Anybody get on the Line Blade Optic skis yet?

[Duffman]

The 190s I ordered arrive tomorrow. I did go to evo slc and flexed a pair they had there. They didn’t feel soft to me at all, had a very nice round flex. Sometimes I really disagree with blister on their flex ratings. I also have some mindbender 108ti, that blister says have a very soft tip. I don’t find them to be very soft at all but rather a bit stiffer than middle of the road. Only thing I’m worried about with the optic is will it be damp enough. People say the mindbender is damp and I couldn’t disagree more and I’m pretty sure they’re made in the same factory. I plan to mount them tomorrow night and ski them Thursday, as long as my golf game after skiing tomorrow doesn’t devolve into a boys night of drinking. Based on hand flexing and eye balling I have very high expectations for these skis. The flex of the 114s seemed very similar and I’d be interested in those if I didn’t have 10 pairs of pow skis. The shape of both seem really nice smooth lines and nothing too abrupt.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

You sold me . Corbett's deal is so cheap and I have a bunch of wardens and warden demos sitting around, so why the hell not. Went 185 which may be smallish for me vs the 190 for more EC tree /bump use as well as travel .

[Bandit Man]

You sold me . Corbett's deal is so cheap and I have a bunch of wardens and warden demos sitting around, so why the hell not. Went 185 which may be smallish for me vs the 190 for more EC tree /bump use as well as travel .

Good for you for pulling the trigger! Looks like you got the last 185’s from Corbett’s. I’ll have to settle for some 190’s or just dream of skiing these all summer:

[altacoup]

Got out on my 190s today. 4 inches of cream over ice. These things absolutely rip. Super damp. Good platform under foot but the softer tip just rides up over chop. Plenty of tail for super quick direction changes or landing airs. But the very end of the tail is soft enough to not be punishing. Radius feels longer than stated but still easy to turn. Wish I would’ve bought the 185 to and might pony up for the 114. The construction is excellent

[kc_7777]

Got out on my 190s today. 4 inches of cream over ice. These things absolutely rip. Super damp. Good platform under foot but the softer tip just rides up over chop. Plenty of trail for super quick direction changes or landing airs. But the very end of the tail is soft enough to not be punishing. Radius feels longer than stated but still easy to turn. Wish I would’ve bought the 185 to and might pony up for the 114. The construction is excellent

Yup. Agree with all that.

My 178 104 Optic skis like a 180cm.

The 114 Optic is even damper and chargier.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[i_like_powder]

I’m very intrigued by this ski. Im 5’9, 160lbs. Aggressive skier with a more forward stance and with Targhee as my home mountain. I generally ski skis in the 180-185 range. Older model 184 4frnt devastators are my current everyday ski and I’m overall happy with that length but it’s practically center mounted. Should I go 179 or 185?
I tour on a 181 line vision and I feel like that’s a perfect length for me, I wish these optics came in that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[slowroastin]

I’m very intrigued by this ski. Im 5’9, 160lbs. Aggressive skier with a more forward stance and with Targhee as my home mountain. I generally ski skis in the 180-185 range. Older model 184 4frnt devastators are my current everyday ski and I’m overall happy with that length but it’s practically center mounted. Should I go 179 or 185?
I tour on a 181 line vision and I feel like that’s a perfect length for me, I wish these optics came in that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

If you are happy with the 181 Vision I’d go 179 Optic. They measure long/true to size.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Robik]

Being 6'2, 185 and generally prefer longer and stiffer skis I had a blast today on 184 Blade Optic 96. Sleeper pow with about 6" of fresh on top of refrozen. They float and drift much better than 191 M102 that I was on previously. Carve really well on groomers as long as I don't overpower the tips. My only complaint is the length, I wish they were 188-189. Looks like Blade Optic 104 in 190 is the answer.
On a side note, anyone in opposite situation and wants to trade?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

The Blade Optic 104 is everything I wanted the M102 to be…..damp, stable and not an a-hole in tight, scary spots. And it has a reasonable mount point.

Re above the Optic 104 measures +1cm from its posted length IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

The Blade Optic 104 is everything I wanted the M102 to be…..damp, stable and not an asshole in tight spots. With a reasonable mount point.

Optic 104 measures +1cm from posted length IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This comment made my smile, as someone who loves the M102 but also appreciates your style and where you ski. What's the stability comparison between the two? I expect the M102 to have a higher top end, but curious how you would describe the delta. What's the difference on groomers? How about cruising through chop?

[altacoup]

I skied eddies )1300 vert) at Alta in 5 turns on the 104. They’re very stable.

[kc_7777]

This comment made my smile, as someone who loves the M102 but also appreciates your style and where you ski. What's the stability comparison between the two? I expect the M102 to have a higher top end, but curious how you would describe the delta. What's the difference on groomers? How about cruising through chop?

Nice set up banditman…here goes….

I last skied the M102 a couple of years ago at Blackcomb. I remember skiing smooth, fast groomers on the M102 on Catskinner Chair before the alpine opened. I got going so fast my eyes were watering inside my goggles. I was on the ski’s edge the entire run. Fast, big-arcing turns. Felt like I was on rails. If I ate it at the the speeds I reached I would have died. At the chair, the people I were skiing with were like “WTF”, you just took off and didn’t slow down. There was no better ski to be on than the M102 at that speed on groomers. Cause the M102’s tails allow you to lock in more (on groomers).

So ya the M102 is a hero on groomers and has the higher top end.

But at a cost….

The rest of that day we hiked Spankys and got into Ruby Bowl from the high entrance. Lots of rocks. It’s steep and exposed and you don’t want to fall. You had to slither and slide around the rocks to get in. On the edge of a cliff.
The M102 turned from hero into kind of an asshole. Then we skied tight bumps and trees in Fraggle. Same thing. A real prick.

Whereas I find that the Optic 104 rips the groomers, at say 90% of the M102’s stability. It’s damp and stable enough, though its upturned tails don’t quite lock in the same as the M102. But it will be good for 99% of the speeds that I can and will ski.

The difference is the Optic 104 just does the tight and really steep sketchy stuff way better…. eg. like it’s your best friend who’s trying to help you.

So the question is who do you want to hang around with….a good buddy that you are completely comfortable with but you buy the beers or that rich prick that irritates you, but he buys, even though you still feel like slapping him sometimes?

My whole thesis and value system of ski buying is that your skis should rip and still be somewhat easy to ski, especially off trail in really steep terrain. And I avoid skis that rip but are more difficult/less easy to ski off trail in sketchy areas.

I think you will ski faster overall (and ski more difficult terrain better) on a ski that is easy to ski, yet rips (eg Optics). And you will ski slower overall, and have to be more careful in difficult terrain on a ripper ski, that is not “easy” to ski (eg M102).

In my last 100 ski days at Whistler Blackcomb I can’t imagine a day where the slightly higher top end of an M102 (benefit mostly on groomers) would ever offset the benefit of skiing a ski that is more maneuverable and easy to ski off trail (eg Optic 104).

So 0/100 is the the number of times I’d pick the M102 over the Optic 104 at WB. 0%. Maybe if I skied somewhere different that had shitty terrain off piste, and where we did groomers all day I would change my mind?

You just have to have a big enough ego that you don’t mind being slighted in Tech Talk by the dick-waving, M102 tgr skiers who go on and on about the stability of the M102.

My message to those M102 skiers is for fucks sakes go spend time on a ski that has a -7cm mount, is damp and maneuverable, and then get off the damn groomers, use your shins to drive the ski from a centered stance and go ski some steep, hard stuff.

You’re welcome.

Love ranting btw.

PS. The Optic is also better cruising through chop IMO. Still damp and heavy so it doesn’t get bucked around. Even when skiing pretty fast in chop. Because you are not skiing at the stupid mach groomer speeds, the M102 does not have its advantage here.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altabrig]

Last two replies are great beta. Line's own beta is contradictory on the 104 and 114. One marketing bite says the 104 is built more for charging the fall line than the 114. Another states the 114 is the burlier heavy build charger.

Sounds like both widths can handle it well without being the rear mounted down the fall line monsters that can be more than a handful in steep exposed variable conditions in which they should shine.

Like to hear a direct comparison between the Optic 104 and Enforcer 104 Free, if I didn't miss it earlier in this thread.

[bry]

Would a lighter hotshot, softer mindbender 108, or smoother rustler 10 be fair comps for the 104?

[altacoup]

I also own mindbender 108ti 186. The 190 optic 104 is way better. The very end of the tail might be softer. But it’s way damper and has a much higher speed limit, imo. If I still skied in comps I’d ski the 104 over the Mindbender every time. Mindbender might be marginally better in deep pow, but then I’m skiing a pow ski. In all other conditions the 104 is way better.

[SirVicSmasher]

I also own mindbender 108ti 186. The 190 optic 104 is way better. The very end of the tail might be softer. But it’s way damper and has a much higher speed limit, imo. If I still skied in comps I’d ski the 104 over the Mindbender every time. Mindbender might be marginally better in deep pow, but then I’m skiing a pow ski. In all other conditions the 104 is way better.

Mindbender in 193 is a missle. Tbh I haven't been on the 104 (I don't ski skis that skinny) but the 114 and mb 108 are extremely similar the tail and mount is the only difference I can find. Honestly the mb is more playful than the 114 . If the tail released on the 114 it would be Gucci but it doesn't

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

Skiing deep slush in the sun at Blackcomb tomorrow....supposed to be +14C in the alpine (58 Fahrenheit for you 'mericans).

104 Optic or 114 Optic?

Re question above. I think the 114 Optic is slightly burlier than the 104 Optic, but not that much. The 114 just feels more substantial due to its extra girth. But I have only had 1 day on the 114 compared to 4 days on the 104.

Also I have skied the Enforcer 104 a lot in the last few years (really liked) and had some days on the Unleashed 108 (liked but 108mm skis don’t have a place in my quiver ). Comments in posts above too. To summarize the Optic 104's tails are better than the Unleashed 108 (Optic feels less locked in), and regarding the E104 vs Optic 104 comparison…. they are both really good options for a damp, heavy ski that is easy to ski and if you don't hate yourself and have not drank the -11cm mount M102 kool-aid. I'd be happy with either ski. The Optic 104 may be slightly more maneuverable than the E104...though I had my E104s at +2cm (-6.75) and they were pretty maneuverable. My Optics are on the line (-6.8cm).

KC

[greasyslope]

Can anybody compare the 104 to the Dynastar Mfree 108? Most curious about their relative top ends, especially for those on the heavier end of the spectrum.

[slowroastin]

Anybody know what the 104 190 weighs?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[J. Barron DeJong]

Anybody know what the 104 190 weighs?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Sooth Ski measured it a 2315g

[rainy512day]

Can anyone compare the Optic 96 to the 23/24 Rustler 9. Also 104 vs R10?

[Bandit Man]

190 104’s on their way from Corbett’s. Hope they live up to the hype.

[zlatham]

Can anybody compare the 104 to the Dynastar Mfree 108? Most curious about their relative top ends, especially for those on the heavier end of the spectrum.

Yes please, interested in this comparison fer sure.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Fred Pabst]

Considering the 190 cm Optic 104 from corbetts. Not usually my style of ski but the heavyish layup with Ti layering has got me intrigued. I've never skied a Line and don't really like twin tips. Trying to get a visual on the amount of tail rise. Had some time on the qst 106 in 188cm and was underwelmed, but these sound like they have a little more beef.

[kc_7777]

Tail pics:





Last pic is with strap tightened at middle of ski.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

The tail rocker lines look great for this kind of ski. After seeing the photos, the slightly forward mount point makes more sense, too.