or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Down between 3 Line skis...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Down between 3 Line skis...

Poll Results: After reading what I have to say and posting your suggestion/reasoning, vote for your the option you think I should go with!

 
  • 0% (0)
    Supernatural 92
  • 100% (1)
    Supernatural 92 Lite
  • 0% (0)
    Sick Day 95
1 Total Vote  
post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

Hi all - I've finally decided it's time for brand new skis and I've narrowed my candidates down to the following three Line skis: Supernatural 92, Supernatural 92 Lite, and Sick Day 95.

I've skied in Vermont my whole life, so this is where the skis will be used. I am an advanced-expert skier who love moguls, trees, steeps- anything challenging (I'm a hard charger..ski hard or go home type of guy) I'm 5' 11'', and fairly light for that height (125 lbs.)  

 

I'm coming from skiing on a 169 cm, playful, forgiving 90mm waist K2 ski that worked pretty well as an all mountain ski, but really, it was oriented towards being a park ski.

 

What I'm looking for in my next ski is a ski that allows me to do the same things I've always done but will push me to become a better skier. Old skis were very flexible, and forgiving. I was pushing them pretty hard and they were able to handle it because of how light I am.  

 

Main things I'm looking my next ski to do (that my old skis were weak in): Hold better on ice, float better in deep snow. 

The skis can't be too wide so that they'd be a pain to handle in tight bumps (Sick Days 95mm might be a little much?)

I also want the ski to be playful and quick enough to match what I was able to do with my old skis in the bumps and woods.

 

If I get one of these skis, I will be getting it at 172cm.

 

Take a look at this price & specs comparison (see descriptions below at bottom of post) - I highlighted most of the significant differences...

 

Extra Info: 

 

SUPERNATURAL 92

  • Weight: 1,950 g/ski (179cm)
  • Profile mm: 3-5-2
    (Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise)

 

SUPERNATURAL 92 LITE

  • Weight: 1,737 g/ski (179cm)
  • Profile mm: 3-5-3
    (Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise)

 

SICK DAY 95

  • Weight: 1,852 g/ski (179cm)
  • Profile mm: 7-5-5
    (Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise)

 

PROFILES:

 

 

 

 

            SUPERNATURAL 92          SUPERNATURAL 92 LITE                 SICK DAY 95

 

Construction Descriptions:

 

(SICK DAY) Capwall - on the top for light & responsive performance, combined with sidewall over the edges for a smooth solid feel.
 

(SN REG) Shockwall - Incorporates a full height & length 80 durometer elastomer sidewall over the edges to absorb vibration & shock for a smooth solid ride like a Cadillac.

 

(SN LITE) Sidewall - P-Tex plastic walls over the edges absorbs vibrations for a smooth & solid feel.

 

Core Descriptions:

 

(SICK DAY)  Maplelite Macroblock - Solid Maple under foot with light weight Aspen at the tips for durability & reduced swing weight.

 

(SN REG / LITE) Maple Macroblock - 2 full length Maple stringers surrounded by Aspen for the best of both worlds.

*(SN REG)  Metal - Die cut titanal, or composite laminate provides more power & grip where you need it under foot & at the tips, while reducing weight where you don’t.Die cut titanal, or composite laminate provides more power & grip where you need it under foot & at the tips, while reducing weight where you don’t.

--

So now what I see as pros and cons for each option:

SN REG - Pros: metal will give ski good grip on any hard snow, be powerful enough to easily slice through crud, shred at high speeds- push me as a skier

               Cons: metal will make ski heavy, slow, hard to handle/move quickly in bumps & trees (remember I am kind of light and skiing on a 172, a step up from my 169's)  

SN LITE - Pros: light, playful, closer to previous skis in this sense, plus light to carry & will SAVE MONEY

                Cons: a lot less early rise compared to Sick Day (thinking about flotation, maneuverability here), might be too forgiving, similar to old skis - not improving me as a skier.

SICK DAY - Pros: 95mm waist = best flotation, early rise in tip AND tail, smallest turn radius = quick maneuverability

                  Cons: Too wide for bumps? Worse grip on hard snow because of 95mm waist? 

 

Anyways, thank you for even making it this far reading this- I'll really appreciate and take into consideration any of your opinions/suggestions/corrections on my ski hunt or my philosophies.  Maybe some of you have skied the Supernatural or Sick Day before and have some first hand input - that'd be awesome! And of course, feel free to suggest a totally different ski that you think I should add to the mix based on what you've gathered.

Thanks again!

 


Edited by treebumpskivt - 8/1/15 at 6:35pm
post #2 of 10
I'll give you my quick thought on the LSD 95. The 172 Is the perfect length for you. I'm 5'8" 150 and I demoed the 172 and really liked it. So what did I do, I bought the 179. I think it was a mistake. I'm an upper in termediate and I found it a little harder to maneuver than I'd hoped. Maybe I'll adjust to it because I only used once.

As far as hard snow(not ice), they edge gripped well enough and felt better on soft snow. So far the 172 was a blast but the 179 was just ok.

One thing of note, my last run of day while I was sticking my tails in the ski holder of the gondola, the tail top sheet splintered off. I need to epoxy it back together. Not sure if I jammed them too hard or are they just weak there??

Hope this helps, Larry
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 

Larry, thanks for your input. I've thought long and hard about the length so it's nice to hear a recommendation for the 172. I just couldn't see myself jumping up to anything higher given my previous ski and weight. I've never owned Line skis before so I'm not sure about their durability..from what I hear it's okay..definitely not bad..but not near the top ones. And I'm sure there are many that would disagree with this. Hopefully you get yours fixed nice and easy! Thanks again!

post #4 of 10

If centimeters matter: Line ski lengths are based on base lengths, and not tip-to-tip. Given that Supernaturals and SDs come with tip rocker/splay, these measurements may differ. A few examples(all taken from Blister):

 

SD 110: 186 cm (stated length) -> 182 cm (true tip-to-tip length)

SFB: 184 -> 180.5

SN 100: 186 -> 185

SN 108 -> 186 -> 184

 

I used to have a pair of SD 110s in 179, they were only about 1.5 cm longer than my 176 cm groomer skis.

 

Conclusion: it is likely that your 172 cm selection will run 1-2 cms shorter than stated (depending on model).

post #5 of 10
I interpret the Lite's as being a traditionally cambered ski with no tip and tail rocker. Great as a frontside carver; but could be catchy in moguls.
post #6 of 10

I have the Sick Day 110 in Colorado. It's surprisingly grippy on what we call hard snow, which is not the same as ice. Carves great; I can only imagine that the 95 would be even better on hard snow. I have a 172, I'm 5'5/195 pounds, and it's definitely not too long for me. I'd suggest you go longer because of your height, but I'm not sure if that's good advice given you want to be skiing bumps a lot.

post #7 of 10

Hey Mr Ski Bump Ski VT! Josh from LINE here. All good things in that screen name. I grew up in CT spending weekends and my college career skiing the bumps/trees/ect of Okemo and points north. Looks like you have the length down, the 172 will be similar to the 169 of K2 as we measure 'stand height' so our skis are more true to size as K2 are a bit longer. I'd suggest the Supernatural Lite. It lacks the metal of the standard SN 92 but still has a nice snappy core and stable full ABS sidewall to hold well on ice.  The Sick Day is a perennial favorite for this type of skiing but if the width is throwing you off maybe it's not the ski for you. The SD also has much more taper and rocker so where it makes the ski nice and light, easy, 'slarvy' and fun it lacks in edge hold compared to the Supernatural shape. 

 

Hope that helps and thanks for choosing LINE, it's motivating to see such research on the skis and the use of our online tools to help guide you in making a choice! Have a great season!

 

-jm

post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineSkis View Post
 

Josh from LINE here. 

 

Hope that helps and thanks for choosing LINE, it's motivating to see such research on the skis and the use of our online tools to help guide you in making a choice! Have a great season!

 

-jm

Josh, any other word about the tail top sheet splitting?? Like I said earlier, I bought a pair at REI last year and only after one day on them, the tail top sheet is splitting off. REI told me to just epoxy it back together. I realize the skis were jammed too hard in the Gondola ski holder rack(my last run of the day by the way) but I've never had any pair of skis do that before...

 

Larry

post #9 of 10

OP: Curious about how old you are. I ask because if you're a teen (I assume you're a male), and still growing, you'll be adding a lot of soft tissue, ideally muscle, in the next few years. You could easily end up weighing 145 in 3 years. So it won't hurt to go for something a little beefier, like the Supernatural 92. OTOH, if you're in your 20's or beyond, and just very thin, have been that way for a while enow, then agree with the Lite. 

post #10 of 10

Last year I purchased the Line Supernatural 100's in 186cm length.  For reference, I'm 6' even and about 198 lb. 

In a word, they are damp.  Very damp.  I like that as they are just super at busting through crud and off-piste, manky garbage snow.  Last winter was horrible for new snow in UT and I have to say that they are ok on the groomers.  There were times where it didn't snow for approx. 3 weeks and things got firm (but nothing like east coast (I grew up skiing in PA)) and they were a good ski for those conditions but not a terribly fun ski.  Not much 'pop' in them; super-easy turn initiation; liked medium radius turns the best but are nonetheless compliant at all radii; pretty good at speed but not great.

Powder, of which I only got 2 days on them were ok too.  A bit of tip dive which I thought was weird for a 100mm waist ski.  I had to sit back a bit but then they floated.

These skis are nice and I would recommend them with the caveat that if you like a ski that throws you into the next turn or has high energy return, look elsewhere.

Good luck with your research.

-Shawn

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Down between 3 Line skis...