I like the benefits of tail rise or a slight twin, ie slarvability, but don't want a full twin. Like I think the E110 and MF108 have to much turned up tail. Skiing switch to the road is not in my skill set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Printable View
I like the benefits of tail rise or a slight twin, ie slarvability, but don't want a full twin. Like I think the E110 and MF108 have to much turned up tail. Skiing switch to the road is not in my skill set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I'm seeing great deals on the 185 104. Is this one fun enough on piste for a fuck around ski for a small resort, or should I keep looking for a 96?
The O104 and O114 are a perfect mix of easy/fun and damp/burly. Perfect Whistler ski to complement rockered 104mm Ravens and 112mm Hojis.Quote:
Originally Posted by NWFlow
I think the Optics get a bit burlier as they get wider. Re the O104 and O114 that is what I’ve found. Though I don’t think you could go wrong with the O96 either, if it’s a small ski area? I have the Season Aero…which is a 96mm ski with metal that is super fun to f around with.
KC
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I am thinking to buy the optic 96/104 for tree and bump skiing in Tahoe. How do they compare to the Deathwish 104? I have the regular Deathwish for deeper day and the line blade for low angle groomer / spring skis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I skied both Blade and DW and currently have (for sale) Blade Optic 96. Can't speak for Blade Optic 104 but 96 is more versatile, better in tight spots and bumps and I suspect in up to 8-10" of pow than regular Blade. Blade carved really well on edgeble groomers but I wouldn't take it outside of groomed runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flippo
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Great info posted on the 104 and 114. Love the Fernie sticker on the 104s. Makes em better.
Does anyone here have time and comparison strengths and weaknesses with the Squad and the 114? Big ask, but this is the only place outside a Blister Deep Dive (I am not a member/no access to deep dive on the squad but their full write up on the Optic 114 was informative) to get direct compare and contrast information between the skis. https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...lade-optic-114
Blister didn't bother with a full review of the Sender Squad. The Sender Squad seems to have avoided more than the shortest blip on marketing radars and only has any minimal beta on TGR forums.
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...s-sender-squad
Getting the itch to get myself a big resort day replacement ski and those two top my list.
My last charger has a lot of time on it and could use a third stone grind. It has little rocker and about 2800 grams a ski, which is a bit much anymore and the cut and profile is not as functional as the more modern 5 point sidecuts and R/C/R balances.
190 104’s arrived from Trudeau-land today. Lined up next to my 184 M102’s (at the recommended line) they have the same shovel length. Rocker profile looks tasty. Hopeful for some fun days on them next season in the PNW.
Take them to hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
Spent today ripping slush. Got deep at times. It was +21C ( 70F) in the alpine at Blackcomb. The Optic 104s were really good (as most skis usually are in slush cause it’s so forgiving). But the O104's weight and damp feel is an asset.....they don't get deflected by deep slush, and they love to air off the many soft moguls.
Banditman - I really feel for you having to wait until next winter to ski the Optic 104. Gonna be a long summer!
KC
Glad you are loving them in summer snow, KC! [emoji6]
Life just hasn’t allowed me to get them on snow. But have done some carpet skiing and comparisons with other gear. Here they are lined up with my 186 Unleashed 108’s. The extra length is all the tail for the 190 Optic 104.
Attachment 459063Attachment 459064
Very interested in this. I will be adding 104s next near. Question is the length. I do love the m102 in 184. Very curious to hear if you think the 190 is the right length.
My 178cm Optic 104 measures same length as a 179cm E104 and my 178cm Optic 114 measure exact same length as an 180cm R11. So they measure a bit longer than stated length. And both the 104 and 114 Optics don’t ski that short to me (mounted at rec -7cm), and I’ve found they have lots of support/stability/dampness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
The beauty of the Optic is it’s combo of factors….user-friendliness + maneuverability + dampness + stability in one ski. Unlike an M102 which excels in the last factors but lacks the first two (read my rant a few posts above).
This combo of easy + semi-gnarly makes the Optic a very useful ski in the quiver. And is the key reason to own the Optic vs M102, so I wouldn’t want to go longer IMO…as you may negate the user-friendliness and maneuverability?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I re-read this Optic thread. All still applies.
Wondering if anyone is picking up last year’s Optic 104s or 114s? I’m seeing them offered at pretty good prices (eg $479-$509CDN).
I have the 104 with Pivots and 114 with STH. Mounted on rec. Both are stable, damp but still fun/easy skis for every day ripping around at speed.
This 2024 vid describes them pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tte4pHsdJZ0&t=61s
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Have a pair from ridiculously cheaper corbets deal from last spring of the 104 in 185 sitting in plastic in my storage area. Need to go get them and figure out what I want to mount them with.
I also think I need to weigh them out of curiosity. The weights from different reliable reviewers are all over the place. Skiessentials has them like a 1/2 lb a ski less than blister . Curious what they actually come in at.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Other than corbetts where you getting 479CAD?Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Steep and Cheap has 114’s for $319. No 186’s, just 178’s and 192’s.
That's one of the better deals around right now if the sizes suit you and you need a freeride powder charger.
I picked up some 114’s and can’t wait to try them, considering getting some 104’s.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
How’s the 96? Looking for something fun on low tide days but that can still ski fast and carve.
https://lineskis.com/en-us/p/blade-o...RoC_4QQAvD_BwE
Good deal here also at $375 w most sizes available.
The reason I was asking about the weight discrepancy was I was considering mounting these w a Duke PT or some other heavy hybrid binding as a travel ski for those trips I can't bring multiple pairs, but between the tailmeise and the weight potentially being >2200 gms / ski, wondering if that's just a stupid idea.
Line has them listed at 1890 gms, ski essentials has them right at 2000 , blister was like 2250 . It's a weird wide spread
I've had 96 in 184 for a few weeks last spring and it was fun, easy but could still be pushed. Since now I'm on 104 in 190, I'd probably get regular Blade for low tide days.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
The 185’s are 2250-grams (+/-). Seems like more of a slack country option than a 50/50 touring setup. YMMVQuote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
This may be a long shot, but has anyone skied both the Optic 114 and Armada Declivity X?
One pair of the 192s left at Steep n Cheap for $320.
I kinda want them as a replacement for Declivity X, and because I missed all the leftover 2023 Wildcat 118s on Black Friday.
Do it. For science.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums