Variable Conditions / Ice
My second day on the Mordecai was at the Craigieburn Valley club field. Previously on the trip we had some great skiing at Craigieburn, but on this particular day, we were met with some icy, refrozen crud, a little bit of dust on crust (icy crust, actually), and a healthy serving of fog—in other words, perfect conditions to see what the Mordecai could really handle.
Similar to the slush day I described above, I was very happy with how the Mordecai performed in these less-than-ideal conditions. The stable platform was again much appreciated on icy patches of snow combined with very poor visibility.
I mostly skied with a centered, more neutral stance, but my body position was constantly changing to balance and cope with the variable snow. The stiffness in front of and behind the bindings provided great support to accommodate these quick changes in body position. I never felt like I was going to wash out or wheelie over backwards unintentionally.
For the sake of seeing how hard I could comfortably push these skis in tough conditions, I skied a couple runs faster and with a more aggressive, forward stance Just like the Mordecai’s tail, the nose of the ski is very supportive and was not folding up under my 180lbs. Whether skiing faster and more forward or slower and more neutral, the Mordecai is both very intuitive and very stable. (Caveat: if you’re used to skiing nearly center-mounted skis. Directional skiers used to skis mounted – 6 to 12 cms behind center shouldn’t be reading this thinking they’ll drive the Mordecai the same way they do their more set-back skis.)
Finally, I was very impressed with the edgehold from the Mordecai, especially in these icy conditions.
Groomers
While I didn’t spend too much time on groomers, it was clear the Mordecai can easily handle corduroy. The 5mm of traditional camber underfoot helps keep good edge-hold, and the stable platform discussed above allow the ski to feel comfortable at high speeds.
Jumping / In the Air
I rode the Mordecai mounted at the “Eric’s Choice” line, which is about -2 cm from true center. At this mount location, spinning through the air felt very balanced. Swing weight was a little on the heavier side—more comparable to the ON3P Jeffrey 114 than the quicker (and shorter) Rossignol Sickle.
This means that slower, smoother spins are where the Mordecai shines. Sure, if you have the skill you’ll be able to toss them around and do some bigger tricks, but floating around slower rotations puts the Mordecai in its comfort zone.
As I’ve said above, the Mordecai handles really well in less than ideal conditions. So translating this to jumping, the Mordecai can stomp and ride away in nasty landing conditions with ease. It has plenty of stiffness both in front of and behind the bindings, so you will have sufficient support if you land off balance.
Buttering
I was immediately curious to see how well the Mordecai could butter off cat-tracks and rollers. The old Line Opus was renowned for its buttering prowess, and the old Bacon was no slouch on this front. Now, with the Mordecai placed roughly in between these two skis width-wise, but with a stiffer flex profile … can it butter?
To nose butter 360 the Mordecai, you have to work a bit to shift your weight past the ski’s stiffer shovels and get all the way out to the tip of the ski. Once you do get your weight over the nose, however, the Mordecai flexes smoothly and predictably.
Compared to the ON3P Jeffrey 114, the middle part and exit of the butter feel much different. The soft tips of the Jeffrey 114 really let you control a butter and hold it for a split second before popping out of the spin. On the other hand, the Mordecai wants to just continue the rotation and efficiently release from the butter.
The primary thing that struck me about the Mordecai was how easily it finished a butter. It’s not that it has a lot of pop, but it just snaps around and finishes the move with very minimal work. I haven’t skied the Mordecai in deep pow yet, but it seems like it will just slice right through snow on the exit of a butter (in a good way). Often when buttering in pow, it’s easy to get hung up by the added resistance of the snow, but I expect the Mordecai to minimize this problem.
NEXT: Overall Playfulness, Line Mordecai vs. Rossignol Sickle vs. ON3P Jeffrey 114, Etc.
Good review, But i wish you would have compared the Mordecai to the Opus more, since that is the ski it replaced, by your review it sounds like the opus is the more playful true powder ski and the Mordecai is more of a “all mountain ski with some playful attributes, if that is the case, I’m glad I bought a backup pair of Opuses before their all gone.
Also it would be interesting what Jonathan thought of the Mordecai.
William,
I wish I could draw more comparisons to the Opus, but the sad fact is I just haven’t skied them before. I have flexed them side-by-side to the Mordecai, and I have plenty of friends who ride them daily. From everything I know about the Opus, you have it right. The Opus (we’re talking the pre-Magnum Opus) is very playful and the Mordecai is a little narrower and more solid/versatile with a playful side to it.
Alex
I actually found this exchange somewhat helpful—I am still skiing my Line Pollards Opus, because I still love them. I am looking to replace them, but the new Magnum Opus is just too much ski for me, and it sounds to me from this review as if the Mordecai won’t be the back country powder / all conditions ski that I need. Interesting, because I have written to Line to ask them about this, and they don’t even respond…
SO, instead, I am strongly considering the J Friend, in spite of some of what you said about it vs the Mordecai. Thoughts about the J Friend in comparison with Line Pollards Opus?
I really like your review, and think I am going to buy the mordecai. I don’t know very much about gear so some advice would be extremely appreciated. Firstly I am wondering what you think about using the mordecai as an occasional backcountry touring ski after weight was bumped up. I am in very good shape so a bit of extra weight is no problem. Secondly I could really need some help on deciding what bindings to buy and where to mount them. I have heard the marker kingpin is really good? And I guess mounting them at the recommended 6cm instead of Eric’s choice is decided by how freestyle oriented you are? Please correct me if I am wrong, and once again thank you for such thorough reviews.
Preben,
I think using the Mordecai as an occasional touring ski would be a good option actually. It can ski a lot of different conditions really well, and it’s wide enough to float through some pow. It’s weight was bumped up from advertised, but it is still an average weight ski. It’s not on the heavy end of the spectrum; it’s just not super light like originally planned.
There are a lot of details that go into the equation when figuring out what bindings to get and where to mount them. My first suggestion is to talk to your local ski shop and have a conversation about how you plan to ski this pair. From your description, I do have a couple suggestions though. The Marker Kingpin is definitely a very good binding, but it is a dedicated backcountry binding that is built for backcountry enthusiasts. This binding requires touring-specific boots. If you’re only going to be touring on the Mordecai a couple of times a year, and you already have alpine ski boots (regular downhill ski boots), then I would suggest a frame binding like the Marker Duke or Marker Baron.
And yes, the mounting location has a large part to do with how freestyle oriented you are.
Alex
Thank you very much for a very helpful answer. I am going to buy new boots aswell. But I will probably go for something of a hybrid between touring and regular alpine both in boots and bindings then. Do you have any tips or thoughts about what boots are good?
I am confused about the recommendation for the mounting position. It talks about -2 mount position and ~ 2 mount position? Is this the same or is the ~ a plus 2 or is it negative 2? Just want to understand the correct mount position.
Hey guys,
nice review as always!
Did you measure the tip and tail height as well. I’d be really interested to know.
Cheers
Yep, see the tip & tail splay in the specs at the top.
Line markets this ski as a powder ski, but Blister lists this this ski as an “all mountain ski” in their index. Given it’s width underfoot and rocker profile, it certainly *looks* like a powder ski. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where this review addresses this substantial difference in classification.
I live in Colorado, and am looking for a lighter, playful ski in the ~115 underfoot category as my go to powder ski on deeper days. I am stuck between the Mordecai and JJ 2.0. But based on this review, I am leaning towards the JJ if this is not a true powder ski like Line claims it is.
Any help from Blister would be greatly appreciated. I am 5′ 11″, 175lbs, and I ski about 30-40 days a season in Colorado.
Any thoughts on the comparison with a Rossi Soul 7 or the Salomon Rocker2 108? I know both of those are a bit narrower, but the general idea seems similar and the next wider models from those companies are a fair bit wider than the Mordecai.
Also the Soul 7 is certainly one of the most common skis on the mountain, so something a lot of people can relate too.
How did you guys feel about size, since you have often gone to the 190ish skis, but were on the middle sized model of the series?
Also, the 190 cm Rocker2 108 is actually 111 meat the waist, with a 19.7m sidecut, so not that far of the width and sidecut of the Mordecai.
Interesting. Total opposite to what I found (and I normally agree with your – well, Blister’s – reviews).
I tested the Mordecai last March. I found it too soft and too unstable, and absolutely terrible on anything firm or variable.
I can see the attraction for Pollard-style powdery (mellow) buttery fun, but it gets a ‘awful – stay away’ label from me everywhere else.
Not sure how you can recommend it as a touring ski as above either – central mounts suck for kick turns.
Hi, I also posted my question on Brett Carroll’s review of the Supernatural 108’s but I also wanted to get the opinion of someone from the Mordecai fan-club. So here it is copy-pasted:
I’m stuck in a dilemma for my next skis. I currently ski on first generation 170 Rossi E88s. I bought them as they were advertised as 50/50 on/off piste skis but I am really struggling with them in anything remotely powdery. I wanted to upgrade that aspect of them and thought the E100 were the natural choice but reading the Blister reviews on them I realised I will be getting mostly more of the same.
I am now torn between Line Supernatural 108 and Mordecai both in 179cm. I know these are skis with very different profiles but this is exactly why I can’t decide easily between the two (otherwise I would probably just pick the one with the better picture).
Nowadays I mostly like to ski tight trees and any powder I can find but I also like to make aggressive GS turns and go for top speed on groomers whenever I (inevitably) find myself on them. I also like to jump off of anything I can but can’t do any trickery or even ski switch (yet) – not the easiest thing on the E88s.
I am mostly worried that the Mordecai might be too fat for on-piste or too twitchy for what I am used to even though I read that it is very stable for a centre-mounted ski and has decent edge-hold. For the Supernatural I am not sure how I will cope in the trees with the much longer radius – or maybe it doesn’t matter as long as the tails release easily. Also are they good skis for jumps?
I really don’t know what I can expect from such skis as I haven’t skied many different skis – and nothing above an 88 waist.
My profile: 175cm, 79kg (5’9″, 174lb), I ski local Bulgarian mountains (read East Coast, as far as I understand what the East Coast is) and Alps. Even though I may end up keeping the E88s I am really looking for a 1-ski-quiver.