2017-2018 Line Mordecai

Alex Adams reviews the Line Mordecai for Blister Gear Review

Line Mordecai

Ski: 2017-2018 Line Mordecai, 186 cm

Available Lengths: 179, 186, 193 cm

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 184.5 cm

Stated Dimensions (mm): 141-114-138

Blister’s Measured Dimensions (mm): 141-113-136

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2202 & 2207 grams

Stated Sidecut Radius (186 cm): 17 meters

Core Construction: Paulownia + Fiberglass Laminate

Tip / Tail Splay (ski decambered): 75 mm / 72 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~4 mm

Recommended Mount Point: “Eric’s Choice -2.0 cm / Recommended -6.0 cm”

Measured Factory Recommended Line: ~2.0 cm from center / ~90.25 cm from tail

Mount Location for this review: “Eric’s Choice” / ~2.0 cm from center

Boots / Bindings: K2 Pinnacle 130 / Marker Jester (DIN 10)

Test Locations: Craigieburn Valley Ski Area & Porters Ski Area, Canterbury, NZ

Days Skied: 3 (Alex Adams); 2 (Jonathan Ellsworth)

[Note: our review was conducted on the 15/16 Mordecai, which comes back unchanged for the 16/17, and 17/18 seasons, except for the graphic.]

Intro

A new offering from Line this year, the Mordecai, sits between the Line Sir Francis Bacon and the Magnum Opus. The Bacon has long been Line’s playful, everyday, all-mountain shredder, and the different variations of the Opus have been highly regarded powder skis for the last several years.

Last year, the Opus grew wider (from 118 mm up to the Magnum Opus’s 124mm width), the Bacon got skinnier (from 108 mm wide to 104 mm), and the Mordecai was introduced with a width right between the two.

Line describes the Mordecai as “a wider platform ski to slash, butter, spin and float through powder and crud all around the mountain.” Down in New Zealand this summer, we spent some seeing how the Mordecai balances playfulness, stability, and all-mountain versatility.

We’ve also now posted our Deep Dive Comparisons of the Mordecai to a host of other playful powder skis, so become a Blister member or Deep Dive subscriber to check out our comparisons.

Before continuing, two things:

(1) It’s worth mentioning that both the Mordecai and the Bacon were released this year with very low stated weights. Once it came time for production, Line made the call to beef up both skis a bit to increase durability. Our flash review on the issue goes into more detail, but just be aware that the weight of the Mordecai is more middle-of-the-road rather than uber-light.

Alex Adams reviews the Line Mordecai for Blister Gear Review.

Alex Adams on the Line Mordecai, Porters Ski Area, NZ.

(2) The new Sir Francis Bacon has been stiffened up a bit this year, and the Mordecai has been branded as a wider Bacon. In our Deep Dive review we explored the direct differences between the two skis. So I won’t repeat myself and make a bunch of comparisons to the Bacon in this review, and will instead reference two of my favorite skis in this wider all-mountain category: the now-retired 181cm Rossignol Sickle, and the 186cm ON3P Jeffrey 114.

Flex

Many of Line’s freestyle skis, including the Mordecai feature a symmetrical flex. A pretty stiff and solid platform underfoot smoothly transitions to a moderately stiff shovel and a slightly softer tip.

When hand-flexed side-by-side with the 14/15 Mr. Pollard’s Opus (185 cm), the shovel and tip flex of the Mordecai is much stiffer.

Compared to the ON3P Jeffrey 114, the Mordecai has much stiffer tips (if the Mordecai is about a 7 or 8 out of 10, the Jeffrey is about a 5), and stiffer tails (Mordecai’s tails: 7; Jeffrey’s tails: 5).

Spring Slush

I first rode the Mordecai at Porters Ski Area in Canterbury, NZ. On the first day, the upper half of the mountain was a bit frozen and wind buffed, so we stayed mostly on the lower half doing some warmer slush cruisin’. In this warmer, choppy snow, the Mordecai plowed through the slush piles very well.

The Mordecai doesn’t have a ton of pop in its tails, and was less eager or willing than the 181 cm Rossignol Sickle to jump from one slush pile to the next. Instead, the Mordecai had a nice grounded feeling to it. Its relatively damp tips and tails absorb chunder and variable slush piles very well, and the combination of its wider platform and stiffer flex inspire a lot of confidence at speed, even in these dodgy conditions.

NEXT: Variable Conditions / Ice, Groomers, Etc.

13 Comments

  1. william November 4, 2015 Reply

    Good review, But i wish you would have compared the Mordecai to the Opus more, since that is the ski it replaced, by your review it sounds like the opus is the more playful true powder ski and the Mordecai is more of a “all mountain ski with some playful attributes, if that is the case, I’m glad I bought a backup pair of Opuses before their all gone.

    Also it would be interesting what Jonathan thought of the Mordecai.

    • Blister Member
      Alex Adams November 20, 2015 Reply

      William,

      I wish I could draw more comparisons to the Opus, but the sad fact is I just haven’t skied them before. I have flexed them side-by-side to the Mordecai, and I have plenty of friends who ride them daily. From everything I know about the Opus, you have it right. The Opus (we’re talking the pre-Magnum Opus) is very playful and the Mordecai is a little narrower and more solid/versatile with a playful side to it.

      Alex

    • Steve November 27, 2016 Reply

      I actually found this exchange somewhat helpful—I am still skiing my Line Pollards Opus, because I still love them. I am looking to replace them, but the new Magnum Opus is just too much ski for me, and it sounds to me from this review as if the Mordecai won’t be the back country powder / all conditions ski that I need. Interesting, because I have written to Line to ask them about this, and they don’t even respond…
      SO, instead, I am strongly considering the J Friend, in spite of some of what you said about it vs the Mordecai. Thoughts about the J Friend in comparison with Line Pollards Opus?

  2. Preben November 5, 2015 Reply

    I really like your review, and think I am going to buy the mordecai. I don’t know very much about gear so some advice would be extremely appreciated. Firstly I am wondering what you think about using the mordecai as an occasional backcountry touring ski after weight was bumped up. I am in very good shape so a bit of extra weight is no problem. Secondly I could really need some help on deciding what bindings to buy and where to mount them. I have heard the marker kingpin is really good? And I guess mounting them at the recommended 6cm instead of Eric’s choice is decided by how freestyle oriented you are? Please correct me if I am wrong, and once again thank you for such thorough reviews.

    • Blister Member
      Alex Adams November 20, 2015 Reply

      Preben,

      I think using the Mordecai as an occasional touring ski would be a good option actually. It can ski a lot of different conditions really well, and it’s wide enough to float through some pow. It’s weight was bumped up from advertised, but it is still an average weight ski. It’s not on the heavy end of the spectrum; it’s just not super light like originally planned.

      There are a lot of details that go into the equation when figuring out what bindings to get and where to mount them. My first suggestion is to talk to your local ski shop and have a conversation about how you plan to ski this pair. From your description, I do have a couple suggestions though. The Marker Kingpin is definitely a very good binding, but it is a dedicated backcountry binding that is built for backcountry enthusiasts. This binding requires touring-specific boots. If you’re only going to be touring on the Mordecai a couple of times a year, and you already have alpine ski boots (regular downhill ski boots), then I would suggest a frame binding like the Marker Duke or Marker Baron.

      And yes, the mounting location has a large part to do with how freestyle oriented you are.

      Alex

      • Preben November 27, 2015 Reply

        Thank you very much for a very helpful answer. I am going to buy new boots aswell. But I will probably go for something of a hybrid between touring and regular alpine both in boots and bindings then. Do you have any tips or thoughts about what boots are good?

  3. Sebastian December 19, 2015 Reply

    Hey guys,
    nice review as always!
    Did you measure the tip and tail height as well. I’d be really interested to know.

    Cheers

  4. Andre January 19, 2016 Reply

    Line markets this ski as a powder ski, but Blister lists this this ski as an “all mountain ski” in their index. Given it’s width underfoot and rocker profile, it certainly *looks* like a powder ski. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where this review addresses this substantial difference in classification.

    I live in Colorado, and am looking for a lighter, playful ski in the ~115 underfoot category as my go to powder ski on deeper days. I am stuck between the Mordecai and JJ 2.0. But based on this review, I am leaning towards the JJ if this is not a true powder ski like Line claims it is.

    Any help from Blister would be greatly appreciated. I am 5′ 11″, 175lbs, and I ski about 30-40 days a season in Colorado.

  5. Blister Member
    Slim February 22, 2016 Reply

    Any thoughts on the comparison with a Rossi Soul 7 or the Salomon Rocker2 108? I know both of those are a bit narrower, but the general idea seems similar and the next wider models from those companies are a fair bit wider than the Mordecai.

    Also the Soul 7 is certainly one of the most common skis on the mountain, so something a lot of people can relate too.

    How did you guys feel about size, since you have often gone to the 190ish skis, but were on the middle sized model of the series?

  6. Blister Member
    Slim February 23, 2016 Reply

    Also, the 190 cm Rocker2 108 is actually 111 meat the waist, with a 19.7m sidecut, so not that far of the width and sidecut of the Mordecai.

  7. Matt October 1, 2016 Reply

    Interesting. Total opposite to what I found (and I normally agree with your – well, Blister’s – reviews).

    I tested the Mordecai last March. I found it too soft and too unstable, and absolutely terrible on anything firm or variable.

    I can see the attraction for Pollard-style powdery (mellow) buttery fun, but it gets a ‘awful – stay away’ label from me everywhere else.

    Not sure how you can recommend it as a touring ski as above either – central mounts suck for kick turns.

  8. Bobi February 2, 2017 Reply

    Hi, I also posted my question on Brett Carroll’s review of the Supernatural 108’s but I also wanted to get the opinion of someone from the Mordecai fan-club. So here it is copy-pasted:

    I’m stuck in a dilemma for my next skis. I currently ski on first generation 170 Rossi E88s. I bought them as they were advertised as 50/50 on/off piste skis but I am really struggling with them in anything remotely powdery. I wanted to upgrade that aspect of them and thought the E100 were the natural choice but reading the Blister reviews on them I realised I will be getting mostly more of the same.

    I am now torn between Line Supernatural 108 and Mordecai both in 179cm. I know these are skis with very different profiles but this is exactly why I can’t decide easily between the two (otherwise I would probably just pick the one with the better picture).

    Nowadays I mostly like to ski tight trees and any powder I can find but I also like to make aggressive GS turns and go for top speed on groomers whenever I (inevitably) find myself on them. I also like to jump off of anything I can but can’t do any trickery or even ski switch (yet) – not the easiest thing on the E88s.

    I am mostly worried that the Mordecai might be too fat for on-piste or too twitchy for what I am used to even though I read that it is very stable for a centre-mounted ski and has decent edge-hold. For the Supernatural I am not sure how I will cope in the trees with the much longer radius – or maybe it doesn’t matter as long as the tails release easily. Also are they good skis for jumps?

    I really don’t know what I can expect from such skis as I haven’t skied many different skis – and nothing above an 88 waist.
    My profile: 175cm, 79kg (5’9″, 174lb), I ski local Bulgarian mountains (read East Coast, as far as I understand what the East Coast is) and Alps. Even though I may end up keeping the E88s I am really looking for a 1-ski-quiver.

Leave a reply

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

*