Line Influence 115 vs. 105

[squirlo]

Hey!

Has anyone skied the Line Influence 115 (former Prophet 115) and 105 in direct comparison?

I have read nothing but good about the 115. I like the small turning radius for such a wide ski with a more traditional construction and the vertical sidewalls. Seems to work excellent even on hard groomers.

But there's also the new Influence 105. Almost identical shape, just 1cm narrower, but with a mix of a cap and sidewall construction, they call it "Capwall". A little less early rise, but I think that's neglectable.

Why do they build the more hard snow oriented ski with a cap- and the wider ski with a real sidewall? I don't get it.

Which one is the better all-mountain-ripper for higher speeds that can also handle hard groomers? I can't decide between those two.


(Btw.: The next year's 115 will also get the "Capwall"!)

[squirlo]

Bump.

Really no one? It's urgent!

[biff chalupa]

you're really digging those emoticons eh? what/where do you normally ski?

[squirlo]

you're really digging those emoticons eh? what/where do you normally ski?

A picture says a thousand words.

I'm skiing in the alps, mostly in Val d'Anniviers in Switzerland. I want to use one of these two ski for everything except park. If it hasn't snowed in a while (which can be found easily in this area) and the off-piste conditions are quite bad, I prefer bombing down the groomers. There will also be some days on the groomers with the girlfriend. If neither is the case, you'll find me off-piste. I prefer open spaces to the tight trees. I'm 5'9", ~175lbs, 20-25 days/season. Not the best and not the worst skier out there.

The turning radius of both skis is almost the same: 18,6m (105) vs. 19m (115) at 179cm. I'll take the 186cm size with a Marker Baron, that's for sure.

My thoughts so far:

Pro 105:
Narrower on groomed runs, easier to handle while hiking, lighter, probably enough float thanks to the big shovel.

Pro 115:
Vertical sidewalls --> better edge grip on ice, more early rise and wider --> more float, similar performace on groomers (?)

Will the 105 float enough in really deep stuff? Is the 115 really worse on the groomers?

Hm.

Help!

[biff chalupa]

The prophet 100 was my daily driver for the past two seasons, and I demoed the influence 115 one day. I liked the 115 better in all respects other than bumps.

[squirlo]

Could you please explain that in detail? I would be very grateful!

[SeatownSlackey]

I'm skiing in the alps, mostly in Val d'Anniviers in Switzerland. I want to use one of these two ski for everything except park. If it hasn't snowed in a while (which can be found easily in this area) and the off-piste conditions are quite bad, I prefer bombing down the groomers. There will also be some days on the groomers with the girlfriend. If neither is the case, you'll find me off-piste. I prefer open spaces to the tight trees. I'm 5'9", ~175lbs, 20-25 days/season. Not the best and not the worst skier out there.

The turning radius of both skis is almost the same: 18,6m (105) vs. 19m (115) at 179cm. I'll take the 186cm size with a Marker Baron, that's for sure.

My thoughts so far:

Pro 105:
Narrower on groomed runs, easier to handle while hiking, lighter, probably enough float thanks to the big shovel.

Pro 115:
Vertical sidewalls --> better edge grip on ice, more early rise and wider --> more float, similar performace on groomers (?)

Will the 105 float enough in really deep stuff? Is the 115 really worse on the groomers?

Hm.

Help!

you are really over thinking the sidewall thing. Based on how you described your skiing, i'd go 105. both are great skis but the slightly narrower 105 strikes me as the better fit.

[mtskier]

a cap or capwall constructed ski is supposed to be more torsionally rigid (think of an arc vs. a square).

[biff chalupa]

Could you please explain that in detail? I would be very grateful!

My prophet 100s are fully cambered, whereas the influence 105 and 115 have early rise. I've never been on the 105, but I liked how the 115 didn't get deflected or hook at all in variable terrain. The 115 was also great on the groomers, as good as my 100s. All I'm saying is that if groomer performance and float are the two main factors of your decision, I think you'll be happier with the 115. This is purely an opinion as I've never skied the 105, so take it for what it's worth.

[mtskier]

My prophet 100s are fully cambered, whereas the influence 105 and 115 have early rise. I've never been on the 105, but I liked how the 115 didn't get deflected or hook at all in variable terrain. The 115 was also great on the groomers, as good as my 100s. All I'm saying is that if groomer performance and float are the two main factors of your decision, I think you'll be happier with the 115. This is purely an opinion as I've never skied the 105, so take it for what it's worth.

+1 for sure. its hard to find any benefits of the 105 over the 115. we actually purchased the 115 and not the 105 for the shop this winter.

[time2clmb]

I have about 6ish days on the 186 115's and this is a killer ski. Personally I think they nailed it out of the park for a versatile go to ski. It's some what straighter under foot and the side cut comes in to play further up in to the tips. You can crank high speed turns on groomers no problem..they perform awesome. You want stability stay balanced and if you want to crank out some tighter turns pressure up the tips. They are stable, yet super easy to turn in tight spots. I have not noticed any hookiness to them and you can charge them through chop. So far have skied them on wind chalk, groomers, steep tights, variable snow and on chunk and of course powder. Not as surfy as some of the powder oriented fun shapes in pow obviously but you get a stable tail and the stiffness of the tail is just how I like it. They perform just great in powder. They are fantastic skis and a great go to for any day. Personally I think they are better than the 186 Lhasa as an all around go to ski. I highly recommend them as a go to ski when you are unsure of what the day holds or if you will be on a variety of surfaces.

FYI I am used to longer "turn radius" skis and was hesitant about the 19m it states on paper but it's definately not a 1 turn type pony if you know how to use different parts of the edge. They charge just fine.

For reference I am 5'6, 170 lbs

I have never skied the 105 and don't see any reason too. The 115 slays groomers which would probably be the only advantage to the 105 but then you would be loosing other more soft snow advantages....

[time2clmb]

not the best, not the worst skier

Missed this. If you are a tail rider do not get them.

[kc_7777]

Hi,

My two cents. I would go wider.....I have skiied Line Bacons, Blends, EPs and am now on the new Opus. Each ski was fun, but I always seem to have the most fun on the wider skiis, even when no fresh. I don't really see myself on anything less than 110 waist.

I am down to just the 2012 Opus now. Was thinking of an Influence 105 as a charging ski with the funds from the Bacons, Blends and EPs (all sold recently), but always keep thinking about the Influence 115? I'll probably just by some cheap bump skis for April slush so I can say I have a narrow ski.

Can anyone tell me if last year's Line Prophet 115 has early rise? I thought I read somewhere that it did?.

And how different is the 2012 115 Influence from the 2011 Prophet?

K

[kc_7777]

Found it I think:

2011 Line Prophet early rise tip (25cm x 5mm)

2012 Line Influence early rise tip (25cm x 6mm)

[squirlo]

Wow, thank you for all the input!

Looks like neither the 105 nor the 115 is the correct ski for those conditions.

Go for a true frontside ski that can handle a bit of crud. Look for something in a smaller 85-95 waist.

I'd suggest a Prophet 90, Rossi Experience 88, etc.

Last season I was on the Scott Crusade. 179cm size, 92mm waist, 133mm tip, traditional construction but a long shovel. No metal in it and a bit too soft for hard snow, it was hard to hold the edge. Not really trustworthy. This was kind of an appetizer for wider skis for me. It did work remarkably better in deeper and softer snow than a narrower race ski, but I could also really sense the potential that a really fat ski must have here.

+1 for sure. its hard to find any benefits of the 105 over the 115. we actually purchased the 115 and not the 105 for the shop this winter.

Nice pictures btw. of the early rise of the 105 on your shop homepage. Seems that the product descriptions on the Line HP aren't useful at all. Both early rises on 98 and 105 are constituted as 20cm x 4mm. But the the reality seems to look different:

http://www.backcountryfreeskier.com/..._2195_27838860
http://www.backcountryfreeskier.com/..._2195_26543642
http://www.backcountryfreeskier.com/..._2195_27284566

Seems that most of you would prefer the 115. Hm. Anymore thoughts?

[Dickeymotto]

I was under the impression that they were the exact same ski.

[biff chalupa]

I'm pretty sure last year's model was cap construction. This year's is sandwich.

[Dickeymotto]

Prophet 115
Influence 115

Same dimensions, construction, materials, turn radius, and sizes make me thing its the exact same ski.

[weibo]

The Prophet 115 was definitely a sidewall ski.

[biff chalupa]

I stand corrected. It was a complete ASSumption based on my prophet 100s.

[squirlo]

Hi!

Thank's for the input!

Looks like neither the 105 nor the 115 is the correct ski for those conditions.

Go for a true frontside ski that can handle a bit of crud. Look for something in a smaller 85-95 waist.

Last season I was on a Scott Crusade 133-92-122 with 15m radius in 179cm. Medium stiff flex without metal, traditional camber, no early rise but very long shovel. The edge hold wasn't really trustworthy on very hard snow, especially on higher speeds. In deeper snow I could really sense the potential of a fatter ski. The tip didn't dive, but it also wasn't really surfy. It want a wider ski with a good carving ability on hard snow. The Line Influence seems fit absolutely perfect.

+1 for sure. its hard to find any benefits of the 105 over the 115. we actually purchased the 115 and not the 105 for the shop this winter.

Hm. Are you sure that you don't mix the skis up? What I mean: http://www.backcountryfreeskier.com/...eride-ski.html and the skis in this video: http://vimeo.com/30336242 are the Influence 105, not 115. Nevertheless, I like the pics of the rocker profiles of the skis on your shop homepage.

Seems that most of you prefer the 115. Should I really go that wide? On paper 115 are a lot. On the other hand, skis like the Bent Chetler, Super 7, AK JJ etc. are also positioned as daily drivers. Hm... Anymore input?

Thanks!

[squirlo]

Finally I've decided for the 115. Maybe I'll write a review about its all-mountain-capabilities in some weeks.

Seems that they've defanged the 115 for 12/13 (see gear rumors & SIA videos). Maybe because it was too similar to the 105.

[kc_7777]

Seems that they've defanged the 115 for 12/13 (see gear rumors & SIA videos). Maybe because it was too similar to the 105.

Can anyone elaborate on the changes to the Influence 115 coming in 2013?

[JeffreyJim]

Can anyone elaborate on the changes to the Influence 115 coming in 2013?

Yes. We have a full product interview with Line (on the 115) coming up.

Changes:

1) Tip taper: Widest point of the ski moved toward the center 10-15CM (guess).
2) Slightly more tip rocker
3) Tail rocker (subtle)
4) Lighter but roughly same flex (flexes in a different pattern)
5) 192 length added.

One of the better looking skis for 2013

[ace..]

2013 115 in a 192... yeaaah those are going to be the titties

Sent from my Ally using TGR Forums