Ski: Line Optic 114

Reviewer height/weight: 5’9, 145lbs

Ski weights (per ski): 2348/2356g

Length skied: 186

Actual length (with straight tape): 185.8

Dimensions: 139-114-131

Mounted: -4 cm from true center

Bindings: Look Pivot 15 (CAST)

Locations: Alta, Jackson Hole, Sunshine Village, Saas-Fee

Conditions skied: Crud, fresh snow, deep blower pow, groomers

Days Skied: 13

_

Photos: Hanne Lundin Wallengren

Editor's Note: Line is dropping the Blade branding from the Optic series for 2024/25. For the sake of ease, I have adopted that early. I skied the current season's ski but it remains unchanged for 24/25 except graphics/naming.

The Optic series has divided opinions, both my own and others on the NS crew. Line are generally known for their soft, playful skis but the [Blade] Optic line-up is pretty burly. The 104 was both loved and hated at our ski test and I’ve now spent time on several of the skis. I wasn’t a huge fan of the Optic 104 personally, finding it overly grippy.’ Still, chatting to Dylan Siggers, he strongly recommended jumping on the 114, claiming it had a very different character. I love the regular Blade, it became my go-to park ski over the season (I know, but don’t knock it until you’ve tried it), so I felt like there must be something to the Optic series that is derived from it. I took the 114 across the US on a road trip and I’ve skied them a bunch in Switzerland too. It took a while to gather my thoughts on these because I think they are also a bit of a marmite ski, but they have definitely found a home in my quiver.

_

Shape/Flex/Construction:

The widest of the Optic line, the 114 is designed for skiing fast in deep and mixed snow. It has a bit of taper both tip and tail, but overall, this is a pretty straight shape. It’s 114 underfoot and ‘only’ 139 in the tip, meaning it has a fairly straight sidecut (~24m). There’s plenty of tip rocker length tip and tail, but only minimal splay. It’s not a proper twin shape but the tail does have enough rise to land switch, if necessary, though that would involve spinning the damn things first, and they aren’t the lightest ski out there.

The construction is to ‘blame’ there. Thick bases, full sidewalls, and metal are rarely a combination that turns out light… or soft. While the Optics aren’t super stiff, they are on the stiffer, damper side of things. Under the boot, they are pretty rigid but it’s still possible to flex into the nose and tails of the ski, in part thanks to the rocker. I still managed to butter around a bit despite being on the 186 at only 65kg so they aren’t total planks, but they are a solid ski.

_

On snow:

Pow Days:

The Blade Optic 114 is far from the widest ski, but it is without doubt one of, if not THE, the best-performing powder skis I've tried. I don't mean in terms of ultimate float, but more the whole package from surfing to charging. I mounted mine quite a lot in front of recommended and they still pop you out of the deepest snow like a dream. The metal makes them pretty damp and predictable, giving them enough power to push through heavier pow (though somehow, I mostly got to ski them in epic blower). Most of my time on these was during Country Club days at Alta and in some epic end-of-season snow in Saas-Fee. They have a ton of rocker and to me, they pop you out of deep snow almost like an OG Hellbent or something but with a ton more power.

They aren’t the stiffest ski out but they aren’t soft either. The metal makes them damp. If you combine that with the longer radius and straighter shape overall, it makes charging pretty dreamy. They also turn pretty quickly in soft snow, at least mounted where I mounted them. They aren't my tree ski of choice, because they are definitely on the big side for me, but as long as the snow is good, they pivot easily enough. And if I’m going to ski a bigger line or a big open bowl, these are the skis I’m taking with me.

Good times were had on these...

Touring:

The Blade Optic is not light, and mine initially had CASTs on them, making them definitively heavy. I still took them for a couple of quick tours and they did fine but they are not an ideal touring ski. I'm not super fussy about weight when touring, and these are fine for going for a half-hour skin to reach a line, but for anything else, you want a lighter setup. I don’t see the point of putting a touring binding on a ski like these, so I ended up switching to Tyrolia Attacks because I prefer how the binding skis. If I need to do a short tour, Daymakers do the job. They aren’t the best ski on the up, but they are super stable and track nicely in mixed snow, so they’re a great option for the down.

Groomers/Resort:

Honestly, this is where things get kinda funky with the wider skis in the Optic series. On hard snow, I’d describe them as slightly psychotic. I feel like a 114 should just sort of drift around on hard snow, but if you lean into these a bit too much, they like to bite unexpectedly. You definitely cannot ride these from the back seat. This ski and the narrower 104 were the first times I noticed the lack of ramp angle on a CAST setup. At times, I'm a fairly lazy skier, and when I found myself not paying much attention and getting a bit back seat, it felt like the Optic series wanted to teach me a lesson. When I turned a bit too much from the heels they engaged weirdly and felt like they were about to highside me. Interestingly, when I switched to Attack 17s on the Optic 114, that really helped with this issue and I much preferred the setup with a bit more forward lean.

Essentially the 114 is not a ski for the faint-hearted, or for intermediate skiers. These are a proper ski, and they want to be driven by a skier with solid technique. If that suits your style they could be great for you but for someone coming out of the park or with more loose style, they can be a handful (myself included). I learned to love the 114 as it got a bit detuned over time and I got used to skiing it, but ultimately there are a lot of 112+ mm skis that handle groomed snow much more naturally and smoothly than these.

_

Park/Jibbing:

The Optic 114 is not a park ski. With some fat skis, you can lap park and make it work. These are not one of them unless you’re some kind of psycho. However, they actually handle landing switch really well, there’s enough tail rocker for that and the platform is really stable. And while the swingweight is high, with a more forward mounting point they feel pretty trickable. Are these a super playful ski? Not really, at least not in the same sense as a Bent 110 or even an MFree, but they are still fun. I threw some 180s and threes, and they were fine for that, though I’d struggle with bigger spins personally. Dylan Siggers seems to whip them around but he’s a different breed.

_

Durability:

In recent years, Line hasn’t always had the best durability reputation but all the new skis feel pretty good to me. The new Chronics and Bacons have treated me way better than previous years and the Optics feel very solid too. They’re a pow ski, so I haven’t ridden concrete but I’ve dinged a few rocks and they’ve held up fine. I don’t have much more to say here, so far, so good.

_

Comparisons:

Dynastar MFree 108 (182cm):

The MFree 108 is my other favorite ski in this sort of crossover playful/freeride space. Unfortunately, the sizing is stupid so I’ve ended up skiing them in an 182, which feels a bit short. It’s far more versatile than the Optic, to the point it almost feels unfair to compare them (and it is a bit of a tenuous comparison). They do live in the same weight category and mount point category though, despite the MFree being narrower and shorter… but the MFree has a much lower swingweight. The Dynastars could almost be a one-ski quiver, they carve well, float in pow and you could ski just about ski them in the park. The Optic is a far more specialized ski, but it charges much harder and floats much better. The Optic feels like it has a much higher performance ceiling too.

Rossignol Sender 110:

The Sender 110 is Rossignols’ mid-fat playful ski. It’s in a similar weight bracket to the Optic but has a softer flex in the tips/tails. However, overall, I’d say it occupies a similar space. The swingweight of the Sender is much lighter, making it more naturally trickable and it’s far more fun on groomed terrain and gunning around the resort. The Optic is more of a specialist soft snow ski and does better in mixed/cruddy snow. It also charges way harder and handles mixed snow much better.

K2 Mindbender 116:

The Mindbender 116 is a ski I only have passing familiarity with, having skied it a couple of days in Chamonix when I needed to grab a rental and that’s what they had. The Mindbender occupies the space in K2’s lineup that the Optic series does for Line. But to me, the Optics both charge harder AND offer a more playful ride, which is a neat trick. The Mindbender is better on groomed snow but for me, they were just kind of muted on the fun factor. The Optic felt damper to me, better at charging overall, just a more compelling ski outside of groomed terrain.

_

Conclusion:

When Line makes a ski with metal, it usually turns out pretty well. The Optic series recalls the Prophets that were around when I was young(ish)… and didn't really understand. Back then, I had the strong legs of youth, so I didn’t need (or want) a stiff, damp ski. The fact that I ended up really liking the Optic 114 is a testament to both my aging legs and Line’s continued ability to surprise people with skis in what is not naturally their core market. The Optic 114 is aimed at more traditional, chargey skiers than me, but I did really like them, especially when remounted with my regular bindings. If you are the kind of guy who skis a big mountain resort like Alta/Bird or Engleberg, and likes to ski fast but still wants a little playful versatility, these are hard to beat. It shouldn’t be with their history (Prophets etc) but it’s still kind of a surprise to see a ski like this out of Line. There is something very clever about the Optic 114, and there isn’t another ski out there quite like these. Balancing a straight-cut shape and high-speed performance with retaining an element of a playful freestyle feel is very clever. They do take some getting used to, or they did for me. These might not be a ski you love at a demo because I didn’t enjoy them until I got to day three or four of testing, but they are worth persevering with because they are a banger of a ski once you get used to them.