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

2nd Look: Line Supernatural 108

Jonathan Ellsworth reviews the Line Supernatural 108 for Blister Gear Review.

2015-2016 Line Supernatural 108

Ski: 2016-2017 Line Supernatural 108, 186 cm

Available Lengths: 172, 179, 186 cm

Blister’s Measured Length (Straight Tape Pull): 184.1 cm

Stated Dimensions: 137-108-126 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 137-107-125 mm

Blister’s Measured Weight Per Ski: 2335 & 2399 grams

Stated Sidecut Radius: 24.4 meters

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

Tip / Tail Splay ( ski decambered): 58 mm / 25 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot: 2-3 mm

Boots / Bindings: Tecnica Cochise 130 Pro / Marker Jester (DIN at 11)

Mount Location: Factory Recommended Line

Test Location: Alta Ski Area, Snowbird

Days Skied: 7

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 14/15 Supernatural 108 which was not changed for 15/16 or 16/17, except for the graphics.]

The Supernatural 108 is part of Line’s Supernatural series, which is new for the 2014-2015 season. Jonathan posted his review of the Supernatural 108 back in January, and his findings immediately grabbed my attention. He described a ski that was substantial yet energetic, fairly stiff yet playful, capable of charging hard yet willing to let you “dial it back.”

I have spent this season riding and reviewing skis that fall loosely into the “all-mountain charger” category—the Line Supernatural 100, the Line Influence 105, and the similarly-shaped Nordica El Capo—and I couldn’t wait to see how the Supernatural 108 stacked up.

Initial Comparisons

Line Supernatural 108 vs. Nordica El Capo

As far as width, sidecut, and camber/rocker profile goes, the Supernatural 108 and El Capo are nearly identical. The 108 comes in with (measured) dimensions of 137-107-125, exactly the same as the El Capo: 137-107-125. The sidecut radii differ between the two models by 0.6m (24.4m for the Supernatural 108, and 25m for the El Capo).

As for their camber/rocker profiles, the 108’s contact points are 40cm from the tip and 22cm from the tail, with 11cm of splay in the tip and 5cm in the tail. The El Capo’s contact points are 33cm from the tip and 18cm from the tail, with 8 and 5cm of splay, respectively.

Besides these similarities in dimensions and measurements, however, the flex patterns of the Supernatural 108 and El Capo are significantly different. The Supernatural 108 is stiff underfoot, and gradually transitions to a softer but still relatively stiff tip and tail. The El Capo is also fairly stiff underfoot (though less stiff than the 108), but abruptly transitions to a softer tip and much softer tail.

And as I’ll explain below, this difference in flex seems to have a lot to do with how each of the skis handle.

Line Supernatural 108 vs. Line Influence 105

Unlike the El Capo, the Influence 105’s shape is quite different from that of the Supernatural 108. The 105 is 3mm narrower underfoot than the 108 and is 4mm wider in the tip and tail, giving it a turn radius that is 4.6m tighter than that of the 108.

The 105’s contact point is about 10cm closer to the tip than the 108, and the ski has no tail rocker.

However, despite these apparent differences on paper, I found the Influence 105’s performance to be far more similar to the Supernatural 108’s than to the El Capo’s.

The Supernatural 108 feels slightly stiffer than the Influence 105 at all points along the ski, yet the flex of both consistently and gradually transitions from stiffest underfoot to slightly softer tips and tails. Again, I think the skis’ consistent, progressive flex patterns have a lot to do with their similarities on snow.

Line Supernatural 108 vs. Line Supernatural 100

Though these two skis are part of the same series, the Supernatural 108 is not simply a wider version of the Supernatural 100. The 108 is just 6mm wider at the tip and tail, giving the 108 a sidecut of 24.4m compared to the 100’s 23m radius. The 108 also has deeper rocker lines in both the tip and the tail.

The Supernatural 100 does share a similar flex pattern with the Supernatural 108 and Influence 105, with a flex that’s slightly softer than either at all points along the ski. But the Supernatural 100 still employs that same gradual transition from stiff underfoot to slightly softer tips and tails.

Groomers

I’ve put a lot of time on the Supernatural 108 lapping groomers this spring at Alta and Snowbird and, like Jonathan, am very impressed by the 108’s performance.

I am most impressed by the Supernatural 108’s ability to comfortably make a variety of turn shapes. When it comes to pure, cleanly carved turns where the skier rolls the ski on edge at the top of the turn and lets its camber and sidecut complete the turn, the 108’s sidecut yields moderate GS-sized turns (although with a little more effort to bend the ski I was able to coax them into shorter GS / longer slalom turns). But if you’re willing to break out of that perfect arc and smear and feather the edges out slightly, then the Supernatural 108 can smoothly and comfortably make just about any turn shape.

Brett Carroll reviews the Line Supernatural 108, Blister Gear Review.

Brett Carroll on the Supernatural 108, Alta Ski Area.

This versatility in turn shape is a good example of what Jonathan means when he describes the Supernatural 108 as being “playful and substantial.” When working the skis into quick, scrubbed slalom turns they felt poppy and energetic. But when I opened things up and made high speed GS/Super-G turns on chopped up groomers, they felt stiff, damp, and stable.

The Supernatural 108 feels considerably more versatile in this respect than the Influence 105, which prefers to primarily rail GS turns and does not feel as comfortable breaking the tails free to smear/feather a turn. That being said, I would put more faith in the Influence 105 to hold an edge on very firm groomers, given its greater effective edge and lack of tail rocker.

The Supernatural 108 feels more damp and stable at speed on chopped up groomers than the Supernatural 100. But the 100 is preferable over the 108 in that it feels a little poppier and more energetic in short-radius turns (thanks to its narrower waist width) and seems to hold an edge a bit better in very firm conditions.

The Nordica El Capo felt similarly versatile compared to the Supernatural 108 on groomers with respect to turn shape and dampness, but lacked the 108’s energy when making short-radius turns.

All and all, while it may not have the edge hold or energy of a dedicated carver, the Supernatural 108 performs very well skiing and carving on groomers for its category.

Moguls

Jonathan praised the Supernatural 108’s ability to both bash through bumps and also slow things down with more precise turns, and I’d loudly echo that praise.

I made a few laps down Alta’s High Boy (Alf’s/High Rustler) just as the spring sun was starting to soften the frozen bumps, and used the entire 1500 foot run as a testing ground for the Supernatural 108. Each lap I would make quick, precise turns through the bumps at the top; draw out some longer, smeared (but still pretty fast) turns through the smaller bumps in the middle section; then bash through the larger bumps at the bottom.

Despite the Supernatural 108 being a relatively heavy ski on the scale (it comes in right around the weight of the 14/15 Blizzard Cochise), it still feels remarkably quick and nimble when making short, precise turns through steeper bump lines. I am also impressed by how energetic the ski feels, providing enough pop at the end of each turn to feel playful. It’s performance here somewhat similar to that of the Influence 105, although the 105 doesn’t feel quite as poppy or playful.

While the Supernatural 108 is relatively quick and poppy in it’s own right, the Supernatural 100 still feels a touch quicker and poppier when making these short, precise turns. The El Capo is capable of making these quick turns, but feels a little dead compared to the 108.

I again found the Supernatural 108 to exhibit that unique combination of feeling both substantial and playful when I opened it up and made some large, high speed, smeared turns through the smaller bumps in the middle of High Boy. Here I really enjoyed that same versatility of turn shape that I described on groomers, as it felt nearly effortless to break the tails free and smear any sized turn I wanted. But while making these large, fast turns, the Supernatural 108 was also stiff and damp enough to absorb the energy from plowing over small bumps without deflecting or getting bounced around.

In these more spacious (but still bumped up) conditions the Supernatural 108 feels more comfortable breaking the tails free and making a wider variety of turns than either the Supernatural 100 or the Influence 105. The ski’s extra width and stiffness also makes it feel a bit more stable than the 100, and about equally as stable as the 105.

50 Comments

  1. Blister Member
    Marc Mendelson April 29, 2014 Reply

    How does the new sn 100 compare to the p 98 in trees & bumps?
    Thanks for your input
    Marc M

    • Brett Carroll May 17, 2014 Reply

      Marc, I haven’t had the chance to ride the Prophet 98, so I’m not in a great position to weigh in. If I were to guess, the lack of metal in the SN 100 might make them slightly softer, a little less damp, and a bit more energetic than the Prophet 98, but that’s just speculation. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.

    • Gordon January 31, 2016 Reply

      I have these skis in 179cm and bought them cause of the positive reviews. But I wish I hadn’t, I am now trying to sell them. I tried really hard to like them. I should also say I really like Influence 105’s.

  2. Brian May 13, 2014 Reply

    I gather you haven’t ridden the Cochise? I bought that last year, and have been very happy, but the Supernatural 108 has been suggested as something to try in 14/15 for a bit more pop.

    • Brett Carroll May 17, 2014 Reply

      Brian, you’re right that I haven’t yet had the chance to ride the Cochise, although several other reviewers have suggested that it would fit well with my skiing style. That being said, I think you’re right about the Supernatural 108 being a similar but more playful/poppy option. If you look at Jonathan’s original review of the SN 108 he notes that the Cochise has stiffer shovels for straight up bashing through bumps and chop, but that the SN 108 is still a very substantial ski that feels more playful.

  3. Cameron August 17, 2014 Reply

    Are these built like real skis with full sidewall or are they the halfcap bullshit that Salomon, Atomic, Armada puts out?

  4. Robert Finstock September 2, 2014 Reply

    Thinking about getting the ’14/’15 Supernatural 108 in 186 length to replace 190 Sir Francis Bacon I had last season. Thanks Jonathan Ellsworth and your other crew so much for these great reviews on both. After my 6th tip dive that left me with pretty bad injury on SFB’s, I got rid of them end of season (had them mounted few cm behind recommended line). Prior to the SFB’s I skied Line Prophet 100’s for over 4 years and didn’t tip dive once. Probably user error, but combined with the fact the SFB’s seemed flimsy on tracked powder and crud compared to the Prophet’s I’m now wishing for more of that power again in next generation of Line’s skis. I’m 6’2 185 / 40 yrs old skiing primarily at Mammoth. Any thoughts on Supernaturals being more/less apt for tip dive compared to SFB’s? Is it just a mounting / technique thing? End of day I like charging pretty fast in pow with occasional air and looking to regain that power and confidence in moderate to deep stuff. Keep up the good work and thanks so much again for your great insight..

  5. Brett Carroll September 11, 2014 Reply

    Hi Robert, thanks for the comment.

    If you’re looking for a more substantial, directional version of the SFB I think you’re on the right track. The SN 108 is pretty remarkable in its ability to provide a stable platform for skiing fast in variable snow while still retaining some of the playfulness of the SFB. If you’re looking for a ski that will let you charge hard, jump of things every now and then, and still feel comfortable playing with different turn shapes, then the SN 108 is a great option.

    The tip dive question is interesting because, as I noted in my review, I had some minor issues with the SN 108’s tips diving in deep, untouched powder. I think that much of that issue may have been user error in that I was pressuring the shovels of the skis a little too hard. When skiing all other conditions on the SN 108’s I felt very comfortable driving hard through the shovels of the ski, but in powder I discovered that, while I could maintain my forward, driving stance, I had to rock my center of gravity back a bit so that it was centered directly over my feet. Once I figured this out the SN 108’s tips floated much more easily.

    To summarize, I think that the SN 108 would be a great choice as a more substantial replacement for your SFBs. When skied with a slightly more neutral stance, the SN 108’s tip dive issue is pretty minimal, but if you’re trying to eliminate any possibility of tip dive then there might be a better choice out there.

    Hope that helps. Feel free to comment with additional questions.

  6. Harry September 11, 2014 Reply

    Any comparisons to the Volkl Mantra? I’m looking for a good firm snow counterpart to my SFB and Opus.

    • Brett Carroll September 12, 2014 Reply

      I haven’t gotten to spend any time on the Mantra, but Jonathan has. If you comment on his review of the SN 108 I’m sure he’ll be able to help you out with some comparisons.

  7. Dave October 5, 2014 Reply

    In 6’1 225 LBS.. is he 186 going to ski too short for me? I’m concerned about the length as I’m usually on something over 190

    • Brett Carroll October 6, 2014 Reply

      I would guess that the 186 will feel like plenty of ski, based on its stiffness, weight, and minimal rocker. I’m 6’5″ and 180 pounds, and I never found myself wishing that I had a longer ski.

      But I think it would also depend on which skis you normally ride in the 190+ range. If you tend to ride softer and/or more heavily rockered skis longer than 190, then the Supernatural 108 should be big enough in the 186. On the other hand, if you tend to ride stiffer, less rockered skis (i.e. the Blizzard Cochise) at lengths over 190, then the 186 may not be enough.

      • Dave October 6, 2014 Reply

        Thanks, Brett… I currently ski on 192 TST’s, which I think answers your question.. lot’s of tip rocker, light, twin-tip, etc… that ski probably rides like a 185. I’m an east coaster, so I think I can survive on the 186. The 193 Cochise just seems like too much ski.. Thinking about the 188 Invictus too.

        • Brett Carroll October 6, 2014 Reply

          No problem, I’m glad I could help. I spent some time on the 192 TST this past winter as well, and would agree that they feel shorter than the 192 length would indicate. I felt considerably more confident charging hard on the SN 108 than on the TST.

          The Invictus also sounds like a very interesting ski that I’m hoping to spend some time on this winter. Those sound like two solid options to me.

  8. Patrick October 8, 2014 Reply

    Hey Brett, Great Review…as alwaysss.
    Blister is by far my Go-To place for making just about any decision relating to bikes or Skis.

    I was just wondering If this ski may be to much for me….
    From most of the reviews I have read, the testers are Over 6ft and riding the 186.
    I am 5’8 and 155Lbs, would the 186 be to sluggish and too much of a burdon for me????

    Im a faily agressive skier that still likes to play around on the mountain, not just lay GS turns all over the damn place. I also call Alta/Bird my home so Im looking for this ski that can handle the hard pack as well as the soft chopped up stuff. I have a pair of Bent Chetlers in the 183 as my deticated Pow sticks.

    Thanks again!!!
    -P

    • Hey, Patrick – thanks for the props. We appreciate it.

      To answer your question, Will Brown loves the 108s, and he is close to your weight (while Brett and I are around 180 lbs.) Will is a very good skier, but he is also somebody who appreciates light, easy skis that are fun for playing around the mountain. And that’s a big reason why he likes the 108s so much. They are substantial, but they are not a chore. I suspect you’ll dig these.

  9. Brad November 16, 2014 Reply

    Blister Guys,

    Thanks for the review. I have been looking for a new pair of skis in this category (105-115) for my time when Im doing some resort skiing. I am 6’2 and 195 lbs advanced skier. I have been looking for something similar to the Cochise 193 but perhaps a little shorter and more playful for a more versatile option especially in the trees. The Supernatural 108 seem like the perfect fit but I am concerned the 186 is too short. What would your recommendation be for a similar ski but a bit longer? I ski primarily in Colorado and have been looking at the Cochise, Icelantic Nomad RKR, DPS 112RP2. Any advice would be appreciated!

    • Hi, Brad – first: if you want a shorter and more playful 193 Cochise … 185 Cochise? Our reviewer Paul Forward has used the 193 Cochise as his everyday ski, and he is a big fan of the 185 Cochise (as are we.)

      If you’ve read our Quiver Selections, you know that the 185 Cochise and 186 108s are two of our favorites, and I bet you’d really enjoy either.

      We’ve yet to ski the Nomad, so can’t comment. And I don’t think the DPS 112RP really fits with these other skis you’re considering. Hope that helps a little.

  10. Dave November 16, 2014 Reply

    Sorry to belabor this, but my mind got blown at the ski expo in Boston yesterday.. I’m a 50/50 East/west skiier and I have TST’s that I enjoy.. looking for something more substantial and wider.. I was completely sold on the 108’s because of your reviews, but now I’m thinking that the 108’s won’t be much different than my TST’s.. Thinking the Helldorado’s might be a good quiver compliment to the TST’s.. also, I’m big sturdy guy at 6’1 220… I guess the sales guys yesterday have me thinking that a 103 and 108 quiver is a bit redundant..

    • Brett Carroll January 12, 2015 Reply

      Hi Dave,

      Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you.

      I think that the Supernatural 108 and the Helldorado could both complement your TST, depending on what you’re looking for out of this second pair of skis. Even though the 108 is wider than the TST, I think that it is actually a better ski for charging hard in firm, choppy conditions. They are significantly stiffer and damper than the TST, so they feel much more stable in these conditions. On the other end of the spectrum I think that the TST floats slightly better in powder, due to its softer flex and more pronounced tip rocker.

      I have never ridden the Helldorado, but it seems like this would be a good choice if you want the second pair of skis in your quiver to be a bit more soft snow-oriented than the 108.

      Again, I think it comes down to what you want to use this second pair of skis for. If you want a ski that charges better in variable conditions than the TST, the Supernatural 108 would be great. But if you want a more soft snow-oriented ski, then I might go with something like the Helldorado.

  11. James December 28, 2014 Reply

    What are your thoughts on pairing the Supernatural with the SFB (with a 3rd, narrower ski as a 3-ski quiver – something like the Brahma/Latigo)? I’m looking for a “fun” charging (I know, incongruous, though I’ve found the SN108 to be such) powder ski that can still handle my size. I’m 6’5″, 235, advanced skier. I spend most of my time skiing in Colorado. Is there enough difference between the two, or should I be looking for something like the Blister/Bibby Pro or Bent Chetler for those rare days where I’m in 8+” of fresh?

  12. Brett Carroll January 12, 2015 Reply

    Hi James,

    Although I have never gotten to ride the SFB, I think it sounds a little too similar to the Supernatural 108 for me to want to have both in the same quiver. The SFB sounds more playful, and the 108 is more of a “charger,” but I think that there is enough overlap between the two to make them seem a bit redundant.

    Adding a Blister Pro or a Bent Chetler sounds like an interesting idea. One of those skis seems like it would round out a three-ski quiver better than having the 108 and the SFB. But again, this is all dependent on your skiing style and what you want to get out of each ski.

  13. Don January 20, 2015 Reply

    Brett-

    I love my Influence 105, for many of the reasons you describe. It is awesome. That said, do you think the Supernatural 108 is the most similar to the 105, or is there something else more similar? Do you still ski the 105, or have you switched to the Supernatural?

  14. Gil February 7, 2015 Reply

    Just got back from VT after 25 inches of light fluff. Took the Atomic Automatic 117 and could not believe how easy they were to ski even after the snow got tracked up. I skied the Latigo on day 4 on groomers and these are quick stable and fun. Would the SN 108 be a good third ski for the quiver and how would they compare/contrast to the Auto 117?
    Thank you.

    • Hi, Gil – I just replied to the comment you left under my review. In short, I think the 108 would be a fantastic middle ski between the Automatic and the Latigo, though it’s difficult to know for sure whether the ski will feel like more ski than you want or need. The Automatic, as you say, is dead easy. The Supernatural 108 is relatively easy — for the category of directional charger — but it is not as much of a ‘finesse’ ski as the Automatic. You don’t HAVE to ski it very hard, but it does like to have some power / pilot input, while the Automatic could have been named the ‘Autopilot’ – you simply think it and it happens.

  15. Gil February 17, 2015 Reply

    Thanks Jonathan:
    I pulled the trigger on the SN 108. But only could get the 179. Given some tip dive should I mount 1 cm back and apply some forward pressure in POW or mount on the recommended line and keep it neutral. I want to stay in the sweet spot in all conditions. I can adjust. But I don’t like the back seat. Thoughts? Thanks!
    Heading to Big Sky end of Feb., then Breck over Easter. Should be sweet.
    Gil

    • Sorry for the late reply, Gil – I didn’t get a notification since these comments fall under Brett’s review…

      In short, I think you’ll be fine at either “0” or -1. This ski does not feel like that sensitive to mount location.

      Will and I would both just mount at 0, primarily because this wouldn’t be the ski we would normally take out on really deep days – we’d go wider.

      But I guess I should ask … where did you mount, and how is it working out?

  16. Chris April 5, 2015 Reply

    How would you compare the supernatural 108 w the q lab? Differences/simularities?
    Thanks

    • I’ll field this one, Chris. First, are you asking about the 183cm or the 190 Q Lab? I’m guessing the 183; the 190 has a much stiffer, more powerful, demanding tail than the SN 108, so the 183 Q would feel like the closer comparison to the 186cm Supernatural 108.

      But as for the 183 Q Lab … that ski hasn’t come to mind when skiing & thinking about the SN 108, and I haven’t been on the 183 Q Lab in a while – and not for very long. So the safest thing to do is draw your own conclusions from the 2 reviews….

      Having said that, the SN 108 is a more substantial ski than the 183 Q Lab, with a larger sidecut radius. But it still has that playful element to it. I wouldn’t call the 183 Q Lab “playful,” it’s rather a nice, quick, directional ski. See my review of the Salomon Quest 105; the 183 Q Lab really does feel like a little more substantial Quest 105. Sorry if that’s vague, but that’s about as specific as I can be.

  17. Graham Foster July 20, 2015 Reply

    Would you recommend the 186 SN 108’s as a one ski quiver for skiing in Montana, primarily Big Sky? I was also wondering about the Atomic Automatic 109’s, how would they compare to the Supernaturals especially in bumps and in hard variable snow. Additionally, I’m 5’9″ 165 lbs, do you think the 186’s would be too long or should I go down to the 179? Thanks a ton.

  18. Tom Bonnor August 21, 2015 Reply

    I’m 5’7 125 pounds and I was wondering if I would be too lite to get and hold an edge o the line supernatural 108. Thanks in advance

    • Hi, Tom – at your height weight, it seems to me that the 172cm Supernatural 108 would be a good fit for you. And assuming you’ve got decent technique, you should have no problem getting and keeping the ski on edge. (Technique will be the more important factor here than your weight.)

  19. Miles September 7, 2015 Reply

    Hey there. Great review.

    I’m strongly considering the 108 ski the fact that I already have set of SFB’s that I LOVE (in addition to my Line Opus). Problem is I can’t really bomb my East Coast Vermont mountains with my SFB’s when the snow is thin. I had bought the Prophet 90 in 184, and while I love them for pure speed and hold in the turns, they’re a bit long and not playful at all (I’m 5′ 9″ and 210). I want the option to change it up a bit, but still bomb with total confidence on groomers and East Coast ice. I demo’d the SN 92 and didn’t like them at all – didn’t feel substantial for being buttery or hard driving down the mountain. SN 100 doesn’t have metal so that sounds no good either. Is it crazy to get the 108s or is it too redundant? Thanks.

    • Don September 7, 2015 Reply

      I wouldn’t get the 108 for what you’re looking for (as someone that skis the Supernatural 108, Influence 105, Kastle FX104 and grew up skiing the east). I’d find something closer to the Prophet.

      • Miles September 7, 2015 Reply

        What would you suggest for something that can charge hard, hold an edge at speed, but can still be a bit playful at time? The Prophet is great, but for me, only if my plan was to bomb the mountain at full speed all day. Thanks for your thoughts!

        • Don September 7, 2015 Reply

          Haven’t skied these, but if you like Line, maybe the Sick Day 95 or the Blend?

  20. Frank December 6, 2015 Reply

    Great review , I am about to buy these skis in 186 as my everyday ski at Alta/snowbird . What is your recommended mounting point? I have other skis for extreme hard pack and the deepest days but this will be my daily driver and storm ski. Also how does this compare to the 4frnt Gaucho in your opinion?

    • Jonathan January 10, 2016 Reply

      Jonathan and Will mount at 0. (See Jonathan’s comments above)


      In short, I think you’ll be fine at either “0” or -1. This ski does not feel like that sensitive to mount location.

      Will and I would both just mount at 0, primarily because this wouldn’t be the ski we would normally take out on really deep days – we’d go wider.

  21. Blister Member
    eben February 1, 2016 Reply

    Do you have any experience with the Supernatural 115? I am looking for something to complement my Prophet98s 179cm. I am 5′ 11″ , 205. Ski SLC area and Southern CO, traveling from Phoenix. Would like more stability in chopped up powder, float for the good stuff, and still survive in the trees.

    There is so much good information on this site I am scared to buy something that you haven’t reviewed!

  22. Adrian April 16, 2016 Reply

    Have you had a chance to compare the SN 108s to the 115s? I have the 92s now which are fantastic. Looking to replace my SFBs with something more stable all over the mountain that still handles well on the pow days.

  23. Josh Gross December 13, 2016 Reply

    Well ski season is upon us and it is time to readdress some question about this ski! So based off alot of the reviews and feedback, I’ve become incredibly interested in these skis. I’m looking for a twin tipped playful ski in the 102-110mm waist that can power through crud, is quick enough to get around tight trees and moguls, with a decent amount float in powder. Basically, alot of the signs point to the Line Supernatural 108 which I am heavily leaning toward as my new ski.

    My quest relates to the length I should go for. I am 5’11 1/2 and weigh ~208lbs. I consider myself an aggressive skier. When I bought my first ski, a nordica steadfast (90mm waist) I actually went for a 172cm size. I was obsessed then with getting a shorter ski that would be easy to make quick turns in trees/moguls. I now realize that 172cm might have been abit short but honestly I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the skis. So Im stuck between the 179cm and 186cm Line supernatural 108s. Jonathan, you’ve been adamant in your previous posts that this is a review for the 186cm; do you really think the 179cm would ski so differently? Would a 186cm really limit my ability to ski trees/moguls? I really dont have much experience skiing anything north of 180cm so could really use some advice in this department! Thanks!

    • James January 14, 2017 Reply

      I use the older 186 cm Influence 105’s as a daily driver and they are fantastic in tight trees, very easy to turn and burn. I am similar height/weight as you. I would not go any shorter than the 186. The shorter skis will not stand up for you while GS turning back to the lift on the groomers.
      Other skis in the range I’ve like are the 184 Mantra’s and Head Monster 98’s. However neither of these skis are as playful and poppy as the Lines. The lines are just plane fun.

  24. DB Cooper December 15, 2016 Reply

    Looks like I have the same question as the folks above me: any feedback on the SN 115?

    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 your pick of the SN 108 in your Two Ski Quiver picks, 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!

  25. Eric January 18, 2017 Reply

    Hi love all the hard work you guys put in to give us these awesome reviews thanks!

    I currently have the 2013 influence 115 179cm and back when I got them they were the perfect ski. But now I don’t get out as much and am a resort skier while rarely rarely hiking around. When on the resort I ski 50/50 on and off piste. But I try to get into deep stuff as much as possible. I’m looking to get an easier everyday ski my 115 is just too much work for me now :( would you suggest the 108 in maybe the 172 length for quickness? Or the supernatural 100? I’m 5’8″ 165lbs and I get 10ish days a year (used to be 25+) looking for some help! Hope this wasn’t too bad of a novel to read.

    Thanks again!

  26. 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!

  27. Razz April 17, 2017 Reply

    The Line Influence 105 is the best ski I’ve ever owned and I agreed 100% with your review of it. It has become my daily-driver and make-do powder ski. (I’m a 5’6″, 150 lb hard-charging, ski-everything, steep-junkie 40-day/yr Squaw Valley guy.) I need to replace my Influence 105s. Now that it’s the spring of 2017, would you recommend that I buy an old, unused pair of Line Influence 105s, or would you recommend moving on to the Supernatural 108s?

    • Don Boyajian April 18, 2017 Reply

      Influence 105 if you can find.it. No doubt.

  28. Blister Member
    Bill August 3, 2017 Reply

    My daily driver is the 180 Bonafide, which I love. The last two seasons, skiing it everyday, all conditions, mainly in Taos. Favorite runs Reforma, Longhorn, Trescow, Al’s, Kachina. I prefer trees, steeps, bumps much more than Mach 2 on groomers. I’m not the fastest but enjoy it all.
    Early last year I go to demo the Gunsmokes for a couple days in new snow and wow were they fun!
    So now I’m looking for a powder ski compliment to the Bonafides.
    I’ve thought about Rustler 11 and Supernatural 108 and even Moment Meridian. I know these skis are all very different, but do you have any insight?

Leave a reply

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

*