EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Influence 115s ...Need Binding suggestions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line Influence 115s ...Need Binding suggestions

post #1 of 18
4/26/12 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 

Ok so I am considering buying the Line Influence 115s and I need help figuring out bindings to go with it. I like the I-115s because my main ski is a Prophet 90 and the I-115 is basically the powder version of my All Mountain ski, so its an easy transition.

 

I never thought I would need a dedicated powder ski, but I won the lottery on a recent trip to Whistler in mid March and got 100" of snow (roughly 8 feet) with an actual fresh foot of powder every single day for 9 days. As rare as it is, the day the POW is like that, I want a good POW ski on hand. I dislike the planks that most powder skis are as they just aren't built for turning, and even though I can't turn on a dime East Coast style in the POW, I still like the extra turning ability a more shapely ski offers.

 

The issue with finding bindings is the 115 waist width, its not a full bore 130s powder plank so the extra wide brakes would be too much. At the same time, I don't think bending 110 brakes would work.

 

Any suggestions? 2011-2012 skis are on mega clearance and will be thru the fall as it was a bad year and the supply is massive. I wish to take advantage of the pricing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 18
4/26/12 at 4:16pm

The 115 is way different to your 90 in many ways.   I put Jesters on my 105's  The 115 is  more an all mountain ski than a dedicated powder ski. The 105 is more versatile but not enough a difference to compliment your 90's. I'd replace the 90's with a 105 and get a dedicated powder ski for those days.Though I know some who made the same choice as yourself as they are having troubles letting go the Prophets. If your Prophets are getting tired get the 105 if not the 115 is a great ski but limited in harder snow.

 

The 115 is often sold with Griffons on them with the appropriate brakes. I think the 110 brake just gets tweaked a little. 


Edited by GarryZ - 4/26/12 at 4:26pm
Reply
post #3 of 18
4/26/12 at 4:44pm

You might want to check these out if you're going to do any touring:

 

     http://www.rei.com/product/806552/fritschi-diamir-freeride-pro-randonee-bindings-20102011

 

It's a heck of a deal and they come with 120mm brakes.  l just ordered 2 sets myself.

Reply
post #4 of 18
4/26/12 at 5:28pm
Thread Starter 

thanks!

 

I plan on keeping the 90s as I live in the East Coast but I fly out for West Coast trips at times to CO, Whistler, Tahoe, etc. I LOVE my 90s for EC and honestly, they wouldn't sell for anything meaningful at this point as the overstock situation has them selling for peanuts (plus mine have been repaired a couple of times - two diff core shots :( ). The 105 is similar and would be better suited to an area like CO with more snow imo.

 

My interest in the 115s is as a powder ski for trips out west while keeping the 90s for EC. No diving, familiarity, nice fat 152 head, etc. It will never ski like the 90 but I don't ski powder the same way I ski the east coast hardpack (no hairpin turns, have to deal with diving/floating,etc.) It took me a couple of days to acclimate to powder on my trip and learning to use the 90s on POW was radically different than EC "snow" hehe. After about 5 days I demoed some rockers but I missed my 90s nimbleness (put it to you like this, I ended up going back to my 90s). The rockers (Katanas) had some features I liked but so do my 90s. That's where I started thinking of the 115s given their evolution (used to be called Prophet 115s until this past year). BTW, if I'm crazy or ignorant, please speak up, don't want to spend money on a mistake. 

 

The alternative to the 115 would be a purer powder ski that was even more POW dedicated (eg, the 130s or another brand's Powder ski, like a Super 7). So I am not concerned about its abilities on hardpack - the 90s come out for anything hard or even just regular snow. This is for a pureplay POW day with 8" plus of fresh powder on top of a good base or for heli/cat skiing if no one anywhere gets good snow.

I also considered something in between the 115 and a 130 waist (Line has the Opus, K2 has the Obesthed, etc.) but they don't have the sidecut I am thinking of (the 115 has a sharp sidecut with a shape of 153-115-142).

 

I use Marker Jester Schizo 16s on the 90s, I am really happy with them (I would prob never utilize the Schizo feature on the 115s but at this point, the 2011s are the same price so may as well). If 110s can be bent for the 115, I am pretty happy with that solution. I need the higher DIN of the Jester over the Griffons due to weight (I weigh 240) .

 

 

Reply
post #5 of 18
4/26/12 at 5:29pm
Thread Starter 

thanks Dwight! those look interesting, will research them now that i am aware.

Reply
post #6 of 18
4/26/12 at 5:35pm

The Schizos might be fun to play with on those 115's.  Barons/Dukes would be an alternative for an AT type of binding.  I like the Jester. It's solid,  they rarely release and when it does it was necessary.

Reply
post #7 of 18
4/27/12 at 4:16am

I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on the same skis. What length you getting? I'll probably mount mine with Jesters or Barons I already have. 

Reply
post #8 of 18
4/27/12 at 10:42am

Don't put Schizos on there and definitely don't put Freerides on there. If you had to go with Griffons or Jesters I could live with it (well not on my own skis) but I've seen countless new marker bindings come back broken from people that don't even ski hard. Also, read some threads about freerides blowing up and you don't buy influence 115's because they are light weight, so if you're looking for a alpine/touring binding stick with Barons or Dukes, even though they're markers they seem to be fine and will offer you better down hill performance and feel. Or wait til Salomon/Atomic releasest the Guardian/Tracker.

 

Like someone mentioned that is more off an all mountain ski with some powder influence due to the extra girth. You might be surprised on how much you start using those over you're 100's. The 115 is an awesome ski that is burly with that metal matrix and will do some good crud busting. They made some good changes for next year but I understand getting this years at the good prices available.

 

Anyway back to bindings. If it were me I'd probably go with some Salomon STH in an appropriate DIN range for yourself. Currently I have FKS/Pivots on all my skis and would recommend them to anybody. I have the 115 brakes on my Rossi Sickles (110 waist) and its kinda tight but you could definitely bend it. Same goes for the 110 brake on the markers if you go that route, I wouldn't be concerned about bending it to 115.

 

Reply
post #9 of 18
4/27/12 at 10:55am

If I was your weight I'd probably go for the 130's as a powder ski (for Whistler or anywhere else out West).  I'm considering next year's Influence 115's (for deep days and touring) and only weigh 170 pounds, to put it in perspective.

Reply
post #10 of 18
4/27/12 at 2:43pm
Thread Starter 

Ok, thats helpful feedback on the Freerides. I have Market Jester Schizos on my 90s, very happy with them, release when they need to and don't release otherwise. The Schizos are on clearance atm so they are the same price as regular Jesters, since its for powder only I will stick with a more rearward mount so I don't see myself using the Schizo feature on this particular ski. Never know though, maybe my mains break up and then I have a replacement part, may as well get the Schizos if they are the same price (I am referring to 2011 closeout on them, the 2012s are still pricey).

 

Ok so I am good on the binding, thanks all!

 

I do agree to some extent on questions over choice of the ski, I asked myself many of these questions as well. I considered the 130s, concerned about their turning in tree areas though. Even with powder I always end up in the trees (in that regard, my skiing and golf habits appear to be the same!)

 

Reply
post #11 of 18
4/27/12 at 2:54pm

As a daily driver the 130 might be a bit too much but for an all purpose deeper snow ski it would compliment  the prophets nicely. The only negative I've heard abut the 130 is that it's ponderous from edge to edge which I think should be expected. The early rise helps it in the trees if you stay on the front of it. It will turn quickly if fore pressured. In the trees I like  to be on my toes more and lighter on my feet so this ski will reward a good offensive stance.

 

I'd get this ski or find one with more shape to try something completely different with so many fun shapes out there  but i like their formula of early rise, camber, wood core and their metal matrix with the stiff tail. 

 

I have a friend who has all three of the skis you mentioned and he want back to the 115 after riding and buying the 130's. I think because of our lack of many deep days. We had a lot of small dumps that added up nicely but not very many big dump days. If it was deeper more often he would ride his 130's more but tipping them on harder surfaces gets a bit wearing on the knees.


Edited by GarryZ - 4/27/12 at 3:07pm
Reply
post #12 of 18
4/27/12 at 3:09pm
Thread Starter 

2013 Influence 115s are very different than 2012s, specifically on weight and stiffness. Much lighter as they are using less metal material and the capwall makes it more responsive than the sidewall the 2012 115s have. Also, it has much less shape and as a result, the sidecut is not the same as 2012 (22m turning radius!) 

 

My understanding is that the 2012 115s are a heavier, stiffer ski that needs some weight to drive it; reviewers comparing the two refer to the 2013 as being "surfier" since it will float/plane over snow easier.

 

 

sigh, wish there was snow so I could demo some stuff back to back. How far is Chile again? Maybe I fly down in August lol

 

 

Reply
post #13 of 18
4/27/12 at 3:17pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dracop View Post

2013 Influence 115s are very different than 2012s, specifically on weight and stiffness. Much lighter as they are using less metal material and the capwall makes it more responsive than the sidewall the 2012 115s have. Also, it has much less shape and as a result, the sidecut is not the same as 2012 (22m turning radius!) 

 

My understanding is that the 2012 115s are a heavier, stiffer ski that needs some weight to drive it; reviewers comparing the two refer to the 2013 as being "surfier" since it will float/plane over snow easier.

 

 

sigh, wish there was snow so I could demo some stuff back to back. How far is Chile again? Maybe I fly down in August lol

 

 

The green ones are the ones I am familiar with. I believe that is the newer ones . The black ones with the snake are the previous ones . The sidewall runs much farther down the ski than the 105 where it meets the capwall sections.  The three people I know that use them are large and not so large. It doesn't seem heavy but it is nicely stiffenned by the metal 

 

Reply
post #14 of 18
4/27/12 at 8:00pm
Chiming in to add my personal experience....

I just ordered the last 115 in 186 at Rei.com for $409. They had one 179 left two days ago. Patience should get a good price on the rest of the inventory out there.

I am supplementing an Armada TST 183 because I like the all mountain crud chargeability of the 2011/12 Influence 115. This was more important to me than a more playful powder option. I also really liked the 2012/13 115 at 186, but already have the TST and wanted to feed my need for speed in variable conditions.

Shop guys do not have concerns about the 110 brake on the I-115. I am considering the Jester Schizo since I demoed the 115 at +1cm binding position on a sunny Spring day at Crystal Mtn., WA and thought it would be good for me to move back in more powder conditions. Although, I will explore the option of the Salomon STH as "skinom" suggested, or another non-adjustable option. BTW, I am not hiking or touring with these skis.


I am 5'9" and 170 lbs., skiing at a DIN of 8-10. My thought was that the Jester option, vs. Griffin, may help with future resale to a heavier skier who likes to go fast.

Hope this helps with your decision.
Reply
post #15 of 18
4/28/12 at 8:23am
Thread Starter 

bastardo!

 

I was going to pickup that 186 from REI lol, for some reason REI had it much lower priced than anyone else (altho in my state, they were forced to charge me sales tax, reducing the price discrepancy quite abit). Ah well, looking at skis.com and evo.com, I see ALOT of inventory, so I'm not too worried. Plus, the 2013 changes are not just cosmetic (its really a different ski imo), so I see major markdowns come the fall. I'm not in any rush, my main go to ski are my 90s and until Feb/March, there is enough't really enough base/POW to need a pure POW option anyways.

 

GarryZ, you are correct, the green ones are the 2013s, the skull snake is the 2012. I think the majority of skiers will like the 2013s better; in my case, due to weight, height, and strength, the 2012s were appealing. I'm not sure i would care for the 2013s, at the least I would demo em before buying, especially since they are this year's model and will be in stock (plus wait until Feb before buying for sale prices!). Did you look at the 2013 Opus?

 

Your comments are making me re-consider the 130 (I did think of it before starting to look at 115s). This is for a pure deep play ski; if it didn't snow 6"+ the night before (or if its not pristine untouched), the 90s come out, so on piste performance is not a valued trait for this ski given I have that covered elsewhere. You hit the nail on the head in discussing tree skiing though which is what I spend alot of time doing, even on POW days (my afternoon runs once the main slopes are tracked up). 

 

Did you have fun in the trees on the 130s is the big question? Would you describe the 130s as optimal for that? Reviewers seemed to like the 2012 115s better for trees, that's where that shape is helpful (hit those turns or hit those trees lol). I stopped looking at the 130s principally out of concern for its tree skiing potential as I spend alot of time in the woods. Would you consider Line's 130s ski optimal for that class of ski (eg, if I drop the shape requirement, is Line even ideal?) Granted, the 130s do look like a great landing platform! Could probably say that about any ski with those dimensions though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
post #16 of 18
4/28/12 at 5:43pm

I like the quickness of the 105 and the 115 isn't a whole lot different. The 115 will be quicker from edge to edge  than the 130 which is important in tree skiing. but soft snow will mitigate that difference  However they all have very similar shape, just getting wider all down the profile when you line them up and compare. All three have early rise which with fore pressure makes them turny in the trees. 

 

 It's not  a stand in the middle and skid ski  it's an initiate to fore and settle to center ski . Though any wider ski skids   more easily with their wide platform  When you tip onto the early rise it seems the balance platform gets smaller and makes for excellent maneuverability.

 

The 115 would be quicker, the 130 would have better deep snow float and be more effort to ski on hard surfaces. The 18 meter sidecut in the 130's/186 works for me. I prefer a ski less than 20 meter sidecut .If your default movement is tip and turn you will prefer the tighter turning radius. That's a pretty small radius for a 130 waisted ski.

 

If you're going  to stay on the 90's then get the 130 and replace the 90 with the 105 later and you'll still have a very functional two ski quiver.

 

 

 

 

Reply
post #17 of 18
4/28/12 at 7:53pm

Here's a good review discussing the changes from 2012 vs. 2013 Line Influence 115's...

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-line-influence-115

Reply
post #18 of 18
5/7/12 at 9:10am
Thread Starter 

hehe well the sales are picking up, both the 130s and the 115s can be had under $400. I can get the 130s for $311, *picks at the ribbon*..

 

I will have to think on what you said about the 115s being quicker whereas the 130s are better in terms of float. This is a tough call. You have me really thinking the 130s are what I should go for as my secondary, dedicated powder ski. All the reviewers blab about re: the 115s is groomer performance, but I would prefer my 90s for any type of groomer (do groomers really truly even require a dedicated ski? they are super easy as a result of being groomers! thats the whole point of a groomer lol) 

 

Only complaint on the 130s is they ski short due to both tip/tail being rockered, wish they had a longer 191 instead of the standard 186...

 

The newer 115s might be a good fit with the longer length, but I am unwilling to spend the extra moolah. If anything, I would buy those on next year's clearance sales not this year. Here again the 130s win it, $311 vs $390.

 

I'm keeping the 90s, they are perfect for the East Coast imo; out here, even the glades are hard snow. I understand why you love the 105s, if I lived out West those would be my main I think. We really just don't have the snow in NY/VT though. I usually only fly for powder and plan on hauling the 90s just in case Ullr doesn't show.

 

decisions, decisions,..

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Influence 115s ...Need Binding suggestions