Head monster 108 vs Cochise vs Line Supernatural 108

[snoempath]

So, looking for a burly damp ski in the 100-110mm space.
I've skied a number of skis in that space - liked the Cochise, wasn't impressed with the Volkl 100eight or the Automatic.
[The Volkl and Atomic were, IMO, too light and twitchy. It wasn't a soft day when I was demoing them - with no real appreciable new - so not the ideal conditions for a 108mm ski, I know. But the Cochise was fine in those conditions - so it's not like I hated everything and couldn't understand why...]

Skis I've skied recently, and which I like:
Blizzard Bodacious [2014 version with metal]
Kastle FX94 and 104 [both with metal]
Line Influence 115 [Metal overlay - good in soft/deep, lousy in firm.]
Soly Rocker2 100 [No metal, but good in soft snow.]

I tend to ski very aggressively, and while I'm fine changing skis during the day and often do, I also want a ski that isn't going to just be a great ski for the first 10 minutes of the day until it gets tracked up and sucks the rest of the day - or until I swap out for something else. I find the dampness of the Kastle's and the Bodacious pretty incredible. If you can stay upright on the ski you can ride those planks through anything, and it's simply going to blow it all up. [I've heard the Katana was the same, though I've never skied it.]

While I don't want a full reverse camber ski, I want it pretty flat underfoot. I slarve a lot, especially on wider skis, and unless it's really firm, I find it frustrating to have a lot of camber. In less firm conditions - say crust - the camber can trap the ski laterally and you can't easily break the ski loose to slide it. [That is probably the only thing I found that wasn't perfect on the Kastles. At 94mm - it's no big since 99% of the time, I'm riding it on bony days in terrain where you're full-on carving. But the 104's are out in conditions where you come up against it more.]

So, looking for thoughts on the Monster and the Line SN. [I know the Cochise.]

I'm leaning toward the Monster [they're cheap] and the reviews all look good.
Concerns are how much camber on the Monster.

The Supernatural may not be as damp as I like - but they are the progeny of the Influences, IIRC. The influences were good on soft days, but were lots worse than, for example, the Bodacious on firm(er) days.

I've also skied the Supernatural 100 and it's not bad, but not as damp as I want either. Which makes me worry about the Supernatural 108's - even though Blister says they're beefier than the 100's.
So, I'm open to other suggestions for skis - but I'm not aware of any others that are close to what I want.

A few other details.
Me: Nearly 50 Y/O west-coast skier - mostly on Mt Hood. I'm 5'7" 140-150#
[Probably want a 175-180 cm ski, as 180+ starts to seem cumbersome, and I don't really need the extra length for stability. Though I'm not inquiring about length.]


Thoughts?
-Greg

 

[markojp]

They're a pretty traditional ski and great for 'take no mess' mach looney charging off piste... unfortunately, the Monster 108's midde name isn't 'slarve'. Tip to tail, rail to rail. " Beat or be beaten. Strike or be stricken." - Iggy Pop

 

[Philpug]

Like @markojp eludes to, the Monster 108 is about as traditional of a feel and shape in a ski that size as you will find. Other options I could add...Kastle BMX105HP, a real nice shape and some dampening. The other one I like in this range woudl be the Invictus 108Ti, a bit more playful yet can charge, I like it much more than the SN108 for what you are asking for.

 

[MountainMonster]

https://www.black-crows.com/atris-skis

 

[snoempath]

Hmmm. A quick read through some of the reviews really seems to say I ought to just do the Cochise.

My thinking, after reading what I can quickly find/digest. [Correct me, if you feel I'm wrong.]

BMX105HP looks pretty traditional too. [I'm guessing it's going to be very similar to the FX104 I had before. Great ski, just not quite what I _think_ I'm looking for.] BMX = More carve/camber than slarve/rocker. Perhaps less than the Monster, but on that end. And I'm kinda in the middle of sizing. 173 or 181. I can certainly deal with 181, but 3-5cm less sound nice, especially in the trees, and especially for a ski that's got more camber than flat underfoot. And this will be my quasi-sketch conditions ski. So a longer ski in more demanding conditions also sounds, well, less desireable.

Invictus 108Ti: Sounds pretty good. Blister makes it sound like a more floaty Cochise. I've got a Volkl One and a Bodacious when I want the most float, so I'm not looking for this ski for float. I'd tend to use this ski [whichever ski it is] when there's a few inches - boot deep of new, or a day that's going to start firm and loosen up later. So; stable, able to plow through chop and crud. Good edge-hold. Damp. Given that, the Invictus sounds like a "lesser Cochise." [Invictus: More float, narrower sweet-spot, less great in dicy conditions.]

Atris: I don't know a lot about. Doesn't sound that damp and/or charge-y.

So, given all that - I think I'd pick the
1) Cochise [Which is available in 178cm, IIRC]
2) BMX105HP
3) Invictus
4) Line SN108

I also considered the Dynastar Legend X106 - again, have the same size middling issues as the BMX, and a serious darth of reviews. [Wanted to demo those, but the demo guys practically had seizures over my K2 Pinnacle MX-130 boots, which have a standard alpine ISO sole but also have tech fittings. No one else cared, but they just fainted dead away. Kinda pissed me off. So, not really wanting to reward a bunch of whiny whiners on top of everything else.]

 

[Ken_R]

I would add the Moment Deathwish to the mix. I own them in 190cm length (but I am 6-2, 185, they are available in 184cm which is the size I demoed and loved them) and the absolutely rule for resort pow days even if its skied out already and slick patches are showing in spots. The ski holds nicely on any firm snow you might encounter. It is my daily driver most of the season out west even though its 112mm wide. If it has not snowed in a week I got the Monster 88 for more on piste skiing mixed in.

Some great advice has been given so your short list is solid.

 

[Castle Dave]

Thorough review of the Supernatural 108 on Blister Gear
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-line-supernatural-108
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/ski-reviews/2nd-look-line-supernatural-108

 

[snoempath]

@Ken_R I'll look over the Moment DW. Thanks.
@Castle Date - I've seen the reviews for the SN 108 on Blister. [As noted above: More playful, pop-ish Cochise. But if I'm picking, I'll take more Katana like than jibbish.] Not that the SN would be bad, I just think I'll like brawn more than brains.

Part of what makes this interesting is that the mainstay ski lines I can usually find for a lot cheaper than "boutique" stuff. [And if there's anything I am, it's a cheap-gear hound.] So, the Head and Blizzard are more readily available at good prices. Line, yes, but to a lesser degree. Kastle BMX 105 I might stumble across cheap. Moment and Invictus - not so much.

Mainly I wondered if I ought to go Monster, or if I'd missed something I'd be kicking myself for not considering. They [the Monsters] sound super stable/damp, which I love. But since I've got other choices that are still quite damp, I think I'll go for a little less stability/dampness and get something a little more slarvy.

Still open to other suggestions or thoughts.

 

[SmileGuy]

My 2 cents. Bmx105 will slarve if you want it to. But if you want flat underfoot, check out the 4front devastator.

 

[David Chaus]

You're on Mt Hood. What you want is an ON3P Wrenegade 108, in 179cm. Call up ON3P and ask them questions, if you're in the Portland area you can tour the factory.

 

[Vinnie]

You're on Mt Hood. What you want is an ON3P Wrenegade 108, in 179cm. Call up ON3P and ask them questions, if you're in the Portland area you can tour the factory.

Yup what he said

 

[Superbman]

Evo gear is unloading the last of the Salomon Q-Labs.....they were one of the finest 'heavy-iron' skis of the last decade, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[Dave86]

Nearly 50 Y/O west-coast skier - mostly on Mt Hood. I'm 5'7" 140-150#
[Probably want a 175-180 cm ski, as 180+ starts to seem cumbersome, and I don't really need the extra length for stability. Though I'm not inquiring about length.]

I'm 5'10 (177cm) 185# and skied Mt Hood for 20 years. I now ski up north (Crystal & Stevens Pass) where there are some challenging places where the terrain dictates where you turn (technical skiing). However, the snow is the same in all these locations. My go to ski in the "fresh powder to refrozen crud space" is the Head Rev 98 in a 177cm. I'm 54 yo & consider myself to be advanced (ski anything off-piste; some at my level would call themselves an 'expert').

For the OP's size, I would have thought that a 98-100mm ski would be the call. I usually think of the 108mm skis as "skis for skiers who are heavy for their height". The OP is 140-150# at 5'7" - he's not heavy for his height. Also, 5'7" equals 170cm, so I would have thought that a good length for the OP would be 170cm, not 180cm. Given that the OP skis Mt Hood, he could get away with the longer ski. Personally, however, I've skied my Rev 98s on Mt Hood (@ Meadows) a couple of times and wouldn't want them any longer.

About the skis... I demoed the Supernatural 108 in fresh, cut up power and liked the skis. However, the conditions really didn't tell me much about the skis. However, I did ski the Line Prophet 98 several times, and found myself struggling with the tips diving in fresh powder - I had to get into the back seat to help keep the tips up. (The Prophet was the predecessor to the Supernatural.) The Prophet 98s where stiff enough to handle PNW crud, however.

While I haven't skied either Monster 98 or 108, my Rev 98 is at least dimensionally similar to the Monster 98. Both share Head's ERA 3.0 technology, but have different constructions. ERA 3.0 is a small amount of early rise & side cut of the ski resulting in a wider than normal tip. For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that my experiences with my Rev 98 would be similar to the Monster 98. It appears that the OP would like the construction of the Monsters - he wants a damp ski.

In fresh powder, the wide tips of the Rev 98s plane up nicely with having to get into the "back seat". Knee deep powder is not a problem. Yet the Rev 98 easily handles PNW crud as I don't have problems with the tips being deflected. The Rev 98 is my go-to resort power day ski and crud busting ski, as well as travel ski.

Notes: There are some really good skiers don't like wide tips in their off-piste skis. Also, my Rev 98s were uninspiring on groomed snow until I put my own 1&2 tune on them.

For the OP, I'd suggest a Head Monster 98 in 170cm. If the OP is really an expert (former racer...) who out skis most everyone on the hill at high speeds, then the maybe the 177 is for him.

 

[markojp]

I'm 5'10 (177cm) 185# and skied Mt Hood for 20 years. I now ski up north (Crystal & Stevens Pass) where there are some challenging places where the terrain dictates where you turn (technical skiing). However, the snow is the same in all these locations. My go to ski in the "fresh powder to refrozen crud space" is the Head Rev 98 in a 177cm. I'm 54 yo & consider myself to be advanced (ski anything off-piste; some at my level would call themselves an 'expert').

For the OP's size, I would have thought that a 98-100mm ski would be the call. I usually think of the 108mm skis as "skis for skiers who are heavy for their height". The OP is 140-150# at 5'7" - he's not heavy for his height. Also, 5'7" equals 170cm, so I would have thought that a good length for the OP would be 170cm, not 180cm. Given that the OP skis Mt Hood, he could get away with the longer ski. Personally, however, I've skied my Rev 98s on Mt Hood (@ Meadows) a couple of times and wouldn't want them any longer.

About the skis... I demoed the Supernatural 108 in fresh, cut up power and liked the skis. However, the conditions really didn't tell me much about the skis. However, I did ski the Line Prophet 98 several times, and found myself struggling with the tips diving in fresh powder - I had to get into the back seat to help keep the tips up. (The Prophet was the predecessor to the Supernatural.) The Prophet 98s where stiff enough to handle PNW crud, however.

While I haven't skied either Monster 98 or 108, my Rev 98 is at least dimensionally similar to the Monster 98. Both share Head's ERA 3.0 technology, but have different constructions. ERA 3.0 is a small amount of early rise & side cut of the ski resulting in a wider than normal tip. For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that my experiences with my Rev 98 would be similar to the Monster 98. It appears that the OP would like the construction of the Monsters - he wants a damp ski.

In fresh powder, the wide tips of the Rev 98s plane up nicely with having to get into the "back seat". Knee deep powder is not a problem. Yet the Rev 98 easily handles PNW crud as I don't have problems with the tips being deflected. The Rev 98 is my go-to resort power day ski and crud busting ski, as well as travel ski.

Notes: There are some really good skiers don't like wide tips in their off-piste skis. Also, my Rev 98s were uninspiring on groomed snow until I put my own 1&2 tune on them.

For the OP, I'd suggest a Head Monster 98 in 170cm. If the OP is really an expert (former racer...) who out skis most everyone on the hill at high speeds, then the maybe the 177 is for him.

The Rev 98 and Monster 98 are different enough that I'd be very hesitant to recommend the Monster based on knowledge of the Rev98 and visa versa.

 

[Cheizz]

I find the Supernatural 108 more versatile than floaty. I would group it in the wide allmountain category myself. Not that they don't ski well in deeper fresh powder, but some other models in that width range (especially the Black Crows Atris) have better float. The SN is very versatile, damp and has great hold in crud and on hard pack. That's why I bought it as my resort freeride ski. THe Monster 108 I found too burley to move around properly, hard work indeed. Never tried the Cochise, since I didn't really handle the Bonafides well (and I figured: why then try a ski that is supposedly more of a charger still?)...

 

[BMC]

Evo gear is unloading the last of the Salomon Q-Labs.....they were one of the finest 'heavy-iron' skis of the last decade, if that's what you're looking for.

I second this. I own the QLab (having previously owned a Line Supernatural 100) and find it a near perfect mix of forgiveness and stoutness. I much prefer the Salomon to the Line off piste (admittedly not a direct comparison, but very close).

 

[snoempath]

So, I thought I'd follow-up this thread.

Someone suggested finding an older pair of Blizzard Dakotas - the women's version of the Cochise. They're the same specs as the Cochise, with a slightly lighter core. They had metal the first few years, and from all reports skied virtually identical to the Cochise.

So, I did find a pair with metal. The longest the Dakota was made was 177cm - which meant they weren't in high demand for a womens ski. They were new - and off ebay I was able to get them for $180, including shipping. This is far cheaper than I could find a new Cochise, and was a reasonable size [I already had a Cochise in 170cm, and felt it was quite a bit too short.]

I also found a good deal on Warden 13 MNC Demo bindings, and that's what I paired with them.

I'm incredibly happy with the results. They perform very much like the Bodacious, which I love, but are quicker. [They oddly enough are nearly identical to the Bodacious [in 176cm] in total weight, with bindings. I haven't been on the Bo's much this year - not enough snow generally - but I'd have sworn the Bo's were a LOT heavier, but in reality, and on the scale, they're not.]

Very damp, Super stable. Pivot well, edge-hold as well as any ski that's not cambered, at that width, I think.
They're clunky when it gets trough-ed up - but that's to be expected for a tank ski. [I don't like hard bumps/troughs much anyway - so why buy a ski to ski stuff I don't want to ski anyhow.]

I wouldn't want to go shorter - certainly not as short as 170.
And I wouldn't want anything "lighter" or more "nimble."
I like the flat-underfoot layup - a lot. I think I'd far less happy with a traditional camber ski like the Monster. [I've skied the Monster 98 @177, but not the 108 - it's nice, but I prefer the MX98 by quite a margin for firm snow.]
I've skied some of the "lighter" skis like a Volkl 90Eight, Automatics, etc - and I pretty uniformly don't care for them much either. And I think the SuperNatural is more on the "nimble" side than the Cochise - which again, would probably leave me less happy.

My current quiver* is Bodacious, Volkl One, Dakota/Cochise, Kastle MX98, FX94 [I can't decide which Kastle I like better, so for now I'm keeping both.] As you can see from that list, I'm not a light/playful/nimble kind of skier.

I'd love to try a ON3P Wren - but being a bottom-feeder, I haven't been able to find one anywhere near the prices I'm willing to pay. I might even like a Wren 5-10% more than the Dakota, but I'm not willing to pay 300% more for 5% more like.

[* I actually have quite a few more skis - but those are what I usually ski.]

 

[BMC]

Sounds great.

I'm far from an expert on all your skis but I get the impression they are all 94mm and wider skis. I make no criticism of that - I just find it interesting

As an Australian skier who regularly travels to snowier climes, my quiver has to cover everything from refrozen ice to 18" of fresh Japow. So my quiver is:

Head iSupershape 170cm 67mm
Blizzard Brahma 173cm 88mm
Salomon QST 99 181cm (AT)
Salomon QLab 176cm 103mm
Salomon MTN Lab 176cm 115mm

I really don't use the Heads even though they're perfectly fine skis. The Brahmas cover very hard snow nearly as well as the Heads and are much better as conditions soften.

The QSTs get minimal use too relative to the others.

So my "in use" quiver is 88, 103, 115. The differentiation is 15mm and 12mm.

Not saying that's better. It's just interesting how the environment we ski in can lead to such different choices in constructing a quiver (I assume you encounter essentially no hard snow days).

 

[ski otter 2]

Fun thread, thanks.

I would have thought the MX98 was more carver than slarver, and thus wouldn't fit you as well.
All the other skis in that quiver seem able to break free or stay in a slarve when desired, but didn't know the MX 98 could do that.

The Dakota seems like a great option: might work for me too. I'm 5'10", 150 lbs, and for me the men's Cochise was a bit planky (albeit @18X), even though so damp and chargy. I felt like I needed to be heavier to take full advantage of the Cochise (shucks) - as a carver but not as a slarver. (Ditto the Bodacious.)

I demoed the ON3P Wrens - 108, 98 - and just didn't get that ski, but it sounds like it might work for you, not sure. It was foremost a damp, stable slarver, was my problem; I wanted a ski that is foremost a carver, but is also versatile and breaks free easily when wanted. The Wren 108 (and other Wrens) didn't seem happy unless it had at least a bit of slarve or more. Then it smiled. It could bust through and charge, though. Good playful fast or slow skiers seem to like these.

I've demoed both the FX 104 and BMX 105 HP since this thread and before, and found them very different skis, as alluded to above. The FX104, for me, was perfect for groomer charging on edge - sorta a fat race ski; but, for me, in fresh it wanted to be 2D on edge still, near the bottom - railing. The 105 HP, on the other hand, was very versatile. It didn't have quite the chargy edge on groomers, but slarve/carve and semi-float were its signatures - very 3D though damp and chargeable. Not as damp as the Cochise, though.

Having now demoed the Dynastar x106 twice, on both powder/crud and an "old snow" days, I think it possibly might have worked well for you also, though it is different than any ski I've been on: damp and bombproof, it made possible almost slalomy quick on edge fall line turns; though it is versatile at longer ones, and it contours the bottom on a powder/crud day, as much as the Cochises did, for me. Not sure about it as a slarver, though. I just didn't try that. (Note: when I skied it, I noticed it was slightly rail/edge high, from a Wintersteiger tuning machine, in a way that changed it, seemed like, and made it less slarvable.)

The Katana V-Werks 184 has been my go to ski for both powder and this category, though this early season I have found myself hankering for another 3D 10X ski in this category, for this year's lesser snow conditions, a la this thread: maybe the newest K2 Pinnacle 105, which is more carvable and apparently much damper and stiffer than last year's, and yet still versatile. New horizons.

Again, thanks.

 

[snoempath]

I would have thought the MX98 was more carver than slarver, and thus wouldn't fit you as well.

No, you're right - it's carve only. But when it's firm, I can skid them if I want, or carve. I just hate getting the tips/tails hung up in crust etc, and not being able to pivot. So, all my soft snow [wider] skis are less/no camber.

The FX104 was similar to what you describe. I got into the habit of letting them rage and aiming for the big piles of soft chop and slamming a turn into/through the pile. They're so stout it was a lot of fun. And speed control, wasn't much of an issue. But depending on conditions, you couldn't always do that. So, as I got tired, or lazy, I'd move to a pair of Rocker2/100's - which were still a lot of fun in soft conditions.

I skied a pair of Monster 98's this year - and they're even more damp than Kastles. IMO, too damp. I think they kind of turn into one-trick ponies. Sure, you can ski over everything, including fallen timber [only kidding slightly], but they start to feel a little over the top. Kind of like you're a monkey just dropped on the skis and they'll just blow up everything mindlessly. [I'm probably being a little harsh - they're certainly nice skis - just too one-dimensional for me.] But the 98's, at least, are very "traditional" camber. And I liked the Kastles better - so it was a pretty easy choice. [9.5/10 or 9.8/10 - I wish all decisions were so nice.]

I also have a FX85HP, [There was an observation on a more narrow ski up-thread.] but I'm looking to unload it. It's, again, a nice ski - but I can't justify it. On the most firm days we get here, the 94/98 Kastles do way more than "good-enough" and if there's even a few inches of new snow, the FX85's start to struggle. [Or maybe it's me that needs the wider crutch - I dunno...] But the 94/98 do just fine even in deeper than boot deep - even though I don't love the more conventional camber profile.

So, while I've looked at some of the narrow 80-85mm waisted "carving" skis - I don't think I have enough use cases to make them interesting - even though I could probably get a used Quattro, RTM or the like for well under $200, mounted. [Did I mention I'm a bottom feeder?]

I have wanted to try the Dynastar stuff though. I just haven't gotten the chance.

I had a pair of Line Supernatural 100's too. And this is interesting; It's a lot more "slarvy" than the MX98, and you'd have thunk I'd like it. But I didn't like it that much. It was a lot better in boot-deep and manky snow. But it was worse the firmer it got - way less edge-hold. So, for the spot I'd use it for - firm to very-firm days - it wasn't nearly as good as the MX98. And even though it's got metal, it's nowhere near as damp/stable as the MX or FX.

It's crazy, kinda - having four skis for a "regular" quiver. But I'm well under $1000 for my four - so it's not very expensive for me to do so. But the one nice thing is - I can really have a lot of fun - I'm not struggling to make the one ski I have work for everything. And I think that makes each day pretty awesome. If I'm struggling, it's me - not the skis.

-Greg