or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Supernatural 108 vs. Sick Day 110 - Choosing a One Ski Quiver for the Sierras
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line Supernatural 108 vs. Sick Day 110 - Choosing a One Ski Quiver for the Sierras

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Hello All!

I was hoping for your thoughts comparing and contrasting the Line Supernatural 108 and Sick Day 110.  Based on research I've done I like what I'm hearing about the Line skis and have narrowed it to these 2, but am feeling some serious indecision when trying to choose one.

About me:

I'm an advanced/expert skier and although I feel like I started comparatively late (10 years ago at age 20), I push myself hard and continue to improve.  Since moving to the Bay Area from the Northeast 2 years ago, I ski primarily in Tahoe (~10-20 days a year) with an annual family trip to Whistler (~5 days).  I love the powder days and want a ski that can take full advantage of them but find myself skiing a lot more frequently in a heavier chopped up mix.  My first love is skiing trees and enjoy off piste skiing.  I don't seek out mogul runs, but find myself in the bumps a fair amount.   As my abilities improve, I enjoy steep skiing and have been riding Double Black without pooping myself the last few seasons. Because I ski with friends and family of varying abilities, I find myself on heavily trafficked groomers as frequently as I do  pushing my own envelope off piste.

 

The stability of the Supernatural seems ideal for the mixed quality, heavy snow I find at the resorts I ski.  My concern with the Supernatural is that I enjoy quick turns in the trees and bumps as much as I like really opening it up a letting it rip in open terrain.  

 

On the other hand, everything I have read about the Sick Day describes it as playful and quick to turn.  But, most reviewers say the lightweight Sick Day is at its worst in heavy crud/chop, which I see a fair amount of in my neck of the Sierras.

 

My inclination is that the Supernatural is the ski I can really grow into, and with effort, I can make it work in the trees and bumps, but hey, I ski for fun, who wouldn't want a playful ski?

 

Also, at 5'9" 175ish pounds, what are your thoughts on 179 vs 186 length?  Somewhat mirroring the ski discussion, my feeling is the 179 would be more fun/playful given my current abilities, but the 186, while perhaps being a little more work in the bumps/trees, would be a ski I could really grow into.  The EpicSki Formula puts my on the 186: 160-165 cm (depending on whether I am over or under 175) + 10 cm (advanced/expert) + 5 cm (off piste) + 10 cm (all-mountain, freeride, or powder) = 185-190 cm.

 

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

 

Warm regards,

 

Christian

post #2 of 17

I'm on the SN 100 186cm.  I did quite a bit of demoing last year but eventually bought the Line's without skiing them.  The consensus of the reviews seemed to place them between the Blizzard Bonafide and the Nordica NRGy 100.  That sounded about right to me so when I found them on sale, I snapped them up.  I don't know how my experiences on the SN 100 will compare to the SN 108, but I'd imagine they won't be too far off.

 

Great crud ski.  Amazingly stable and damp, allowing you to blast through the chop (with speed, too, if you want to).  That being said, the early rise tip and a bit of tail rocker allow you to quickly release the ski from a turn should you want/need to.  They are a pretty stiff ski so this isn't done without effort, but it is still something that I enjoy about them.  I wouldn't call them playful; maybe compliant would be a better word?

 

Powder?  Well, I only got two powder days on them last year and my initial impression, even after just a few turns, is that they display a bit of tip-dive.  I was shocked that a 100mm ski would do this, but I had read about it and immediately found it to be true.  So, I adjusted my stance a bit and was able to ski them just fine, but they are not the optimal ~100 underfoot powder tool; probably far from it. 

 

Groomers are pretty fun on them.  I would say they are competent and hold a good edge.  I'm sure they have a speed limit but I have yet to find it.  As you'd expect from a damp ski, not much energy out of the turn.

 

Every ski has it's pros and cons, but for the type of snow you will mostly be skiing, I think they would work well.  I have taken a few trips out to the Sierras and the heavy chop sounds like a great main course for the Line's.  Keep in mind that all of my experiences on this ski have been in lighter UT snow.

 

I am 195# and like the 186cm length.  People here are far more qualified than I to suggest an appropriately sized ski.

 

Hope this helps!

post #3 of 17

I can't address your primary question, but I can question it.

 

As in, why would you want a 108 or 110 ski as your one and only for a place that is just going to have more rain and ice and less powder, on average, year by year?  Seriously. Wouldn't you fine more total reward on something in the 88-98 range, say? Tahoe is a cool place, but it ain't Montana, temp wise. And Whistler, well, this season at least ain't gonna be kind. How many days, total, are you gonna need the float of a 110 ski?

 

Or at least think about picking up a clean used frontside ski, high 70's to low 80's, to back up your Fine Lines. 

post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

I can't address your primary question, but I can question it.

 

As in, why would you want a 108 or 110 ski as your one and only for a place that is just going to have more rain and ice and less powder, on average, year by year?  Seriously. Wouldn't you fine more total reward on something in the 88-98 range, say? Tahoe is a cool place, but it ain't Montana, temp wise. And Whistler, well, this season at least ain't gonna be kind. How many days, total, are you gonna need the float of a 110 ski?

 

Or at least think about picking up a clean used frontside ski, high 70's to low 80's, to back up your Fine Lines. 

Fair point.  I am definitely moving in that direction - last February I (impulsively) purchased a pair of 180 cm Rossignol Super 7's which I'll be trading in.  But, what I learned skiing those for eight days or so was:

1.  When there was great snow, one spring weekend it dumped in Tahoe in particular, having the wider ski was a lot of fun.

2.  Even when conditions weren't ideal for the Super 7's, when there were 3"-6" of new snow or even just as things softened up in the afternoon and got chopped up, the wider skis were subjectively a lot of fun.

3.  When I was riding groomers in the morning, either with friends and family or because the off piste conditions were really bad, I was even able to put the Super 7's on an edge and carve.  Were they big and awkward, yes, but it could be done.  

 

I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, 108? 100? The SN 100's should be on my radar, I guess.  It just seems like even if much of my skiing isn't in ideal powder conditions, a wider ski will also provide a lot of enjoyment in a few inches of new snow, as well sugar, corn, slush and other miscellaneous crap I may come across, and if selected intelligently, that same moderately wide ski can carve pretty well.

 

I guess in my mind it comes down to which ski performs better out of it's element: is it more fun (or less un-fun) to carve on a 108mm ski, or to try and ski a narrower carver in powder or other softer species of snow and "snow." 

post #5 of 17
I know a lot of folks on here are suggesting narrower skis, but I take the other opinion. A 108-110 ski can carve just fine, especially if you aren't running gates or focused on ripping groomers all the time. I've been skiing a 121 wasted Liberty Double Helix as my quiver of one for a few years, and I love it everywhere. Why? My idea of fun is getting off piste and playing in funky snow whenever possible. The skis are awesome in crud and powder and are actually lots of fun on soft groomers and packed off piste when I'm skiing with my kids. They are a bit wide for very firm and icy super steep double black diamonds, but I don't encounter those conditions very often here in Montana. Would a narrow carver be better if my goal were to rip beautiful carves on groomers all day? Yes. But that isn't my goal and my skis are fine. I am going to a narrower daily driver this year but only because my knees are shot (not from the fat skis) and I'm trying to prolong my ski life, and there is no doubt fat skis torque your knees and ankles more than skinnier ones on firm snow.

I think 108-112 is the perfect waist for a western daily driver for the skiing I like. I also know most people on here will disagree with that statement.

How about go long if you get the Sick Day 110 for more stability, or go shorter for the Supernatiral 108 for ease of turning?
Edited by wwrivers - 11/21/15 at 6:35am
post #6 of 17

You guys are robbing the "Rant:overselling wide skis" thread of precious posts…...

post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 

Hmm, the longer you put off deciding, the more research you do, the more indecision you feel ...

 

Since the blister reviews compared the Supernaturals to the Moment Belafonte, and the Sick Day to the Moment Deathwish, I got to taking a look at Moment's skis.

 

The Deathwish looks as though it may occupy more of a middle ground, more of a charger than the Sick Day and more playful than the Supernatural.

 

I have to say, I also like the idea of supporting a local company.  Any thoughts on the Moments?

post #8 of 17

I'll add to your indecision.  I ski in SoCal and Mammoth and have a 2 ski quiver.  

(Kastle MX88 for most days when there is no fresh snow.  Nordica Patron's for days - 115mm waist - for when there is fresh snow).  

 

I got the Patrons partly because they are really wide for powder, but also because they were quite good at carving on groomers.

They are worth a demo if you can find a place that has them.

post #9 of 17

Wow beyond who pissed in your cherios? 

 

 

OP follow your gut go for the long more charging ski.  Better for speed, better to handle the chop and much more accessible than the chargers of a while back were.  Sorry I don't know the skis in question, but that width is outer reaches of where I would want metal in a ski.

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineac View Post
 

Wow beyond who pissed in your cherios? 

No one, far as I know. (Never know with kids. :eek

 

Assumed since he was coming here for advice, it was useful to be counterfactual, rather than just massage him. Wasn't rude, like you're being. Just consistent; whenever someone brings up the eternal question of optimizing for the rarer powder day or the more common day between storms, I always suggest to aim gear for the most common condition you ski in. Some prefer to optimize for powder, though, so it goes.

 

I also suggested an alternative where he could in fact get his Lines and also have a carver of sorts. Fact is, a two ski quiver at a place like Tahoe makes a lot more sense.

 

The weather is what it is, and the trends are what they are. California is gonna get some precipitation this winter; we'll see how much is solid and how much is as far north as Tahoe. Then the dice get rolled again next winter. There's a reason for the thread about how 98's are hot again. This isn't me, this is NOAA. And scientific reality, which I'd rather face instead of whistling past the graveyard. Incidentally, back here, as you may notice, we're also having a very mild late fall, finishing up a record warm year. NOAA predicts a warmer than average winter with average or below average precipitation. How many  pow days do you think we'll get, and how long do you think they'll last before it rains again? Might be a good season to dust off those frontside skis...

 

But the Tahoe advice is nothing new. Quite a few years ago, I did an day by day analysis of Sierra snowfall over a five year window to show that storms there tend to be spread out. Plenty of time between dumps, which are what everybody remembers. So most people here who ski at Tahoe do not ski 110 skis as a daily driver. Do a poll. PM them, we both know who they are. Unless they're just blowing smoke when they talk about using Bonafides or Mantras or Fischers or Kendos or whatever. Notice the popularity of the Enforcer. And all the buzz about the Monster 98 and Armada Cti 100 and  so on.

 

After I posted, OP responded with a rationale for a wider ski. I can respect that, all good.  :dunno 

post #11 of 17
I jumped into this thread saying to go for the wider ski. But beyond has a good point about getting a ski for the expected conditions, and the trend in the west is drier and warmer (sadly, that will only continue with a few good cold deep years here and there). I skied more rock hard snow last year here in Montana and Utah than ever before, and I expect more of the same this year. That is why I picked up a Fischer Motive 95 for this winter. If my knees were in better shape I'd get a 105-110 and use that for everything, as I really do believe a ski like the Supernatural 108 can be really good on firm snow. But alas I need to go narrower to preserve the joints. I think a 108 waist is ideal in crud, pretty good in powder, and can still be lots of fun on firm snow. Just my opinion though.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

No one, far as I know. (Never know with kids. :eek

 

.  :dunno 

I had just came home from the Warren Miller Flick and I probably should not have said anything.  Johnny Mosley's voice over and the narrative had been nails on chalkboard for me.

 

California has had 4 straight crap winters, but the probability is that they will lead the winter this year.  They sure are due.

 

I am a fat skier because I like what they can do and I structure my ski time to take advantage of what they can do.  I do think we are seeing some worthwhile pull back on widths after years of going fatter.


Edited by Maineac - 11/22/15 at 1:49pm
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn W Satch View Post
 

I'm on the SN 100 186cm.  

 

...

 

Powder?  Well, I only got two powder days on them last year and my initial impression, even after just a few turns, is that they display a bit of tip-dive.  I was shocked that a 100mm ski would do this, but I had read about it and immediately found it to be true.  So, I adjusted my stance a bit and was able to ski them just fine, but they are not the optimal ~100 underfoot powder tool; probably far from it. 

 

 

I demoed the Line Prophet 98 a few years ago in some really deep, wet, heavy, day old powder.  I also struggled with tip dive, which is the reason I didn't get the Prophets (otherwise a great ski).  I then switched out into some Rossi Experience 98's, and in the same conditions on the same trails the tips did not dive, rather they planed up and out of the snow.

 

I ended up buying Head Rev 98s, and the tips on those skis plane right up and out of the powder.  Both the Rev 98s and Exp 98s have a wider tip than the Prophet 98s, so perhaps that's part of it.  The Rev 98s are a stiff ski with a stiff tip (they're great in crud), so they're not planing up and out of the snow because of a soft tip.

post #14 of 17

Unless they're just blowing smoke when they talk about using Bonafides or Mantras or Fischers or Kendos or whatever. Notice the popularity of the Enforcer. And all the buzz about the Monster 98 and Armada Cti 100 and  so on.

 

 

Why does everyone leave out the Salomon Qlab? 

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave86 View Post

I demoed the Line Prophet 98 a few years ago in some really deep, wet, heavy, day old powder.  I also struggled with tip dive, which is the reason I didn't get the Prophets (otherwise a great ski).  I then switched out into some Rossi Experience 98's, and in the same conditions on the same trails the tips did not dive, rather they planed up and out of the snow.

I ended up buying Head Rev 98s, and the tips on those skis plane right up and out of the powder.  Both the Rev 98s and Exp 98s have a wider tip than the Prophet 98s, so perhaps that's part of it.  The Rev 98s are a stiff ski with a stiff tip (they're great in crud), so they're not planing up and out of the snow because of a soft tip.
Funny, I've been told on this forum I couldn't ski because I said the P90 was a lousy powder ski for that reason. I was hoping the SN92s I have waiting to be mounted would be better, but that looks like it is not the case.

The Icelantic Nomad is a bit narrower than the SD, but is a super fun all around ski that might be worth looking into if you want a lighter ski. Don't overlook the sir Francis Bacon either!

The SN92 would be my choice for a stiffer ski, but I wouldn't want a metal ski like that in a 110mm waist.
post #16 of 17


One item of note in looking @ the Supernaturals is that they have only one layer of titanal (when used, most have 2 sheets; top and bottom.) 

For one as light as the OP, the SN100 or 108 should ski nicely. I'm 5'11" and 160#, I have found the SNs are very, very good  skis. Better for my weight and ability(8-9) than a 2-layer, "Bonefide type" construction.

The Atomic Vantage CTi series also has only one layer of titanal and apparently ski very well.

post #17 of 17
Yea, good point. I just think in general, a wood core ski is more fun in soft snow. It's good to try before you buy.
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 › Line Supernatural 108 vs. Sick Day 110 - Choosing a One Ski Quiver for the Sierras