Printable View
Got the 104s mounted. Should get out on them a few times before the lifts close. They feel heavy for a 104. Looking forward to getting on these and will report back.
Mounted on rec (-6.8cm). Pics of tip/tail splay below:
Attachment 455443
Attachment 455444
Attachment 455445
Attachment 455446
Attachment 455447
Attachment 455448
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Looks like your account may have been hacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
You said you mounted on the line…
In all seriousness, though...the rocker profile looks great on those. I'm tempted to try a 185 or 190, but split on sizing and already bought too many skis from Corbett's.
That’s what I readQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Current quiver……8 of 10 are on the line….and the other 2 are only at +1cm.
What is going on!
I too like the looks and weight of these Optics.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I really want some 104 insights. I have my 184 K108 for days when it's variable and 192 MFree for the uber soft and deep days when I'll be off trail 90% of the time. But I need something a little more easygoing then those two that doesn't completely fall apart. The 186 Unleashed I picked up this winter is close, but I would prefer a looser ski with some backbone. My use case is skiing off trail with my 15-yo who's getting into freeriding but he's not a hard charger. My Enforcer 104 feels a bit too on piste oriented and not really loose despite the ample tail rocker.
I know...first world gear geek problems...
I’ll compare to E104 and UL108 this weekend for ya.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nice! Looking at those two and the Unleashed 108 as possible mid quiver of 3 skis . Maybe a Rustler 10 also but I've heard it doesn't hold up in crud or w speed as muchQuote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
You been on the Hotshots yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Silly easy to ski at any speed.
Size up.
I’ve come very close to buying 183 cm Hotshots many times…..
Just got to Whistler. Having a few frosty IPAs to get me ready to test the Optic 104s tomorrow…..
Attachment 455815
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Mini review of the 2023 Line Blade Optic 104 after 1 day. Will add more later after a few more days.
Me: 5’7” (170 cm), 170 lbs, ski Whistler and Pow Highway 50+ days a year.
Conditions: mixed bag at Whistler. Some new snow from a few days ago, packed pow, sketchy visibility, ice and soft slush. Spent the day lapping Harmony and Red Chair. Peak was a white out.
Mount: I’m right on the Optic’s rec (-6.8cm). The rec mount feels like it’s on the perfect spot on this ski. Far enough back to fly over stuff. But it’s not -11cm. It’s f’ing perfect.
Length: the 178cm Optic measures exact same when side by side with a 179cm Nordica Enforcer 104 Free. It’s a 179cm.
My take…after 1 day.
It’s like Line went and made a ski just for me. It’s got pretty significant tip and tail rocker, so it skis easy in tight spots and in bumps. But it’s damp feeling and very solid at speed. Motors over and through soft chop/crud. And it holds an decent edge when you lay it over and carve on groomers. But you can also slarve the tails, which is so useful. Floated me fine in 6” of fresh.
Note the Optic 104 weight feels pretty similar to the Enforcer 104. Feels solid on your feet. The gas pedal metal construction is very damp. With the Optic you get good edge grip when on groomers but with a pretty loose ride off trail and in softer snow. I didn’t really find anything that the Optic 104 does not do…and I think it’s a better overall ski than the both the E104 and the UL108. The Optic is looser (better) in the tails than the UL108.
Not sure what more to say here other than it is a very very useful ski. Capable. Fun. Forgiving. Burly. Comfortable and easy from the first turn. Never once did it feel out of place whatever the snow conditions, whatever the terrain or your speed (does well at slow speeds and at mach speeds).
Some rocker pics of the Optic 104:
Attachment 455890
Attachment 455891
Attachment 455892
Attachment 455894
Here is a family Optic pic…a bonus is that the 104 graphic is different but is close enough to the 114 graphic that my skier wife didn’t even realize I was on new skis today.
Attachment 455893
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Tricking the wife is a super bonus. I was really hoping my skis from Corbetts would show up when the lady is at work. But looks like it’ll be the opposite. Show up when I’m at work and she’s at home. Your review sounds positive.
Some great info there, KC! I especially appreciate the comparisons to the UL108 and E104.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
I only skied my E104’s once this season and opted for the less damp but more agile UL108 for those in between storm cycles but not relegated to the groomers days. Something that is a tad more damp than the UL108 with better suspension and a looser tail (when needed) is what I’m honing in on. Sounds like the Blade Optic 104 is getting really close.
Now to figure out length. My UL108 is a 186 and feels perfect. My E104 is a 191. I like the larger radius you get on that ski when moving from the 186 to 191, but it’s not as fun/easy off trail.
I’m thinking the 185 Optic 104 should be plenty but I’m 200-lbs and I don’t want to over power it. Maybe I just drop 10-15-lbs this summer like my wife nags name about and I solve the problem! [emoji6]
Thanks again for the mini-review.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Sleeper April pow day at Whistler yesterday!
The Optic 104s slashed and carved the pow so well that I didn’t ski down to my truck for my Hojis. That’s saying something.
Bonus was how well they skied the slushy mank down to Creekside at the end of the day.
Very very happy with the 104s. Like a funner Enforcer 104.
Attachment 456123
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nice! And I’m jealous.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Thoughts on length? How does the 104 feel length-wise compared to equivalent length E104 Free or UL108? I like the idea of the 185 to keep it playful for trees and tight spaces.
The 178cm Optic measures just a tad longer than a 179cm E104.
I was -6.30 (+2.5cm) cm on the 179 E104 and was -6.0cm on the 180 Unleashed 108.
The “179” Optic (at its rec of -6.8cm) feels/skis a bit longer than my 179cm E104 and feels a bit shorter than the 180 UL108. I think the Optic tail shape is perfect. The tail rocker works, as the tails release when you want them too...…whereas the tails of the 180cm Unleashed could be a bit more loose IMO?
I’d go 185cm Optic 104. Blister says the 185 straight pulls at 184.4. It’ll measure/feel like a 186cm I bet.
This ski is so good in tight sketch. So you don’t want to over length. I haven’t once felt mine are too short.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Man this ski sounds so good, i would love to try it!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Pretty much by accident I bought Blade Optic 96 in 184. Very responsive in the morning refrozen groomers and tons of fun once things warm up. Great carver but I could fairly easily overpower those short soft tips, they don't like to be stepped on. Great in bumps and generally I hate bumps. Very balanced in the air. I see them as the perfect dad's pair when skiing with kids and family. They reward active style with small to medium turns. It definitely got my interest that I'll be ordering 104 in 190.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Keep hearing about softer tips and tails ,stiffer underfoot w these skis. For those of us 200lbs ish, would the tips be overpowered or is there enough heft to make this work. Not looking for a firm crud charger , but could the tips here hold up at speed for bigger people?
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Haven't personally tried 104 or 114, but based on Blisters comparison and some feedback here, Blade Optic adds stiffness as the waist width and length increase. So out of 3 metal laminated, 96 in short length will be the softest where 114 in 192cm will be the heaviest and stiffest .Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
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 .Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
Attachment 456578
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
Yup. Agree with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
My 178 104 Optic skis like a 180cm.
The 114 Optic is even damper and chargier.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by i_like_powder
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
I skied eddies )1300 vert) at Alta in 5 turns on the 104. They’re very stable.
Nice set up banditman…here goes….Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
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
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.
Would a lighter hotshot, softer mindbender 108, or smoother rustler 10 be fair comps for the 104?
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'tQuote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
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
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.
Anybody know what the 104 190 weighs?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sooth Ski measured it a 2315gQuote:
Originally Posted by slowroastin
Can anyone compare the Optic 96 to the 23/24 Rustler 9. Also 104 vs R10?