Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowMachine
Heavy arrival. Yeee!
Attachment 479150
Blasphemy!Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
192 114s are 2575 on the bathroom scale. Lighter than my Motherships.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Attachment 479965
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
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.
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.
Attachment 480021Attachment 480022
Nice. I'll br doing the same once I get my bsses sorted. Have you checked your 104 bases from the factory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I rechecked both 104s and 114s and both seem a bit concave.
104s
Attachment 480028
Just checked my 104’s with a true bar. No issues. Look quite flat. No light coming through.
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
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
I’m 5’7”, 170 lbs on the 178 cm 104 and 178 cm 114. The 114 Optic measures exactly like a 180cm (eg side by side is exact same length as a Rustler 11 in 180cm). The 178 Optic same length as a 179 Nordica Enforcer 104.Quote:
Originally Posted by i_like_powder
I find the 104 Optic easy yet still enough ski. The 114 Optic is definitely “more” ski than the 104. See my quick review above. The 114 is a great inbounds pow ski.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
104 = WOW!!
Attachment 480459
Do tell more...
Better question- where did you find the soft white stuff to ski on?
Yup!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Looking forward to your comments! Merry Xmas bandit!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It’s amazing how underrated these skis are. So versatile and great on snow feel, damp and chargy yet loose and easy.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
+1,000!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Color me intrigued!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Thanks for the info. That makes mean feel pretty good about going with the 178, but part of me thinks I should just get both now. The 178 for more similar feel to the 104 on lower tide days and the 186 for a real deal big mtn pow charger.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
I might be wrong. But I believe your a fan of the mfree 108? How would you compare the 2. I’ve only taken 2 runs in the mfree, and was not a fan. Too much sidecut in the tip just like the cham series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
We finally got some new snow (that didn't get rained on) here in Western WA, so I took out my 190 Line Blade Optic 104's for the first time. Here are my initial impressions:
Skier Info: 5' 8", 200-lbs
Skis Info: 2023 Blade Optic 104, 190-cm length, mounted with Salomon Warden 13 demos and skied on the recommended line
Boots: Tecnica Cochise 130 Dyn
Conditions: 5" of fresh on top of a a firm base...but decently bonded overnight; Soft groomers which didn't last long; soft and deep off-piste, but variable in most spots.
Initial Impressions - Stable, damp, yet agile, loose, and just enough "playfulness" to be fun.
I've only been on these one day and the conditions were favorable, so take that into consideration. Right out of the gate, on the steep-ish groomers I started on, these felt so stable and planted, I was blown away. The mid-section feels so solid and confidence inspiring. I skied them with a more centered stance, with a slight bias towards the shovels, which worked well. Carved with confidence and held a edge well at high speed. I felt no need to back off. With a high-edge angle, I was able to get some fairly tight carves and rapid edge to edge linked turns when I had the room (i.e. no holiday gapers in the immediate area).
I expected the extremities to behave a bit more like a Rustler (softer and flappy), but these were different. Yes, the tips and tails are a bit softer, but not in a way that feels like a hinge point. Softer than the mid-section, but still stout enough to handle variable while soft enough to get the skis to float easily. I need to get them out in deeper powder, but I have the sense that these will "punch above their weight" when it comes to float in deep snow.
I have a bunch of 10X waisted skis and most lean towards either firm snow biased (Enforcer 104) or soft snow biased (MFree 108). The Blade Optic 104 somehow sits right in the center of that spectrum (with perhaps a slight bias towards soft conditions) in a very unique way. I love the Katana K108 for those in between conditions, but they really shine on-piste and wide-open conditions, but leave something to be desired in really deep snow or tight spaces, where I want more float and a looser feel in the tail. On the other hand, the Mfree 108 is a blast in deep snow, is so loose in tight spaces and trees, but gives up a bit on fast groomers or in firmer conditions. With those as my guard-rails, the BO104 takes the stability of the Katana and blends it with the looseness of the MFree108...and the results are dang impressive. Would I rather have the MFree 108 on my feet on a deep powder day...definitely. Same goes with the K108 on a firm day. But for those in between days, when I'm skiing many different zones and conditions, the BO104 is going to get some serious consideration.
I like heavy damp skis. Plus the 190 BO104 is heavy and I made it even heavier with the demo clamps. It was very evident when I stepped into them that they was a lot of mass on my feet. Yet, they are so easy to throw sideways. So easy to drift that tail. They hold a carved turn well, but allow you to feather that tail and go from locked in to loose and pivoty in a way that is almost magic. I don't know how the ski performance is affected in shorter lengths that shed some weight, but I suspect that the 185 is close to the 190 (I think there is about 100-grams difference per ski between the two).
I wanted to make a final ski comparison. I've skied the 186 and 191 Nordica Enforcer 104 for a few years now. It leans towards on piste performance and I've always wished that it felt looser in deep snow. Well, the BO104 trades a bit of that absolute locked in carving performance for that soft snow looseness and performance I find lacking in the Enforcer. I need to ski them back to back, but I feel like I want to get rid of my Enforcer 104's and Unleashed 108's since the BO104 beats both of those skis in every area but carving prowess, and that's not the characteristic I value most on a 10X waist skis.
Looking forward to more time on these and super psyched to get out on my Blade Optic 114's soon!
ps - thanks to KC and altacoup for creating "FOMO" and giving me the nudge to try these. As others have stated, I probably would have overlooked them.
Also, Line screwed up by linking these to the "Blade" line. Yes, they use similar "gas petal metal overdrive" tech, but these are a freeride ski with a healthy does of freestyle attitude. And that recipe works...but has been marketed poorly.
190s are only ~$350 shipped from Corbetts. Thinking a Sender Pivot might look pretty good on these.
Need more comparison to the MFree. Have an unmounted pair in the garage I'm thinking of letting go.
Bandit Man I can’t wait for your 114 review
Ya me too. The 114 is definitely more ski than the 104 (more mass obviously and requires a bit more user input than the 104) but is still easy enough. I totally agree with bandsman’s review of the 104. I previously thought the Optic 104 is a mix of an M102 and E104....and as altacoups says perfectly...."versatile and great on snow feel, damp and chargy yet loose and easy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Velomayniac
Only issue I see with owning the Optic 104 is my new Armada Strangers and Season Aero's are gonna get super dusty.
Was just thinking that a 4 ski quiver of Hoji + Optic 114 and Raven + Optic 104 would cover me for a lot of ski days.
KC
Optic quiver,,,,BO 114 with STH 16 and BO 104 with Pivot 15, both on rec line.
Attachment 480580
you are the fucking man bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
at any time did you think you’d be happier on 185? I’m very close to pulling the trigger on the 190. I like the 184 m102. Wouldn’t want to size up in that ski. Enforcer 186 feels a tad short sometimes but probably right size for me.
I’ve been liking Katana 108s & Wildcat 108s enough that I think I’m good even around 104mm. Thinking the Blade Optic 114 would be fun for me, and that I’d like it more than the Armada Declivity X I’m selling, but I missed them at $319 a few weeks ago. I shoulda pounced on them!Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Anyone been on both the 190 BO104 and the 189 Wren102ti's and can compare the two?
These skis were not on my radar until today, but I started looking into then today and the thought I had after looking at the blister reviews and the rocker pics is why would you have less rocker on the 114 than the 104?
That would explain what KC is saying about the 114 being more ski... I don't think it's the weight as much as it's the rocker profile.
I want the 104 rocker on the 114.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Hey Shorty!
What is so cool about these skis is the Blade Optic 104 (and BO114) is a ski that someone who likes an M102/K108 will like and also someone who likes a mellower ski like the Enforcer 104 will also like. You, me and banditman can all be happy. They are such a great mix of damp/chargy + easy/playful. And the -7cm rec mount point is perfect….vs -11cm like on the Volkls.
When I get home after Xmas I will post a side-by-side rocker pic of the BO104s vs BO114s to show the rocker profiles.
The BO114 is a ski that excels skiing super fast in deep chop. It has enough weight to blast through. Though I spent a day on the 114s skiing tight , steep, pow bumps under Red Chair at Whistler last year and could definitely feel my legs at the end of the day. You have to ski it or it skis you. Which is why we also have frosty hazy IPA’s.
Get a pair!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I've spent about 5 days on Blade Optic 104 190, mounted at -1 from recommended and it's growing on me. Last year I was mixing K108 and M102, both 191, both mounted at +1.
Mantra 102 required some commitment to start shining and the faster I skied the more confidence and stability I got out of it. BO104 has definitely lower top end and requires more attention at higher speeds. it's very manageable at slower speeds and much easier to initiate the turn on groomers than either of Volkls. This year conditions are much shallower and firmer than last year and Mantra M6 would be more appropriate but I enjoy 104 even here. A good storm and more time on the ski will give me a better idea.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Got out on the 104’s again today. 5” of fresh and closer to 8-10” up high. Float was good but they almost better the more skied out conditions were.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
In terms of a preference for a shorter length, I skied lots of tight, steep bumps today and the 190 was fine, as long as I had some momentum. Where the 190 felt clunky/planky was at slow steep in small to medium unevenly spaced bumps.
I’m growing fond of these as a damp, heavy but not overly demanding off-piste biased ski. I’m a bit torn on whether I’d want to shave some weight by sizing down and gaining a bit of agility with the 185 length. I really enjoyed them in soft chop and crud today. They push through those conditions, but are solid enough when you encounter firm/crust layers underneath. No surprises. Capable yet predictable.
Here are some pseudo-scientific measurements.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
BO104 (190) vs Volkl M102 (184) lined up on recommended mount line:
Attachment 480830
Attachment 480831
BO104 (190) vs 186 Enforcer 94 lined up on the recommended line:
Attachment 480832
Attachment 480834
Corbetts now sold out of the 190s. Thanks to whichever of you Mags bought them.
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
Scored some used 171-cm 104’s locally for my youngest. He’s got a Blade Optic quiver going. Attachment 481170
very helpful thanks. I might get the 104s and mount a cm behind the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man