Ski: Line Vision 114

Reviewer height/weight: 5’9, 145lbs

Ski weights (per ski):

Length skied: 183

Actual length (with straight tape): 182.4

Dimensions: 139 - 113 - 132

Mounted: -4 cm from true center

Bindings: Salomon Shift2 13

Locations: Saas-Fee

Conditions skied: Blower, heavy pow, crusty snow, slush, groomers, bumps, park

Days Skied: 8 (so far)

_

Line Skis are going through a resurgence right now. For a start, they are making the best content in the game, bar none. Maybe that matters for your ski choice and maybe it doesn’t, but visit their YouTube to spend hours watching good, original shit. However, their products are definitely improving too. For me, it started with the Sakana and the Blade, both of which are super fun, but the Optic series and the new Chronic/Bacon have really stepped up, with better performance and durability. The Optic 114 in particular is a banger of a ski. I reviewed it and loved it, although it is definitely NOT my natural kind of ski. I’m a fairly lightly built guy. After years of post-ACL repair squats, I’m pretty strong (if I do say so myself) but at 186cm and pretty damn heavy, the Optic 114 is a big ol' ski. I liked it for pointing and going, I liked it for blower pow. Elsewhere, I could appreciate it… while it kicked my ass. Enter the Vision series, modeled on the shapes of the Optics but with some tweaks to the profile and with a metal-free, more touring-oriented construction. There is no 186 Vision 114 (though the other sizes and widths all remain the same I believe) but the 183s I skied are close enough to compare pretty accurately to the Optic 114. We’ve had a great season so far in Switzerland, so I have plenty of days on pow skis, so without further ado, the Vision 114…

_

Shape/Flex/Construction:

I believe the footprints of the Vision series skis are identical to those of the Optics (some small size changes aside), but the construction and profile are totally changed. In the comparison section, I’ll include photos but the short version is the Visions are lighter, softer, and more rockered. There’s no metal in the Vision line, with the skis adopting a new version of the THC construction (trollolol) used in the outgoing Visions. The sidewalls have been beefed up but these skis are much, much lighter than the Optics/Bacons.

The result is a softer ski, but not that soft, at least on handflexing. The underfoot section is pretty rigid and even the tips and tails are far from soft. However, there is a lot more rocker splay on the Visions 114 than the comparable Optic, both tip and tail (see comparison section). The Visions have just a smidge of camber underfoot, but most of the ski is rockered. The core is Aspen/Palouwina, pretty standard for touring layups these days, and it’s wrapped in a visible carbon mesh.

_

On snow:

Pow Days:

In blower snow is where the Vision 114 excels. It’s slightly shorter than the Optic 114 which I called ‘one of the best performing pow skis I’ve tried’ but when the snow is light, the Vision is honestly even better. The added rocker splay lets it go sideways even more easily, and helps pop you back out on landings. Knocking a huge chunk of weight off made them so much more maneuverable in tight trees and in pillow areas too. And the tail rocker is more adept at landing switch in pow. These skis ski more like a ‘pow ski’ and less like a charger overall. They feel bouncy and playful, very poppy and I had a ton of fun throwing them around. I took them to some open faces too, and they straightline pretty happily. As long as the snow is good they are very predictable and stable.

However, the added rocker has a downside too. When the snow gets heavier, the ski ‘pushes’ the snow more than the more streamlined Optic 114 and the lighter construction has nothing like the power that the Optic 114 offers. When the snow is good, the Vision 114 still feels pretty comfortable going fast, but when the snow is less than ideal, for example, more wind/sun affected or when it’s starting to get tracked, they aren’t quite as optimal. For a ski weighing in around 1750g, they are pretty good, but with light weight, you always get some disadvantages. I do think in this weight category, the Visions are some of the better skis at managing mixed snow conditions but ‘touring’ layups always suffer in heavier snow and these definitely are in that category.

Touring:

I paired my Visions with the new Shift2 and I did take them out for a walk. I had forgotten how nice it was to have a lighter setup and for me, the Vision is a great compromise between touring, pow, and resort skiing... but more on that in the next section. On the uphill, the Vison feels light, kick turns are easy (or as easy as they get with a forward mount) and on the downhill, you don’t sacrifice much in soft snow. For the kind of touring I do (I will occasionally tour to get better snow than is on offer inbounds, but if I don’t think the snow will be worth it, I’ll stay in bed) these are a great option.

Groomers/Resort:

So here’s the flipside with the Vision 114. It really isn’t great on hardpack, in chop, or in mixed snow. The THC construction does work, in that they don’t vibrate too much, and the ski is kept passably damp in all conditions. But these skis are getting quite close to a full reverse camber (LOTS of rocker, almost flat underfoot) and when you throw them on edge, you feel it. There isn’t much grip, edging power, or energy. The ski doesn’t bust through cruddy chopped up snow with much balance, and there is a lot of deflection with the higher rocker and light weight. The turn radius is 23m in 183, and that provides no ‘oomph’ when you try and push them into turns. You CAN get around the resort just fine, they ski fine as long as you aren't pushing, but for me, these were skis for enjoying soft snow and then making it back to the lift and that’s about it. I wouldn’t use them regularly on groomers or in any kind of hard snow/crud situation.

Park/Jibbing:

Slightly confusingly given the above, these are hella fun in the park. I wouldn’t recommend it for more than occasional dabbling because they are not built to take park abuse, but these skis are so light and so rockered they remind me of messing around in the park on a light version of an EP Pro/Hellbent kinda ski. They are super loose, super surfy, and tons of fun to butter. They aren’t actually that soft, but there is so much rocker it just doesn’t matter, they’ll flex for days.

That also translates to playful skiing elsewhere. I could see them being fun on a slushy sidehit day but they are especially suited to playing around in pillows and mini-golf-style terrain. They don’t have a ton of energy from the underfoot (basically no camber), but if you ollie off the tails, they have plenty of rebound. As long as you are landing in soft snow, the stability on landings is pretty good too because they aren’t a soft ski. I’d say longitudinal flex maybe akin to the Sender 110, a bit softer underfoot perhaps and with more tail rocker, so the overall stability is less, but they are still pretty stable. One thing these skis absolutely are is a FUN time.

_

Durability:

I skied these skis 95% in soft/mixed snow. I scraped a lot of rocks and the bases held up pretty well, and I don’t have any durability issues to report. But I didn’t hit rails except for a few 5050s and jumps I messed around on a little, but not enough to slap test them (though Line do). I don’t really have much to say here, I imagine they hold up great for a 1750g hybrid touring ski, but that isn’t the kind of ski you buy to thrash.

_

Comparisons:

Vs Line Optic 114

This is a big comparison. I largely wanted to jump on the Vision 114 because, while I loved the Optic 114, I often found it too much work to ski. It hurt my knee to force it around in tight spaces and even throwing shifties and small tricks was a lot of work. The Vision version of this ski fixes that completely. It’s the other end of the scale, weight-wise (~600g per ski! lighter than the Optic) and I had lighter bindings on them too.

Big difference in tip and tail splay/rocker profiles between the Optic/Vision series.

It’s a big tradeoff and actually, I think it’s so big a change that these skis are almost incomparable, despite the near-identical footprint. The Optic is burly, way stiffer, way damper, way better for stomping and charging. These are a big mountain resort and a comp monster. You point, they go. They have a smidge of freestyle in them but they are some of the burlier performing skis out there.

The Vision gains a LOT more rocker splay. It’s better at floating and especially at landing switch. But it has nothing like the power of the Optic. It isn’t really a resort ski in my eyes, and for me, it makes sense as a hybrid resort/touring ski, and even more as a pure out-of-bounds ski.

The one place where they may be a slight overlap is backcountry freestyle. The Vision is the best backcountry freestyle ski from Line IMO (including the Bacons). It has the lowest swingweight by far, the best rocker profile for switch landings etc. You could ride the Optic for this if you need one ski to charge + throw tricks but it’s heavy. The Bacon 115/112 are somewhere in the middle.

I was hoping that the Vision 114 would be essentially similar to the Optic 114 but slightly lighter. It isn’t really. In soft snow there are similarities but overall, it’s a totally different feeling ski.

VS Armada Whitewalker

The Whitewalker is an interesting competitor for the Vision 114 because it’s in a similar weight class and has similar uses. But the Whitewalker is more ‘aggressive’ (stiffer, damper) where the Vision is more playful. I prefer the WW inbounds and in mixed snow but the Vision is much more fun for buttering and pressing. If you think ARV 106 vs Bacon, you’re kind of in the same sort of comparitive space. The Vision 114 is probably THE most playful touring layup ski out there.

_

Conclusion:

So here’s the thing. I really enjoyed the Vision 114, I think it’s a riot. I have ended up skiing them a lot, I expect to continue to do so if the snow holds up because in soft snow, they are very close to my perfect ski. However, I have a lot of skis, so I only ski them when the getting is good. And I don’t really think the Vision is an inbounds daily ski, even somewhere with lots of soft snow. You essentially cannot replace a bit of weight when it comes to dampness and stability through chop and resort conditions. At least I’ve never tried a ski this light that is truly good in bounds. I do think the outgoing Visions were more engaging in the resort, but nowhere near as good in soft snow as the new one, so that’s a tradeoff.

So who are the Vision 114s for? Well, they are a riotously fun backcountry freestyle ski. If you’re touring to hit jumps or pillows in good snow conditions, these could be right at the top of your list. They hit the same sort of market as the Armada Whitewalker, but far more playful. You could also have them as an inbounds, pow day ski if you’re a playful skier with a preference for surfy, light skis. But I don’t think they are the ski you want to be on a day after the storm or if you ski a lot of heavy, wet snow. For the right skier, and the right conditions though, they are insanely fun. I loved what I felt I could do on them, in fact, they made me feel a few years younger. Suddenly I was popping around and tapping features all over the place because of how light and easy the skis made it. And they were stable enough not to scare me on landings too. I took them from some pretty big open lines to trees and while the snow held up, the skis did too. I think for me, these are a ski you buy when you know what you want. They aren't the right ski for everybody, but for the right skier, they are the perfect ski.