Ski: Chronic 94

Reviewer height/weight: 6’2” /170lbs

Ski weights (per ski): 1917g/1922g

Length skied: 186

Actual length (with straight tape): 184.5cm

Dimensions: 123-94-117

Mounted: True Centre

Bindings: Pivot/FKS 18

Locations: Sunshine Village & Revelstoke

Conditions skied: Park, Slush, Hardpack/Icy, Dust On Crust Spring, Dirt.

Days Skied: 7

Intro:

The Chronic 94 is the little brother to the 101 which I also had the pleasure of reviewing this winter. The newly redesigned Chronic series are designed to cover more bases than the previous iteration, with two widths replcacing one. They are also beefier in construction and designed for durability. The shapes are tweaked to offer more rocker and a more traditional footprint than the previous ski too.

Being the narrower of the two new Chronics the 94 is less all-mountain oriented but still at home everywhere on the mountain. It’s the lighter, stiffer more park-focused iteration and it’s a blast because of it!

_

Shape/Flex/Construction:

The Chronic 94 is a twist on the classic modern park ski shape. it has a good amount of camber underfoot, blunted noses with a nice taper to them. It feels glib to re-write my Chronic 101 shape flex and construction segment from the 101 for the 94 but they are, in essence, a very similar ski. There is a decent amount of splay in the nose and tail - which reminds me of the old-school Prodigy series and a mellower ON3P splay.

The Chronics this year have been beefed up with a full sidewall construction, a Bio-Resin, and milled out areas in the noses and tail, where the topsheet is bonded directly to the base in order to create a stronger plastic-to-plastic bond. All this is put in place to reduce the infamous delam of some of the older Line skis, including the previous Chronic.

In terms of flex, these are not a hugely stiff ski, I’d say out of the box they are a little bit stiffer than the Chronic 101. Somewhere around the 6-8-7 nose-to-tail arbitrary rating scale of ski stiffness.

_

On Snow

On snow the Chronic 94 is light and lively, mounted at true centre, and being basically designed as an out-and-out park ski means it kinda skis like a park ski. It’s playful and light enough to have fun on but you’re not buying a narrow Chronic to rail turns. Sure it’ll do them, but really this is not this ski’s comfort zone and you should be aware of that if you’re looking to get a set.

For me, the 101 was wide enough to be a slush-busting, surfy ski all around the mountain. That size and shape worked for my skiing and my style, I found the shape of the 94 less conducive to fun groomer laps than the 101 but it still behaves like a sappy park ski around the resort and if you enjoy that kind of width it’s going to treat you well. Personally, the 101 beat the 94 in this category, I’ve not skied the new ARV 94 - a very direct comparison - but the old 96 was my go-to for the longest time and the Prodigy 1.0 was one of my favorite park skis to ride around the resort between park laps. Both these skis are built more directional than the Chronic (the ARV 94 is as well) and just had more of that X factor around the hill.

I am being unduly harsh on the 94 here and probably will be all review, as the 101 was the perfect park ski for me and remains in my rotation still. So in all these categories, I will tell you that the 94 is good, but the 101 is better.

[Twig: I’m going to be a bit less harsh here, the Chronic 94 is a totally fine groomer ski in most cases. I had mine at -2cm which I’m sure helped the performance. That said, I agree with Milo that the 101 is better. The sidecuts are very similar but the wider shape lends itself to slower edge pressure and less chance of over-flexing the ski. The 94 can feel a bit grabby when you flex it too fast (as do almost all softer skis) and it’s just less stable overall. I found it the softer of the two skis when it comes to railing turns, perhaps because the flex feels softer in the tips and tails, where as the 101 had a more smooth flex throughout (my preference). One thing to note is that the 94 does give more edge-bite on harder snow, so if you’re somewhere it’s icy, they will ski a bit better on those more bulletproof days. For a 94mm underfoot ski, they handle mixed conditions and some slush pretty decently in my opinion.]

_

Park

_

One of about 3 tricks I can do.

_

Or maybe not… if you’re an actual park skier, not a British wannabe freeride skier turned dry slope park rat turned washed-up social media guy that can front 2 and 360, you’d probably love the Chronic 94 in the park [Editor’s Note: Milo is a much better park skier than this makes out]. I found the swingweight super light and the beefed up stiffness compared to the 101 made it superior on park features in almost every way - at least by measurement of a traditional park ski metric. Stiff, stable but light, quick, and playful. Butters are easier on the 101 but spins on and off rails are way more effortless on the 94.

The Chronic 94 is going to be the ideal park ski for an east-coaster, rail rat, or jump jock. It's even a great street weapon. If you’re looking for an all-mountain freestyle too, personally, I’d look elsewhere. The Chronic 94 does a great job of doing what it does best. Which, for the current state of ski building is pretty rare. Much of what we see in the market is the jack-of-all-trades master-of-none try to do it all ski. This isn’t that, it’s a Line Chronic, buy it to ride park hard and you’ll love it. Expect a duck to run like a cheetah and you’ll be disappointed.

[Twig: I largely agree here. While I personally didn’t find the Chronic 94 stiffer overall, it might have a bit more meat in the center of the ski and then softer tip/tail. That did make it a slightly more stable landing platform, and poppy ski on jumps/takeoffs. I am definitely a wide ski guy normally, so I did prefer the 101 in the park but, then again, my technical tricks have sailed into the sunset. The Chronic 94 is definitely a better choice for fast swaps and spins.]

_

I rarely do front 4, but these make 'em easy

_

Durability

Honestly, I didn’t thrash these skis, they held up to my moderate abuse perfectly well and didn’t take too much damage. They have a couple of edge cracks (although these were mostly skied on rails and I'm not light-footed) and didn't begin to delam in the topsheet at all. If the 101 - very similar construction aside from width - is anything to go by [I thrashed those], these are a very well-made ski and pretty bomber for all your park needs.

[Editor’s note: Milo has broken the most Roofbox skis of any tester, so this is high praise].

Comparisons

Chronic 94 vs Chronic 101

The Chronic 101 is one of my favorite park skis I’ve ridden in the last however many years, so for me the 94 struggles to hold a candle to it. But it is lighter, stiffer, and more snappy so is more at home in the park than the 101, but the 101 was more fun as a daily driver. For me at the very least. This choice comes down to personal preference, chose the width your heart desires!

Chronic 94 vs Revolt 90

The Revolt 90 is a very good ski, built to be a slopestyle tool, developed with some of the best freestyle skiers in the world. Because of that, it just kinda works. It’s a Volkl though, it’s missing some of the fun that Line skis have in their DNA. I thought the Revolt 90 was an incredible ski and was my daily driver down under. It’s stiffer out of the box by a long way but broke in nicely, the 94 is more playful from the word go but will soften up more. If huge booters and slope runs are your game, maybe lean toward the Revolt 90, if you’re looking for a bit more freedom to get weird the 94 is a stellar choice.

Chronic 94 vs Prodigy 1

The Prodigy 1 has a near-perfect flex, the whole ski bends when you bend it and there’s no hinge points or weird zones when you press the ski. It’s more directional in terms of camber, rocker and sidecut but skis beautifully. It is a Faction though and if you beat it up on rails you’ll see the insides of the ski sooner rather than later. This ski was heaps of fun on jumps and all over the mountain, for more mountain focused riders I’d choose the Prodigy but if you’re going to go hard on the rails or looking for a real park stick the Chronic 94 would be my choice day-in day-out.

_

Conclusion

It’s a new Chronic, but it’s also the old Chronic (think crows), it’s an out-and-out park ski, buy it and do some future spins, or 4s on and you’ll love it. But if you prefer a wider, more versatile platform, go for the 101. I’m a bit at a loss for more to say here, it’s a great park ski, it wasn’t my favorite but I fell in love with the 101 well before I skied this so it just felt surplus to requirement in my quiver. That being said, it’s a cracking ski and won Best Of Test at our ski test for a reason!