Ski: 2016-2017 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
Mount Location: Factory Recommended Line (about -9.92cm from center; 82.23cm from tail)
Boots / Bindings: Fischer Ranger Pro 13 / Marker Jester (DIN 9)
Test Locations: Telluride, CO
Days Skied: 4
[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 14/15 Supernatural 100, which was not changed for 15/16 or 16/17, except for the graphics.]
In the class of directional chargers, we are big fans of the Line Supernatural 108. It’s a freeride ski that provides enough stability to let me ski about as hard and as fast as I want to around the mountain (thanks to a pretty stout flex and fairly heavy weight, for its size/width), but it has a playful side that rewards a quick, snappy, dynamic skiing style, too.
And as a narrower version of the 108, naturally I’ve been curious to see how the Supernatural 100 handles as an all-mountain ski.
While the Supernatural 108 is quicker and more manageable than other directional, all-mountain chargers like the Moment Belafonte, Blizzard Cochise, and certainly the Armada Invictus (the most demanding ski of the four), it’s still a fairly wide, stout ski—the 108 isn’t a walk in the park in moguls and bumps, for example—so I was especially curious to see if the narrower Supernatural 100 would provide a similar blend of high-speed stability and playfulness, but be more geared to bump and tree skiing with its narrower width.
Brett Carroll wrote an excellent review of the Supernatural 100, and you should check it out. Throughout his review, Brett compares the Supernatural 100 to the old Line Influence 105, and he found the Influence 105 to be a stiffer, more demanding ski than the Supernatural 100.
So in the interest of further orienting the Supernatural 100 among other, more directional all-mountain skis, I’ll be comparing it to the most similar ski I’ve been on lately, the Liberty Helix. On the whole, despite being 105mm underfoot, I’ve found that in many respects the Helix is an easier ski to ski than the Supernatural 100.
Groomers
Brett’s review describes the Supernatural 100’s performance on groomers well.
Like the wider Supernatural 108, the 100 provides solid edge hold. I’d say the ski feels about as locked in on groomers as you could expect from a ski with a little tip rocker and a touch of tail rocker (definitely more so than more heavily rockered, freestyle-oriented skis like the 104mm-wide Blizzard Peacemaker and the 100mm Moment PB&J).
My experience with the Supernatural 100 is similar to Brett’s in that, while he found the Influence 105 (which has no tail rocker) to be a little more planted on firm groomers than the Supernatural 100, I’ve found the Liberty Helix to provide slightly better edge hold; the Helix, like the Influence 105, has a non-rockerd tail. On soft groomers, both the 100 and Helix hold an edge well, but the Helix’s is stronger, and I’m able to lean the ski over a bit farther (really far) into high-angle carves at speed.
Brett noted that, “the Supernatural 100 is better able to carve a wider variety of turn shapes” than the Influence 105, mainly because the “the 100’s slightly softer flex [compared to the 105] made it easier to bend through the belly of shorter slalom turns.” In other words, it seems he found it easier to make shorter, slower turns on the Supernatural 100.
While the Supernatural 100 has a slightly softer flex than the Influence 105, it’s still a pretty stiff ski. The Helix is noticeably softer than the 100 at all points, with an even “medium” flex from tip to tail, and it feels noticeably lighter than the Supernatural 100 on snow (it’s almost 200 grams per ski lighter on the scale).
All in all, I haven’t found that it’s any easier to break the tail of the Supernatural 100 free while scrubbing out a shorter, slower turn, than the Helix’s, even though the Helix is 5mm wider underfoot, and it’s tail isn’t rockered. In fact, I’d say the Helix is a little easier to ski at slow speeds in general; short swing turns take less effort to engage, and it takes less umph to swing the ski back and forth. The Helix’s lighter weight certainly plays a part here, but it might also have to do with the fact that its “standard” factory mount point is 2.9cm closer to center than the Supernatural 100’s, which is 9.92cm behind center.
Given what I’ve just said, it’s been interesting to compare the Supernatural 100 and the Helix’s high-speed performance on smooth and roughed-up groomers. In terms of their dampness / stability, I think they’re quite comparable. And interestingly, even though the Helix is said to have a slightly longer sidecut radius (25.5m vs 23 on the Supernatural 100), it feels a little more lively and energetic when carving at moderate and high speeds; the Helix is more easily flexed and bent through turns than the Supernatural 100, and has a little more energy to it.
To be clear, neither ski is super quick, very snappy, or really playful (a ski with a sub-20 meter sidecut radius will definitely be more reactive and lively than the Helix) but of the two, I find that the Helix is the more entertaining ski on groomers.
It’s worth noting that I only weigh 160 lbs (perhaps a little less at the moment) so an aggressive skier who weighs, say, 180 lbs or more might find the Supernatural 100 more easily flexed and more energetic than I do on groomers, and that same skier might not think the Helix is as stable at speed on particularly roughed-up groomers, though I doubt they’d find it a chattery mess.
Bumps
I agree with Brett that the Supernatural 100 has a relatively quick, poppy feel in moguls when skied with an athletic, precise style. In this respect the Supernatural 100 is definitely easier and more manageable in moguls than the Supernatural 108; if I were looking at both skis as one-ski quivers, and I was planning to ski bumps often, especially in very firm conditions, I’d definitely prefer to be on the Supernatural 100. (As I’ll talk about below, the Supernatural 108 definitely has a better top end than the Supernatural 100 in variable snow and soft chop, though.)
However, the Liberty Helix is again a little quicker and more nimble than the Supernatural 100 in moguls. The Supernatural 100 can be worked through some tight bump lines, for sure, but skiing those tight lines quickly and cleanly (keeping speed in check / not botching turns) is easier on the Helix, as it takes less energy and effort.
To be clear, compared to the 186cm Supernatural 100, there are more sluggish skis out there of a similar waist width (like the 184cm Volkl Mantra), but I find the wider yet lighter Helix is generally quicker and has a less weighty feel underfoot.
I posted this in a previous review but i imagine I never got a response since it was quite some time after the review. Anyway, here is my revised post/question.
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 weigh 185-190lbs so I think I’d get the more playfulness from the ski than what you experienced. Overall, 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!
Hi Tim,
IF we’re right in thinking you’ll get a bit more playfuless out of the SN 100 than I did, then it would probably suit you well given what you’re looking for next to the Cochise. I haven’t skied the 102 Wren, unfortunately, but have skied the 13/14 Mantra a little. The 13/14 Mantra is a more demanding ski than the SN 100, with a higher top and on groomers and more stability in bad, variable conditions, but it also is less forgiving and more work in bumps as a result. All in all I’m not sure it’s going to feel a lot more playful than your Cochise – if anything it might be a more demanding ski in bumps and steeps, in fact. That’s just a hunch though; it’s been a while since I’ve skied the Mantra, and so running the comparison by Jonathan in his review of the 13/14 Mantra might be a good idea.
As for the PB&J, it’s a less directional, more “new-school” style ski than the SN 100, and certainly the Mantra. The PB&J has a more forward mount point, more tip rocker and a lot more tail rocker, so it’s going to have a looser, more playful feel and be less locked down on groomers. But with that said, it will float a little better on soft days and will the most nimble in the trees of all the skis you’ve mentioned.
Hope this helps you!
Will
Hi Will
Great review as usual. Have you had a chance yet to get on the Rossignol Slat ? I am wondering how that compares to the SN100 and also vs the Scimitar ? I know you did a comprehensive review on the Scimitar. I bought the Sickle based on Jason’s review and love the ski but they need replacing soon and I am looking to drop down in width a touch to around the 98-100mm mark hence my question.
thanks
Ian
Hi Ian,
I’m very curious about the Slat as well. I really liked the Scimitar, and the Slat looks more to me like a slightly more aggressive Nordica Soul Rider (longer side-cut, but similar otherwise), which is a really run, poppy ski. Rossi just hasn’t been able to send us the Slat to test, though.
WB
Hi! Great review although I’ve never heard of the helix before, so comparisons to that ski gave me nothing. Anyways, did you ever consider the 179cm SN? Maybe that one would be better suited for you considering your weight? I weigh the same as you and after trying out the soul 7 and bonafide and reading a lot of reviews I was almost decided on this ski in 179cm. Now I’m a bit less sure. I’m pretty much looking for something like the bonafide but just a bit turnier and more nimble, while still being able to charge with a high angle carve on the firm (boring) days.
Hi Erik,
That’s a good thought, though I haven’t been able to try out the 179 Supernatural 100. Let us know what you find if you get on them.
Best,
Will
I have the SN in 179 cm length. I really like the ski and I am at Taos right now. Very good in the West Basin Chutes and steep moguls. The one scary thing i have experienced it sticking the low profile tip into firmer crude piles and blowing the ski off. It happened in Elevator chute and Tresckow ridge trees. Scared the heck out of me. The conditions were such that I never even considered the possibility. This could also relate to the review that weight must be moved back a bit to keep tips up in Pow. Not a fan of the low profile tips. I tried the longer version but like shorter tighter turns so went with the 179cm. I am 6 feet and 170 pounds.
I have been skiing the 2010 Prophet 100 in 186 and really enjoy it as a do-all ski. I’m 5′-8″, 155, have a racing background, and the 186 is a fully supportive ski for me in all conditions. It’s always been very stable busting through variable snow in long GS turns at speed, and holds a fairly strong edge when I lay it over on groomers. I demo’d the SN100 in 186 and found it to initiate turns better than the P100, but it’s stiffer, less damp, and transmits more vibration such that my legs need to be much more active in variable snow, or bumped-up groomers. Basically, it did not have the same dampness that the P100 does. With fewer days on snow lately (I had kids), I have been considering sizing down in length, in general. I’m thinking that sizing down to a 179 might help me get more flex out of the ski and enjoy it more like I do the P100. Any thoughts on sizing this ski down?
Hi Sam,
I haven’t had the chance to ski the Supernatural in 179, though it’s a good thought. Robert, who posted a comment just above, is a little bigger than you (6′ – 170 lbs) and heavier than me, and he’s been on the 179. I really can’t say with any certainty if it would be what you’re looking for, but there’s a chance the 179 could work for you given Robert and Erik’s thoughts above.
Best,
Will
Any chance anyone has skied the supernatural 92 and have an opinion how it compares to blizzards lineup. I have skied the 100 and agree it is sluggish and slow edge to edge but loved it in the bumps (superisingly) and was very stable. I have had people rave about the 92 saying its a playful go anywhere, rip anywhere ski. I am looking to get a great east coast ski and the bones, brahma and 92s are all on my radar. Only unfortunate thing is i believe the Lines are made in china which goes against my personal beliefs.
Hi Will.!!
I am thinking about buying SN100 or 108 or Atomic Ritual. I have very good price on them. The lenght is 179cm on both of the SN and 182cm on the Rituals.
Im 200 Pounds and 177cm, 49 years and rather good skier. Been skiing for all my life and mostly like to charge and ski fast. I should have them primarily for all conditions in groomers and also a little beside the slope. I value carving high when I buy skis What do you Think?. // Hasse
How would the Line 100 compare with the 2014/15 Volkl Mantra….particularly in firm “east coast” conditions? I would assume the Mantra would perform better on steep icy terrain. Does the Line 100 have a core that includes one or multiple metal sheets?
I asked this question on the original review but figured I would give a quick hollar on here as well in case. Did either of you ever play around with the mount location of these. Picked up a pair for an advanced female skier but mount location looks pretty “traditional”. Any thought about moving them a cm or two forward and how they might work up there?
This pertains to the SN 92 (version 2020). By chance would you know the mount location of this ski in a 186cm. length? EVO has it at about -14cm rear of true center?! This can’t be true – also is the mount for the SN 100 the same as the SN 92?
Either of these skis may become my do-it-all stick that will accompany any fatter ski in the truck if the conditions are skied out or just hard and groomed.
Thanks,
DHJ