Anybody get on the Line Blade Optic skis yet?

[altacoup]

Can score line blade optic 104 or Nordica enforcer 104 free for super cheap. Seems like the enforcer is burlier. But I do like a progressive mounted twin that’s mellow but can be skied super hard. Anyone with experience on both?


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[kc_7777]

Anybody get on the Line Blade Optic skis yet?

Can score line blade optic 104 or Nordica enforcer 104 free for super cheap. Seems like the enforcer is burlier. But I do like a progressive mounted twin that’s mellow but can be skied super hard. Anyone with experience on both?

Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

I’ve skied the 2021 E104 extensively. Have since sold that E104.

I’ve decided I need a heavy, 104mm ski again….that is a bit burly yet pretty playful, for inbounds (to complement my 184cm Ravens) to be the ski that I take into the really sketch spots at Whistler and Blackcomb. So it need to be really easy to ski, yet solid underfoot, but with tails that release easily.

The E104 did awesome as that kind of ski.

I’ve skied my Line Optic 114 for one day.

I’m gonna go Optic 104 instead of getting another E104.

Even though I think the E104 is a really good ski for me, based on the burliness of the 114 Optic I think the 104 Optic will be really good too. The tail on the Optic is a bit less twinned than the E104. May rip harder? But the Optic tail still has lots of early rise to release. The 114 was freaking heavy and damp and fast. I think the Optic 104 is slightly less burly than the Optic 114.

Probably can’t go wrong with either E104 or Optic 104. Also could be that I just want a change from the Enforcer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MD12]

Just a heads up, Blister says the 104 is not. Early as burly as the 114 and is a more easy going ski than the enforcer 104 (enforcer is stiffer). I haven’t skid the 104 optic but was interested in it as an easier going 104, but then just keep deciding the 104 is so easy as it is. Maybe size up on the optic 104.

[altacoup]

The Blister review states over and over that the optic 104 is soft. Which kind of surprises me. Even though line is known more as a job company they’ve made chargers over the years. And the optic 104 is billed as their charger. This would replace a green qst 106 188 that I snapped in half last week. Really liked that ski, could charge but wasn’t punishing, did the slarve to carve thing well. Problem is used ones of those are the same price as a new 104 enforcer or optic and don’t have good pricing on the new QST 106.

[Eluder]

I only spent one day on the 104 but found it boring. Definitely a preference thing, so I wouldn't say its traits are bad. They are just not what I want in this waist of ski. It's very damp and cuts through chunder as needed. I just wanted it to be more lively on the hard pack at that waist width. I felt it had no energy coming out of a turn. This all probably fits the ski well, though, with a progressive mount point it favors a more neutral skier who isn't loading the front of the ski to pop into the next turn. This isn't to say the tip couldn't handle being pressured, at least at my weight, you just aren't getting as much back compared to other skis.

[kc_7777]

Anybody get on the Line Blade Optic skis yet?

I only spent one day on the 104 but found it boring. Definitely a preference thing, so I wouldn't say its traits are bad. They are just not what I want in this waist of ski. It's very damp and cuts through chunder as needed. I just wanted it to be more lively on the hard pack at that waist width. I felt it had no energy coming out of a turn. This all probably fits the ski well, though, with a progressive mount point it favors a more neutral skier who isn't loading the front of the ski to pop into the next turn. This isn't to say the tip couldn't handle being pressured, at least at my weight, you just aren't getting as much back compared to other skis.

I re-read the Blister report on the Optic 104. And the post above.

Both don’t make not want the Optic 104.

I ski centered and don’t load up my tips. Blister thinks aggressive directional skiers may want more support from the Blade Optic 104’s shovels. Sounds to me like those people should buy a M102. That’s not me. I do want a 104mm ski that has a more centered mount point (-7cm), has deep rocker lines (yup) and feels more playful (eg. compared to heavy, stiffer, -11cm mounted skis like an M102(. I know the Enforcer 104 is a good option too. We’ll see. In the interest of science I’ll prolly try the Optic 104.

KC.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

I grabbed some Blade Optic 96’s for my youngest son and he digs them. Definitely a step up from his QST92’s.

Talked to a college aged kid skiing 114’s yesterday. He seemed to be getting every bit out of the “playful charger” attributes of that ski. Makes me want to snag some 186’s and see if I can feel young again.

[kc_7777]

I grabbed some Blade Optic 96’s for my youngest son and he digs them. Definitely a step up from his QST92’s.

Talked to a college aged kid skiing 114’s yesterday. He seemed to be getting every bit out of the “playful charger” attributes of that ski. Makes me want to snag some 186’s and see if I can feel young again.

Bandit,

I own a pair of 114s. Which means so should you.

Corbetts has em for $509CDN.

That’s like fiddy bucks US.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oltrepiave]

really interested in the 104 as a potential replacement for my old tracer108 as DD . reviews seem nice, flex, shape and overall build look decent as well

[altacoup]

Anyone know the truth length of the 190 blade optic 104?


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[altacoup]

Couldn’t resist and bought a pair of 190 104s with pivots for under $550 new via Corbetts. 19m turn radius scares me, but everyone says it isn’t hooky at all and looking down the ski tells me it’s straighter than that. I really hope it’s more compliant than the mindbender 108ti I’m on right now. I find that ski to be unbalanced and wanting of a psia turn instead of slarve/carve ability. Maybe because I mounted them +2, which still looked really far back. High hopes for this design. Damp and straight, without having to ski a ski that requires me to be dialed in all the time.

[kc_7777]

Ya I couldn't resist those prices either and got some Optic 104s to go with my 114s. Have some raw Pivots for the 104s.

The Optics are kind of like heavier Rustlers? At least the 114 felt that way (I've owned 2 pairs of Rustler 11s). And I really think the Optic 104/114 are good choices when you want a pretty easy-going ski but still with good suspension and you know for sure you don't want a rear-mounted (non-playful), traditional charger (eg M102, K108, MB108Ti). Those traditional skis will rip groomers and open bowls but are way less useful in tight stuff. Exactly the reason I was fan of the Enforcer 104 Free which had good suspension while being forgiving and maneuverable, I skied those so much cause they were so damn useful everyhwere at WB.

[snowaddict91]

Couldn’t resist and bought a pair of 190 104s with pivots for under $550 new via Corbetts. 19m turn radius scares me, but everyone says it isn’t hooky at all and looking down the ski tells me it’s straighter than that. I really hope it’s more compliant than the mindbender 108ti I’m on right now. I find that ski to be unbalanced and wanting of a psia turn instead of slarve/carve ability. Maybe because I mounted them +2, which still looked really far back. High hopes for this design. Damp and straight, without having to ski a ski that requires me to be dialed in all the time.

I'll be curious to hear how they work out for you. I was very close to pulling the trigger on that same setup.

[noslow]

The listed 19m turn radius on the Optic 104 is for the 178cm length. The 185cm is 20m and the 190cm is 21m so it shouldn’t be hooky at speed at all. Amazing deals at Corbetts right now on all of them!

[carlh]

Anyone been on the 92? They are super cheap and could be fun for a follow the little kid around and hit jumps ski instead of going to a full park ski for this old school skier