Anybody get on the Line Blade Optic skis yet?

[Bandit Man]

Do it. For science.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

+1

We actually need snow (that sticks around) before I can get out on my 186 114’s.

[MD12]

+1

We actually need snow (that sticks around) before I can get out on my 186 114’s.

curious if you weighed your 190 104s?

[Bandit Man]

curious if you weighed your 190 104s?

I did but I don’t recall the actual weight. I’ll weigh them again this week and post the weight. I want to say they were right around 2,300-grams per ski.

[altabrig]

I did but I don’t recall the actual weight. I’ll weigh them again this week and post the weight. I want to say they were right around 2,300-grams per ski.

Like to hear how the 104s and 114s go for you when the snow allows.

[Bandit Man]

curious if you weighed your 190 104s?

Just weighed them again.

2368 grams and 2308 grams. Not light. [emoji6]

[MD12]

Just weighed them again.

2368 grams and 2308 grams. Not light. [emoji6]

thank you. I gotta decide between these, 189 hotshots (even heavier) or m-free 108 192 for west coast/utah soft up to 12-18 inches. Don’t need a full on charger and really value ability to ski more centered in bumped up soft tree snow and slide and smear around, without feeling twitchy on a run-out. Weight doesn’t scare me.

[SnowMachine]

thank you. I gotta decide between these, 189 hotshots (even heavier) or m-free 108 192 for west coast/utah soft up to 12-18 inches. Don’t need a full on charger and really value ability to ski more centered in bumped up soft tree snow and slide and smear around, without feeling twitchy on a run-out. Weight doesn’t scare me.

You really sound like you have the same priorities that I have in a ski.

Man, let me mess with your program some more.... I started the year on my 183 Hotshots, but then decided to jump on my new 190 Praxis Jedi Mind Sticks when some fresh snow showed up. Immediately impressed. Jumped back on the Hotshot and now they felt short and like they wouldn't lock an edge into hard pack. Rode the Mind Sticks again yesterday. Geez, I think I might daily drive them. Didn't see that coming from a 190 long, 115 wide ski (I'm 6', 160lbs). They do it all really well and I just don't really feel the width underfoot.

Hotshots are safe for now. I think they'll be great again when the snow comes and I want to play in tight, tech terrain. We'll see. I definitely wouldn't say that the Mind Sticks are demanding, but they sure crush some variable. They love being pointed down hill, too.

At this point, and I've always felt this way, the 183 Hotshot is too short. I'd like to try the 189.

[SnowMachine]

Honestly, I think I'm really starting to have a ski "type." I like bigger, wider, heavy, skis with some stiff underfoot, but long rocker lines. I really wanted a Enforcer Pro, but Nordica killed it. The Mind Sticks fell into that slot. I think the Blade Optic 114 would be great in that slot, too. The 183 J Friend was close, but just didn't put an edge into hard snow (I'd like to try the 189 Friend). Hard to be mad at the Enforcer 110. Kinda slots in there, too (but I thought the Hotshot was more fun). I think the M-Free might be close, but sounds a bit loose for me. I'm Nordica Unleashed (the whole line) curious, too. I'm not sure it has the weight, but I keep hearing that it has the Nordica smoothness.

Sorry about my lack of help, here. Kinda rambling.

[MD12]

Honestly, I think I'm really starting to have a ski "type." I like bigger, wider, heavy, skis with some stiff underfoot, but long rocker lines. I really wanted a Enforcer Pro, but Nordica killed it. The Mind Sticks fell into that slot. I think the Blade Optic 114 would be great in that slot, too. The 183 J Friend was close, but just didn't put an edge into hard snow (I'd like to try the 189 Friend). Hard to be mad at the Enforcer 110. Kinda slots in there, too (but I thought the Hotshot was more fun). I think the M-Free might be close, but sounds a bit loose for me. I'm Nordica Unleashed (the whole line) curious, too. I'm not sure it has the weight, but I keep hearing that it has the Nordica smoothness.

Sorry about my lack of help, here. Kinda rambling.

Your last two posts were actually awesome. I loved the 183 hotshot but felt it was too short. I just picked up the 187 masterblaster and 189 hotshot. Mounted the masterblaster and skid it in sugarbush yesterday in pretty soft conditions. the 187 masterblasters were awesome and so much fun. Most telling to me was on the tighter steepish runs that are never groomed and had pretty decent sized softish random moguls and bumps and chop, some uncovered rocks to avoid, etc. they were easy in those conditions - the rocker and flex pattern made them so easy to slide around centered when needed, bash into mogule when needed, could get some energy when needed - just easy easy easy easy. i was really impressed in those conditions and that’s exactly what I’m looking for. I feel like J skis love a centered/slightly forward stance and are so forgiving of sloppy technique. never once did I feel the ski was too long or heavy.

Comparing the 189 hotshot to the 187 masterblaster (without having skied the 189 hotshot yet), hotshot seems a little softer, a bit heavier (think its like 2350 grams per ski for MB and 2450 for hotshot), hotshot has more rocker and the rocker starts earlier. I’m realizing I like skis with long low slung rocker lines - but the side effect of that is that going shorter on the ski makes it just feel a bit off. Just looking at my 183 hotshots from last year compared to these two, it seems too short and doubt I’ll ski them much except for east coast super-lazy and easy days skiing mostly tight trees/bumps.

Thinking it through, I guess my travel ski quiver will be either the 187MB or 189Hotshot (depending on how much snow I anticipate), then probably a wider ski for cat skiing and those days you get a 3-4 dump one night. 189 friend was on my list for that, but I think it’s more of a resort powder ski rather than a cat ski and I want my widest ski in that quiver to be able to do both. Maybe the jedis would fill that slot.

I’m 6’2” and about 200 lbs, and while I ski pretty hard and fast inbounds I am not a technically excellent skier and am really appreciating easy skis, being able to ski more centered and being a bit more lazy is just awesome.

Now I’m the one rambling lol.

[SnowMachine]

Your last two posts were actually awesome. I loved the 183 hotshot but felt it was too short. I just picked up the 187 masterblaster and 189 hotshot. Mounted the masterblaster and skid it in sugarbush yesterday in pretty soft conditions. the 187 masterblasters were awesome and so much fun. Most telling to me was on the tighter steepish runs that are never groomed and had pretty decent sized softish random moguls and bumps and chop, some uncovered rocks to avoid, etc. they were easy in those conditions - the rocker and flex pattern made them so easy to slide around centered when needed, bash into mogule when needed, could get some energy when needed - just easy easy easy easy. i was really impressed in those conditions and that’s exactly what I’m looking for. I feel like J skis love a centered/slightly forward stance and are so forgiving of sloppy technique. never once did I feel the ski was too long or heavy.

Comparing the 189 hotshot to the 187 masterblaster (without having skied the 189 hotshot yet), hotshot seems a little softer, a bit heavier (think its like 2350 grams per ski for MB and 2450 for hotshot), hotshot has more rocker and the rocker starts earlier. I’m realizing I like skis with long low slung rocker lines - but the side effect of that is that going shorter on the ski makes it just feel a bit off. Just looking at my 183 hotshots from last year compared to these two, it seems too short and doubt I’ll ski them much except for east coast super-lazy and easy days skiing mostly tight trees/bumps.

Thinking it through, I guess my travel ski quiver will be either the 187MB or 189Hotshot (depending on how much snow I anticipate), then probably a wider ski for cat skiing and those days you get a 3-4 dump one night. 189 friend was on my list for that, but I think it’s more of a resort powder ski rather than a cat ski and I want my widest ski in that quiver to be able to do both. Maybe the jedis would fill that slot.

I’m 6’2” and about 200 lbs, and while I ski pretty hard and fast inbounds I am not a technically excellent skier and am really appreciating easy skis, being able to ski more centered and being a bit more lazy is just awesome.

Now I’m the one rambling lol.

I rode the Mind Sticks again today. Conditions are all over the place. Soft, thin, refreeze and frozen. I hate to admit that I've hammered the bases of three day old skis, but that's where we are. I'm going into work season this week, coaching big mountain, and I think these are my daily skis. They certainly aren't mogul skis or slalom skis, but they're really fun and seemingly very versatile. I need to get them into deep fresh and chopped up pow to really formulate a final opinion, but I bet I'm happy with them.

For reference, my soft snow skis are 184 Bent Chetlers with Shifts (touring) and 186 Faction La Machine Max. Neither of those really see resort time. Prior to the Mind Sticks my pow skis last year were the 183 Friend (too short) and 185 Enforcer 110 (rode them everyday, but they were lifeless). The Mind Sticks feel like a snappier Enforcer 110.

[MD12]

I rode the Mind Sticks again today. Conditions are all over the place. Soft, thin, refreeze and frozen. I hate to admit that I've hammered the bases of three day old skis, but that's where we are. I'm going into work season this week, coaching big mountain, and I think these are my daily skis. They certainly aren't mogul skis or slalom skis, but they're really fun and seemingly very versatile. I need to get them into deep fresh and chopped up pow to really formulate a final opinion, but I bet I'm happy with them.

For reference, my soft snow skis are 184 Bent Chetlers with Shifts (touring) and 186 Faction La Machine Max. Neither of those really see resort time. Prior to the Mind Sticks my pow skis last year were the 183 Friend (too short) and 185 Enforcer 110 (rode them everyday, but they were lifeless). The Mind Sticks feel like a snappier Enforcer 110.

did you get the standard #4 flex? And how would you say the flex compares to the hotshot or friend? Thanks for this info man, I’m pretty interested in these. Maybe they’re a bit like a center mounted nomad 115 with a little more tip and tail taper?

[altabrig]

Heavy arrival. Yeee!

[Velomayniac]

What an overrated boring ski

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Blasphemy!

[Duffman]

Just grabbed my 185 104 out of storage and weighed then. 2240 and 2260 g each ski.

[altabrig]

Just grabbed my 185 104 out of storage and weighed then. 2240 and 2260 g each ski.

190 104s are 2350 each on the bathroom scale.
192 114s are 2575 on the bathroom scale. Lighter than my Motherships.

[kc_7777]

Skied Sat/Sun at WB in low-tide conditions ranging from slush to dirt to ice to 3-4” chalky pow.

Skied my 180 Armada Stranger, 180 Season Aero and 178 (measure 179) Blade Optic 104.

Armadas at -7.5, Aeros at -3 and Optics at -6.7.

All three skis were good in the marginal conditions. The Optic 104 was my fav. Damper and carves better than the other two. But tail still feels loose when you wanna throw it sideways.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Duffman]

Good info. Mildly considering putting Duke PTs on mine as a mostly resort / little bit of side country travel ski, but the weight at 2250gms plus the fact the PTs are basically made of depleted uranium (I got 1400gms w brake on the same kitchen scale as the 104s) might be a bit too heavy for my fat ass even for that role.

[altabrig]

Damper and carves better than the other two. But tail still feels loose when you wanna throw it sideways.

Damper and carves is encouraging. I expect I will be adjusting my stance to more upright. They are forward mounted a cm or so compared to my trusty Motherships - the grandma titanal mapleblock 2900 gram skis to the Optics. I have been keeping them going a while because they are cadillacs and crush. The tails are about the same length behind center on the 195 Mothers and 192 Optics. Different animal though, as the Moships' tails are pretty flat (except the very tip) with no tail rocker.



I have a few thoughts to throw out for feedback before I drill, tap, and screw.

I flat barred, with the light behind the tru bar, the bases of the Optic 114s and they are flat enough maybe 1/2 of a front slightly convex shovel on one ski way less than a mil of light showing on one ski up in the shovel well into the rocker. Should be a non-issue.

The 104s have slight concavity in the shovels and tails so they are railed. This would make a cambered ski without much rocker that drives into turns from the shovels and out through the tails hooky and hard to release. These Optic 104s are not that ski. Given that this is way up into the rocker section, do you think it will effect the on piste performance to necessitate a grind? Not worried about the skis in crud, chop, or pow. I tune all my own but don't grind bases on my own, I pay to put em through the Montanas and Wintersteigers (usually what is most cost effective)– used the Montana at whatever the Level 9 on 33rd in SLC was called last time I had grinding done. I have filed straight skis flat, but not new modern rockered skis and I will never. Don't really want to $tone grind new ones either if I can avoid it.

Not sure this tip and tail concavity will make much difference up in the rocker, given where the ski will engage and release through a carve when bent? Maybe as much difference as atomic convex tips or DPS SPOON helping to plane and get surfier in pow and crud...not much at best. But I could be way off.

My question above, poorly written, was to consider the slight convexity's effect on the 104s hard snow hookyness given the occurrence is only in the rocker of the shovels and tails and is not where a ski like the optic engages and normally releases in a turn. It may not create a hooky stuck turn like a railed full camber ski would.
Both pairs of Optics are flat bases under feet through the underfoot camber and start of the front and rear rocker with the flat bar and light test.

[kc_7777]

My optic 104s are not hooky at all. Not sure if you need a base grind above…my thinking is any ski that is railed should be ground flat? I’d just do it so you’re not thinking about it.

One comment on skiing the Optic 104. I skied with a level 4 instructor on Sunday (he was on 78mm Head Magnum carving skis) and he was skiing behind me and then commented on the chair that I was skiing well (eg that I wwas carving). He’s never commented on my skiing before.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altabrig]

My optic 104s are not hooky at all. Not sure if you need a base grind above…my thinking is any ski that is railed should be ground flat? I’d just do it so you’re not thinking about it.

One comment on skiing the Optic 104. I skied with a level 4 instructor on Sunday (he was on 78mm Head carving skis) and he was skiing behind me and then commented on the chair that I was skiing well (eg I was carving). He’s never commented on my skiing before).


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Thanks for the insight. Railed is bad. I have not problem re doing the base bevel and edges. Just hate starting off stone grinding a new ski that should be flat.

Sounds like you are on great ski for you. Looking forward to dialing mine in and riding them. The concavity is a bummer but it is only out on the tips and tails not underfoot or the begining of rocker. How much of the tips and tails stay in the carve when really pushing them on the groom?

The 114 is flat without the issues.

[Bandit Man]

KC - your post inspired me to finally mount up my 190 104’s today. Put Warden 13 demos so I can share with my kid and because why not add more mass? [emoji6]

Taking them out Wednesday.

[altabrig]

KC - your post inspired me to finally mount up my 190 104’s today. Put Warden 13 demos so I can share with my kid and because why not add more mass? [emoji6]

Taking them out Wednesday.

Nice. I'll br doing the same once I get my bsses sorted. Have you checked your 104 bases from the factory?

I rechecked both 104s and 114s and both seem a bit concave.

104s

[Bandit Man]

Just checked my 104’s with a true bar. No issues. Look quite flat. No light coming through.

[kc_7777]

Banditman - I think you’re gonna like the 104’s. They’re a KC ski….kinda damp/burlyish yet so easy to ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[i_like_powder]

Another size question. I'm 5'9, 160lbs, posted last year about what 104 optics to get, ended up getting the 178s. For years I've skied 180-183s more or less. Well I've got 2 days in my 104s and theyre sick. Stable but playful, can be pushed relatively hard but also easy to ski, a great every day ski at Targhee. However at times, especially in softer snow, I felt like they weren't enough platform for me. I might just need to get used to them more but I thought they skied short.
Now I want some 114s. Should I just sack up and go for the 186s or will the 178s suffice? I'll bring them out any day there's more than a couple inches of new snow. I'm also moving to AK next year and will have Alyeska as my home base, so I think the 186s will play better there for me.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk