or the 180, I'm 6'3" 185 ibs, intermediate skier
@@zenox2928 I'd go 180 based on your stats.
Alright, thanks, I already bought the 186 rustler 9 which arrived a week ago, I think I should return them and get salomon qst 92 184 to save some bucks and get the skis mounted in the same order (last ones unmounted since I didn't have boots). But someone said my size were too big for a soft ski like salomon qst 92. So I should maybe get 98 instead. Also, qst didn't change since last year right? @@SkiEssentials
I’m 5’10 and an intermediate skier. Is 174 cm on the shorter side for me or do you think it would work?
I don't think it'll be too short--you'll likely end up appreciating the mix of maneuverability with the shape and the sturdiness of the build!
Hey Guys, Looking at either these or the Rossignol Sender 94. Skiing Whistler and looking for a fun all mountain, advanced level. I'm 5'8 and 174 lbs so would be looking at the 168. Seems like a hard choice!
The Sender has more of a directional and fall line mentality to it while the Rustler is more creative, and when it comes to softer snow and trees, it's also more versatile. If you spend most of your time on trail and in carved turns, you'll probably like the Sender, but if you're more adventurous and find yourself in the woods and bumps more, the Rustler is more progressive.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks guys for the indepth reply :) Looks like it'll be the Rustler then
How does the performance of the 2024 Rustler 9 compare to the Volkl Mantra M6, which I am finding challenging to manage in steep, cruddy moguls?
The new Rustler will give you a lot more to like in those zones than the Mantra. While the Rustler still won't touch the Mantra when it comes to groomers and carving, it still manages to make very clean and round carved turns, just not with the same level of stability or grip. It certainly sounds like you're interested in making the move to a slightly more playful ski, and in the 96 mm range, the Rustler is a great choice. If you're looking for more of a similar shape to the Mantra just with an easier feel, I'd also check out the Elan Ripstick 96 or the 96 Black Edition--those skis are more directional in nature, just like the Mantra.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply. I’m 5’4” and weigh 155 lb. I typically ski 169-172cm skis. What length of Rustler 9 would you recommend?Would the 162cm be too short? Thanks again.
Curious, what are the similarities and differences between Rustler 9 and Nordica Unleashed 98? Which is the better daily driver? Thanks for any ideas!
They're both wonderful, but there's something special about the Unleashed and its ability to carve a clean turn on groomers. For a 98 mm twin tip, there's nothing like it. Rustler is a bit lighter and more mobile, so if you're looking for something slightly easier to use, that's a great choice, but for a mix of performance and playfulness, it's tough to argue against the Nordica.
@@SkiEssentials Much appreciated for the insight, exactly what I was looking for…thanks again!
Hello i want ask you about skistoper width to ski with 98 mm under boot.
110mm will be good? Marker griffon 13 id
I'd go 100 mm brake with a Griffon on a 98 mm ski.
Have you guys tried out the 186cm? I noticed the width changes to 96mm to 98mm underfoot once it goes to 186. Any change in the feel of the ski?
Overall it just feels like more ski. It's a bit less quick and agile, but the length has more to do with that than the width. The smoothness is the biggest difference--the 186 just wants to make smoother and longer turns than the 180 which, going back to that size, feels like a little rally car.
Can anyone tell me what the 174 measures straight line tip to tail? Recently measured 2 skis from two different companies and one was labelled 175 and one 178 and the 178s were shorter than the 175s
Check soothski.com. We use this site a lot for detailed measurements like this.
Super helpful, thanks! @@SkiEssentials Came across a faction 178 that was shorter than a Salmon 175 in a shop the other day. (measuring tip to tail straight line)
This vs QST 98? Specifically for powder and tree skiing
The QST is a better floater. It has more taper and longer rocker so there's more playfulness built in. I feel this works better for powder and trees, but not by a whole lot--the Rustler is still great in this zone, but it also has more carving control due to the metal over the edges of the ski and underfoot.
Hi guys,
Which would you like to choose as a daily driver, rustler 9 or kore 93?...Is there one that you recommend more than the other ?
I'm biased as I own a Kore 93 for my Vermont personal ski. I love how it blends light weight, stiff flex, and excellent responsiveness. I do thoroughly enjoy the Rustler 9 as well--no issues with that ski at all--the Kore just fits what I like to do a bit better. If you're looking for a bit more mobility in tighter spaces and a more flexible and playful ski with more splay in the tips and tails, I'm not going to talk you out of a Rustler.
How does this compare to the Mindbender 99Ti?
The K2 is more directional and fall-line oriented. It's a more pure carver and has more stability and power at speed. The Rustler is more creative and playful, offering greater mobility and agility in tighter spaces. The terrain in which you ski most of the time should accurately assist you in your final decision.
I got the skis and at the bottom of the skis it says engineered in Austria and in the middle it says made in Ukraine. Is that right. And I have a little QR qode on my skis.
This is correct!
Is it softer than the maverick 95 ti ?
Yes, the Rustler 9 is more flexible than the Maverick 95.
What's the difference between the Rustler and the Bonafide?
The Bonafide has a denser and thicker wood core, two and a half sheets of metal, to go along with a less rockered shape for more directional skiing. The Rustler uses a metal frame style and a lighter wood core. Combine that lighter build with a more rockered profile and tapered shape, and you get a more playful and soft snow oriented ski. The Bonafide is considerably more stable and powerful in a carved turn.
These or the unleashed 98?
u cant go wrong either way imho. i was on the same boat ended up with unleashed. if you can find 2023 unleashed u can get a good bargain, like $450 pair. 2023 rustler is different as jeff mentions. 24rustler and 22-23-24 unleashed 98 sound very similar to me
The Unleashed does have a longer camber profile while the Rustler is more dramatic in this regard. This gives the Unleashed the edge when it comes to carving smoothness and power. The Rustler, even though slightly narrower, is a better soft-snow performer with greater wiggle factor and playfulness. That said, given what I do personally, the Unleashed is a better fit.
How would you compare it to a salomon qst?
I'm assuming QST 98 here.
The Salomon is so quiet and smooth. The Rustler is a bit more precise and reactive, and this equates to fantastic groomer performance and carving capabilities, especially when adhering to the intended radius. The Salomon is a very accomplished turner, but does a lot better in softer snow and other non-icy conditions. I'd put them both on very similar levels, but the Rustler has more hard snow benefits while QST is the softer snow benefit.
Just think, there is actually a job up there in mittersill, to come up with new bologna names. Hum, what do you think we will do today? Change twin tip to bi tip? There we go.. ugg
Marketing majors need jobs too!
What's the bet a Rustler 8 is coming.....
No word yet.