The answer is always Bodacious, shame they're not made anymore.
Heritage's FL113 in the heaviest build would be the closest fuck-the-snow i'd imagine. Just a lot larger turn radius.
Printable View
The answer is always Bodacious, shame they're not made anymore.
Heritage's FL113 in the heaviest build would be the closest fuck-the-snow i'd imagine. Just a lot larger turn radius.
What an overrated boring skiQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeMagnet
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Only rode the bodacious for a few runs but that was 118 underfoot of rred white and black get out of the way. Must have been a decade ago, but it was April at Alta after a big dump which makes any ski a multiple better.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeMagnet
So the latest enforcer frees are a bit softer than the old ones? Has someone compared the 115 to the Optic 114? Wonder how long the Optic 114 will last? Two seasons?
Anyone got a Sender Squad comparison with Optic? Any love for M-Pros here?
Just put my son on some 96’s which were a step up from some Salomon QST92’s. More stable yet looser in powder. He’s only 115-lbs but they upped his confidence and capabilities.
I’ve got some raw Pivot 15s that I think are gonna end up on some Optic 104s.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
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
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
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
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
Anyone know the truth length of the 190 blade optic 104?
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
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.
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.
I'll be curious to hear how they work out for you. I was very close to pulling the trigger on that same setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
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!
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
They sound great for that. Blister seemed to like them for spring skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlh
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I had the 92 at the start of the season. Real fun and so easy to ski everywhere, doesn’t hold an edge well on firm groomers. The only issue I had was it’s durability. Thin base and edge; I got a core shot super easy. If coverage is good, great ski and floats really well for its width. I shifted to the 96 as it’s stability way better.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thinking about the 96 in a 184. How're you liking that model?
What length? Want to unload the 92s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembyguy
All blade optics Are 30 percent off atm
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
186 Optic 114’s on their way. Probably won’t get on them until next season, though.
Passed them on a few months agoQuote:
Originally Posted by carlh
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Real good ski wouldn’t want anything shorter that 184. The tails aren’t as forgiving as the 92 but still easy to ski and good float for its widthQuote:
Originally Posted by NWFlow
Any fresh snow I’d wanting to be on the whitedot Altum 104. It’s my go to at the min, carves extremely well as a bonus!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah I'm 6'1" 170 lbs and wonder if they're too short. Might just give em a try though. Thanks for the reply!
Nice work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I’m mounting my new 104’s this week.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
looking forward to some beta once you try them. Have you measured actual length on those?Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Anyone comment or compare the 114 v blackops 118?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The Blister Boys did in their Deep Dive comparison. They claim the BO118 has better suspension/high seed stability and is the better carver. They say the Optic 114 is more nimble at slow speeds and floats a bit better. The Optic 114 also comes in a 192. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pembyguy
I won't get my 186 114's until after the lift-accessed season is done locally, so I cannot comment until next winter.
I find it hard to believe anyone could say the 114 is easy to maneuver at low speeds.
Quite the opposite is true. Ski likes to go fast and fast only.
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
I’d say that’s true for the 186 vs BO118, however they have pretty different feels. The Blade optic feels like a looser rustler that lets you slarve the turn more versus finish the carve, the BO118 is fully in the freestyle/playful charger category and is less fussy about perfect technique and better for slarving and surfing around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
IE if you don’t like center mounted jib skis the blade optic gives you some play, but is also more traditional in the stances and styles that it accepts.
But compared to a Blackops specifically? BO is less tapered, less rockered, and stiffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
They compared the 186 114, so you’re probably right. I really like the idea of a looser Rustler 11, so I went with the 186.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
SVS - you’re on the 192’s, right?
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Thanks for the feedback guys. The backops has always intrigued me, I liked the og bibby when I had it and am considering a heavier wide ski that isn’t too demanding. I’m hearing that the optic 114 isn’t that ski?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The 186 optic 114 is easier to ski than the 190 bibby.Quote:
Originally Posted by pembyguy
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk