190 104’s on their way from Corbett’s. Hope they live up to the hype.
Printable View
190 104’s on their way from Corbett’s. Hope they live up to the hype.
Yes please, interested in this comparison fer sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by greasyslope
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
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.
Tail pics:
Attachment 457759
Attachment 457760
Attachment 457761
Last pic is with strap tightened at middle of ski.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The tail rocker lines look great for this kind of ski. After seeing the photos, the slightly forward mount point makes more sense, too.
I like the benefits of tail rise or a slight twin, ie slarvability, but don't want a full twin. Like I think the E110 and MF108 have to much turned up tail. Skiing switch to the road is not in my skill set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I'm seeing great deals on the 185 104. Is this one fun enough on piste for a fuck around ski for a small resort, or should I keep looking for a 96?
The O104 and O114 are a perfect mix of easy/fun and damp/burly. Perfect Whistler ski to complement rockered 104mm Ravens and 112mm Hojis.Quote:
Originally Posted by NWFlow
I think the Optics get a bit burlier as they get wider. Re the O104 and O114 that is what I’ve found. Though I don’t think you could go wrong with the O96 either, if it’s a small ski area? I have the Season Aero…which is a 96mm ski with metal that is super fun to f around with.
KC
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I am thinking to buy the optic 96/104 for tree and bump skiing in Tahoe. How do they compare to the Deathwish 104? I have the regular Deathwish for deeper day and the line blade for low angle groomer / spring skis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I skied both Blade and DW and currently have (for sale) Blade Optic 96. Can't speak for Blade Optic 104 but 96 is more versatile, better in tight spots and bumps and I suspect in up to 8-10" of pow than regular Blade. Blade carved really well on edgeble groomers but I wouldn't take it outside of groomed runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flippo
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Great info posted on the 104 and 114. Love the Fernie sticker on the 104s. Makes em better.
Does anyone here have time and comparison strengths and weaknesses with the Squad and the 114? Big ask, but this is the only place outside a Blister Deep Dive (I am not a member/no access to deep dive on the squad but their full write up on the Optic 114 was informative) to get direct compare and contrast information between the skis. https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...lade-optic-114
Blister didn't bother with a full review of the Sender Squad. The Sender Squad seems to have avoided more than the shortest blip on marketing radars and only has any minimal beta on TGR forums.
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...s-sender-squad
Getting the itch to get myself a big resort day replacement ski and those two top my list.
My last charger has a lot of time on it and could use a third stone grind. It has little rocker and about 2800 grams a ski, which is a bit much anymore and the cut and profile is not as functional as the more modern 5 point sidecuts and R/C/R balances.
190 104’s arrived from Trudeau-land today. Lined up next to my 184 M102’s (at the recommended line) they have the same shovel length. Rocker profile looks tasty. Hopeful for some fun days on them next season in the PNW.
Take them to hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
Spent today ripping slush. Got deep at times. It was +21C ( 70F) in the alpine at Blackcomb. The Optic 104s were really good (as most skis usually are in slush cause it’s so forgiving). But the O104's weight and damp feel is an asset.....they don't get deflected by deep slush, and they love to air off the many soft moguls.
Banditman - I really feel for you having to wait until next winter to ski the Optic 104. Gonna be a long summer!
KC
Glad you are loving them in summer snow, KC! [emoji6]
Life just hasn’t allowed me to get them on snow. But have done some carpet skiing and comparisons with other gear. Here they are lined up with my 186 Unleashed 108’s. The extra length is all the tail for the 190 Optic 104.
Attachment 459063Attachment 459064
Very interested in this. I will be adding 104s next near. Question is the length. I do love the m102 in 184. Very curious to hear if you think the 190 is the right length.
My 178cm Optic 104 measures same length as a 179cm E104 and my 178cm Optic 114 measure exact same length as an 180cm R11. So they measure a bit longer than stated length. And both the 104 and 114 Optics don’t ski that short to me (mounted at rec -7cm), and I’ve found they have lots of support/stability/dampness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
The beauty of the Optic is it’s combo of factors….user-friendliness + maneuverability + dampness + stability in one ski. Unlike an M102 which excels in the last factors but lacks the first two (read my rant a few posts above).
This combo of easy + semi-gnarly makes the Optic a very useful ski in the quiver. And is the key reason to own the Optic vs M102, so I wouldn’t want to go longer IMO…as you may negate the user-friendliness and maneuverability?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I re-read this Optic thread. All still applies.
Wondering if anyone is picking up last year’s Optic 104s or 114s? I’m seeing them offered at pretty good prices (eg $479-$509CDN).
I have the 104 with Pivots and 114 with STH. Mounted on rec. Both are stable, damp but still fun/easy skis for every day ripping around at speed.
This 2024 vid describes them pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tte4pHsdJZ0&t=61s
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Have a pair from ridiculously cheaper corbets deal from last spring of the 104 in 185 sitting in plastic in my storage area. Need to go get them and figure out what I want to mount them with.
I also think I need to weigh them out of curiosity. The weights from different reliable reviewers are all over the place. Skiessentials has them like a 1/2 lb a ski less than blister . Curious what they actually come in at.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Other than corbetts where you getting 479CAD?Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Steep and Cheap has 114’s for $319. No 186’s, just 178’s and 192’s.
That's one of the better deals around right now if the sizes suit you and you need a freeride powder charger.
I picked up some 114’s and can’t wait to try them, considering getting some 104’s.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
How’s the 96? Looking for something fun on low tide days but that can still ski fast and carve.
https://lineskis.com/en-us/p/blade-o...RoC_4QQAvD_BwE
Good deal here also at $375 w most sizes available.
The reason I was asking about the weight discrepancy was I was considering mounting these w a Duke PT or some other heavy hybrid binding as a travel ski for those trips I can't bring multiple pairs, but between the tailmeise and the weight potentially being >2200 gms / ski, wondering if that's just a stupid idea.
Line has them listed at 1890 gms, ski essentials has them right at 2000 , blister was like 2250 . It's a weird wide spread
I've had 96 in 184 for a few weeks last spring and it was fun, easy but could still be pushed. Since now I'm on 104 in 190, I'd probably get regular Blade for low tide days.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
The 185’s are 2250-grams (+/-). Seems like more of a slack country option than a 50/50 touring setup. YMMVQuote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
This may be a long shot, but has anyone skied both the Optic 114 and Armada Declivity X?
One pair of the 192s left at Steep n Cheap for $320.
I kinda want them as a replacement for Declivity X, and because I missed all the leftover 2023 Wildcat 118s on Black Friday.
Do it. For science.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
We actually need snow (that sticks around) before I can get out on my 186 114’s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
Like to hear how the 104s and 114s go for you when the snow allows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Just weighed them again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
2368 grams and 2308 grams. Not light. [emoji6]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
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.
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. :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowMachine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
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.