2024 Line Chronic 94 and 101 Ski Review with SkiEssentials.com

[@bigthunderfarms2731]

This is the ski that brought me back from snowboarding. I have the first gen with the crows and the puppeteer graphics. I love the 80s style skate graphics on the 2024. They kind of remind of the style art they used on the Afterbang. This is such a fun ski!

[@SkiEssentials]

Agree 100% about it reminding me of the Afterbang!

[@AkimboSnipers]

I demoed the 101 at Stevens Pass last year and loved them. Skiied the 179 which is much shorter than I usually ski (which is the on3p woodsman 108 193, at 6'7", 245lbs), but really loved it which surprised me. Loved that they felt easy, playful and nimble. Wondering how they compare to the jski allplay as an all mountain ski

[@darinsmith2458]

what is snowblade? i have seen that tip before.. is the tip similar to to Bent? is the Bent softer under foot than this? what is the turning radius? my guess is the skis would really chatter on rock hard groomers..

[@SkiEssentials]

Super short skis, technically they're Ski Boards. Line started as a Ski Board company! No, Bents aren't softer. If anything, a bit stiffer. Turning radius of the Chronic is ~16 m in the lengths we were skiing.

[@darinsmith2458]

@@SkiEssentials Thank you

[@holycowbmxman]

Hi, what would the main differences be between these and the new Honeybadgers? I want a ski that I can learn to butter,360 and jib about on and still be useful around the whole mountain. Thanks

[@SkiEssentials]

The Chronic has more differences in flex--softer in the tips and tails while sturdy underfoot. The Honeybadger is more consistent in its relative stiffness, giving it a bit more of a responsive feeling, especially out of the tails. The Chronic is wider, and will provide more float in an off-trail format.

[@lamesamebame8476]

honeybadger is ass, it will break way too fast and you will waste your money, also its a bad ski overall its just not as good as the chronics.

[@twitch.aluminumm_]

@@lamesamebame8476I rode the honey badgers for a season and a half and loved them.

[@fon4765]

Would the 94 be a good ski for tree skiing? I want a ski I can use for everything, such as park, tree skiing, and drops. Would this ski fit criteria?

[@SkiEssentials]

Absolutely it will. The nice thing about the new Chronic is that the shovels and tails are incredibly floaty and maneuverable making it amazing in the trees. As a twin tip it'll handle all the other fun things you want to do as well. Impressive new skis for sure.

[@ianduncan8441]

I sold my k2 marksmans and I miss the snap/pop and energy they had. I’m wondering if you think these will give me that energy I’m looking for in a ski. I’m also curious if the swing weight is light. I have the bentchetler 110s right now that spin and shifty super easily and am wondering if I can swing these skis around like the bents. Thank you 🙏

[@SkiEssentials]

The Chronic, especially the 101 if that's the width you're looking for, is incredibly mobile from a swing weight perspective. They're not as stout or sturdy as the Marksman but a really nice modern twist on a ski like that.

[@DJ_LOVE]

The durability improvments sound very interesting, hope to see some more thorough test in the park for that. How does the 101 compare to something like the k2 reconer 102?

[@SkiEssentials]

First, I agree 100%. I'm hoping I can get my hands on a pair to really bash it around in the park and see if I can break it (sorry in advance, Line). Second, great question. Chronic 101 feels a bit more supportive, I think. It's soft, but not as soft as the Reckoner, which is more Blend-like in its flex pattern. I think skiing the Chronic faster feels a bit more comfortable than the Reckoner. Reckoner is easier to manipulate for butters, ollies, nollies, etc, much like the Blend, but is more one-dimensional. This new Chronic feels like an excellent park ski, while also being a more well rounded all-mountain ski. Hope that helps!

[@dmitriykratos2522]

Awesome review! Jeff can you please reply how line chronic 94 differ from line optic 96 just your feelings, not tech specs. And what works best for you line optic or nordica unleashed?

[@SkiEssentials]

Of course! Chronic 94 and Blade Optic 96 just have very different personalities. Chronic is so much softer and the rocker feels more pronounced, giving it a much surfier, playful, softer-flexing feel. The Blade Optic is quite stable at speed. Feels stiffer and more damp. It's not as agile or as quick, and certainly not as playful. It's still highly versatile, but doesn't feel as reactive in favor of just being stronger overall. For me personally, I suppose the Unleashed works better than Blade Optic as I find it feels more balanced. Blade Optic feels more directional to me, which is the difference maker for how i like to ski.

[@tom_edge]

Interested to know how you guys mounted these - did you mount to the recommended -30mm line? Or more central?

[@SkiEssentials]

The further back line.

[@dannysalazar6621]

I’m stuck between this and a bent 90 for kinda fun ski, any help ?

[@SkiEssentials]

Both are kinda fun. The Chronic is a bit more sturdy underfoot, so if you're looking for a bit of a boost in performance, I do think the Line offers some more confidence.

[@z3non142]

Curious about how the 94 and the new arv 94 compare?

[@SkiEssentials]

We're excited about these skis as well, and the 100/101 too! Generally, the ARV's feel slightly stiffer, consistently, and have some more pop and pep to them. There's more camber in the ARV's, and that makes them feel more energetic, but I really was surprised with, and enjoy, the underfoot stability of the Chronic skis. I think park skiers who like some get up and go will gravitate to the ARV's while the more freeride-oriented group will like the Chronic.

[@thomasmedeiros5722]

How would you compare and access the Chronic 94 and Armada 94?

[@SkiEssentials]

There's quite a bit more flex in the tips and tails of the Chronic while the Armada is more consistent from end to end. This gives the ARV more of a predictable feel, and that lines up better with pure park performance. When it comes to mixing freestyle with freeride, the Chronic is more supple and amenable to terrain and snow condition changes.

[@jbs2ki]

Thank you for the great review. I have two questions, 1. Is it worth to pay more for the 2024 chronic 94 or save little bit of money for 2023 chronic ? 2. I’m 174cm , 148 lb. What chronic ski length should I buy?

[@SkiEssentials]

I think they're different enough, but I still think it's tough to say one is "worth more money" than the other--the new Chronic is more freeride-friendly with longer and more dramatic rocker. Great grip underfoot as well--we really like the new 94. I'd go with the 171 in the 94.

[@konstantinclark]

i live on the east coast and have been looking at these skis, i want something i can use on pretty much anything, from ice to powder to slush when it’s warm, but i want something that can have fun and jump and ride backwards but also go fast and carve a little. would this be a good ski?

[@SkiEssentials]

Yes, the design has a lot to do with the success of the ski in these applications. The thick core underfoot lines up well with carving on hard snow while the thinner tips and tails add to the freestyle and the soft snow acumen of the skis. A great mix of playfulness and business.

[@konstantinclark]

@@SkiEssentials i got the stance 90 2022, got ‘em as used demos with bindings for 420

[@quinnbrown9297]

Seems like this is Line's version of the M-Free line to me

[@SkiEssentials]

Very similar, yes. A little different, but very similar. Chronics feel a bit more precise to me. There's something about that thin tip construction that almost reminds me of the pink Ranger 102... M-Free is even looser and surfier.

[@xmb9]

Hi, pretty keen to get a pair of 94s, I'm a 5'9 135lb skier deciding between 171 and 178 lengths, I currently ride ARW 106s in 180 length, have just started riding rails and 3s on jumps and am keen to progress further in the park, do you think I should go for 171 or 178 length?

[@SkiEssentials]

I'd go 171 if you're looking to get more into park, just to make it more approachable.

[@xmb9]

@@SkiEssentials Cool, thanks, did you mount at the recommended mounting point?

[@treydigreg7734]

Hey skiessentials, I am looking to buy permanent skis this year and the Chronic 94 seems to fit exactly what I am looking for in a ski. Although it may seem a little picky I do not love the graphic so I was wondering if you have any other recommendations of skis that have similar characteristics to the Line Chronic 94? Thanks

[@SkiEssentials]

As far as playful skis in the 94 mm range, check out the Black Crows Camox, Liberty Origin 96, or the Armada ARV 94 (although that ski has a funky graphic, too!).

[@treydigreg7734]

@@SkiEssentialsAppreciate the input thank you

[@jonathancappa9625]

Hey man you should Check Out the Line Chronic 94 TC. Exact Same Ski with different design

[@trailtok6897]

Hi, how would you compare the new Chronic 101 to Rossignol Blackops 98? I'm coming from the Reckoner 102. Love the Reckoner but would like something with slightly more backbone and better durability.

[@SkiEssentials]

The Blackops 98 is more different from the Reckoner than the Chronic, which has more Reckoner vibes. Blackops is more of a substantial ski, and while the weight makes it slightly less agile, the top end performance is certainly greater. If you're looking for backbone and durability, I'd lean to the Rossignol.

[@NathanOLoughlin-h6d]

Great review… I’m excited to get on the 101 ski. I’m a 6’ 185lb aggressive skier, looking for a more playful ski. Do you think I should look at the 179 or 186 length?

[@SkiEssentials]

If you're on the aggressive side, I think the flexibility of the tips and tails allows you to ski the 186. I'd say going slightly longer in this ski is fine, especially if you're worried about leaving performance on the table. Still going to be playful in the 186.

[@bossskis]

so they are more durable then the 23?

[@luke_shredzz]

Yeah fr😂😂😂

[@bossskis]

how many grams are the 94

[@SkiEssentials]

The 94 hits 1920 grams per ski. We haven't seen many durability issues with either, but the promise is that the 2024 is more durable.

[@JairedDeegan]

I already have a stiffer 106 ski and I'm unsure if which width to go for. I ski BC and Alberta for the most part always have good snow. For me personally, I'm used to wider skis but I'm looking for a playful park ski but not an advanced park skier by any means. Whats your guys opinion ?

[@SkiEssentials]

If you've got good snow and are used to wider skis, I'd go 101. Very fun option here!

[@TheoGuess]

niceeeeeeeeeee

[@JSan9999]

Please continue with bikes. Don´t review skis , It´s not your arena .Do only what you´re good at. I´ll beat you any day downhill on a 172cm 91 underfoot twin tip. From a former elit ski racer. Performed along with Bode Miller. How to have a clue when the pace is picnic tempo.

[@SkiEssentials]

Well, you win the internet today! Thanks for the laughs.

[@michaeljannuzzi1870]

@@SkiEssentials this is so funny, this guy is such a clown