Ski: 2019-2020 Line Supernatural 100, 186cm
Available Lengths: 172, 179, 186 cm
Actual Tip-To-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 184.6cm
Stated Dimensions (mm): 132-100-121
Blister’s Measured Dimensions (mm): 131-99-120
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2199 & 2189 grams
Stated Sidecut Radius: 23 meters
Core Construction: Maple/Aspen + Titanal + Fiberglass Laminate
Tip & Tail Splay: 56 / 20 mm
Traditional Camber Underfoot: 3-4 mm
Boots / Bindings: Tecnica Cochise 130 Pro / Marker Jester (DIN 11)
Test Locations: Alta Ski Area, Snowbird
Days Skied: 9
[Note: Our review was conducted on the 14/15 Supernatural 100, which was not changed for 15/16, 16/17, 17/18, 18/19, or 19/20, apart from graphics.]
If you’ve read my review of the Line Influence 105, then you know I’m quite fond of that ski. So while I was disappointed that Line discontinued the Influence series after the 2012-2013 season, I was immediately intrigued by the new Supernatural series, and very curious to see how the new Supernatural 100 compared to the Influence 105. A few weeks later, I was headed up to Alta with the Supernatural 100, and the assignment to A/B this new model against the Influence 105, as well as the new Line Supernatural 108.
(Jonathan Ellsworth has already written a first review of the Supernatural 108, and he will be doing a 2nd Look on the Supernatural 100, comparing it to a number of other ~100mm-underfoot skis in its class.)
Flex Pattern
The 186cm Supernatural 100 shares a very similar flex pattern to the 186cm Influence 105 and the 186cm Supernatural 108. All three skis gradually transition from stiff underfoot to a slightly softer tip and tail, with the tip being just a bit softer than the tail.
The Supernatural 100 is a touch softer than the Influence 105 at all points along the ski, although the 100 is still fairly stiff. And the Supernatural 108 is a touch stiffer than the Influence 105.
To reference another ski, the Supernatural 100 is about the same stiffness underfoot as the Nordica El Capo, but smoothly transitions to its softer tips and tails, where the El Capo’s transition to softer tips and tails is quite abrupt. The smooth flex patterns of the Supernatural 100, 108, and Influence 105 are superb in this respect. In my experience a smooth, consistent flex pattern that gradually moves from stiff underfoot to (slightly) softer at the extremities makes a ski predictable and stable, whereas skis with more abrupt transitions feel like they have trap doors that fold up when pressured too much.
Rocker / Camber Profile
The tip rocker of the Supernatural 100 is slightly more subtle than the Influence 105, with contact points of ~26cm and ~28cm respectively. But the main difference between the rocker profiles of these models is that the tails of the Supernatural 100 are subtly rockered, with a contact point 17cm from the tail, where the Influence 105’s tails are traditionally cambered with a twin-tip that starts a just few centimeters from the end of the ski.
Groomers
In my review of the Influence 105, I was very complimentary of its ability to carve and hold an edge on groomers. And while some of the details of the Supernatural 100’s groomer performance differ from the Influence 105’s, it’s also able to arc a clean turn and hold an edge in firm conditions.
The biggest difference in groomer performance I noticed between the Supernatural 100 and the Influence 105 is that the Supernatural 100 is better able to carve a wider variety of turn shapes. The 100’s slightly softer flex made it easier to bend through the belly of shorter slalom turns than the Influence 105. The Supernatural 100’s poppiness also helps the ski feel snappy and lively transitioning from one slalom turn to the next. I didn’t notice this as much when making larger GS turns (as the ski isn’t flexed as much through a longer turn, and as a result produces less energy coming out of its apex) but the Supernatural 100 is happy to open up and carve larger, faster arcs, too.
The Supernatural 100 feels very stable at speed on groomers. While not as damp as the Influence 105, it is able to absorb deflections on roughed up groomers well. I enjoyed being able to arc clean, fast turns, even when Alta’s main runs had seen a day’s worth of abuse. However, I still think I would take the Influence 105 over the Supernatural 100 for arcing turns on roughed up groomers, as the 100’s subtle tail rocker does make them slightly more prone to washing out.
For the record, the Supernatural 108’s groomer performance is more in line with that of the Influence 105, in that the it prefers to make larger radius GS turns (where the Supernatural 100 is also happy making quick, slalom turns). But, like the Supernatural 100, the 108’s subtle tail rocker also makes it a little more prone to washing out than the Influence 105.
Moguls
The quick and poppy feel of the Supernatural 100 helps them to perform well in moguls. Their subtle rocker profile mitigated any issues with the tips or tails getting caught up on bumps, and their fairly stiff flex gave the skis a stable feeling without being overly stiff (to the point where the tips and tails left the middle of the ski suspended between two big moguls). All of this is true as long as you are making quick, dynamic, precise turns at moderate speeds, rather than charging over the tops of the bumps at high speeds. At those higher speeds, the Supernatural 100’s tips start to deflect, causing the ski to feel far less stable.
Firm Chop / Crud
In firm, choppy snow down runs like Alta’s Stone Crusher and High Rustler, the Supernatural 100 again excelled at quick, snappy turns at moderate speeds. The Influence 105 is better at making stable, fast GS turns in firm chop, but the Supernatural 100 felt quicker edge to edge and provided a bit more pop when making quick, dynamic turns. The 100 truly prefers this style of skiing.
Firm, Variable Snow
The Supernatural 100 lacks the extra width and dampness that gives the Influence 105 the ability to ski quickly and smoothly over firm, variable snow. As mentioned above, the 100’s softer flex and snappy feel make them more energetic through quick and moderately sized turns, but it makes them a bit more prone to being deflected at speed in variable conditions. Often times I felt like I was using my legs as shock absorbers to keep the Supernatural 100 on the snow and tracking cleanly, where the Influence 105 would have handled more of this work on its own.
Another difference between the Supernatural 100 and the Influence 105 comes from the 100’s subtly rockered tail. I can break the tails of the Influence 105 free and smear out a turn when I need to, but this is noticeably easier on the Supernatural 100. I appreciate being able to include a delayed, smeared turn into my repertoire on the 100s, as I can draw out a longer radius turn to get around an obstacle or switch to a different line.
Soft (Shallower) Chop
For a ski that is 100mm underfoot, I was impressed by how substantial the Supernatural 100 felt in soft chop conditions.
The tips of the ski are able to ride right over the top of soft, chopped up snow. I never had an issue with the tips feeling like they were diving into the chop, even while driving the shovels and skiing with a forward, aggressive stance. When skiing fast in this softer snow, the issue I had with the tips of the Supernatural 100 deflecting in firm chop and variable conditions was no longer a problem. Here the Supernatural 100s provided a solid, stable platform for skiing at a variety of speeds and through a variety of turn shapes. I’m still inclined to say that these skis perform best making quick, snappy turns in these conditions (where they feel poppier and more energetic than the Influence 105), but they performed well at speed, too.
The Supernatural 108’s performance is more similar to the Influence 105 here, in that it feels most comfortable skiing fast and making large turns in soft chop, and is also less nimble than the Supernatural 100 when making quick turns at moderate speeds.
Deep, Heavier Chop
The Supernatural 100 didn’t fare as well in deep, heavier chop. On a warm, sunny afternoon at Alta the day after the mountain had received 18” of new snow, I had enjoyed the 100’s soft chop performance all day. Then I took a run down Thirds. The new snow had been pushed into piles a couple feet high with deep troughs between, and the sun had started to bake the snow, making the piles fairly heavy. Trying to make large, fast turns on the Supernatural 100s in these conditions proved difficult, as the tips were repeatedly getting deflected and I wished I had a wider ski to keep me floating on top of the piles and more stable running through the troughs.
Either the Supernatural 108 or the Influence 105 probably would have done well here, as the extra stiffness, width, and dampness of those skis makes them better able to blast through and ski over the top of very deep chop. On the Supernatural 100, I was again better off making the quicker, moderate-speed turns that it prefers in firmer, variable conditions.
your description seems very much like what I think of the prophet 98! specially when you say that it prefers short turns in variable instead of going through anything at high speed wide turns! It looks a bit more stable than the P98, but basedon some of your comments it’s not quite on the same league as the bonafide, mantra and even H&B, Kabookie!
really wish line had made more of a crud buster 100mm instead of simply a more stable P98
Hey Marcel, sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
You’re right that Line created a solid, stable ski with the Supernatural 100, but that I wouldn’t call it a crud buster. If you’re willing to sacrifice a little of the Supernatural 100’s agility and poppiness, and add a little width, then you should check out Jonathan’s and my reviews of the Supernatural 108. It’s a versatile ski that is a very capable “crud buster.”
That being said, there are certainly skis in the ~100 underfoot range that are capable “crud busters.” I just don’t have a ton of experience in that category.
Great review Brett. I’ll be the first to ask what I’m sure others are wondering. Can you give us some comparisons to other benchmark 100ish mm skis such as the mantra, hell and back, rossignol experience 98 and 100? Thanks a ton
Hey, Andrew – as Brett mentions at the top of the review, my 2nd Look will be making those comparisons.
Ahh, thanks
Thanks Andrew, sorry for the slow response. In addition to the comparisons that Jonathan has made and will make in his reviews we just published my second look at the Rossi Experience 100, with comparisons to the Supernatural 100. Hopefully that will help you position the SN 100 relative to some comparable skis. Cheers
hi jonathan
any idea on when you will get your 100mm round up out (will it make it as part of end of this season, or will it be next winter?). Am very interested in new Mantra vs Bonafide vs Supernatural 100 !
by the way, as everyone says, an excellent site, with great reviews
Thanks, Jason. This round up should be out by the end of the month. I’m hoping to get a few more days on snow before writing it.
Thanx 4 the initial review. I’m looking forward to part 2 and the comparisons to Bonafide and H&B’s.
I enjoy reading your reviews and the many other insightful writers on this site. Your reviews guided my demoing of skis last season and ultimately helped make the two choices I currently ski; the Sir Francis Bacon 184, and the Mr. Pollard’s Opus 185. Two great soft snow skis. I am making a trip to California in December and would like a ski that is better suited to firm snow, probably in a smaller waist width. Would you recommend the Supernatural 92? With metal or without? Thanks.
Thanks for the positive feedback Harry, that’s always nice to hear.
Having never ridden the Supernatural 92 it’s a little hard to address that ski specifically, but after riding the SN 100 and 108 I would think that the 92 would most likely be a good choice for firm conditions. The metal vs. no metal (SN 92 vs. 92 LITE) choice definitely comes down to personal preference, but given that the Opus and SFB are relatively softer, surfier skis, the 92 without metal might better suit your preferences.
And in regards to choosing a ski to bring to California in December, I wouldn’t rule out the Supernatural 100. As I described in the review, it is well suited to firmer conditions while I imagine it performs better in soft snow than the SN 92 would.
Hope that helps. Enjoy your California trip.
How would you compare the SN 100 to the Bonafide? Stability, stiffness, float, performance on and off piste? Pretty torn between these two and demoed the Bonafide last year and had a blast, but always loved the Prophet 100 of old. Pretty much an exclusive Tahoe skier(Alpine and Squaw) and I’m looking for a ~100 ski for my everyday ski. Thanks for any feedback!!
By the way, I’m 6’1″ and 210pnds, like to ski fast on groomers and dig technical lines off piste at moderately fast speeds, hit cliffs but nothing really over 25-30′ anymore, and bumps only when necessary. Love trees too!
Good question Jason, those sound like two good options. Unfortunately I haven’t gotten to spend any time on the Bonafide, so I can’t speak to its performance. For more info on that ski check out Jonathan’s review of the 2013-2014 Bonafide, if you haven’t done so already.
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2013-2014-blizzard-bonafide
Given your brief description of your skiing style it sounds like you would enjoy the SN 100, as I appreciated their ability to carve at speed on groomers and make quick, poppy turns at moderate speeds in most off piste conditions.
Sorry I couldn’t be of more help, but it does sound like you’ve narrowed it down to a couple great choices. Cheers!
I’m 5’7″ 160 lbs. I own and enjoy the line SFB 184 for nearly all conditions. I am considering the purchase of a ski for bleak snow weeks in the PNW. Is the Supernatural 100 a significantly better ski in steep, firm, unpredictable conditions than the SFB?
Good question John, that’s kind of a tough one.
I haven’t spend any time on the SFB myself, but Jason Hutchins wrote a great review on them that you should check out if you haven’t yet. They are among his top few favorite skis, mostly due to their versatility.
Based on my experience on the SN100 and Jason’s review of the SFB, I would expect there to be a couple subtle differences in their performance in firm, variable snow. First, the SN100 might feel a little quicker edge-to-edge purely because of its narrower width. That being said, Jason was incredibly complimentary of how nimble the SFB felt. Second, I would also expect the SN100 to be slightly stiffer and definitely more directional than the SFB in its flex, which might help it handle firm, variable snow better. But again, Jason was very impressed by the SFB’s edge hold and versatility in variable snow, so I can’t say that for sure.
I’m not sure if those differences are enough to warrant adding the SN100 to your quiver. If you’re seriously considering picking up a pair, maybe it’d be worth demoing them first?
One last note, if you’re looking for a directional ~100mm-waist ski to add to your quiver that will do better in firm, steep terrain I would also recommend checking out Jonathan Ellsworth’s review of and my second look at the Rossignol Experience 100. Its stiff tail, lack of tail rocker, and shorter sidecut radius give it some excellent edge hold and a stable platform in variable conditions. It’s not a true “charger” in that it won’t just blast through any type of snow at high speeds, but neither are the SN100 or the SFB. I think it’s at least worth a look.
How does the Supernatural 100 compare to the Bonafide? I’m looking for something for Colorado front range that can carve trenches on groomers and handle medium speed (more controlled) side country / back bowls / trees (I’m getting a bit old for the high speed charging / straight lining of my youth working at Snowbird). I have been using 181 K2 Sidestash but wouldn’t mind something that carves a shorter radius on groomers and is a little more maneuverable in tight trees. 5’9″ 160#
Steve,
I haven’t gotten to spend any time on the Bonafide, but you should check out Jonathan’s review of them if you haven’t yet. But from your description of what you’d like to ski, it sounds like the Supernatural 100 would be a great choice.
I wouldn’t quite say that the Supernatural 100 “carves trenches,” but having grown up skiing race skis on East Coast ice that’s not a compliment that I throw around lightly. It skis very well on groomers, holds an edge well on all but the firmest boilerplate, and feels comfortable making a variety of turn shapes. As for its off-piste performance, I think that the Supernatural 100 suits skiers who prefer skiing with more finesse at moderate speeds better than those who prefer to blow through chop at high speeds. Since it sounds like you fall into the first category, I’m inclined to think that the Supernatural 100 would be a solid choice for you.
First: You guys rock! I´m enjoying your reviews for quite some time.
Looking for an All Mountain Ski that fits my personal riding style best. I´m torn between the 12/13 Rossi Scimitar 181cm, Scott´s The Ski 180cm, and the Line Supernatural 100 in 179cm or maybe 186cm.
I´m an advanced skier who likes to go fast on groomers with a very aggressive forward leaning stance and a preference for small radius slalom turns. When there are some inches of fresh snow (doesn´t happen as frequently here in the austrian alps) I´m always preferring to go off-piste, but in this area I only have experience on snowboard. You won´t find me in the park nor in a mogul field.
Due to a history of knee-injuries I can´t ride sideways anymore so I´m looking for a one-ski-quiver that 1) can definitely hold an edge at fast speed in firm and icy conditions and lets me do quick small radius turns while also allows me to smear out a turn smoothly when things start to get too fast and bumpy; and 2) is able to provide an easy and comfortable ride in the deeper stuff without the danger of tip-diving despite of a forward leaning stance (keeping in mind that I´m a off-piste-beginner,at least on skis).
At the moment I´m using a 170cm Atomic Slalom Race Ski with 65mm underfoot and a turning radius of 13m for groomers and a heavy 168cm Scott freeride snowboard for going off-piste.
I´m 35 years old with over 30 years of experience in skiing; 1,81m, 81kg.
Which of the skis that I mentioned above would you recommend?
Hi Mathias, I’m glad to hear you like the site. It’s always nice to know that people appreciate our reviews.
I don’t think I’ll be of too much help here, as I haven’t ridden or heard much about the Scimitar or The Ski. But hopefully I can help give you a little more insight into the Supernatural 100’s performance.
The Supernatural 100 is a fun ski on groomers, and I enjoyed making quick, snappy slalom turns on them. They do also feel very comfortable breaking the tails free and smearing out a turn if need be. That being said, they perform well on groomers compared to other skis in their class. They will not be able to hold an edge as well, or feel as precise, as your Atomic slalom skis. Those are very much a specialty tool, and I think it will be hard to find similar performance in another type of ski.
Since you also want to be able to ride this ski in off-piste powder as well, the SN 100 will be much more capable here than a slalom race ski would. If you’re too far forward on these skis, you will risk some tip dive. But I think it would be very difficult to find a ~100mm-waist ski that wouldn’t have an issue with tip dive when skied with a very forward stance. I think the SN 100 would be a good choice here, it just might take you a few runs to find your balance point in powder.
This is a very good, thorough assessment, and helpful to me. Like the reviewer, I am a die hard Influence 105 skier. I’m on my 3rd pair and still look for the ski online to buy. Last year I bought the Line Sick Day thinking it would replace the 105’s. It wasn’t even close. I sold them and bought another Influence 105 at a close out sale. My ski shop is a stocks Line skis as part of their offering. Based on your review, I would buy the Supernatural 108 over the 100, so thanks for helping me make a good choice for my next ski.
The SN 100 has peaked my curiosity since I read about the SN 108. I currently ride a Cochise and Bibby Pro. I love both of them, but am looking to add, or replace my Cochise with a slightly narrower ski for Colorado hardpack days (and up to a few inches) that is still damp for charging steeps, but a bit more playful for trees, moguls, etc. I think the SN 100 would be a great fit, but i also have a few others I’m considering. How does the SN 100 compare to the 13/14 Mantra, ON3P Wren 102, and PB&J for what I’m looking for in a ski?
And great job on the site. You guys have come a long way in the short time you’ve been up. Love the reviews! Keep up the good work!
Any more word on a run down between ~100 width skis? Really curious to hear how the SN100’s compare to the Bonafide.
Hey guys. Did either of you ever play around with the mount location of these. Thinking of them for a pretty advanced female skier but mount location looks pretty “traditional”. Any thought about moving them a cm or two forward?
Now 24 ski days on these (100 Supernaturals) this season. Unlike the mountain West, still working on Thanksgiving’s snow this has become repurposed to the point of being somewhat icy. Indeed one might at least consider a very slightly forward mounting as they are not forgiving of any rear center of gravity placement. A hard charging reasonably short radius ski that can yield a great short swing with little effort, not quite as stable on large radius GS type turns at speed. Responds well to active input!
I was hoping to utilize these under a more favorable variety of snow conditions which has not yet materialized. One ski has had some minor lifting of the top sheet at the very tip of the tail. Ski shop blamed me, but after I fixed this it recurred on the same tip in a different place, neither ski is marked in any way and it has only happened to one ski. Possible minor bonding issue.
Wish I could make some sort of informed review of skiing under other conditions!
Blister Folks with Experience owning SN 100 and SN 108 13/14 – 15/16 models = Red ones and Black ones
Hi this is a msg to folks that have had experience with SN100 & 108….I just ordered a pair of each and they are in transit.They compliment Bibby and Belafonte..The shape of both skis are right what I was looking for especially in the crowded 100mm group…The SN100 I am really really looking forward to trying it out unfortunately,..I have since read about several durability issues, delaminating was reported most frequently…..some of these comments were on Lines website….I am thinking positive about my upcoming purchase and will notify Line of serial #’s in case there was a bad batch- Life happens maybe 6 pair out of 6 million produced had a defect ?
Has any one else had an issue with SN100 ?? — the 108 I did not see this as an issue from a handful of sites here,epic,Line etc. Just the SN100, Red Ones and Black ones – no comments for unchanged 17 model.
If there was an issue what was the outcome ? Did it occur during your warranty period ? It cant all be operator error like hot waxing with a in appropriate iron that is for shirts not skis. The biggest suprise is that the postings are on Lines website re: SN 100. The majority of the posted reviews were negative and reporting Durability issues…while a few had glowing reports – I hope I fall into that category.
Thank you – Top Sheet chips are no big deal …if the sandwich comes apart that’s unacceptable and out of my scope to repair and would necessitate a return.
Guy
I love the 2017 Line Supernatural 100. Do you guys know of a new ski that’s close or the same?