Question: Question about the Black Pearl

[SallyCat]

We're having spring conditions here, and I found myself with a rare weekday off work yesterday, so I grabbed my Blizzard Bushwackers (which are identical to the Black Pearl, just a "men's" version) because I remembered from last season that they were a lot of fun in soft, wet snow.

And indeed, they were a blast. They felt nimble and I could pivot my feet to steer around the mashed-potato surface. I skied for six hours straight with no lift lines, and had to force myself to leave because I was so joyfully exhausted I was afraid I'd hurt myself if I tried to do any more.

I had my Kendos in the car, too, so I tried them on my last run, and they were ok, but more carve-y than pivot-y. I LOVE them on hardpack, and they were fine yesterday, just different. On the Bushwackers, I could pivot my feet really freely, but the Kendos wanted to stay glued to the surface and rip through everything.

I looked up the specs of each ski, and they both say "rocker-camber-rocker." So my question is: what is it about the BP/Bushwacker that makes it so turny and lets you pivot so well in soft snow? Does it have significantly more rocker than the Kendo? If so, how do I tell? I ask because I'd like to be able to look for this trait in the future, and I'm just trying to learn about different skis.

(Fwiw, both skis require attention to stay forward. But when I got back on the BPs, they just sort of said "hey, cool, that's my tail; it's ok if you want to hang out there, but I don't recommend it." When you get back on the Kendos, they knock you to the ground, kick you in the kidneys, and leave you sprawled out as a warning to others.)

Anyway, thanks for any help in learning what makes the BP do its thing, and the Kendo feel so different, despite a similar width, and a "rocker-camber-rocker" profile.

 

[contesstant]

The Kendo is a MUCH stiffer ski. I've owned both (well, the BP and the Kenja, which is the exact same ski as the Kendo.) I'd say the Kendo will want to slice through the stuff, whereas the BP will dance through it. The BP also has quite a bit more tip rocker, which will allow it to get up above the slush and piles more easily.

Both very nice skis. Isn't it fun to be able to discern differences in skis? Maybe it's time for you to write some reviews!

 

[elemmac]

(Fwiw, both skis require attention to stay forward. But when I got back on the BPs, they just sort of said "hey, cool, that's my tail; it's ok if you want to hang out there, but I don't recommend it." When you get back on the Kendos, they knock you to the ground, kick you in the kidneys, and leave you sprawled out as a warning to others.)

I LOVE this description.

But back to your question..what makes them so different, while so closely related on paper?

Many things go into a ski's construction and every single one of those properties changes the ski in some way (length, underfoot width, tip width, tail width, amount of rocker, effective edge, materials (and how much of each material), etc., etc., etc.). I think the main difference you're seeing here is that one has metal in it, and the other doesn't. Metal will generally stiffen a ski, and create a more damp ride. Whereas a full wood core (or wood/carbon combination will create a more playful, forgiving ride. A "damp" ski (Kendo/Kenja), will generally cut through the crud, whereas a playful ski (Bushwacker/BP), will get deflected and bounce through or over the crud. You can definitely like one ski in certain conditions, and a completely different ski in others.

 

[artistinsuburbia]

(Fwiw, both skis require attention to stay forward. But when I got back on the BPs, they just sort of said "hey, cool, that's my tail; it's ok if you want to hang out there, but I don't recommend it." When you get back on the Kendos, they knock you to the ground, kick you in the kidneys, and leave you sprawled out as a warning to others.)

Hilarious! LOVE IT. I love my BP's for the same reason. Fun and turny, but they will ski you if you let them. Interesting thread on the construction. Learning more and more. Thanks!

 

[SallyCat]

Thanks for the helpful and interesting feedback!
If I wanted a wider version of the Black Pearl, is there such a ski?

 

[elemmac]

If I wanted a wider version of the Black Pearl, is there such a ski?

If you wait till next year...

 

[SallyCat]

If you wait till next year...

Oh, yeah!? Are they making a fatter BP? That would be great! I wondered how the Samba and Santa Ana might compare, too.

 

[elemmac]

Oh, yeah!? Are they making a fatter BP? That would be great!

Word is a chubby Black Pearl will make an appearance next year, along with a slimmed down Sheeva.

If you want something for this year...definitely check out the Samba or the Santa Ana, with the Santa Ana being the more "nimble" of the two, but both fairly soft, stable and a whole lotta fun. There are a lot of skis in the 90-100 underfoot range that will fit the bill....Salomon Lumen, Armada TSTw, Armada Victa 93...The majority (but not all) of women's skis in that range don't have metal and will be more forgiving than the Kenja and ski more like the BP, IMO.

 

[artistinsuburbia]

I get to demo skis with an industry focus group for Blizzard on the 16th of Feb. I can ask. That is if my old brain remembers.

 

[marzNC]

Oh, yeah!? Are they making a fatter BP? That would be great! I wondered how the Samba and Santa Ana might compare, too.

Blizzard has created a Black Pearl "line." There is the BP 78, the original BP 88, and a BP 98. They had some at the Whitetail demo. But only in relatively long lengths. If I heard the rep correctly, the BP 78 is essentially the Cheyenne with a different name. The BP 88 has either changed or is changing for 2017-18 but I don't remember how. Didn't take notes talking to the Blizzard rep at the Boston Ski Expo during pre-season.

 

[SallyCat]

A 98 BP would be fabulous!

 

[dloveski]

I finally tried my Black Pearls yesterday at Brighton. I got them from my ski dealer SIL last spring for a deal ($75 with Griffeon (sp) bindings).

My go-to skis for Utah conditions are my S7s, which are fine in most conditions ranging from powder, packed powder, to groomer. But yesterday, we had a dust on crust (really hard base) with soft snow/packed powder on top, making quite variable conditions. So I broke out the Pearls and they absolutely rocked it! The trees, the bowls, the bumps all were way fun with these stiffer (metal construction skis) that seemed to ski beefier than my S7s. Turned quicker. Edged nicely. It took a few runs to 'get' them, but I ended the day in love with a new set of skis in my quiver. I don't know what the width is (since they were given to me second hand)---but my guess is they are 88 ??? underfoot (the skis are in my locker at Brighton---so I am not sure).

 

[santacruz skier]

Oh, yeah!? Are they making a fatter BP? That would be great! I wondered how the Samba and Santa Ana might compare, too.

I have the Samba and demoed the Santa Ana recently... Santa Ana has shorter turn radius and seems "lighter." Samba could be more of a one ski quiver as great on groomers and can handle hard pack and chop. Santa Ana's might be more fun as easier to whip around ...

 

[marzNC]

I finally tried my Black Pearls yesterday at Brighton. I got them from my ski dealer SIL last spring for a deal ($75 with Griffeon (sp) bindings).

My go-to skis for Utah conditions are my S7s, which are fine in most conditions ranging from powder, packed powder, to groomer. But yesterday, we had a dust on crust (really hard base) with soft snow/packed powder on top, making quite variable conditions. So I broke out the Pearls and they absolutely rocked it! The trees, the bowls, the bumps all were way fun with these stiffer (metal construction skis) that seemed to ski beefier than my S7s. Turned quicker. Edged nicely. It took a few runs to 'get' them, but I ended the day in love with a new set of skis in my quiver. I don't know what the width is (since they were given to me second hand)---but my guess is they are 88 ??? underfoot (the skis are in my locker at Brighton---so I am not sure).

Since you got them last spring, I would think they are 88 underfoot.

Sounds like you had a great time! That's how I felt when I took the BPs out for a second time at Big Sky after a day of taking out demo skis for a personal demo day. I took them up to the bowl under the triple (now replaced). Wasn't that good at bumps then, but the BPs made it easier. I'd done a few tree runs off Ramcharger in the morning.

 

[SallyCat]

If you want something for this year...definitely check out the Samba or the Santa Ana.

Good advice! Dog knows I don't need any more skis; I suffered an acute and slightly embarrassing case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome last spring, and now I'm selling stuff I shouldn't have bought in the first place. But I would demo the Santa Ana as well as a future 98 BP if I ever have the chance. I adore spring skiing, and I suspect the awesomeness of the BP on a wider platform would make for endless fun. It's been great learning about different skis' traits!