Line Blade

[SnakeMagnet]

Well getting stuck solo most of the time seems to have a silver lining then. Making flats fun eh? Sounds like a ski for Sunshine.

[PlayItLeo]

They’re insanely fun on piste. Flattish groomers are their natural habitat. Definitely mount them up for the WROD Jerry slalom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHAIR_97]

Try the blade optic

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[SnakeMagnet]

want to elaborate at all on why? Brand new; not likely anyone here's got much time on it; replacing the sick days; looks like a semi-noodly all-mountain on paper .. the blade's appeal is 90% the WTF-ness of its build and requested skiing style.

[VTskibum]

Bumping this back up now that I've had ~10 days on very low tide East Coast conditions at Sugarbush and my PA local.

As mentioned, these things are ridiculous and fun in a giggle inducing way. My home "mountain" is only about 500' with a few steep pitches and then flat run-outs back to the lift. The 169 is about perfect for this place, as mentioned they can slash a turn then carve the next two and make great small and medium size carved turns all the way back to the chair. They do have a pretty decent flex for some kick out of the tail if you load them up and airing a little side hit right into a carved turn is really fun.

I haven't had them on any true ice, but on soft groomers and slush they just rail and aren't too sketchy making longer turns. They ski bumps pretty well also, but much rounder carved turns, no zipperlines as the huge tip overlap is a bit unnerving, definitely prefer my Rustlers/more traditional ski for that purpose.

I've been getting heckled a bit by some buddies for their ridiculous width and park rats love asking me about them. When loading a 4 person chair have to offset my stance a bit so the tips don't overlap while going to the chair load line. Regardless while most likely quiver ski have been on them more days than anything else this season so far.

[TexasGortex]

I’ve also put a bunch of days on mine this year. They are just so good. Everyone should own a pair, they are the ultimate immature dad ski. Drag hips on the bunny hill, land switch off side hits, ollie over other people’s children, spray your friends, do some old man park laps, just generally be a goofball menace. They are so easy and relaxing to ski while still being super engaging and fun. Enough width and stability to take where you shouldn’t. It’s absolutely the ski I’d grab every time to just dick around inbounds with friends.

I’m probably going to buy backup pairs for both myself and my wife, that’s how great they are. They make bad days so much fun.

[VTskibum]

^^ All we've had are bad days and I love the "ultimate immature dad ski" comment as that's exactly what it is. Bunch of guys I ski with are on SL skis for our tiny hill, but those aren't nearly as fun IMO.

[PaganSkier]

I've had the same thought about a backup pair. After skiing 40 or so days on mine, I really can't image not having this ski in the quiver. Bought mine for $450 ish summer of '21. Seems like either sold out or $800?

[Conundrum]

Since there's not a Sakana thread, I'd like to say after a couple of days on 181s on 4" new each day, I had a frickin blast. I was looking at Blades but a few buddies have them if I want to borrow but I don't know if I would now. I've got some stiffer frontside skis I use a bunch and bought the Sakanas as I wanted something laid back and really different. Pretty happy with the purchase.

[ApexSkua]

180 or 188 for a normal sized person?

[Conundrum]

181 is the longest.

[Climber Joe]

I’m wondering if anyone who likes the blade has been on the blade optic skis.

[VTskibum]

I haven’t, but from geo charts compared to Optic 96 they don’t look much alike. Different taper, turn radius isn’t even close. Other than name and construction w gas pedal metal, not sure there is much similarity.

Also would be curious to hear if I’m wrong from my internet expert analysis

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ApexSkua]

181 is the longest.

D'oh... I must have confused it with something else

[babybear]

I’m wondering if anyone who likes the blade has been on the blade optic skis.

My husband has them both.
The Blade optic is much more of an all mountain ski- it's his DD right now at Jackson Hole.
I'll ask him if could post a review here when he gets home from work this evening

[lrn2swim]

Anyone here been on the old Icelantic Shaman? Demoed this model years ago at Baker. They seem similar to Blades in theory, wonder how actually they compare.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[Climber Joe]

Anyone here been on the old Icelantic Shaman? Demoed this model years ago at Baker. They seem similar to Blades in theory, wonder how actually they compare.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

I skied those. They’re not even close. The blade is far more torsionally stiff, lighter, and if I recall softer maybe.

The shaman was a mediocre attempt at a playful powder ski, the blade is a giggle machine.

[waxloaf]

I haven’t, but from geo charts compared to Optic 96 they don’t look much alike. Different taper, turn radius isn’t even close. Other than name and construction w gas pedal metal, not sure there is much similarity.

Also would be curious to hear if I’m wrong from my internet expert analysis

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think they were intended to be terribly similar, despite the name. I believe the goal was to combine the construction from the blades with the shapes from the vision series (hence, optic).

[Mustonen]

I haven’t clicked with mine yet, but I haven’t given them much of a chance. They really aren’t much of a bumpy crud/leftovers ski at all, and that’s just where I always end up finding myself if that’s available. When we have a groomer window I’ll give them a good workout on our local hill, but I’ve stopped grabbing them if there’s any promise of something besides groomers.

I hope I don’t ski them the rest of the year.

[TexasGortex]

I skied those. They’re not even close. The blade is far more torsionally stiff, lighter, and if I recall softer maybe.

The shaman was a mediocre attempt at a playful powder ski, the blade is a giggle machine.

I didn’t ski the Shamans but my wife did, and I agree they are not even close. After handling both and watching her ski each, I wouldn’t even consider them the same class of ski.

[lrn2swim]

I didn’t ski the Shamans but my wife did, and I agree they are not even close. After handling both and watching her ski each, I wouldn’t even consider them the same class of ski.

Gotcha, thanks for chiming in guys. Thought they might be similar because the shape and dimensions are definitely comparable besides the waist width.

For the record, I fucking hated the Shamans. Nearly killed me one time when I tried straight lining for a second and the left ski grabbed so hard up hill it spun me around backwards

[Conundrum]

Auto switch to the road is feature few can handle.

[kc_7777]

I’ve owned the 173cm Icelantic Shaman (when I skied Mt Baker). And I’ve owned the 176cm Line Blade.

Not similar. Shaman was meh IMO.

Blade is a blast, if you ski mellow groomers (eg Emerald or Symphony chair). It’s less good on steeps and in bumps (eg lapping Peak chair). My ski buddies ski the latter, and I found the Blade not optimal as it wants to cut across the hill on steeps.

My son loves skiing his Blades at Mt Seymour….cause it’s a small mountain, but at Whistler he uses his Hojis.

I liked the “gas pedal metal” feel of the Blades. The Blade Optic is tempting…just wish the 178cm Blade Optic was a 181cm.

The 180cm Season Aero replaced the Blade for me at Whistler. It’s more capable as a do-it-all Whistler ski, but is still fun with its -3cm mount.

KC


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[adrian.bee]

I've been on both.
Blade: Almost 10 days this year in shitty east coast manmade death crunch to natural smooth cruisers in QC. Incredible skiing sensations in most surfaces, but as others have said, steep bumps/trees are not its forte. You can still schmear and skid if needed but it takes a bit more focus. That being said, it's been my go to all year as the carves and pops are worth the effort off piste.

Optic (skied both the 92 and 104): Planted, damp, much more "chargey" than The Blade. Reminded me of something like a sVolkl blaze, really good all-around, great edge hold, familiar feeling, and probably much better at putting the landing gear down consistently. Not nearly as unique but still a high quality fun rig.

[sk8rat6587]

How's the 92 without metal? I've been toying around with the idea of those for a dad ski when I'm following the kids around.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk