The most honest and in-depth reviews of outdoor sports equipment on the planet.

2016-2017 Line Supernatural 108

Jonathan Ellsworth reviews the Line Supernatural 108 for Blister Gear Review

Line Supernatural 108

Ski: 2016-2017 Line Supernatural 108, 186 cm

Available Lengths: 172, 179, 186 cm

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (Straight Tape Pull):

• Production 108s: 184.1 cm

• Prototype 108s:   182.7 cm

Stated Dimensions: 137-108-126 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions:

• Prototype 108s: 137-107-125 mm

• Production 108s: within 1 mm of the above dims

Blister’s Measured Weight Per Ski:

• Production 108s: 2335 & 2399 grams

• Prototype 108s:   2493 & 2502 grams

Stated Sidecut Radius: 24.4 meters

Core Construction: Maple/Aspen + Titanal Metal + Fiberglass Laminate

Tip / Tail Splay (production 108s, ski decambered): 58 mm / 25 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot (productions 108’s): 2-3 mm

Boots / Bindings: Nordica Patron Pro & Salomon X-Pro 120 / Marker Jester (DIN at 10)

Test Location: Taos Ski Valley; Alta Ski Area

Days Skied: 8

[Editor’s Note: We’ve updated this review with a lot more specific information regarding the differences between the production Supernatural 108s and the prototype 108s that Jonathan originally tested. It should also be noted that the production 108’s were the 14/15 model, which was not changed for 15/16 or 16/17, apart from the graphics.]

In the summer of 2013, as we were preparing to head to New Zealand for our annual southern hemisphere review trip, LINE contacted us about a new ski they’d been developing, and they were interested in getting our feedback.

The ski didn’t have a name yet, so we just began referring to it as the Mystery Ski. But the mystery ski represents a re-shuffling of the entire LINE Skis lineup: for the 14/15 season, LINE’s “Prophet” series and “Influence” series are no more, but have been combined into the “Supernatural” line, which will include the Supernatural 115, 108, 100, 92, and 92 Lite.

The mystery ski that Will Brown and I have been testing (you might have seen a pic of it yesterday) is the 186cm Supernatural 108 … and it is a very, very good ski.

LINE describes the Supernatural 108 as “the next generation hard charging freeride skis.”

We’ll flesh out this statement below, but what we are already prepared to say is that, in the 105-110mm underfoot class, neither Will Brown nor I can think of anything we’ve skied that feels this playful and substantial, while being this energetic on groomers and hardpack.

The flex pattern is excellent, the dimensions and sidecut feel dialed, the tip rocker profile is great, the tail is great.

We’ve had some of the most fun days of the season pushing these hard in some pretty firm conditions at Taos—down bumps, groomers, steep trees, etc.—and A/B-ing these against the 13/14 187cm Moment Belafonte on repeat laps down Reforma.

Jonathan reviewing the Line Supernatural 108, Blister Gear Review

Jonathan Ellsworth on the LINE Supernatural 108, Castor, Taos Ski Valley.

The Supernatural 108 feels like a hybrid of two very different skis: the 13/14 Moment Belafonte and the LINE Sir Francis Bacon. And if you’ve read our reviews of those two skis, you know that’s high praise.

A Little Context

I absolutely loved getting back on the 13/14 187cm Moment Belafonte this week, and was reminded all over again how much I like that ski. And just a week ago, I was skiing the 190cm Sir Francis Bacon at Taos, and had a good time on that ski, too. Jason Hutchins’ reviews of the 184 and 190 Bacon are outstanding, and he’s got a lot more days on both the 184 and 190 than me. So I’m going to stick closer to the Supernatural 108 / Belafonte comparisons than the Supernatural 108 / SFB comparisons.

Flex Pattern

Both the prototype and the production models of the Supernatural 108 have stiff tails that rebound pretty slowly when handflexed. They are slightly but noticeably softer than the 13/14 Belafonte’s, and the Supernatural 108’s shovels are also slightly softer than the Belafonte’s.

In sum, the 13/14 Belafonte is stiffer overall, with tails that are slightly stiffer than its shovels. The Supernatural 108’s tails are noticeably stiffer than its shovels.

Shovels

On snow, the shovels of the 13/14 Belafonte feel stiffer for sure than the Supernatural 108s. And at flat-out speeds in firm, bumped up conditions (like the runout of Taos’s Reforma) I personally preferred the shovels of the Belafonte here. Will Brown, however, who weighs ~160 lbs (I’m around 180 lbs) felt like he could go just as hard on the Supernatural 108s as he could on the Belafonte, while also working less hard.

But now, Moment has softened up a touch the shovels of the 14/15 Belafonte, and I’ll need to A/B the new Belafonte and the production Supernatural 108 to see now how these two skis compare. My suspicion is that the gap between the two skis in this particular area has shrunk.

Tails 

I love the flex pattern of the tails on these skis. Not once, at any time, on any run, did I ever feel like the tails were either too stiff or too soft. That’s pretty remarkable, given everything I’ve skied this past week at Taos—very fast carving on groomers; slower, smoother, slithering through massive bumps down Spencer’s; pivoting through sun-baked, untracked snow around Billy Sol and North Face off of Highline Ridge; bashing and slamming through bumps at speed down Reforma, Moe’s, and Al’s Run.

I love the tails of the Belafonte, too, but in big bumps at slow speeds, they can feel a little cumbersome. I really like skiing the Belafontes in bumps when you can open things up and bash (the Belafonte’s not-super-wide tips are excellent for bump bashing, too), it’s just not a ski designed to go slow.

The Supernatural 108s are definitely easier to ski at slower speeds, while—at my weight—providing much of the Belafonte’s stability at speed in firm, bumped up snow.

Carving / Groomers

In some recent statements I’ve made in the comments sections on Blister, I think I have been underselling the Belafonte’s edgehold on groomers. Put a good tune on those skis, and you can fly.

But for carving, the Supernatural 108s are easier to bend and bring around. The Belafonte is a pretty straight ski … and it behaves like one.

In fact, it was so striking how much straighter the Belafonte was compared to the Supernatural 108, we had to break out the digital calipers.

Interlude For Some Measurements + Some Brief Remarks about the Dynastar XXL

(Measurements are taken from the widest point of the shovel, narrowest point of the waist, and widest point of the tails.)

13/14, 187 cm Moment Belafonte: stated dims:  135-106-124 mm //  measured dims: 129-105-123 mm

LINE Supernatural 108: stated dims: 137-108-126mm // measured dims (prototypes & production models, within 1mm): 137-107-125 mm

The 13/14 Belafonte is simply a stiffer, straighter ski, and in my book, skis like a better, quicker, Dynastar XXL. I’ve recently put some time on Garrett Altmann’s 2008, unrockered XXLs, and I’d rather ski the 13/14 Belafonte in everything other than maybe pow. For those of you who lament the demise of the XXLs, you might want to demo a Belafonte or find a pair of Moment Garbones.

The prototype Supernatural 108s didn’t feel anything like a XXL; that’s why I’ve called it a cross between a Belafonte and a Sir Francis Bacon. It’s easier, more maneuverable at slow speeds, smoother, more versatile, playful yet substantial.

Back to Carving / Groomers…

On steep ice, the Supernatural 108’s won’t make you feel like you’re on a dedicated carver, but get them on anything softer than ice and you can drive and carve the crap out of these. The performance of the prototype 108s was not subtle, and I’d compare it to the best ~110mm, tip-and-tail-rockered skis I’ve ever skied, namely, the Fischer Big Stix 110, and the Nordica Helldorado. (And as you’ll read below, every single modification made to the production 108s – except for the slight reduction in weight – ought to enhance their performance on groomers.)

But the Supernatural 108 is a more substantial ski than the Big Stix 110, and I prefer its flex pattern to the Patron and Helldorado, both of which have soft tip and tails. The Supernatural has a more progressive / less abrupt flex pattern.

On groomers, the prototype Supernatural skied like it had more camber underfoot than it does. There is a lot of energy out of each turn, and the edgehold is very good for a tail rockered ski. But the production 108s have a couple of additional millimeters of camber underfoot, so once again, I’m looking forward to seeing if there is a noticeable performance difference.

I generally avoid isolating and highlighting specific design elements in my reviews. Marketing and sales people love that sort of thing, I really only care about how all the pieces do or don’t work together. And besides, it’s dangerous or dumb to try to isolate a single element and point to it (alone) for causing this or that. Having said that…

160 Comments

  1. AK January 17, 2014 Reply

    I was a huge fan of the versatility of the Prophet 100 when it came out and have been searching for such a good one-ski quiver ever since. I admittedly have several pairs in my quiver right now, but I am currently mainly using the Mantra and Shiro as a two-ski quiver to accomplish what the P100 did for me back in the day. Very excited by this review!

    (And, Line should think about keeping the OG Line graphic and basic topsheet. It’s pretty sick)

  2. Greg January 17, 2014 Reply

    Sounds great. I am looking for a west coast all mountain ski for the skinny side of a two ski quiver. After reading a ton of reviews on your site (thank you by the way), I seem to be more confused than ever regarding the type of ski category (width, camber shape, etc…) to focus on.

    It seems like the all-mountain category is getting wider as the industry continues to innovate shapes that work in varied terrain. The Supernatural seems like a great choice, with a flattish tail and rocker for soft snow and chop. The Armada TST also fits the bill, just a little narrower and a true twin tip, which may not be optimal for touring. Not to mention the DPS 99, the Bonafide, a number of Moment and Praxis skis.

    Vitals:
    6’5″ 190
    Strong Intermediate to Advances
    70/30 Backcountry/Resort
    Tahoe/Shasta

    Thanks again for all the help!
    Greg

    • Author

      Greg – check out our 1 ski and 2 ski quiver selections if you haven’t already. For what it’s worth, I definitely don’t think it’s quite as simple as saying that you’re going to pick a 98mm underfoot and a 116mm underfoot. I think it depends on where you ski, HOW you ski, and what you most like to do. Hopefully, our reviews get people thinking about those questions. Once you get clearer on what you do and don’t really care about (e.g., carving, skiing switch, hitting jumps, charging variable, taking 2 runs and hanging out in the sunshine drinking beers with your friends, etc.), it’s easier to figure out which 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 ski combo makes the most sense.

  3. Travis January 17, 2014 Reply

    I too had a P100 and miss what that ski offered as a one ski wonder. Since then I’ve been searching for the replacement ski that can do the same thing. I’m on the Rossignol Super 7 this season and am super happy with its performance. To me it carries many of the same aspects of the P100 I loved and adds the benefits of a strong rocker profile. I’m really curious to see what LINE has cooked up in the Supernatural series.

  4. Rlk January 17, 2014 Reply

    Cap or Sidewall construction?

    • Josh January 17, 2014 Reply

      full length sidewall.

  5. Blister Member
    Tom January 17, 2014 Reply

    Based largely on your reviews, I have a pair of 11/12 Influence 115s. Great ski on a pow morning, not so much after lunch when everybody has slashed things to ribbons.

    Just too wide for my tastes (and older, multi-times repaired knees) once things start getting packed out. But a stellar ski on those special days when it starts deep and keeps snowing all day long.

    Looking forward to reading more about the 108 vs. Belafonte, as well as the El Capo. I’m a tough sell. I’ve never demoed a tail rocker ski that I liked much at all, let alone wanted to own.

  6. DM January 18, 2014 Reply

    Sounds like a pretty ideal everyday resort ski. Unless the weight comes down in the production version, that is quite heavy for a 108 mm waisted ski. This would not be a good touring option! Anyway, colour me intrigued.

    • Author

      DM – I’m finishing up my full review right now, but weight will definitely come down. An educated guess would put the over / under at ~2400 grams. But as you’ll read I absolutely love the weight of these skis, and they do not ski heavy or demanding (for a “charger”) at all.

  7. Blister Member
    Jack January 19, 2014 Reply

    Wonder how the 100 would compare to bonafide, etc. A nice 100ish ski that could charge and still be a bit more playful than a Mantra would be a great ski for average CO conditions between storms.

    • Author

      I don’t know, Jack, but I want to find out. It looks as if LINE has reduced the amount of tip and tail rocker on each of the models as they get skinnier. I like that decision a lot, and we’re curious to ski both the Supernatural 100 and the 92.

      • Marcel January 25, 2014 Reply

        I’m curious too… love my P98 but too often I wish it was stiffer and better in firmer conditions… curious to see how it’s gonna go agains Bonafide, H&B… thr mantra is also too stiff for me at 150lbs… keep us posted Jonathan!

  8. Zephyr January 19, 2014 Reply

    I’m already wishing these were released a few seasons ago, they seem like the ideal ski for me at Mt. Baker. I currently ski and enjoy a Cochise, but I do sometimes wish for a twintip that’s a little softer and playful while still keeping the ability to charge the chop.

  9. m January 19, 2014 Reply

    Sounds very much like icelantic nomad rkr 191cm! It’s playfull and surprisingly good when charging hard.

    Those guys at icelantic should send you a pair to be reviewed.

  10. Blister Member
    Andrew January 20, 2014 Reply

    wow, this ski might be the ski i’m looking for to fill the gap between my 186cm hell and backs and my 185cm influence 115. wanted something that could bash crud better when things are tracked out. the 115s seemed to get tossed a bit in that. do these skies like the shovel to be driven or more centered. I tend to like to drive my skis. i’m 5’11” 165lb aspen skier that skis steeps, trees, bumps(I live in Aspen and this mountain gets very bumped up), about 60 days last year, my first season here. Any thoughts on how they’ll handle crud and driving the tip of the ski? any idea if they will do a longer version? I was considering getting the 115 in a 192 thinking it might help with the crud. Thanks for your amazing reviews!

    • Author

      Thanks, Andrew. For skiing steeps, trees, and bumps hard, I think the 186 108s would be a really nice addition to your Hell & Backs and 115s. The 186cm 115s are not nearly as capable in variable as these 108s. Given your weight (very close to Will Brown’s) I would underscore Will’s statement that he could push the 108s as hard as the Belafontes. When straightlining out of the bottom of Reforma, I was probably getting a bit more centered on the 108s than the Belafontes, but the 108s didn’t feel adversely sensitive to being driven in the way that I found the El Capos to be.

      • Blister Member
        Andrew February 24, 2014 Reply

        So, I’ve narrowed down my middle ski to the 108, devastator, or Scott punisher. Going to be a tough choice. Hopefully be able to find to demo but not popular skis around here. Any thoughts on which will fit better between my hell and backs and 115s? Very little that lacking in the quiver but think its a pretty big gap.

        • Blister Member
          Andrew March 2, 2014 Reply

          Skied the devastator in 184cm today for 2 runs. The first run felt very weird and seemed to ski very short, I’m not used to full rocker profile, so took some getting used to. Didn’t carve amazing on groomers but worked. Just didn’t have the carving feel and energy my hell and backs have. Not even as good as my influences on groomers. But the second run I got to a bunch of crud on steeps and they were very good at attacking it all. Them I skied my influences again and although the softer tip deflected more and the camber under foot made me work harder, it wasn’t a big enough difference to make me want to complicate my ski selection by adding it to the quiver. I’m definitely looking for my in between ski to ski the groomers better than my powder ski. Can’t wait to try the 108 to see if will fit the need. Although there is virtually nothing that I do or ski that I can’t have fun doing with my current 2 ski quiver, if I find something amazing enough, I’ll get something for the middle. Thanks for the great reviews.

  11. Blister Member
    john F January 20, 2014 Reply

    Too much overlap with Bibby for a quiver of two? I would be replacing the Mantra.
    Thanks,
    John F

  12. Blister Member
    Craig January 20, 2014 Reply

    With the hard snow capability of these Lines do you think they might nullify the need for a Bonafide or Mantra in the quiver? I was thinking of creating a three ski quiver: deep/driver/firm (Bibby Pro (old)/Cochise/Mantra or Bonafide). After reading this review I am now wondering if the driver/firm categories could be morphed into one: Supernatural 108.

    • Author

      In general, my opinion is that you should only drop down from a 3-ski to a 2-ski quiver if someone is holding a gun to your head. Could I ski the 108 every single day? Absolutely. Might there be some days where I’d rather be on a sub-100mm-underfoot when on steep ice, or if I knew I was going to be bumping frontside moguls all day? Sure. But I could have a very fun season at Alta on a 2-ski quiver of a 108 and Bibby.

  13. John January 20, 2014 Reply

    How does it compare to the Peacemaker?

  14. Hias January 20, 2014 Reply

    Did you have a chance to get any time on the Atomic Rituals already?
    If so how do they compare to the Supernaturals?

    Thank you!

    • Author

      Hey, Hias – I have put a couple more days on the 190cm Rituals, and while I thought their groomer performance was really impressive, I just didn’t click with that ski anywhere else on the mountain. It was weird. Obviously, my experience on the 108s was quite the opposite. Clicked with them immediately.

      • Hias November 19, 2014 Reply

        Hey Jonathan,

        i´ve been on the Atomic Rituals for the last season.
        Unfortunately I broke them now and so have to replace them.
        I really liked them. Especially how well they handled all the different snow conditions we encounter in europe. I used them as my everyday ski with AT Bindings. In my case that means I will be skiing about 40% groomers, 25% real Powder and the rest is off-piste skiing with every possible snow condition from soft chop to ugly crust. From tree skiing in my small home resort to Big Mountains in Switzerland
        As I said I liked the Rituals but they also were pretty demanding for my skiing abilities.
        Only having started skiing again 5 years ago after nearly two decades of snowboarding I started of with soft skis like the K2 Kung Fujas and Automatics which I both liked but feel like I have grown out of them in regard to their stability. I liked how the Rituals forced me to work on my technique but I doubt I could handle a more demanding ski.

        I am pretty torn to the Supernatural 108 and have a good understanding of what to expect from your reviews (Thank you for your great work!) but still have some comparing questions.
        Having skied both of them could you compare them in regards to:
        1.Which one is the more demanding ski?
        2.Which one performs better in Powder?
        3. Is the SN 108 as snappy and fun on groomers?
        4. Is the SN 108 a lot more of a Bulldozer? Wanting a more stable Ski than the Kung Fujas/ Automatics I still like to play around on the mountains. I am definetly not the straightline everything type of guy.
        And finally I am 5.10 and 165 pounds.

        Your thoughts would be much apreciated!
        Is there any other ski you are thinking about?

        • Hias November 20, 2014 Reply

          Oh and one more Question:
          Given my hight and weight would you take the Supernaturals in 186 or size down to 179?
          Thank you!

          • Hias November 21, 2014 Reply

            Forgot to say my Rituals were 182.
            Thank you in advance for helping me with my decision!

            • Author

              Hias – apologies for the delay! We only reviewed the 190cm Ritual, so I really can’t compare the 182 Ritual to the 186 Supernatural 108. But I can say (and have written) – the 190 Ritual is a much more demanding ski than the 186 Supernatural 108.

  15. Blister Member
    Tom January 20, 2014 Reply

    Since the Supernatural model line will replace the Influence, how about a quick comparison between the Super 108 and the outgoing Influence 115/105 in both 12 and 13 MYs?

    Again, great review. Thanks!

    • Eric January 22, 2014 Reply

      I have to second this request. Essentially this ski replaces the Influence 105. So the comparison between the 2 is certainly warranted. The profile certainly seems similar.

      I would also like to see a comparison with the new ON3P Wren lineup 102/112 with reduced turn radius. When possible that is.

  16. Enrico January 21, 2014 Reply

    What are the main differences between the supernatural and the sickday 110?

    thanks

    Enrico

    • Author

      “Main” differences are the weight and the tails and a softer flex pattern on the Sick Day. The 108s are a more substantial, more agressive ski, but I can’t yet say exactly how much more. I’ll be getting on the Sick Day 110s in February.

      • Enrico March 27, 2014 Reply

        Any news about the differences between the Sick day 110 and te supernatural 108?

        thanks

        Enrico

  17. Blister Member
    Jack January 21, 2014 Reply

    Thanks for all the insight Jonathan. There’s a lot of thought above for a ski nobody will see till next season. The 2 vs. 3 ski quiver is a dilemma (and I have a tele quiver too.) And the bike quiver.

    We see a lot of firm / variable here in CO, but rarely truly bad / bullet proof stuff. Also, I go from nuking the high bowls at Breck to tight trees at basin in the same 24 hours, not to mention the high variability in terrain you can get in the same run around here … so it’s a little tough to pick between charger and quick / playful.

    That said … my (old – summer sale leftover from last year) 184 Bibbys (purchased based on your reviews) have been remarkably fun on a few bad snow days. All you need is something soft enough to bite into and a bit of room to turn and you’re smiling. I’d like to emphasize what Will Brown said in his review … they can be quick and will slash and scrub tight trees like a much smaller ski. So … might not need that quiver after all.

  18. Blister Member
    Jack January 21, 2014 Reply

    Whoah … That was long, and full of punctuation. I blame Lagunitas Max IPA.

  19. Rob January 23, 2014 Reply

    Hi there. Great review…but now I am confused what to buy. This Supernatural 108 or the Blizzard Cochise? I am intermediate/advanced off-piste skiër and very advanced on piste skiër. I ski in Europe off piste, not extremely fast (40km/h), medium turns. The ski I want needs to give a lot of confidence on difficult snow conditions and is fairly easy to ski. The snow conditions I usually find is chopped snow, and often crud with small moguls. Which ski is best for these conditions? When there is more fresh snow I manage with most ski’s. Thanks a lot.

  20. Rob January 23, 2014 Reply

    Oh, forgot to say I am 189 lbs, 6’4.

    • Author

      Hi, Rob – either is certainly worthy of consideration. But Will Brown and I give the nod to the 108s on groomers, and if you aren’t skiing extremely fast off-piste (where I think the Cochise truly shines, and where I personally might take it over the 108s), then I think the 108s might be the better fit for you.

  21. Tom January 28, 2014 Reply

    Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks for the review. Im thinking of buying a European one ski quiver with a powder bias. I have skied a few days on the Soul 7 and was surprised how well the ski performed on piste.

    How do these skis compare to the Soul 7? Is there much difference between their performance on groomers?

    Would the TsT be a good option and how does it compare to the 108?

    Thanks,

    Tom

    • Author

      Hi, Tom – the production model Supernatural 108s weigh ~400 grams more per ski than the Soul 7s, and that matters. Notice that I was putting the 108s up against the Belafonte and the Cochise, excellent all-mountain chargers. That is not what the Soul 7 is. It is a dead easy, fun ski that is not optimized to rage in bumped up terrain and variable conditions. The 108s are world’s better than the Soul 7s here, and a big reason why I like the 108s so much.

      On soft, smooth groomers, both skis are a lot of fun. But again, on roughed up groomers at speed, the 108 wins hands down. The Soul 7 is more of a finesse ski. The 108s let you ski powerfully, while still being remarkably easy to ski.

  22. Blister Member
    Craig January 28, 2014 Reply

    Hi guys,

    Any word if the Supernaturals will have an early release this season?

    • Author

      I don’t believe so, Craig. Next season.

      • Blister Member
        Craig January 29, 2014 Reply

        Well that is certainly a bummer as I cannot wait to see/ski this ski.

        That being said let me ask the rounded question…..after the gun to the head comment I have decided to go with a three ski quiver. Got the old Bibby Pro 190 being mounted up tonight. (PS…Its finally snowing!!)….will A/B a Cochise and Supernatural 108 as soon as available for middle of the road conditions….and will either purchase a Mantra or the Hell and Back this weekend for the firmer end of the spectrum. My question….my hunch is that I will prefer the Supernatural over the Cochise as I love camber…..that being said…..is the Mantra a better supplement than the Hell and Back being that the Mantra has you covered as nasty as it gets and the Hell and Back prefers a tad of soft in which case the Super/Cochise would perform anyway? Based on your write up I am pretty sure I will enjoy the H&B considerably….but not sure if I go that route that I may still be wishing for a Mantra when the drought hits….as the last three seasons have proven is no longer an oddity but to be expected. I would assume my go to ski will be the middle of the pack Super/Cochise in a typical year which is why I am thinking if the lower end is typically used less frequently then maybe (for me anyway) it should be specifically catered toward that end (ie. Mantra).

        Maybe the short version is….is the H&B suitable for ice/trash snow too….albeit not as much as the Mantra….or is the H&B really only going to perform if there is a tad of soft to grip and bend in?

        Should I screw this up and go from a one to a three to a four ski quiver….there is a good chance there will be a gun pointed at my head!

        • Blister Member
          Jack January 29, 2014 Reply

          You might end up with a 2 ski quiver … bibby and Mantra or H&B.

          You might be surprised at how well the bibbys cover the middle of the road snow. I have been. Great on anything that is even remotely soft, and I’ve found them to charge around quite nicely on the chop, crud, and windblown chalk we’ve had in Summit County the past week.

          I’m personally very curious to see how the narrower Supernatural might fit into this niche too.

      • Blister Member
        Craig January 31, 2014 Reply

        Lucked out and found some H&B’s to demo. Will have my chance to A/B the Mantra/H&B’s tomorrow.
        Demo’d the Mantra’s last weekend when the hill was skiing like a rock and they performed the way I remember…..like a lightening bolt! Might not be the best thing for my aging knees but they are awesome. So powerful. Excited to see how the H&B’s compare.

        • Author

          So? How’d it go? Mantra or Hell & Back?

          • Blister Member
            Craig February 12, 2014 Reply

            Well….I went to backcountry warehouse and had a look at the H&B’s and decided there was no need to demo. I am a mantra guy. Cambar, weight, stiffness, shape, etc….perfect.

            This weeks debate is the BMX 108 188or the Cochise 185. I had a Cochise three years ago when it first came out. Liked it but not sure I loved it….missed the camber. That being said going to finish the season with the mantra and either the BMX or the Cochise. Unfortunately nowhere to demo the BMX so going to refresh my memory on the Cochise this weekend. If I love it i will go with that, if I don’t i will go with the BMX. I have both at home in the wraps waiting for the answer. Wish the supernatural were out to test as well…oh well next year. Maybe throw in the SN 115 for my deep ski….next season.

            Till then….peace.

  23. Mick January 29, 2014 Reply

    Think that these would be a good replacement for a pair of 186 Sickles next year?

    • Author

      Hey, Mick. The Sickle and Supernatural 108 are fairly different, and I believe that reading Jason’s and my review make those difference fairly clear, no? The Sickle isn’t as burly, or quite so directional, for starters. So I can’t say whether it’ll be a good replacement for you. But if you aren’t tricking the Sickle and wish it was burlier … then perhaps.

      • Mick February 11, 2014 Reply

        Yeah, maybe they do seem pretty different. Couldn’t find another pair of sickles this year, and mine are now work/rock skis with no edge. Looking for something to fill the gap between my praxis piste jbs and night trains. The specs of the MVP seem similar, but the review says otherwise. I do throw tricks and Tele switch so the sickles were perfect for that, hopefully the gradual full rocker shows up in a similar shaped all conditions bc jibber next year.

        • Blister Member
          Jack February 11, 2014 Reply

          Gotama? I tele on a 186 and like it a lot until it gets firm, then the chatter drives me nuts.

          • Mick February 17, 2014 Reply

            Not sure the gotama has the playfulness I’m looking for. Saw pics and stats of the 2015 on3p Jeffrey and think that might be the way for next year, burly bases and edges too!

  24. Paul February 5, 2014 Reply

    Can we get a comparison btwn SFB, Sick Day, and Supernaturals when you get the chance. Interested in resort and backcountry analysis of the 3.

    • Author

      Hi, Paul – I feel like I wouldn’t be saying much new that you couldn’t glean from the reviews we’ve already posted. Did you have a specific question? The SFB is a very playful, non-directional fat park ski. The Sick Day 110 is a lighterweight ski designed to handle inbounds and bc duty. The 108 is a heavier, directional charger. While I can see people being drawn to any one of these 3 skis, I can’t really see anyone being confused about which skis makes more sense for them, personally.

  25. Don February 12, 2014 Reply

    I’d like to similarly make the request for a comparison against the Influence 105, which I have decided is a near perfect daily driver…better than my old trusty gold buddha gotamas.

  26. Chris March 18, 2014 Reply

    Hey Jonathan,

    Great review as always! You guys kill it. I’m looking for a all-mountain ski and I think my big issue is an overwhelming amount of choices! I’m a 6′ 2″, 205 lb. advanced/expert skier. I used to ski every day, living in Summit County, but am much older now (46) and returning to skiing after a 15 year hiatus. I’m athletic and fairly aggressive, but also spend a good bit of time with the wife and kids on the mountain. I get a few runs a day to charge. I ski at Alpine, Squaw and Homewood mostly, and as you can guess in pretty variable conditions. Some steep bowls (which do bump up), a lot of groomers, and the occasional big powder day.

    I demo’d the 180 Bonafide a few weeks ago and it was fine. Pretty easy to turn and carved well. Didn’t feel overly quick in the bumps but it certainly could be my lack of skill after the long layoff. They did feel pretty heavy though (demo bindings) and with my knees being pretty prone to tendinitis I have been looking for a lighter ski to demo.

    I like what I’ve been reading about the Prophet 98, and the supernatural 108 sounds pretty good too. Any thoughts on which might work better? I think I’m doing to demo the Hell & Back, the Peacemaker and one of the Lines in Aspen in a few weeks. Would love to hear any comments from you or anyone else who has some insight. Thanks!

    • Author

      Hi, Chris – the 186cm Supernatural 108 we’ve reviewed definitely is not LESS ski than the 180cm Bonafide. I think you should check out both the 186 Supernatural 100 (see our review – I completely agree with Brett’s take on the 100) and the 185cm Hell & Back. At your height / weight, if you don’t care too much about big turns at very high speeds, the Super 100 could be a very good fit for you.

  27. Dave April 28, 2014 Reply

    Great Review. I’ve always heard nothing but great things about Line skis.. Thinking it’s time to give em a try. Next season I was thinking about the Punisher or the new Automic 109.. these seem more my speed. ~20 days per season East Coast, 6 days out west… 6’1 220 LBs. Any idea how these compare to the new Automatics?

    • Author

      Hi, Dave – I’ve only handflexed the new Automatic 102 and 109, but they are both softer, less beefy skis than the 108 or Punisher. They might ski great, but I’m more inclined to think of them as occupying the Rossi Soul 7 niche than the Super 108 / Cochise niche.

      • Dave Ford April 30, 2014 Reply

        Cool.. Thanks, Jonathan. I’m thinking the Cochise-esque ski is going to perform much better for me in the east than a softer, slarvier ski… I’m on TST’s now, but want something a bit more stable.

  28. jpd June 3, 2014 Reply

    Hello Jonathan
    these supernatural are intriguing.
    How do they compare to the BD Zealot (I am 180lbs and 5’10”)?
    thanks
    JP

  29. jpd June 3, 2014 Reply

    sorry BD Zealot 183

    • Author

      I haven’t skied the tweaked Zealot, so I can only comment on the previous version that I reviewed. In short, the Supernatural 108 is a heavier ski that I could push a lot harder than the Zealot. Jason Hutchins (who weighs 160 lbs.) felt like he could drive the Zealot quite hard. As I noted in my review, I really liked the Zealot in moguls, and they might be a bit less work than the 108s there. But honestly, I personally would take the 108s over the (older) Zealot in every single instance, while I think Jason might find the 108s to be heavier than he wants. And for whatever it’s worth, you and I are the same height / weight.

  30. Blister Member
    Paul June 16, 2014 Reply

    Thanks for the detailed review. I’m totally curious about the Supernatural series.

  31. Blister Member
    Tom August 11, 2014 Reply

    Jonathan,
    Any word on the actual length of the production model? The 186 supernatural 100 measured several centimeters longer than the 108 and I wonder if this is going to translate when they mass produce the 108. Cheers.

  32. Ross August 20, 2014 Reply

    Hey guys,

    Another great review. I’m looking for a daily driver, and as a bigger skier (6’1″, 215 lbs.) the idea of a blend of the Belafontes and SFBs sounds pretty enticing. Only thing is financials limit my ability to get a new season pair. Any ideas for similar skis from last season? I tend to ski soft snow when it’s there and go fast on hard pack when it’s not.

    Any advice gratefully received!

    Ross

    • Author

      Honestly, nothing springs to mind, Ross. You could go 185 Cochise or 187 Belafonte – both great skis – but neither quite hits that particular blend of stability & playfulness of the Supernatural 108.

      • Ross October 8, 2014 Reply

        Thanks Jonathon, and thanks for your help on my comment on the Blister Pro.

        Narrowed it down to either 11/12 Line Influence 105 186 or 12/13 Atomic Ritual 190. Given France’s lack of big storms, and working hours meaning I likely won’t be on big backcountry tours I thought I’d sacrifice a bit of soft snow and deep chop performance for better edge to edge in firm steeps and bumps. Leaning more towards the Ritual, just hope it’s not too soft given my weight.

        Got to say, I’ve become an avid reader of this site since looking for a new pair and it just kills the competition. Keep up the good work!

        • Blister Member
          Jack October 8, 2014 Reply

          My shop guy skied on rituals all season last year and loved them. He’s about your size. He has been on fatish skis for years and said he really liked having the stiffness and edge to edge performance of a narrower ski for all but the true powder days.

        • Author

          Thanks, Ross. And I would be pretty surprised if you find the Rituals to be too soft.

  33. Blister Member
    Slim August 31, 2014 Reply

    Hi,
    Thanks for the awesome reviews! I love your comparisons.
    I am looking for a 1 ski ‘quiver’ to take out west(UT/Co). I’m 6’4, 180 lbs before gear,(low) intermediate skier.
    I like to ski playful, slow speed trees and slow speed, turny lines thought the bumps. However, I also want to be able to stay in control on moderate speeds through tracked up crud.
    Reading your reviews the Line Supernatural 108 sounds like it would offer more control than the Salomon Rocker 110 in crud, but would it be harder to swing around in tight trees for a less skilled skier?
    Or conversely, at my weight and lower speed, would the Rocker 110 be fine in crud?

    • Author

      Hey, Slim – there’s no question that the Supernatural 108 is the better crud ski. You might find it to be a bit more work than the Rocker2 108, but at your size, I’d still be inclined to go with the 186cm Supernatural. You’ll have more fun when things get tracked out, and these are not difficult to ski. I think you could make the Rocker2 108 work, but there’s a bigger risk that you’ll be disappointed in its crud performance. Let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out for you.

      • Blister Member
        Slim October 4, 2014 Reply

        Hi Jonathan,
        Thanks for your help, it is awesome that you guys not only provide in depth reviews and actually compare products to similar ones to tell us the difference, you even take the time to reply with specific questions.
        After your review and comments I was all set to get the 186 Supernatural 108. I have 177 Rocker2 90,s and was looking for some more powder performance and crud busting power. Wanted to keep the performance in moguls and trees.
        The Supernatural 108 seemed perfect. Then someone mentioned what about the Sir Francis Bacon? I went back and reread the reviews on that.
        Here’s what it seems like to me;
        Supernatural 108 is charger that’s a bit playfull
        Sir Francis Bacon is playski that can charge a bit.
        I started thinking. What I love and do most is goof around and try and ski on the sides of the run, find soft snow, rollers, lips and trees. I also have a 4 year old, and when skiing with her, I’d like to learn to ski switch, to keep my speed and challenge up to hers on the green runs.
        I decided I could live without some crud bashing in order to gain the more ‘play’ skiing I’d do with my kids.
        So, SFB 190 it is! I went back and forth for hours and finally just decided to pick one and go for it. I hope I won’t be missing the high speed crud performance to much, we’l find out this winter!

        Thanks again!

        • Author

          Totally agree with your reasoning, Slim, and I think you made the right choice. Keep in mind: the 184 SFB is definitely more playful than the 190 SFB, but you know that. And for what you say you’re looking for, 190 SFB > 186 SN 108. When you get them on snow, please let us know what you think!

  34. Harry September 12, 2014 Reply

    Johnathan,

    I am thinking of adding a firm snow ski this winter. My everyday ski is the Line SFB. I ski it two three days after a storm and as long the snow remains soft. For deeper days I use the MPO. Is the firm snow performance of the 108 substantially better than the SFB? I’d like to read a review of the SN92.

    • Author

      The 108s will be substantially better in chop and crud than the SFBs, but not necessarily superior in decent moguls or good groomers. So depends what you mean by “firm”.

      As for the SN92, all I can say is that I’ve been told that the 108s are more ski than the SN100s, and the 100s are more ski than the SN92s. Which is only to say that, if you’re looking for a SN108 but in a skinnier package, that isn’t the SN92.

  35. Dave September 23, 2014 Reply

    How do these compare to the Invictus?

    • Author

      If the Supernatural 108 is a mix between the Belafonte and the Sir Francis Bacon, then the Invictus has nothing Bacon-like / playful about it, and is squarely in the Cochise / DPS Wailer 105 / Belafonte camp. It doesn’t have much tip rocker, and it has a pretty stout, fat tail that isn’t looking to be slarved around.

      I can’t wait to spend more time on the Invictus around Taos…

  36. John October 2, 2014 Reply

    Hi Jonathan,

    Your reviews are usually one my starting places when I’m considering new skis. I’ve found your reviews to consistent with my experience – which is a good thing! Thanks.

    Would you please comment on the differences between the Bones and the Supernatural 108 in terms of feel, performance, etc. There were several questions (above) concerning the Bones, which you kindly answered, but nothing didn’t get into directly comparing and contrasting the two skis.

    I’m considering adding a new ski this year, and my Bones are getting old – they might last another year with frequent wear – longer with occasional use. I also have an MX88 for hard days and an Auto 117 for dumps – BTW – I found the Automatics to be a very enjoyable ski – did well in almost every condition. The only exception to this was one day on a huge mogul field with sticky wet cement when I was tired…

    For me, the Bones have been an exceptional ski, but its time to try something different. Not sure if the SN108 is it.

    • Author

      Hi, John –

      The far more direct comparison from Blizzard to the Supenatural 108 is the Cochise. So as for a Bonafide vs. Supernatural 108 comparison I’m not sure that I have much new to add that you couldn’t glean from reading my Bonafide & Mantra & Cochise & Supernatural 108 reviews. (Other problem: I’ve only spent time on the 180cm Bonafide, so the 186cm 108 is a longer, wider, heavier ski – it’s ‘more’ ski.)

      Both are very good all-mountain skis, but I guess the question is, do you want to go 98mm underfoot or 108mm underfoot? And what are you hoping to gain by doing so? And what tradeoffs are you willing to live with?

  37. John October 8, 2014 Reply

    Thanks Jonathan,

    Good questions, so I spent the last two days thinking a little deeper about what I want to accomplish. First, I’m an athletic skier but I like playing with skiing styles from more traditional carving to more playful – charging to dancing. I very much like my 187 Bones because they allowed for charging one run and then playing a bit on the same run the next time, although I sometime wished for a little more playfulness. The SN108 should be good for my style.

    I’m going for a new ski simply because I want something new and different. Trade-offs are also opportunities. What attracted me to the SN108 was your description of the Supernatural 108 being both substantial and playful. I ski mostly in the Canadian Rockies, and ski mostly off-groomed; e.g. Whitehorn and the various other backside runs at Louise, Delirium and Tee Pee at Sunshine, and Castle, Red, Fernie, and Kicking Horse chutes. So I hope to gain a ski that has a little more stability in the often cut-up, crud, and will still allow playfulness. The SN018 seems to fit this requirement. In bumps, I’m a little more of a zipper-line, feet on the ground swiveler than a basher/charger, which also makes me think that the SN108 is a good choice over something like the Belafonte. I can ski anything in powder, but will probably grab my Automatics on really big dump days simply because they are so much fun, although I enjoyed my JJs a lot on untracked fresh and deep. The Bones actually do quite well in powder as long as I let them run. I also want a ski that I can confidently drop into a bowl and know that the ski will handle whatever is in the bowl, whether frozen chop, cut up crud, or nice powder. The Bones did well with this and it seems that the SN108 will too, although I would anticipate that the SN108 would handle deep, cut up troughs better than the Bones and icy crud less well than the Bones. I suspect that the Bones ski better on groomers, although I liked it that both you and Brett suggest that the SN108 can carve a variety of turn sizes. I generally see groomers as a corridor from one area to another on which I can carve a bit. I like skiing groomers early season, but use true carving skis on these days.

    Anyway, thanks for spurring on my thoughts a bit more. Please let me know if I’m not seeing things clearly.

    • Author

      Sounds to me like you’re seeing things very clearly, John. Wish I had skied the 187cm Bonafide to be able to make the exact comparison, but I don’t think you’re wrong to be considering the Supernatural 108 for what you say you’re looking for – especially if you like the sound of Brett’s and my review. If you get them, let us know how it goes!

  38. Patrick October 9, 2014 Reply

    Hey Jonathan,

    I also posted this on Bretts review, but honestly would like to get as many viewpoints as possible. You guys all have great reviews, so any extra info is always greatly appretiated.

    I hear nothing but good things about this ski but notice that most all of the reviewers are over 6ft and are reviewing the 186 version of this ski. Being an agressive 5’8″ 155lb skier such as myself, would this ski in the 186 be to much for me to bite off?
    Im looking for a new daily driver this year to ride the Bird/Alta. Im also looking at the Scott Punisher, Bacons, and RMU Apostle, any thoughts on those as well? They all seam like they handle most conditions pretty well and can charge stably with some speed if necessary.

    Thanks again for the killer reviews, keep up the good work guys!!!
    -P

    • Author

      Hey, Patrick – Will Brown is close to your weight, and he loves the 186s. As for the other skis, the 186cm 108s are certainly easier to ski than the 189cm Punisher. And the 108s will be more ski – and offer more stability – than the SFB. So if you want to emphasize ‘playing,’ then SFB. If you want stability at speed in chop & crud, then 108.

      I’m afraid that none of us who’ve skied the 108 have skied the Apostle, so can’t speak to that one.

  39. Blister Member
    Andrew October 12, 2014 Reply

    Jonathan,

    Did you guys ever get a pair of production SN108s? Just wondering because many others that have tried them didn’t like them much. Of course, it could be a matter of taste, but maybe the production version is not quite the same . I’m going to demo them as soon as the mountain opens and see for myself, but was curious if this could be the case.

    Thanks a ton,
    Andrew

    • Author

      Good timing on your question, Andrew. I’ve just updated this review with a ton of specifics about the prototypes vs. the production models. But I’ll point out again that our 2nd review of the Supernatural 108 was conducted exclusively on the production model.

      Hope you get on them, I’ll be curious to hear what others think.

  40. Ian W October 12, 2014 Reply

    I am a skinny guy (real skinny, 70″ tall, 110lbs right now though gaining weight in preperation for the season) and my current quiver is a rossi scimitar 185s at -2.5 and a ninthward HHP 172s at true center. I’m looking for a playful charger now, But i still like to throw tricks off natural features, and love the crud busting ability of a the sickle’s subtle full rocker. I split my time about 50/50 between the midwest, where i live, and the rockies/tetons. Getting to the point where i’m skiing 40+ days a year. The supernatural sounds really nice, but for a guy like me who wants to throw a few tricks here and there off bumps, what would you recommend. My problem with the sickles has always been a lack of top speed. They’re really fun, but i can’t seem to get past about 50mph on them. For a light guy who wants some speed, who normally skis a 185 and likes to be able to make a large variety of turns, what would you recommend for that ~110 range ski? The sick day seemed more my cup of tea based on reviews, but so does the SFB. At my weight i really don’t think anything fatter than 112 is really needed for float in pow as i don’t have too much difficulty keeping float on my sickles, but i also haven’t had them in many days with over 10″ of fresh.

  41. Mark October 18, 2014 Reply

    I am looking for a ski with the attributes of the 108 in a narrower waist. I have a soft snow ski in the 108 range that works well for me unless the snow conditions run to very firm, or ice. Having read much of what has been written about the previous versions of the Mantra and the Blizzard Bonafide, I would have to say I am not a good candidate for either ski due to a reluctance to push quite that hard in conditions listed in the reviews. I’d like something that could be dialed back some and still skied with some confidence those sketchy conditions. Do you have any suggestions?

    • Author

      Hi, Mark – seems to me that the Bonafide could still be a good fit. I don’t know your height/weight, or what your 108mm ski is, or its length (those details always make it much easier to answer questions), but I’m not sure that the Bonafide is clearly not the ski for you. The primary gist of my review of the 180cm Bonafide was to explain how hard it could be pushed for how easy it is to ski. It is definitely an easier ski than the 13/14, 184cm Mantra.

      But I don’t know the answer to ‘what is a skinnier SN 108’?

  42. Nate October 21, 2014 Reply

    Hey Guys,

    Wondering about the sizing of this ski. Im 6’4″, 205lbs and am an aggressive all mountain skier. Most of my time is spent on the east coast with a few trips out west each year.

    I’m in between this and the Atomic Ritual 190….is the 186cm Supernatural enough ski?

    Thanks!

    • Author

      Hey, Nate – that’s a seriously subjective question, especially given that you don’t say what skis you’re coming from, or what skis have or haven’t been “enough.”

      The 190 Ritual felt like a LOT more ski than the 186 108s. But I still think the 108 is a substantial ski that can hold up under heavier skiers, kind of like the 185 Cochise.

  43. Tom October 26, 2014 Reply

    Hey Blister & Jonathan
    Read so much lately that I’ve got myself into a spiral. 5’11 weighing in at about 195lbs. Fairly aggressive skier, but then dial it back a bit when with the girlfriend. Ski West Coast Banff, Fernie, and Whistler. Originally, looked at the Line Sick Days 110, but now am interested in the Supernatural 108 or 115. Looking for a one ski quiver right now, something where I can hit the pow, but still have enough confidence on the groomer/ice days. Will I be giving up a lot compared to the Sick Day 110 if I look at the SN 108? Any other skis you think I should look at? The Cochise seem like they may be too stiff as an all rounder?

    • Author

      Hey, Tom – at your size, I’d go with either the Supernatural 108 or Cochise over the Sick Day 110. You *might* get slightly better pow performance out of the Sick Day than these other two skis, but I can’t say that for sure, but I can say that you will be able to push both the Cochise and the SN 108 harder.

      And no, at your size, the 185 Cochise would not be too stiff as an everyday ski. Nor would the 108.

  44. Majki October 28, 2014 Reply

    Hello GREAT blistergearreview team :)
    I need some advise. I am looking for directional skis to charge mainly variable-to-firm resort conditions. So soon after storm (which is not usual) our couloirs become hardly mess up. I am looking for something capable to ski stable in these conditions. I rode rossignol squad 7 2013 as my daily ski last season. But I don´t want to destroy them on firmer snow. So my question is what is better for rougher snow condition? Line super natural or Blizzard Cochise?
    Thanks for answer. I really appreciate it.

    sorry for my english skills

    • Author

      For “rougher snow conditions,” I think it’s currently too close to call. My stock answer – till I can A/B the new Cochise and the production 108s – is to say that ‘rough conditions’ is probably not where these two skis will differentiate themselves. (A) Groomer performance or (B) pow performance is where they may differentiate themselves. But I’d happily ski either of these in rough, variable conditions. (And your English is fine!)

  45. Marcus Wild November 25, 2014 Reply

    Hello blistergearreview Team
    I´m Marcus from Germany. Big thanks for your very detailed tests – you are awesome. I´m 5`6 and 152lbs; I´m a good Freeskier and I skied the last seven winters K2 “Seth” (179cm). I was really satisfied with the “Seth” – he didn´t like hard ice groomers and short turns. But now it is time to get a new pair of skis!!! I would ride only one ski not several different types. So I became really nervous when I read your Test of the Supernatural 108. But some guys told me to take Line Sick Day 110, which is lighter, more flexible and the curve radius is 4m less (Lenght 179cm: Supernatural 108: 22m; Sick Day 110: 18m) What would you recommend? What do you think about White Dot´s “Ranger” – is this an alternative?
    Thanks for your help
    Sincerely Marcus

  46. Alex December 19, 2014 Reply

    Hi, would you recommend pairing these skis with the Salomon STH-WTR 16 bindings for use on-piste in BC resorts? I have been skiing for one season, however, I am intermediate/advanced in skill and a very fast learner with an athletic/fast style (6′ 170lb). I typically ski all day.

    I am considering these skis because they seem very versatile according to your review. I am looking to have fun with them in a variety of snow conditions, as opposed to excelling in one particular condition, because I only want to buy one pair of skis, for now.

    I am considering these bindings because they are being offered as a deal with the skis, and are thus much cheaper! If the bindings I mentioned are not appropriate, what would you recommend?

    Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, and keep up the informative and detailed reviews!

    • Marcel December 19, 2014 Reply

      hey alex you can go to http://www.dinsetting.com put your data and check if you are in the sth2 16 din range , if you are then go for it. salomon bindings are great and I have salomon on all my skis and I love them! as long as you fall between the 7 – 16 din range you are good to go!

  47. John December 25, 2014 Reply

    Thanks again for your review. Your description of the S108 seems consistent with my experience of the skis today.

    Briefly, I finally had a chance to take these out today and really like the S 108s. Although I’m skiing with a partially recovered rib injury and had to take it easy, my initial impression is that the S108 skis intuitively. It cuts nicely through soft chop, floating over and cutting through effortlessly. They handle remarkably well in bumps and ski like a narrower ski in the bumps. Easy to engage or release the edge as desired. Quickly learned that, unlike my Blizzard Bonafides, these like to be skied more forward than centred, and the tips can be pushed to hook up in softer snow and groomers.. I didn’t push the ski as much as I would have liked because of rib pain, but they felt stable when cruising with some speed in Bye Bye Bowl.

  48. Tomas January 12, 2015 Reply

    Dear chargers, let me introduce myself, im 32 year old, 185cm and 89kg from Czech Republic (Europe) lets say aggressive skier charging around mountains in Austria, Slovakia, France and time to time Swiss.
    Since season 08/09 i own K2 Obsethed 189 (in real 193cm, 138-105-125) with mounting +4cm forward and to be honest i call that skis really hard charger for all conditions except ice, they are carving nice on piste with huge turn radius, little bit lazy from edge to edge, working nice in crud, bumps and what so ever they are STABLE and i never had single issue with tip diving! So i can drive them with speed as i really want in variable conditions with the specific feeling – i called like TANK or Bulldozer.
    Of course that they are not quick and not good on ice but the stability in speed and the tank feeling take my heart and i spent on them 7 years and now was the time to replace them.
    Long story short i finish up with supernatural 108 186cm and -> on piste, crud, bumps and on steep ice is superb and i can say i never had such a wide skis on my legs with so fast edge-edge and quick turns possible and also GS speed turns, but in deep snow it is really disaster, tips even with relatively huge rocker profile are diving like hell (i mounted them as it should be at recommended middle-sole) about hard charging in deep(40cm of fresh pow) we cant talk at all! those skis are still pushing me to turn around and i cant call them stable. I don’t know if my weight is just to much? no idea, tough this after 5 days of skiing them i need to replace them with something with more charge and TANK feeling but also with some support on ice. So now im looking MOMENT Belafonte 194cm or Black Diamond Zealot 192cm or Nordica Helldorado 193cm. I will be glad for any advice and im very much open for discussion.
    Thank you guys!

    Tomas

    • Author

      Hey, Tomas – very sorry for the late reply.

      You are heavier than both Will Brown and me, but as we reported, we did not have significant issues with tip dive – though Brett Carroll did feel like he needed to ski more centered… And at your weight, I do think that you are pushing the limit of the sub-185cm Line 108.

      A few thoughts: (1) you might want to check out our review of the Armada Invictus. (2) The Belafonte is not a pow ski, and I wouldn’t expect it to perform much better for you than the 108 – though to be fair, we haven’t reviewed the 194… (3) I thought both the 185 and 193cm Helldorados were excellent in pow, and excellent carvers. I thought they fell apart when raging through firm bumps (down Silver Fox & the Cirque at Snowbird). But if you aren’t GS-ing through a lot of firm moguls, that ski could work well for you.

      • Tomas February 9, 2015 Reply

        THX Jonathan: i finish later on with 191cm Volkl Katana, they do partially what i looked for, they go thru pow good and they hold well on ice for me, also they are more manageable for me just that tank feeling missing :-). So for next year i maybe look for Helldorado they impressed me.
        Thank you guys for what are you doing!
        Tomas

  49. Gil February 7, 2015 Reply

    Jonathan:
    You rock and your descriptions are excellent. I just demo’d the 117 Automatic in 2 feet of fresh light pow in VT. Killer! In the PM as the temps warmed and the tracks appeared I still floated and bobbed and weaved with ease.
    The 117 Auto was perfect for me in these conditions. 175 lbs. more finesse than power ripper. Technically sound but more conservative than in my younger days. I also have a 186 Volkl Bridge and a 176 Steadfast for bumps and groomers. I ski with a group of mad dog chargers in the West a few times a year who ski trees, and steeps and cliffs. And, as you know steeps can get bumped up after a few days. I have not had the Auto’s in steep stiff crud and bumps. My fear is that the Bridge will not be great in the deep and the Auto’s will no be good in steep firm crud and bumps. I typically ski slower in these conditions. The 108 sounds like it would excel in deeper snow will still hold up in heavy crud and bumps but will still be playful in the trees. Rereading this my reaction is there is not one ski for all conditions but given my set up and style the SN 108 might come close. Your wisdom is much appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Gil

    • Author

      Thanks, Gil! This is actually kind of tough – there’s no question that the wider, softer Automatic will be a floatier ski than the Supernatural 108 – my only point here is that the 108 works pretty well in pow given it’s (relatively) narrow waist width…

      The other thing that gives me pause is that you say that you are more of a finesse skier – that sounds like another potential point in favor of the Automatic. The Supernatural is still a directional charger – it’s just that it has a more playful side to it, too, much more so than, say, the Cochise – see our comparison review.

      So if you’re okay with the fact that (1) the Automatic will be the better deep-pow ski, and (2) the 108 won’t feel as quick and light and easy as the Automatic, the 108 will definitely be the much better variable conditions and firm condition ski. Hope that helps a little?

      • Gil February 15, 2015 Reply

        Perfect Jonathan.
        No gun to my head on the quiver. That has been my problem. HA a good one. So here is the result.
        Since I am more finesse than charger but am capable in all situations.
        186 Automatic 117—-Pow and Fluffy Tracked. Quick in chutes and steeps.
        179 SN 108——-Line was sold out of the 186. But I hoped I could playfully charge on the 179 in any condition. Could be one ski quiver. I just puller the trigger. Will mount with a Jester 110 Brake.
        178 Steadfast. 90—— anywhere except deep. Have not skied it in variable chop and crud. chop but suspect this ski will be an easy workhorse.
        178 Lataigo 78——–awesome carver. New England hard pack. Playful and stable at any speed for me. One of the quickest.

        For Sale: 2013 187 Bridge with Jester Schzio. Mint. Top Sheet almost like new. No chips. Bases perfect. 10 days on them——-will sell for $499 if you know anyone.

        That’s it. I told my manager if I ask for another Proform put a gun to my head.

        Thanks for the thread. Very educational for us shop employees. Lot’s of technical vocabulary that works for those of us who have been around skiing for a long time.
        Gil

  50. Rafa February 12, 2015 Reply

    Hello,
    first of all I just want to say….. Great site… I can’t consider a new ski without reading your review
    I am 200 lb and I used to ski in Europe (Not West Coast snow here for sure….. ;-)
    I am wondering between SuperNatural 108 or 115. Now I own a pair of Soul7 but they are too soft for me when the snow is not untracked pow.
    I am looking for something better in tracked pow and crud (we have a lot here) but also some of flotation.
    Do you know how 115s behaviour in groomers, can they carve soft groomers?
    Thank you in advance.
    BR Rafa

    • Author

      Thanks, Rafa. I only spent time on the Influence 115 (see my review), the ski that went on to become the Supernatural 115 with some construction tweaks. And I’ve spent very limited time on the 192 Influence 115, so I can’t speak to that ski.

      But I think my review, Brett Caroll’s review, and Will & my ‘vs’ review of the Supernatural 108 / Cochise ought to give you a pretty good sense of the 108 in pow and chop. The 108s have blown us away on groomers; I believe that the 115 would be predictable on groomers – and yes, they will carve soft groomes – but I’m not ready to believe that 186cm 115 would be equal to or better than the 108. So pick: if the priority is flotation in pow, go 115. Groomers? 108. And chop? I would pick the 186cm 108 over the 186cm 115, though if you were willing to go 192 in the 115, the performance gap in chop might be closer to the 108…

      Lots of speculation in this answer, so apologies for that, but hopefully it helps a little.

  51. Nick February 17, 2015 Reply

    Hi Guys,

    Love the reviews especially since its hard for me to get on demos. I am currently skiing the 2013 Bibby Pros in 186 (bought off your review recommendations) and love it as my primary Niseko ski. I’m currently looking for a ski that I can set-up for some light sidecountry tours when I ski in Europe (St Anton) or Utah/Jackson where I normally go to one or the other for a week or so. I’m looking for something that can handle standard European offpiste conditions that can be a combination of conditions from best case light powder all the way through to cut up/crud. From what I’m reading I’m leaning towards either the Supernatural 108 or the Cochise. I’ve skied the SFBs in the past in 184 and though fun and poppy I’m looking for more of a directional charger with something that can hold a strong edge if I get onto some firm/icy conditions. Would you recommend the Supernatural 108 for this – perhaps paired with a pair of Barons or Dukes? Thanks

    • Author

      Hi, Nick – in short, I think you’d be happy with a baron or duke on the 108s.

      The 14/15 Cochise will be the more damp ride in crud, but you’ll get better pow (and groomer) performance out of the 108s.

      If I assumed that I was going to be encountering pretty harsh / crappy conditions most of the time, the more I might lean Cochise. But for a range of conditions – including some decent-to-good conditions, I think you’ll be very happy with the 108s.

  52. AltaBird February 27, 2015 Reply

    Jonathan And All:

    I spent 2 days skiing on the Supernatural 108 (186). But before I get to that, as many others have said…

    Thank you. This site rocks. Fantastic. I appreciate that your reviews are completely honest, detailed and not filled with marketing bullshit. I don’t need to try to “read between the lines” which is necessary reading the big magazine’s “tests” and “reviews”. Your reviews are right on the money and reliable. Clearly you guys (gals) grasp each of a skis subtleties and articulate things incredibly well. Thank you so much!

    OK, my experience on the Supernatural 108 (186):

    WHAT YOU GUYS SAID. Period. EVERYTHING Jonathan, Brett and Will said, EXACTLY! Honestly I have nothing to add other than how it relates to my own likes. I really liked the SN 108. A fun intuitive ski for the right skier.

    Conditions at Snowbird, Utah when I skied them:
    Skied them two days (in a row). A true grab bag of conditions. 9″ of medium density powder, blown in knee deep areas with chalky surfaces underneath (oh yeah), south facing 5-6 deep with crunchy hard set up crud underneath, medium dense crud, stiff set up crud (super cold overnight), very hard rattly crud. The groomers went from perfect corduroy to firm and even icy sections.

    My everyday ski is the 2012 Cochise. Blister’s comparison to that ski is… PERFECT! Yep, both are excellent chargers in just slightly different ways. Cochise has a bit bigger balls. SN 108 a bit more compliant. As you said, mostly about how the tip/fore body of the ski feels and reacts on snow. I found a lot of cross over in the two skis. I like both a lot.

    Before I skied the SN 108 I misinterpreted your meaning of “playful” charger. Not as a result of your description, just my preconceptions. I think I pictured a looser ski. In hindsight your description was perfect. As you said: The SN 108 is a slightly less “stem roller-y” Cochise, a bit more dynamic and active. As always you guys hit it on the head!

    Awesome site. Thank you!

    About me (if it’s helpful or anyone gives a shit):
    Started skiing at age 3. Race trained and competitions up to college (Maine). Then 25 years ago I moved to Snowbird/Alta to ski powder and make tram laps with the local Bro’s.
    Stats: 5′ 9″ 174 lbs.

    • Author

      Ha, this is fantastic – very sorry I missed this when you posted. So apologies for the delay, and many many thanks for the kind words. We try to get it right, so it’s great to get feedback from someone who knows the Cochise really well and agrees with our comparisons. Really useful.

  53. Dave February 27, 2015 Reply

    I never pulled the trigger on these, albeit I was very close.. Very curious to see how this ski compares to the 2015 4Frnt Kye 100

  54. Don Boyajian March 9, 2015 Reply

    I spent the weekend at A Basin on the supernatural 108. My previous ski was the Influence 105. I agree with most everything you said. Most notably –

    1 – this thing is awesome on groomers. So much fun.
    2 – it’s not as good at just blasting in firm nasty variable as the influence 105. You definitely have to ski it more actively. I think that probably has to do with the shorter effective running length. The influence 105 really demolishes firm conditions. Pali warmed up to about 45 degrees on Saturday. On Sunday, it was very firm. Though the Supernatural 108 held an edge very well in these conditions, it wants to be actively skied with a dynamic style in these conditions. Occassionally, I found myself getting a bit more bounced around, losing good contact with the snow. Probably pilot error, but the Influence 105 is more apt to just steam roll.
    3 – On Saturday, we did a few laps through the Beavers. I was a mix of heavy wet pow, heavy crud and wind-affected heavy snow. The Supernatural was awesome in these conditions. I usually ski this stuff a bit more gingerly, but the Supernatural slices through like a hot knife through butter. At first I was worried about the lower amount of tip-splay, but it did not seem to be an issue. It actually seems to have less tip splay than the Influence 105.
    4 – This ski can slither through bumps very easily. A Basin gets a lot of funky bump lines where you have to shift your line after 3 or 4 bumps. It was very intuitive to throw it sideways on this ski.
    5. The tail on this ski is awesome.

    One question – How do you guys handle the de-tuning on this ski?

    • Author

      Hey, Don – thanks for the very good feedback.

      As for detuning, I never took a gummy stone to the 108s, and I don’t recall that Will Brown or Brett Carroll did either. When it comes time to tune these, I’ll probably just go 1 side / 1 base and call it good. But while I detuned the entire length of the 15/16 Cochise, I didn’t touch the 108s.

  55. Gravityskier March 25, 2015 Reply

    Hey,

    I’m ordering the Supernatural 108 today. I’m 177cm and 200lbs – should I go for the 186cms or 179cms?

    Currently ski last year’s 185cm Cochise

    Thanks

    • Author

      Go 186. At your size, and If you are happily skiing the 185cm Cochise, then zero reason to drop down to the the 177cm Supernatural 108.

      • Gravityskier April 7, 2015 Reply

        Thanks Jonathan – perfect advice. I skied the 186’s in Verbier last week – in powder and on the groomers. They performed as per your review. They were great at doing big long freeride turns, and nimble on bumps. Never lost and edge, and they are really solid at speed. Thanks

  56. Declivity April 1, 2015 Reply

    Hey Jonathan, I love these reviews and love the site, so thank you! So this upcoming season I’m looking to form a 2-ski quiver, I’ve already decided that one of the skis will be the new 15/16 Bibby Pro, based on how much you guys loved both the original and the blister pro, but for my second ski I want a daily driver that can handle most conditions. Most of the time I ski in Snowbird and Alta, but I also frequently travel to both Taos and Mammoth. I’m about 6-2 and weigh around 155-160 pounds, and I love to hit steep terrain, tight tree runs, moguls, catch airs, and have fun. I’m looking for a playful ski but can’t decide between the 108 Supernatural, the SFB, the Belafonte, or the Shreditor. I’ve read up on all of them but can’t really decide. Thanks!

    • Author

      Thanks. And I’d read through the reviews again – they really ought to be able to help you whittle this list down — e.g., the Shreditor has nothing in common with the Belafonte. But given what you say you’re looking for, the Supernatural 108 seems like the right call.

      • Declivity April 1, 2015 Reply

        Yeah I’ll read through them again, but the supernatural is definitely my front runner, thanks Jonathan!

      • Declivity April 1, 2015 Reply

        Would you recommend the 108 Supernatural or the 115 supernatural

  57. JC April 14, 2015 Reply

    Jonathan – saw your reply on Brett’s second look review to a reader who asked about mounting at 0 or -1 for powder. I have the opposite question for my new SN108s– what about mounting at +1 or +2 from the recommended line for a slightly quicker SFB/MPO-type feel? Would like to optimize the ride for tight trees etc, and I own wider planks for pure powder days, so not worried about tip dive. Appreciate your thoughts and any votes from Will/Brett too; thanks a million, and bravo for the best ski website yet created.

  58. Blister Member
    AJ August 10, 2015 Reply

    I’m looking for my first ski purchase in a while. I’m 6’4, ~210lb geared up and skiing in the PNW. I like to charge steep groomers and play around on the sides of flatter groomers when skiing less able friends (finding small jumps, slashes, a little bit of riding switch), both with a variety of turn shapes. I’m also looking for something fun in pow. I won’t be skiing anything super deep and staying in bounds. I’m considering the 190 SFB and 186 Supernatural 108. I’m concerned the reduced weight and width of the new SFB will also reduce it’s versatility, or if the stiffer flex will help compensate against chopped up snow and crud. I feel like both a 2015 SFB and SN108 could be a good option. I know these two have been compared before but this was for skiers at lower weights. What are your thoughts at my weight and is there anything else I should consider?

  59. Blister Member
    AJ August 11, 2015 Reply

    Hey guys. It’s a phenomenal website you guys have put together. I guess the price to pay is people like me asking your expert opinion. I’m looking for some advice on my ski choice. I’m 6’4 210lb geared up, pretty strong and will be skiing in and around Whistler. I like to charge steep groomers, play a little more on the flatter ones when skiing with slower friends (slashes, finding little jumps and a little bit of riding switch) and make turns with a variety of shapes. I haven’t spent much time in powder, my last skis were Head Mojo 90s-decent on groomers but I had no fun in anything soft. Granted my technique was likely lacking, but they were too stiff for my liking and provided almost no float, just wanted to dive on me constantly. So I’m looking for something that’s fun a and bit more playful to allow me to develop my skills in powder, nothing too deep and mainly inbounds. No park and maybe I little bit of tree skiing where the Mojos struggled a bit. I’ve read reviews of the 190 2015 SFB, the 186 SN108 and the 188 Soul 7 but I’m not sure how my weight would affect what’s already been written on these skis. I would like to know how the new SFB and the Faction CT 3.0 compare too.

  60. Jason September 30, 2015 Reply

    Hey Jonathan,
    Awesome website. What are your thoughts on mounting the Supernaturals 1 cm behind the line if I have 12/13 Moment Bibby Pros for deep days. The 108s are replacing Prophet 98s as my everyday ski in a two ski quiver and I love ripping groomers when there is no fresh snow. I am 6’4″ 205 lb. strong/athletic skier.

    • Jason October 9, 2015 Reply

      Let me rephrase my question. I love my Prophet 98s for ripping groomers as they are incredibly stable at speed and great on anything besides boiler-plate ice. I have Supernatural 108s to replace my Prophet 98s as per your reviews they are great on hard-pack/groomers, but with their extra width and rocker they are a little more versatile than the Prophets they will be replacing. I have 12/13 Moment Bibby Pros for deep days, but I have been thinking about mounting the Supernaturals -1 cm behind the line to get the most out of them on deeper days. Will mounting the Supernaturals behind the line have a negative effect on their great groomer performance? Just looking for some input as you guys run the best snow sport oriented site on the web.

      Many thanks,
      Jason

  61. Jason October 3, 2015 Reply

    Hey guys,
    I love the site. Simply the best reviews out there. Could anyone give me a breakdown between the 12/13 influence 105 and the supernatural 108? I’m specifically interested in the rocker profile. I love my influences but If they had just a tad more rocker in the tip they would be just that much better. Thanks for your help!

  62. Martin November 10, 2015 Reply

    Hello Jonathan,
    first of all I need to thank you for all these great reviews. You have saved me much money :D
    I´ve got one question. Friend of mine is going to sell his Volkl Katana 191 (2013). I wanted to buy Supernatural 108 but you know Katana is Katana :) I want something to ski when conditions are not ideal. From icy, firm snow to crud and days after storm in resort. I cant decided wich one is more suited to this type of condition. I am small guy (5 foot 7), but I´ve got strong legs. I am from middle easter Europe. My current skis are Rossignol Squad 7 2013 (for anything soft) and old Dynastar Mythic Rider 184 (I rode them in firm and ice).

    Can you help me? Than you very much.

    Martin

  63. Blister Member
    Christian November 19, 2015 Reply

    Thanks for the review – I just found blister and the quality and depth of your reviews really stands out. Any thoughts on the Supernatural 108 vs. the Sick Day 110? I like everything I’m reading about the Line skis and am looking for a one ski quiver. I’m and intermediate-expert skier and ski primarily in Tahoe with an annual family trip to Whistler. 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.

    It seems the Supernatural is more of a charger while the Sick Day is a little more playful?

    Also, at 5’9″ 170ish pounds, what are your thoughts on 179 vs 186 length?

  64. Gord February 1, 2016 Reply

    I bought a pair of these in 179cm because the reviews on them seemed really great and I love the Influence 105, Quite the mistake. I don’t like the 108 at all and in spite of trying hard to like them, I really dislike them. I find them hard to get on balance, unstable and poor in off-piste situations. It shows you shouldn’t believe everything you read!

    • Author

      (1) What is your height / weight? (2 What length were you skiing the Influence 105 in? I’ll go out on a limb and assume that you were skiing the Influence 105 in a 179, then also decided on the Supernatural 108 in a 179?

      The Influence 105 has a flatter tail, so a 179 cm 105 has more effective edge than a 179 cm Supernatural 108. I.e., it wouldn’t be at all surprising to me if a 186 cm Supernatural 108 was more apples-to-apples to a 179 cm Influence 105.

      We didn’t review the 179 cm Supernatural 108, we reviewed the 186 cm 108. Go ski THAT ski — the 186 cm — then see if you still think we are wrong. Because I think you may have gotten the sizing wrong. Just a hunch.

      • Gord February 1, 2016 Reply

        Height is 6′ and weight 190 and most of the skis I am on are in the 180 cm range. I have 177cm Volkl Mantras and really like them for example. The Influence 105’s were the 179cm ones and I also have 179cm Line 115’s (2011-12 model). You could be right on the length not sure but something is sure wrong with the 179 cm 108’s.

        • Author

          Sorry, but you are on the wrong size. Our reviewer Will Brown weighs 155 lbs. and was happily skiing the 186 cm 108s, and has zero interest in the 179. Nor do I, at ~180 lbs. Or Brett Carroll (~185 lbs). Furthermore, If you are happy on a 177 cm Mantra, then it’s further evidence to me that you should be on a 186 Supernatural 108. All of us here said that the 108 is not difficult to ski if you are a relatively advanced skier. Nobody here would have advised you to go with the 179.

          • Gord February 2, 2016 Reply

            Well, I’ll see if I can fix this….

            • Gord February 4, 2016 Reply

              Just thought you might like to know how this turned out. I managed to turn these 179 Line 108’s with Marker Squire demos into 185 Nordica El Capo’s with Marker Griffons demos for no cost. Both skis are of the same vintage. At least I have turned a ski I really didn’t like (the 179’s) into something else. Demo bindings because my daughter and I both ski on them. Guess we will see how these stack up against the Influence 105’s.

  65. John February 2, 2016 Reply

    For what it’s worth, I have heard from other males who are smaller than Gord on the SN 108 in a 179 who have not been terrible impressed, with single word reviews such as “meh”. I’ve skied the 186 for parts of the last two years and find the ski to be just like the description found in Blister. I love the ski. I’m 5’10” and weigh 170 and am a fairly aggressive skier. The 186 is fun in most conditions, including crud, bumps, powder, and groomers. It compares well to my new Enforcer or my older Bonafide.

  66. Alberto Tomba February 2, 2016 Reply

    The Supernatural 108 is the most dependable ski I own. I ski the 186. It is almost as easy as the Atomic Automatic 117 in light deep fluff. A true crud buster. Tons of fun in all terrain if you aggressively apply proper technique. I ski with finesse at 5’11, 175 lbs. I am not a power skier but I love to surf. Thanks Blister for your right on assessment.

  67. (other) John February 28, 2016 Reply

    The 186 SN 108 seems like a slam dunk, but I am down a maelstrom of indecision. I obsess between 179 SN 108, 179 SN 115, Gunsmoke 179, and Volkl One 176. I am 144lbs., 5’10”, early 40s, and not a strong skier, therefore I hesitate going for anything 186 or over 2.2kg/ski. I consider myself an “advanced” skier, whatever that means, and every year I ski about 10 days in UT or at Grand Targhee. I am looking now for easy turning short&medium turns in variable steeps, stability in crud/chop (<40mph), and powder fun, if powder gods are around. I don't care much about carving, groomer, moguls. Last 2 seasons I skied on the '13 Sickle 181 with Full Tilt Classics. Mounted at the 0 line tip dive was frequent in pow and deep chop and the stability suffered (standing centered or leaning forwards) – got bounced fore and back a lot on chop. Moved bindings to -2 and got 8-level tongues for the boots and the Sickles were a bit better this year, but I find them more sluggish in trees.
    So, from the options above, what do you think would work for me ?
    There are good deals for these in March, and more are to come. Please give me your 2c — I just wanna stop thinking about skis and get on with my life.

  68. Craig March 25, 2016 Reply

    Hello Jonathan, I enjoy your thorough, and accurate reviews, and podcasts. Your comments in this review, and the topic in your Podcast from Dec 17, 2015 with Jed of K2 and Line skis, concerning ski weight and damping in todays market, has been a topic of interest for me as well. It is a worthy consideration for most skiers, when selecting a ski. Thanks. Craig-Yellow Gentian Ski Reviews. Vail, Colorado

  69. Chris July 9, 2016 Reply

    Hi there Jonathan,

    I am 6ft and 190 pounds, 42 yrs, strong skier and have been skiing on the ’16 Bonafides 180cm in OZ and Canada after reading your review. great fun ski. I am looking for a little more ski for Japan Pow and the US- SN 108 186cm seems perfect.

    I was thinking of mounting -1 for better float. Will that change the carving/ high speed characteristics of the ski?

    Great website- keep up the great work

  70. Andrew October 10, 2016 Reply

    Hi Jonathan,

    I love reading your reviews and lots of the others here on Blister! So much more insightful and in-depth than anything else I can find on the web, and the direct comparisons really help those of us who can’t make our minds up. I was wondering whether you have any thoughts on comparing the Atomic Backland 109 to the Line Supernatural 108?
    I’m heading to Whistler for 2 months in December and looking to ski pretty much everywhere. I am keen to ski as much powder as possible, but appreciate that a lot of the terrain with be cut up and have variable snow conditions. I’m looking to buy just one pair of skis though, and have to consider that after my Whistler trip, all my skiing will be in European resorts for just a couple of weeks a year, so performance on the groomers is quite important to me. I’m 6’1″ and about 185lbs. I like to ski pretty hard and fast but often head out with snowboarders and end up playing around on features, hence why I’m going to steer clear of the harder charging Cochise, as I’m not sure it would be playful enough.
    Any advice on which of these two skis might be the better option would be very much appreciated.
    Thanks a lot!

  71. Rob Burnell November 7, 2016 Reply

    Thank you for the thorough review. Any thoughts on using the Supernatural 108 as a Tele ski? Im on the bigger end of the spectrum…6’2″, 230lbs, advanced to expert. My style is hard charging, but I like to vary my turns and tend to mix up my terrain.
    Any input would be appreciated!
    All the best.

  72. Martin December 10, 2016 Reply

    Hey Rob–I can tell you that I ski the 186 SN 108 mounted tele with an AXL binding – i’m 185 lbs, 6′ 1″ and I absolutely love it. At your size I think it’d be there for you no prob and you’d probably be able to drive it harder than I do. It’s just a perfect ski – playful but it charges, big and heavy and damp, but not taxing or overly demanding, and it never feels too planky, although it is a lot of ski and it doesn’t really like short radius slow turns. I love the tail for tele – forgiving and maneuverable with the little bit of rocker and you can scrub speed, but always there too, it never lets me down. And of course, it absolutely rails alpine turns, even at 108. It’s like magic. You might think about mounting it 2cm back from the alpine center mark–I do feel like I need to shift my weight back in a tele turn or I head towards the tips, but it’s probably good either way. Something to think about, anyhow. Moment’s Deathwish could be a good one too. That thing is fun as hell! But I do like the little bit of metal in the SN 108 for charging and the SN does everything I need it too.

  73. DB Cooper December 15, 2016 Reply

    Have you had a chance to get on the Supernatural 115s yet? I’m 36, 6’3″, 225, and just moved to Utah and in the market for a powder ski in the 105-115 range. My daily driver is an E100 190cm that I love, and picking through these reviews it seems like the Supernatural series might be the next ski for my 2 ski quiver. I was originally intrigued by the SN 108 based on Brett’s review, but since that only comes in a 186, I was concerned it would be too short/small for my size. Any comments/feedback you can provide would be much appreciated!

    • Craig December 30, 2016 Reply

      Hi DB, I skied this years Supernatural 115 twice in the 186 length. Based on my profile, it is a top pick in this width. Quick turning, heavy, very good damping, great in bumps, average float for this width, moderate stability at speed, and a good carver. For your size, you will probably want this ski in the 192 length. Craig. “Yellow Gentian Ski Reviews”

  74. Nathan January 7, 2017 Reply

    Hi Jonathan,

    I am currently skiing on the 2014 Icelantic Nomad 191 (105mm underfoot), and like the ski, but am looking for a much stiffer daily driver and am considering the Line Supernatural 108. Do you think it will be enought ski for me? I am 6’1 and 200lbs.

    Thank you.

    Nathan

    • Nathan January 7, 2017 Reply

      Jonathan, also note that I am an aggressive skier.

  75. John January 14, 2017 Reply

    This review can’t be more thorough and professional.
    I demoed recently the Supernatural 100 in 179 length on a soft choppy day and I loved it.
    But I need more float for UT snow. My priority is powder/crud performance.
    I hesitate between 172 and 179. Would the 172 provide enough flotation on resort powder days for a 130 lbs. and 5’10 guy that is not a strong skier due to recent knee issues? The 179 seems be a bit heavy, at ~4185 g per pair. Thanks !

  76. Blister Member
    Dane February 15, 2017 Reply

    Have any of you skied these with the bindings mounted behind the line .5-1″ and if so, did it help with tip dive in deeper powder? I just bought a new pair of the SN108 in 186mm for $399 including bindings and shipping (too good a deal to pass up) and am about to mount up the bindings when they arrive on Saturday. This will be my widest ski for all mountain resort skiing next year around Summit County, CO so they sound absolutely perfect for my daily driver. My only question is if it’s worth while to mount these a little behind the line for those powder days or if I’d be giving up anything in return in the other conditions. I’m fairly sure I will mount them on the factory line because I realize powder gets tracked up quickly at the resorts so it would only make sense if it doesn’t effect anything else. My Salomon bindings on my X-drives are easily adjustable fore and aft but I don’t know if the Rossi Axial 3 that’s coming with my SN108 allow fore and aft adjustability where I could keep ’em on the line most of the time and slide them back on deeper days.

    Thanks!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*