Ski: 2021-2022 Line Vision 108, 183 cm
Available Lengths: 175, 183, 189 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 181.5 cm
Stated Weight per Ski: 1605 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 1605 & 1630 grams
Stated Dimensions: 142-108-128 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 140.1-107.5-126.8 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (183 cm): 19.5 meters
Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 69 mm / 41 mm
Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~3 mm
Core: Paulownia/Maple + Carbon, Aramid, & Fiberglass Laminate
Base: 1.3 mm Sintered
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -5.95 cm from center; 84.8 cm from tail
Boots: Nordica Strider 120; Dalbello Lupo Pro HD; Tecnica Zero G Tour Pro; Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130
Bindings: Fritschi Tecton
Reviewers:
- Luke Koppa: 5’8″, 155 lbs
- Jonathan Ellsworth: 5’10”, 175 lbs
Test Location: Crested Butte, CO
Days Skied: ~15
[Note: Our review was conducted on the 19/20 Vision 108, which remains unchanged for 20/21 and 21/22, apart from graphics.]
Intro
Next year Line is introducing two new skis — the Vision 98 and Vision 108 — that they’re labeling as “freeride” skis. But these skis are very, very light. In fact, they’re the lightest men’s skis in Line’s collection, and they’re even lighter than the old (and very good) Line Sick Day Tourist, which used to be Line’s dedicated touring ski.
But there’s a lot more going on with these new skis than just their low weight, which is why we were so psyched about them at Outdoor Retailer last week. You can hear Sam Shaheen and I blab about them on our GEAR:30 podcast, and also find a bit more info about them in our Blister Outdoor Retailer Snow Show Awards.
But today, we’re taking a closer look at the widest ski in the series, the Vision 108, because its design has some of us itching to get on it.
What Line says about the Vision 108
“Introducing the ski you wish you had yesterday. The one freeride ski that can slap down pillow stacks one day and explore far out zones the next. Forged out of THC Construction, the Vision 108 reimagines what’s possible for lightweight freeride skis. Stable at speeds, light in the air, and easy to smear.”
It’s interesting that Line doesn’t explicitly mention touring in this description, given how much the Vision 108 weighs (see below). Instead, they’re emphasizing the Vision 108’s stability, playfulness, and ability to not simply go uphill well, but ski hard on the way down.
Oh, and that mention of “THC Construction” warrants a good bit of explanation, so let’s talk about it:
Line’s “THC” Construction
Here’s what Line says about the Vision’s new construction:
“This is not just an excuse to make weird pot references; this is some serious tech. By combining three different laminates – aramid, carbon, and fiberglass – that resonate at different frequencies, we’ve created a hyper dampening construction that allows us to shave weight. No more twitchy, pingy carbon feel; just feel good, smooth skiing in a lightweight package. Skiing is believing, and we’re about it”
Well, I’ll admit I have a hard time believing that this isn’t an excuse to make weed references, but I guess I’ll take Line’s word for it. Beyond the name, the Vision’s laminate construction sure sounds interesting.
I’m one of many people who has been a bit disappointed by lightweight touring skis that are packed full of carbon in order to make them stiff, but in turn, end up feeling very harsh on firm / rough snow. So if Line has managed to make a very light ski without that “pingy” feeling, I’d be quite happy.
Shape / Rocker Profile
While the Vision 108’s construction is different from most other skis on the market, its shape is more traditional. It has a bit of taper in the tips, and a bit more taper in the tails. But the Vision 108 doesn’t have nearly as much tip taper as the K2 Wayback 106 or Black Diamond Helio 105 Carbon, and the Vision 108’s tail taper is still on the moderate side.
Overall, the Vision 108’s shape looks very similar to a “Best Of” winner, the Line Sick Day 104. The Vision 108 has slightly less tapered tips, and maybe a bit more taper in the tails. But overall, the two skis look very similar.
The Vision 108’s rocker profile also looks pretty similar to the Sick Day 104’s, with the Vision 108 having a deeper tip rocker line and slightly higher tail splay. Overall, the Vision 108’s tip rocker line is quite deep compared to many other 108mm-wide skis, and its tail splay is higher than almost all the other skis we’ve tested that come in at similarly low weights.
While the Vision 108’s tail isn’t a true twin, its rocker profile still looks like it’d encourage a more playful skiing style. As someone who likes to do some longer tours but who also likes to slash and jump around in the backcountry, I’m very psyched on the shape and rocker profile of the Vision 108. And that excitement grew when I measured this next spec:
Mount Point
The recommended mount point on our pair of the 183 cm Vision 108 came in just a hair under -6 cm from center. That’s much more forward than almost all the other touring skis we’ve used, and significantly more forward than the recommended mount points on the Sick Day 104 (-10.15 cm) and Sick Day Tourist 102 (-10.6 cm).
But the Vision 108’s recommended mount point isn’t crazy far forward, and we’ve been on a lot of skis with mount points around -6 cm that can be skied with both a centered, balanced stance and a more forward, driving one. So I’m personally very eager to see how the Vision 108 responds to different stances. And given its low weight and more progressive mount point, I imagine that the Vision 108 is going to feel super light in the air.
Flex Pattern
Here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the Vision 108:
Tips: 5.5-6
Shovels: 6.5-7
In Front of Toe Piece: 7-9
Underfoot: 9.5
Behind the Heel Piece: 9-8
Tails: 7-7.5
The Vision 108’s flex pattern is on the softer side, though the middle of the ski is still pretty strong. The Vision 108’s flex pattern is extremely similar to the Sick Day 104’s flex pattern, with the Vision 108 being a tiny bit softer in the tips, and a touch softer in the tails.
Compared to the 19/20 Line Sir Francis Bacon (First Look coming soon), the Vision 108’s flex pattern feels very similar, with the SFB’s tips and tails being a bit stiffer than the Vision 108’s.
I love the flex pattern of the Sick Day 104, so I’m glad to see that the Vision 108 shares a lot of similarity in this regard. I (and many other Blister reviewers) tend to prefer light skis that don’t have super stiff flex patterns, as they seem to result in a slightly less harsh ride than very light skis with super stiff flex patterns. So I’m eager to see if the Vision 108’s more forgiving flex pattern (and maybe its THC construction) can result in a more damp ride compared to similarly light skis.
Weight
The 183 cm Vision 108 comes in at just over 1600 grams, which is very light. It’s not quite as light as more traditional touring skis like the K2 Wayback 106, G3 FINDr 102, and Black Diamond Helio 105 Carbon, but the Vision 108 is still coming in much lighter than nearly every other ~108mm-wide ski we’ve reviewed.
For reference, here are a number of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for some notable skis. Keep in mind the length differences to try and keep things apples-to-apples.
1446 & 1447 Line Vision 98, 179 cm (19/20)
1476 & 1490 K2 Wayback 106, 179 cm (18/19–19/20)
1477 & 1482 G3 FINDr 102, 184 cm (17/18–18/19)
1547 & 1551 Black Diamond Helio 105 Carbon, 185 cm (17/18)
1562 & 1566 Scott Superguide 105, 183 cm (17/18–18/19)
1605 & 1630 Line Vision 108, 183 cm (19/20)
1606 & 1641 Blizzard Zero G 105, 188 cm (19/20)
1642 & 1651 Renoun Citadel 106, 185 cm, (18/19)
1706 & 1715 Volkl BMT 109, 186 cm (17/18–19/20)
1720 & 1747 Line Sick Day Tourist, 186 cm (16/17)
1733 & 1735 Blizzard Zero G 108, 185 cm (17/18–18/19)
1745 & 1747 4FRNT Raven, 184 cm (16/17–18/19)
1755 & 1792 Line Sick Day 104, 179 cm (17/18,–19/20)
1814 & 1845 Elan Ripstick 106, 181 cm (17/18–19/20)
1825 & 1904 Black Crows Corvus Freebird, 183.3 cm (17/18–19/20)
1843 & 1847 Head Kore 105, 189 cm (17/18)
1848 & 1903 Line Sick Day 104, 186 cm (17/18–19/20)
1849 & 1922 Elan Ripstick 106, 188 cm (17/18–19/20)
1898 & 1893 Armada Tracer 108, 180 cm (18/19)
1913 & 1943 Sego Condor Ti, 187 cm (18/19)
1923 & 1956 DPS Alchemist Wailer 106, 189 cm (17/18–18/19)
1941 & 1965 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti, 182 cm (17/18–18/19)
1950 & 1977 Blizzard Rustler 10, 188 cm (17/18–18/19)
1970 & 1979 Atomic Backland FR 109, 189 cm (17/18)
1980 & 2016 Liberty Origin 106, 187 cm (17/18–18/19)
1996 & 2012 Dynastar Legend X106, 188 cm (17/18–19/20)
2022 & 2047 Faction Dictator 3.0, 186 cm (17/18–18/19)
2026 & 2056 Black Diamond Boundary Pro 107, 184 cm (17/18–19/20)
2030 & 2039 Rossignol Soul 7 HD, 188 cm (17/18, 18/19)
2036 & 2064 Salomon QST 106, 188 cm (18/19)
Some Questions / Things We’re Curious about
(1) Line keeps calling the Vision 108 a “freeride” ski, rather than a touring ski. So just how stable will it feel, and could it be suitable as a 50/50 or even dedicated resort ski?
(2) The Vision 108 has pretty deep rocker lines, fairly high tail splay, pretty soft tips and tails, and a progressive mount point. So could it finally be the lightweight, playful ski that less directional skiers like myself have been waiting for?
(3) Speaking of mount points, how well will the Vision 108 respond to both forward and more centered skiing stances?
(4) The Vision 108 shares a lot in common with one of our favorite skis, the Sick Day 104. So where will the two skis differ the most?
Bottom Line (For Now)
The Line Vision 108’s design contains a combination of traits that we rarely see: a really low weight, moderate flex pattern, deep rocker lines, fairly high tail splay, and a progressive mount point. I and a few other Blister reviewers like Cy Whitling have been looking (read: begging) for that combination for some time, so we’re extremely eager to get the ski on snow. Stay tuned for updates.
Flash Review
Blister Members can now check out our Flash Review of the Vision 108 for our initial impressions. Become a Blister member now to check out this and all of our Flash Reviews, plus get exclusive deals and discounts on skis, and personalized gear recommendations from us.
FULL REVIEW
There are now a lot of very good, very light, directional skis on the market, but there aren’t many very light skis that cater to a more playful skiing style. As someone who likes to tour, values low weight in the backcountry, but who also skis with more of a playful style, the Vision 108 looked like it could finally be the ski I (and arguably many others) had been waiting for.
So … is it?
Powder
Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs): I haven’t had the chance to ski the Vision 108 in any super deep snow, but I did get it in around ~8” of light, dry pow. There, it planed predictably, was very easy to slash and slarve, and was overall a predictable and easy ski. Unlike more directional touring skis I’ve been on (e.g., Black Diamond Helio 105 & Scott Scrapper 105), the Vision 108 was easy to ski centered or forward, and felt much more maneuverable than those skis when skiing pow in the tight trees we’re often limited to here in CO due to mid-winter avalanche danger.
I would like to get the Vision 108 in some really deep snow to confirm this, but my initial thought is that it floats a bit above its width in powder, primarily due to its very deep tip rocker line and fairly soft flex in its tips and shovels. I wouldn’t choose it if I was looking for a dedicated pow ski for bottomless days, but the Vision 108 definitely floats well enough to make it a strong contender for a 1-ski touring quiver for a place like CO.
Soft Chop
Luke: Line isn’t positioning the Vision 108 as a dedicated touring ski (at all, in fact), so I also skied it a lot in the resort during my testing. And that means skiing chopped-up snow.
In chop that’s still pretty soft, the Vision 108 performed well for its weight. But remember, this thing only weighs a bit over 1600 grams, so that “for its weight” caveat is important.
I’m 5’8”, 155 lbs, and in very soft chop (e.g, only a few tracks on a run), the Vision 108 was fine for me. It’s strong enough to not get bucked around a lot when hitting a track, and then it’s really fun to mess around on in the cleaner patches.
But once the snow was very cut up (e.g., after noon on a resort pow day), I definitely had to dial back my speed and ski more dynamically to keep the Vision 108 tracking. Like pretty much every other ski I’ve used that’s this light, the Vision 108 just doesn’t have the mass to power through denser patches of soft snow.
If you tend to ski very conservatively in chop, the Vision 108 is still a viable option for the resort. But if you want a ski that’ll let you make big, fast turns through chop, you’d be much better off on a significantly heavier ski.
Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, 175 lbs): Indeed. Most skis that are even 200 grams heavier (i.e., ~1800-1850 grams) will be significantly more stable, and bumping up 400 g to the ~2000 gram range will result in a lot more stability.
Firm Chop / Crud
Luke: As the snow gets more set up and nastier, the Vision 108’s low weight is much more noticeable. This is not a very damp, plush, or otherwise comfortable ski to be on when skiing on really firm, rough snow.
Jonathan Ellsworth and I would both say that the Vision 108 is damp for its weight — it doesn’t feel as harsh and “tinny” as some other similarly light, carbon-laminate skis I’ve used. But would I want to take it out in the resort when it hasn’t snowed in a while and the off-piste snow is super firm? Nope. That’s where much heavier skis make a lot more sense, as they do a far better job of smoothing out rough snow.
And if this review sounds like it’s coming off negative, keep reading. Because while I don’t think the Vision 108 makes a ton of sense as an inbounds-only ski that you’ll use on a lot of rough snow, I think it’s an excellent touring ski.
Corn
Luke: I’ve spent a good chunk of time skiing corn on the Vision 108, and I really couldn’t think of a ski I’d rather be on when it comes to skinning up hills to ski down nice, soft spring snow.
Admittedly, most skis are fun on perfect corn. It’s such a forgiving snow type, and I think nailing the timing on a run to catch it when it has just turned to nice corn is one of the best feelings ever.
But what sets the Vision 108 apart from most other touring skis is that it’s super easy to slide around, you can ski it very centered (or even backseat), and you can even ski it switch. As will be a theme in this review, I think this level of playfulness is the primary thing that makes the Vision 108 stand out from the other touring skis in its class.
Jonathan: Really, nobody should care too much about what I have to say about this ski, so if I were you, I would pay closer attention to Luke’s comments. But having toured on this ski several days now for good corn, I can say that despite the fact that I tend to prefer heavier and more substantial skis, I’ve gotten along with the Vision 108 just fine. As in, when Luke and I go tour today (after we just got a bit of fresh snow yesterday in CB), not only would I have zero hesitation about taking this ski out tomorrow, I’d honestly be happy to. In soft, fresh snow, I like this ski, and I like that I’ve consistently beat Luke to the top on it. (Sorry, Luke!)
Groomers
Luke: The Vision 108 is very easy to release from a turn, but once you commit to driving the front of it, it actually offers surprisingly good edge hold. Despite its deep rocker lines and more progressive mount point, I had a blast ripping groomers on the Vision 108 with a pretty forward, aggressive stance. I could also ski it centered with no problem, but I think you get the most out of the Vision 108 on groomers when driving it hard as it helps dig in the edges and means you get more energy coming out of a turn.
Speaking of which, the Vision 108 is a very energetic ski. It was pretty easy to bend into turns, and then launched me out of them. And that pop translated to jumps too, which I’ll discuss later.
In terms of stability, the Vision 108 felt pretty comfortable at high speeds when the groomers were either very smooth / consistent, or very soft. I could basically ski it as fast as I wanted to on super slushy spring groomers, and was also happy making fast turns on fresh, clean corduroy.
On roughed-up, end-of-day groomers, the Vision 108 feels less comfortable. Basically, the firmer and less consistent the snow gets, the more I’d rather be on a heavier ski. Trying to make big, fast turns on the Vision 108 on inconsistent groomers got scary at times, and I felt much better making smaller, skidded turns where I could more easily keep the ski tracking where I wanted it to.
Jonathan: I 100% agree with Luke’s first three paragraphs in this section. I have no idea about the last paragraph, because I have no interest in finding out what this ski feels like on roughed-up groomers. (But hey, that’s just me.)
Moguls, Trees, and Tight Terrain
Luke: The Vision 108 is incredibly easy in tight terrain. That’s what happens when you give a ski a lot of rocker, a forgiving flex pattern, and a borderline ridiculously low weight. The Vision 108 is so easy to flick around, doesn’t punish you as soon as you get backseat, and still holds an edge pretty well on smoother, firmer snow.
I think some very aggressive and / or bigger skiers will want a ski with a flatter and / or stiffer tail for really steep, technical terrain. But if you primarily want a ski that’s easy to ski in bumps, trees, etc., the Vision 108 is a great option. Just keep in mind that it won’t feel nearly as damp or stable on really rough snow compared to much heavier skis. So while I’d be happy to ski the Vision 108 in late-spring slush bumps or trees in the backcountry, I wouldn’t want to use it for days in the resort when it hasn’t snowed in a while.
Jonathan: I definitely agree. That said, will there be some really expert skiers and / or really finesse-oriented skiers and / or really lightweight skiers who will go do some very sick things on these skis inbounds? I have no doubt. But if the question is how well this particular ski works as an inbounds ski in steep, technical terrain, well again, there are heavier skis out there — that are still crazy light — that are more substantial. And in techy terrain, more substantial to me equals more confidence-inspiring.
Uphill
Luke: While Line says the Vision 108 is a “freeride” ski and not just a “touring” ski, I’ve spent a lot of my time on it going uphill, in addition to going downhill. So I want to touch on that quickly.
In short, the Vision 108 is awesome on the uphill. This isn’t all that surprising, given its very low weight of a little over 1600 grams per ski for the 183 cm length. The Vision 108 has worked fine with the skins I’ve used on it (G3 Alpinist and Black Diamond Ultralite Mix STS), and I don’t really have anything negative to say about it with regard to its uphill performance. It’s gripped well on all the snow conditions I’ve used it on, and it’s light enough that I don’t hesitate taking it out for longer days.
There’s a chance some people might not love the Vision 108’s more forward mount point for kick turns, but I haven’t had any trouble with it.
Jonathan: Regular readers of Blister will know that lightweight skis aren’t exactly my thing. Quite the opposite, actually. So it should come as no surprise that, for someone like me, I would only consider this as a touring ski. And I’ve sure as hell enjoyed going uphill on these. Just nothing not to like, and I haven’t been bothered in the least by the more forward mount point — neither on the uphill, nor on the way back down.
Playfulness
Luke: The Vision 108 is playful in pretty much every regard. It’s super easy to slash around, feels incredibly light in the air, and is very poppy.
The Vision 108’s -6 cm mount point is far enough forward that I don’t personally have any issues with how balanced it feels in the air, but far enough back that I can still drive it when I need to.
I spent a lot of time on the Vision 108 hucking my meat off backcountry booters, and it basically seems ideal for this. It’s light enough to skin on deep into the backcountry, but has a shape, mount point, and flex pattern that make it feel natural spinning and flipping off of stuff.
As I alluded to earlier, I think the Vision 108’s playfulness is what makes it stand out from other touring skis. It’s just got that abstract “fun factor” that I think many more directional skis lack, at least as someone who tends to prefer more playful inbounds skis. When I’m touring, I’m not looking to charge down lines as fast as possible. Instead, I like to take my time, slash windlips, jump off stuff, and throw tricks when possible. The Vision 108 caters to this latter skiing style way better than any other ski I’ve been on that’s this light.
Jonathan: I’m not flipping or spinning, so again, don’t mind me here. But I’m only here to say that this is not merely some jib stick that you should obviously cross off your list if you yourself aren’t hitting backcountry booters. While I don’t disagree with Luke that the Vision 108 might be ideal for that, I’d also say that, if you are in the market for a fun ski in this weight range, well, this is a fun ski even if you’re keeping things pointed straight and rarely (if ever) leaving the ground.
Is it a 50/50 Ski?
Luke: First, note that I didn’t start by asking if the Vision 108 is a dedicated resort / inbounds ski. While you could use it solely in the resort, I think you’d be missing out on the upsides of the Vision 108 and making its downsides (stability in rough snow) more pronounced. Even a slightly heavier ski like the Line Sick Day 104 would be a better option if you’re looking for a lighter ski that you’d use only in the resort.
But for 50/50 use inside and outside of the resort, the Vision 108 has some potential — it just depends on your priorities and how you’ll be using it. If you’ll primarily be using this ski in the backcountry (e.g., ~70% backcountry / ~30% resort), the Vision 108 is a viable option as it’s a great touring ski and performs pretty well for its very low weight in more challenging resort conditions.
If you tend to ski either very conservatively or with a very active, dynamic style, the Vision 108 could work as a true 50/50 ski. But if you want a 50/50 ski that you can ski very hard on when conditions aren’t ideal, I’d recommend looking at something heavier (e.g., Line Sick Day 104).
I think the Vision 108 excels in the backcountry, but it can work in the resort for certain skiers.
Jonathan: If you already know that you get along really well in bounds with very light skis, then sure, this could be a 50/50 ski for you. But man, I personally would recommend considering that Line Sick Day 104 that Luke mentioned, and would regard it as a much safer bet if you really aren’t sure about how light or heavy you want to go.
Who’s It For?
Luke: Do you like freestyle-oriented skis and are looking for something you can haul uphill for long (or short) days in the backcountry? If so, the Vision 108 is one of the best options I can think of for you.
Do you not ski switch or spin, but are looking for a touring ski that’s easy, playful, and forgiving? Check out the Vision 108.
Do you sound like one of the above skiers and spend most of your time in the backcountry with the occasional day in the resort? Again, take a look at the Vision 108 (especially if your resort days tend to be in pretty soft, forgiving snow — i.e., when avalanche conditions dictate that you shouldn’t be out in the backcountry.)
I would not recommend the Vision 108 if you love very directional skis with rearward mount points and stiff, flat tails. There are plenty of other more traditional touring skis around this weight that would better suit you.
I also think most people looking for a true 50/50 ski would be better off on slightly heavier skis (see the “50/50” section in our Winter Buyer’s Guide for a bunch of options).
But for people looking for a playful, easy, and fun touring ski, the Vision 108 is a very compelling option.
Bottom Line
With the Vision 108, Line has essentially filled a void in the market. The Vision 108 is light enough for long days of uphill travel, but when you head downhill, it brings a level of playfulness that isn’t matched by many skis that are as light as it is. In short, our take is that the Vision 108 takes Line’s signature catchphrase to the backcountry-ski market and makes it “more funner.”
Deep Dive Comparisons: Line Vision 108
Become a Blister Member or Deep Dive subscriber to check out our Deep Dive comparisons of the Vision 108 to see how it compares to the Amplid Facelift 108, Line Sir Francis Bacon, Line Sick Day 104, 4FRNT Raven, Renoun Citadel 106, Black Diamond Helio 105, K2 Wayback 106, Elan Ripstick 106, Faction Candide 3.0, Sego Big Horn 106, Atomic Backland FR 109, and Scott Scrapper 105.
They look so great on both paper and photos. Really excited to read a full review on them. The only thing that would make me think twice is the tail(I don’t like tapered tails in pow, and this one looks pretty tapered…), everything else sounds just too good.
I have the vision 108 183cm with shifts and LOVE IT as my do everything ski.
But wondering now about making it a dedicated touring ski.
And is there something very very similar feeling
But a bit more durable and designed for the resort?
Looking forward to the updates on the 108, but I also hope that you will be looking at the 98 Vison. There are a lot of days in the backcountry where a narrower, lighter, but still playful ski geared toward soft snow sounds very appealing.
Yep — we have the 179 cm Vision 98 in hand and will be posting a First Look of that ski soon (you can check out its measured weight in the Weight section above).
Why do you give 2 weights? Claimed and measured? If so maybe you need to calibrate your scale? Snapped my sick day tourists skiing park at seymour (def not what they were built for) and looking at these for replacing my lightweight mega day ski.
As we note in the “Specs” section at the top, the two weights we list for every ski represent the weight of each individual ski in a pair. It’s actually pretty rare for both skis in a pair to come in at the exact same weight. And it’s also very rare for a ski to come in at the exact weight that is claimed by the manufacturer (though Line’s stated weight for the 183 cm Vision 108 is pretty spot-on based on our measured weights). Much of this has to do with how skis are manufactured and the slight variances that can occur during production.
How does it compare to the Armada ARV 106 for all mountain use and playfulness, I know the ARV is quite a bit heavier, but it it such a smooth playful ski. Thanks
Have you weighed the 189?
My 190 Ravens (measured 189.5) weigh 1810g (measured). The ravens are kinda boring, thinking about replacing.
Ah brother. Ski looks awesome on paper. And love the rocker profile. Extrapolating on weight, the 189 should weigh approx 1690 grams.
I have the Bent Chet 120s with shifts for powder chasing. Would probably throw tectons on these. Would be a dynamite 2-ski playful backcountry quiver.
Might be time to ditch 190 Ravens.
The THC (3 different core materials) concept was done in axactly the same way years ago by Rossignol. They didn’t even change the name ?
In saying that I thought the Rossi skis of that era were really good and I miss my old scratch BC’s
Hmm, I’m not super familiar with Rossi’s old “Triple Hybrid Core” tech but the info I can find makes it sound pretty different from the “Triple Hybrid Construction” on the Vision 108. From what I can tell, Rossi’s construction referred to the core itself, which contained a mix of wood and synthetic materials. Line’s construction refers to the laminate mix (carbon, aramid, & fiberglass), rather than the core (which is Paulownia / Maple). Still surprising to find that they shared the same name, but seems like pretty different construction techniques as a laminate mix is pretty different than what’s in the core of the ski.
I’m 6′, 185 lbs and ski quite aggressively, at least when I’m on the groomers. Seeing as the effective edge on the Line Vision 108s is so short, would you recommend i go for the 189 cm version? I’m tempted to go for the 183 to keep swing weight down and have them agile enough for skiing in trees and tight terrain. Would I lose a lot of float in soft snow? Would I lose stability in groomers? I likely won’t be able to try them out before buying.
Also, I presume the turning radius is not constant over the different lengths for this model, that the 189 cm version will have a bigger radius than the 183? Thankful for any help!
Hi, John – please feel free to disregard this if you are already clear on what I am about to say. But at your size, you should not be worried — in the least, whatsoever, regardless of circumstance — about the agility of this ski, or the swingweight of this ski. This ski is crazy, stupid light. Full stop.
So if you are worried about ‘keeping swingweight down’ – and especially if you are intending to use these for “skiing quite agressively — either on groomers or off — I am concerned that you are about to make a category mistake here. The Vision 108 is a fun ski. I personally wouldn’t consider it for inbounds use — it’s too light for anyone who tends to like very stable skis. But I would certainly consider it as a touring ski.
As for you, I would only consider this ski if you already know that you tend to get along very well with extremely light skis for inbounds use. For those skiers who love the performance of light skis inbounds, great. But if you aren’t sure whether or not you personally do … then I would proceed with caution here.
Thanks for the tips Jonathan! I see what you mean. I have a pair of enforcer 93s for the pure inbounds skiing, so the playfullness will be a welcome difference from the heavy enforcers.
For these the plan is a pair of Salomon shift bindings and to use them 50/50 inbound/out. Still a bit unsure of the length though, perhaps for some extra float go for 189 then?
Hey Great Review, I’m just curious if you guys played with the mount point at all? I’m curious what the ski would be like at around -4 or even -3, coming off the chetler as my deep pow touring ski and trying to get more of a daily driver for the PNW as far as touring goes anyways
Hello,
Thinking about buying Vision 108 or SD104. I live in northern sweden where snow conditions change very quickly, everything from powder, hard, icy and windblown snow. I touring 90% of the time I ski. Should I go for SD104 considering snow conditions or do you think Vision 108 can handle it
I am 6’3’’ and 200 lbs. I am looking at the line vision 108 for a dedicated touring ski (shift binding). Would the 189 length give me significantly more stability for my size and is it worth sizing up (I.e. Stability vs quickness)? I am just curious because I know that sometimes, in other reviews you guys address whether there is a benefit or not in sizing up on length. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Did you guys play around with the mount point at all? Im stuck between the 175 and 183 sizes and was thinking about sizing down since this will be a dedicated touring ski. I’d be interested in moving the mount point back a 1-2mm for some more float and so the ski feels a bit more substantial. Not sure if that would throw off the general design of the ski.
Unfortunately, no. The ski does have a really big sweet spot though, so I imagine going 1 or 2 cm back wouldn’t ruin it.
Could you comment on where/when you would prefer the Vision 108 to the Vision 98? At only 100 additional grams, why not use the 108 everywhere including spring corn? Walk me through why the Vision 98 has a place in the quiver.
Mostly comes down to conditions, at least for me. If I was specifically looking for a spring touring ski, I’d definitely opt for the 98 since it’s lighter, does a bit better on firm snow, and I wouldn’t need the float of the 108. I’d opt for the 108 for a mid-winter touring ski where I’d appreciate the float in fresh snow. If I needed a do-everything touring ski, it’d be a tough call between the two — both are quite versatile for their respective widths. I ended up picking the 108 for my do-everything touring ski in my quiver selections this year, but the 98 would still be a fun option if you place less of a priority on stability and float and more of a priority on firm-snow performance and low weight.
Your specs state “Factory Recommended Mount Point: -5.95 cm from center; 84.8 cm from tail”.
The Line website says the mount point is -4.53cm from center and 85.2cm from tail for the 183cm version.
Did you have a pre-production version? Or are these your measurements/measuring techniques vs. Line’s?
A 1.5cm difference on mount point (1cm adjusted for tail) seems pretty substantial?
That comes down to how we measure the mount point we list, and how Line measures the mount point they list. I just talked to one of their ski designers and he said that “our center mark is not the center of the ski but the center of the designed running surface length (you could think of it as a core center of sorts).” This is something we see from many brands and is why we always simply measure the mount point using a straight-tape pull to get the true distance from center of the true length of the ski after it’s been pressed, thus keeping things consistent across all of our reviews. Line confirmed that our measured mount point via a straight-tape pull is in line with the production version of the Vision 108.
This is great info. Just helped me out with mounting mine.
Hi i’m 176cm 76kg.
Now o have sick day 104 186 cm.
Last week i have buy vision 108 189cm.
I like sick day 104 but i want a more funny ski.
I mount point in -6,5 or more? -7?
Thx u very Much
Andrea from Italy
Looking for a dedicated touring ski to replace my Armada KUFO 108’s. I find the flat tail too grabby and stiff in most snow types, and find its a bit harsh in firm conditions. I ride the 2019 J Ski Friend in bounds and love how easy it is to turn and slash turns, as well as the stability at speed and in chop.
The two skis I’m looking at for replacing the KUFO’s are the Vision 108 and Armada Tracer 108. Do you feel the added weight of the Tracer is worth the added stability? I like a ski to be stable, but still able to make slashy turns in all conditions.
Thanks!
I’m coming off the Amplid Facelift 108 in 184cm. This ski has been my all time favorite touring ski. It’s so damn light and versatile. I ski it in pretty much any condition except for really deep days. Unfortunately they have seen better days after 250+ days of touring and need to be replaced. As you may know Amplid stopped making skis and I can’t seem to find a replacement anywhere. So I’m thinking of switching to the Line Vision 108 in a 189cm length given your review: more rocker, it’s softer, very playful and it measured short. So 184 vs 189? or what other options would you suggest as a replacement for the Facelift?
Thanks B
Hey there Blister, I’m seriously considering these skis in 175cm and could use a nudge in the right direction. I’m 5’7″ @ 145lbs and am looking to mount some Kingpin 13’s on a ski that I’ll primarily use in the CO backcountry on snowier days. I think I ski a bit like Luke … lots of slashes, skids, etc in a more neutral stance. I like to ski the trees and I also like to catch air when possible with the occasional 360 tossed in (I’m 35 so my park days are behind me). That being said, I already have QST 99s in 167cm (a bit short) and older Obsethed skis (179cm) for resort skiing. I really like both and was defaulting to the 2018-2019 Salomon QST 106s before I came across this review. I also am intrigued about the Armada Tracer 108. My only hesitation is that these skis might feel too light or that I can’t push them hard on the way down. Honestly, I’m not quite sure how to prioritize ski weight as I’m only now getting into backcountry. I know you also recommend the Line Sick Day as well but I like the fatter waist on the Visions. Ideally I would ski this setup on a bucket-list Japow trip in the near future ;)
Thank you!
Sounds like the 175 cm Vision 108 would be a pretty safe choice, and the 183 cm version might also work. The 18/19 QST 106 and Tracer 108 are better choices if you think you’d end up skiing a lot of firm, rough snow in the backcountry and want to be able to ski it somewhat similarly to how you would in the resort. But for skiing mostly soft snow and skiing a bit more conservatively on rougher snow, I think the Vision 108 would be just fine. The main upsides with the Vision 108 vs. those two are that the Vision is noticeably lighter on the uphill and much easier to maneuver in tight spots and just more playful overall. And in this width and weight, I can’t think of any notably better skis for Japan — the Vision 108 floats really well.
For length, if you like the length of the 179 cm Obsethed and don’t often find them feeling excessively long, I might steer you more toward the 183 cm Vision 108 since most of the K2 skis measure pretty close or even longer than their stated length, while the Vision (like most non-K2 skis) measures shorter than its stated length. The Vision is also so much lighter so I think the 183 would actually feel similar, if not “shorter” than the 179 cm Obsethed and the 183 cm version would give you a bit more stability at float without much extra weight. Let me know what you think!
Thanks for the thorough reply Luke! It’s really appreciated. I think the Vision might be my ski then. I’ll probably dial it back in any rough backcountry snow should I encounter it so I have less to worry about there. I really enjoyed my old 171cm Volkl Bridges from 2011 and am envisioning the “playful” factor and overall vibe of the Vision feeling similar to such a ski. Would that be fair?
You bring up a good point about considering the 183cm size. I didn’t realize most ski companies are in reality a touch shorter than what’s stated. I just measured tip-to-tail on my Obsethed skis and they are exactly at 179cm. Though I do have these K2’s mounted at +3 which I think make them more fun to ski, and with that … are about as long as I’d like to go.
If I care more about float, but less about stability, would you still prioritize the 183cm? Or would the 175cm Vision float almost as well as the 183cm considering my size and weight (I’m a small dude)? I typically like shorter skis for the trees and they might be easier to maneuver up the skin track. All that being said, I still have a great time on those K2s all while being a bit on the heavy side.
Sounds good. The Vision doesn’t feel exactly like a park ski like the Bridge, but it’s basically as close as it gets for a ski this light, so I think it’d feel very intuitive. And I think I’d lean toward the 183 given everything you’ve said. I think you’d still find them very manageable vs. the 179 Obsethed, and since the Vision is so light and also has pretty deep rocker lines, I don’t think you’d have any trouble maneuvering it in tight spots and at slower speeds. And for those super deep days, I think the 183 will be more fun than the 175. FWIW, I’m only a little bit bigger than you are and I think the 183 Vision 108 is the perfect size for me — I don’t think I’d want to go shorter, particularly for really deep days or more aggressive skiing.
Appreciate it Luke. One final question for you, as I’ve successfully spent all weekend on the Blister website reading about other potential skis! I think these Line Vision 108s are still my number 1 contender for my powder touring ski but I’ve been reading great things from Cy about the Moment Deathwish tour (as well as your review of the regular Deathwish).
Do you think the Deathwish Tour will float better than the Vision 108 with that extra 4mm around the waist? You mentioned that the Visions float above their size and the regular Deathwish floated pretty average. The Deathwish Tour seems to offer up a similarly playful or “dynamic” experience yet might be more versatile in varied conditions or on harder pack snow … for what seems to be a negligible weight difference. Any other trade offs or negatives when looking at the Deathwish Tour vs. the Line Vision 108? Cheers!
Totally — both are really good skis in this category. While I haven’t used the DW Tour, given that Cy thinks it skis really similarly to the regular Deathwish, I can make some safe comparisons. To me, the biggest differences come down to shape, flex, and rocker profile. The Deathwish has a longer sidecut radius and it’s noticeable — if you really want to carve, the DW requires more speed to get it on edge, while the Vision’s fatter tips, tighter sidecut radius, and softer flex pattern make it much easier to bend into shorter turns at slower speeds. Another result of the flex is that the softer Vision is more forgiving if you end up backseat, and I think it also just makes it feel more playful overall as it’s easier to bend and load up to pop off little features. The upside to the DW Tour’s stronger flex and longer sidecut radius is that I’m pretty confident it’s a bit more stable at high speeds and particularly in variable snow. And due to the ski’s different shapes and flex patterns, I’d be willing to bet that they float really similarly, and if anything, I suspect the Vision might float a little better due to its fatter, softer shovels. Then there’s the different rocker profiles, where things get a bit complicated. I’d bet that the DW Tour is better in terms of pure edge hold (e.g., hop-turning down a firm couloir), though I’ve never had a scary experience on the Vision 108 on very firm snow. The DW Tour is definitely better for landing switch in super deep snow thanks to its higher tail splay, but if you focus on landing a bit nose-heavy, switch landings on the Vision 108 are totally doable.
Bottom Line: both are excellent, versatile, and playful touring skis. The DW Tour seems to make sense for those more concerned with higher-speed stability than lower-speed playfulness, or those like Cy who mix playful pow skiing with very technical steep skiing and want to do it all on the same ski. The Vision is better if you’d rather be able to have more fun at slower speeds and in tighter terrain, want a more forgiving ski, and / or enjoy carving some tighter turns in shallower snow.
Hope that helps, and feel free to ask any follow-up questions.
I am looking at a more dedicated backcountry set up given the uncertainty surrounding resort operations with COVID this year. While I have a “backcountry” set up, it was more designed as a resort charger that I COULD skin with (I have blizzard cochise with guardian bindings…so needless to say the weight isn’t helping me), and am looking more for the opposite here, a touring ski that I could take frontside–as my local mountain is closed 2 days a week so I can skin up and ski the frontside on those days.
I am 6′ 170 and a longtime racer, and in bounds I do like to charge to some extent, so the review above on the line 108s does give me a little pause, but in the backcountry I like to savor the turns more and in general seek out tighter tree lines if there isn’t fresh powder. My local shop has the 108s as well as the sakura in what I would deem appropriate sizes for me (183 and 181 respectively). Would you recommend one over the other? I would say this is probably intended to be a 70/30 or 80/20 backcountry heavy use, with most resort skiing either on powder days or in bounds when my local mountain is closed.
Appreciate the help
Hey there, I am 5,11 and weight 160 lbs, I am a skier from Barcelona, I ski in the Pyrenees where we get some powder weekends but mostly hardpack in the out bounds.
I have a pair of k2 poachers for freestyle skiing but im looking for a pair new skis to buy, im looking for a playful ski to take profit of that powder weekends we have sometimes but a ski that i can tour with comfortably and i can charge down when touring in the common conditions here, like crust and hard snow.
What ski would you recomend me for my needs? You think the Armada tracers are more stable enough to make the added weight worth? I will mount shift mnc 13 bindings in it
Hi!
Does anyone have any experience or like to ad any thoughts regatrding the differences between the 183s and 189s? I skied the 189 cm during a “pre season ski-test-holiday” here in Sweden, lots of skiers and in addition, hard and harsch conditions. I know, almost impossible to get at good sense for this type of skis during such conditions… I am 184 cm (6 ft), 82 kg (181 lbs) and would normally lean toward a bit longer skis than myself. I knew before that the skis had a relatively soft flex but they felt much softer and “sluggish” than I had expected. Unfortunately the 183 cm was not available, perhaps they would have felt a bit stiffer? I imagine it´s more difficult to build a rather long light ski and remain a progressive flex pattern, but I might be wrong.
However, still interested in the skis and therefore if someone have experience of the 189 cm length, or if someone in me size have experience of using the 183 cm. Afraid it might fell short with that relatively pronoucned rocker profile…
Thanks a lot in advance!
Hi guys, Looking of your opinion here, I am about to buy a vision 108, I wanted to have these as dedicated touring skis, do you think it make sense to match them with ATK Raider 12 bindings, or rather look for something like Tecton a more downhill orientated binding…
Currently I have g3 ION and I pretty like it .. but was looking maybe for something lighter , considering this should be a dedicated touring setup, however I am a little worried to ruin the downhill experience.. thanks a lot..
How would mounting the skis further back from recommended effect the skiing?
I already own a pair setup with tech bindings and I feel the tail a lot when trying to initiate a turn. I also tend to slip more then my buddies on skin tracks.
I’m not concerned with hucking performance. Thanks.
Tanbien estoy interesado en la respuesta a la pregunta de Hampus Persson. ¿Sera posible que la flexion suave del esqui en 189 cm, utilizado por un esquiador mas pesado, haga que el esqui sea menos energico y esa caracteristica de indulgente se trasforme en un problema y no en una virtud.?
Hello!
I’m 6 ft 2 inches, about 200 lbs, and looking for my first touring setup. Located in the PNW and generally prefer to take my time getting down the mountain whether that be carving through narrow tree runs or hitting every (admittedly smallish) jump in sight. My first pair of alpine skis I picked up was a pair of Atomic Vantage TIs on sale which I found to be wayyyy too stiff and unforgiving for the type of skiing that I prefer and eventually switched over to a pair of Rustler 10’s which have been incredible (though I wish I went with the 180s and not the 188s at times when I’m in the trees).
For my first backcountry setup, I’m willing to sacrifice stability at speed for something with more of a playful feel while also being able to release the tails easily in tight tree runs. I also like the idea of a “hybrid” binding like the Shift or potentially Kingpins to play in the resorts as well. I’ve been attracted to options anywhere from 95 to 110 mm, but I’m not really looking for anything that will replace the kind of skiing that I’m able to do on my Rustler’s in the resort. I expect most of my touring days to occur early or late season with less than ideal snow conditions, so I don’t need an option with the best flotation. Also probably won’t be doing the longest touring missions in the world so having the absolute lightest ski possible isn’t the top priority.
I’ve read about a few different touring options and would be interested in anyone’s take on the skis listed below (or other options) for my ski style and applications:
– Line Vision 108
– Black Crow Camox Freebird
– Armada Tracer 98
– Fischer Ranger 102 FR
– Salomon MTN Explore 95
Also, if you have any binding recommendations or takes on ski lengths ‘ll take all the help I can get .
Cheers!
-B
Beware of the durability and quality of Line skis… I was happily using them for 3 weeks before they got absolutely trashed. Both skis were trashed within a few days.
Both incidents were caused by hitting frozen stomp or rock, but nothing really special. In both cases, I skied away and didn’t notice until the end of the run. I didn’t even crash. Of course, it’s random and hard to compare, but the scale of damage seems to me totally not proportional to the strength of the hit.
One ski got the edge bent inside, but it also propagated along the edge that was pushed away from the base. Sidewall also went out. This could be possible to repair.
The second ski is totally destroyed. The edge is out, the wooden core is split into two pieces (it looks like an Ikea cupboard plywood btw, with lots of trash), sidewall is also out. This is not repairable at all. I’ve been touring 12 years, 50-100 days a season, and never seen anything like that. This looks like a leg-breaking incident. While I barely felt it under my foot.
These skis are really fun while they last. I guess they could work in NW, but I would not recommend them to anyone in Europe where snow cover is more random and you hit some rocks once in a while. Well, after seeing the ski inside, I’m not sure if I can recommend it to anyone.