Line Motherships (01-03 Grey Model)

[geo039]

My local shop has some left over at a good price, anyone ride these in the 192? smaller size?

Some feedback and review is appreciated. -G

[rightcoast]

I have them in a 192.
Like them a lot.
Any more specifics?

[Blurred]

[QUOTE=geo039]My local shop has some left over at a good price, anyone ride these in the 192? smaller size?


price?

[nealric]

I just got some in 182- great ski.

[bad_roo]

192 has a lower rise on the tail and is slightly stiffer than 182. Mid-soft flex on the 192. Versatile ski. Not great at high speed in the chop but otherwise good. Cap can delaminate underfoot.

[geo039]

Thanks for the input every1.

I am usually against cap skis in general, but for the price it is going to be tough to beat even if they get limited use.

Rightcoast,
How do you like them on variable EC conditions? I heard they lack some torsional stiffness......hard spots a little sketchy?

-G

[rightcoast]

Thanks for the input every1.

I am usually against cap skis in general, but for the price it is going to be tough to beat even if they get limited use.

Rightcoast,
How do you like them on variable EC conditions? I heard they lack some torsional stiffness......hard spots a little sketchy?

-G

Yeah, its a little sketchy, dont know if its because of the width underfoot, or the flex. I havent used them too much on really hard days, but anything with even a few inches of new snow i usually do.
Theyre fun, turny in trees and tight spots. I dont know if id want them as my only ski, but they work.

[geo039]

Rightcoast,
How does the 192 ski..short? I am going to use it a fluff ski here on the EC. As I understand the 192 has an extra layer of metal in it that the 182 does not, so I think that I am going to give it a run. Thanx again for the feedback -G

[geo039]

Sorry blurred11s....I missed your post, they are $275 new..but I think I can get them for $225ish due to the fact they are 3 sseason old and the warranty is garbage.

[Darkside]

Rightcoast,
How does the 192 ski..short? I am going to use it a fluff ski here on the EC. As I understand the 192 has an extra layer of metal in it that the 182 does not, so I think that I am going to give it a run. Thanx again for the feedback -G

The first generation (w/the trains) did not have metal in them. They are substantially softer than later years.

[geo039]

Darkside, I thought that the "train" version in the 192 did?? They did not come with the "quickmonts" like the 182 or less.

[Darkside]

Darkside, I thought that the "train" version in the 192 did?? They did not come with the "quickmonts" like the 182 or less.

Well, if they're '01'ish (I beleive the first year they were made) I don't think they have any metal. I could be wrong, but I thought all sizes were sans-ti.

[rightcoast]

The grey topsheet with the train is the second/3rd year, had the same design for 2 years i think. The black and orange thing was the first, dont even know what the graphics were. The 192 did have the extra layer of metal, as well as the inserts for the Line binding ( at least the second year did, mine has the inserts)
Id get them for that price, theyre a really fun ski for good days out here.Wouldnt really say it skis that short, Id say a perfect EC fat ski.
I have skied them out west and had a blast as well. Although if i lived in the west i might want something a little burlier/fatter...or maybe not. That said, im really happy with them.

[geo039]

Rightcoast,

Thanks for the feedback. I think that I am going to rock them in my quiver. -G