- Home
- Ski
- Alpine Skiing
- Big Mountain Freeride Skis
- Line Mr. Pollard's Opus Ski - 2011
Community Rating
Line Mr. Pollard's Opus Ski - 2011 BCS
Available Colors / Styles
The mastercrafted, surfy masterpiece that is the Line Mr. Pollard's Opus Ski flaunts an early-rise tip and tail and a stiffer-than-past-Pollard's wood core--begging for mini-golf pow days and switch e'rthangzz. The Mr. Pollard's Opus Ski's 118-millimeter underfoot floats like a dragon on-wing, but has no problem holding a solid edge on hardpack, and the divined-over-time shape makes skiing switch easier than the Clapper--lights on bitches!
- Early-rise tips and tails enable hook-free, spin-happy, surfy radness.
- Tapered tips and tails increase overall butter-stuff fun factor by at least 139%.
- Maple Macroblock core's flex is like baby bear's porridge--juuuuust right.
- The artwork will get you laid... probably.
Bottom Line: Like skiing on Beethoven's Fifth--DUH NUH NUH NUUUUUH!!
Talk shop with all the gear freaks out there: ask 'em questions, upload/browse photos, and give your 2¢.
Im 5'6 expert skier would the 178 be to long with the early
Im 5'6 expert skier would the 178 be to long with the early rise tips? I can ski all types of terrain i skied the 178 S3 and they felt great but a little long, do the S3 have more or less rocker on the tips then these
By: bryden vaughan
May 8, 2012
these are softer and ski shorter.
By: conan
May 9, 2012
I'm 5'9 205, advanced/expert looking to add these as
I'm 5'9 205, advanced/expert looking to add these as my powder ski, should I go with the 178 or 185? Ive been skiing on Vokl AC 50's at 170 and they handle great on groomers and some variable, hold up pretty well at high speed but feel a bit short, thanks.
By: ewinn31913597
January 24, 2012
Your size seems to dictate a 185, but that's a big jump from the AC, so you might consider the 178. These skis are so stable, you should be fine.
By: Jamie Preston
January 25, 2012
My one and only
By:
Shaun Willingham
January 1, 2012
Couldn't be happier with this buy, one of the most fun, playful, but hard charging skis I've ever laid an edge into.
Rips the hardpack & any crud(I know because that's about all we've gotten to ski -- Utah 12/11) but planes well and rocks pow. Very versitile and actually nimble too, pretty long effective edge. Turns tighter than any fat ski you'll find! Rides with a stiff tail but the soft tip and early rise compliment that stiffness in the rear (in the pow)
Wait til' ya see them, hold them, then nose butter 3 in the pow with em :)
5 Comments Last Comment: December 8, 2011 by: Taylor
By: D.
September 16, 2011
Will you guys be bringing any more of the Opus in 185? If so, approximately when do you think it would be?
By: D.
November 10, 2011
Lool
By: Taylor
December 8, 2011
D, unfortunately even Line has run out of the Opus. There was talk about them pressing out more, but I wouldn't plan on it. (This info was from a Line Rep, not an online rumor)
By: Taylor
December 8, 2011
D, unfortunately even Line has run out of the Opus. There was talk about them pressing out more, but I wouldn't plan on it. (This info was from a Line Rep, not an online rumor)
I am 5' 11'' and 170 lbs. Would the 178 be the size
I am 5' 11'' and 170 lbs. Would the 178 be the size for me?
By: via4098886
December 19, 2011
The ski rides fairly short too, I would definitely recommend going for the 185 as well (5'11 myself)
By: Shaun Willingham
December 30, 2011
I'd go 185 for sure. The rocker will make it ski shorter, and the 185 is by no means too much ski to handle
By: matt
December 25, 2011
beautiful
By:
Mike Conlan
October 27, 2011
They are one of the prettiest skis you'll see. I have a pair of 09-10 EP Pro's as well and these are significantly stiffer. Eric's mounting choice is the same as the EP Pro's, being 2 cm back of core centre. These skis are also about 2 cm taller than the same 185 of the EP Pro (see picture). Rocker profile looks very similar, but with what looks like more camber under foot.
They feel quite light for their size, which is a bonus, as I am putting Plum Guide bindings on them. Should be an excellent backcountry setup for deep snow!
2 Comments Last Comment: December 6, 2011 by: Mike Conlan
By: Mike Conlan
December 6, 2011
I disagree slightly on the length.. even flattening them out, my Opus' are about 0.5 to 1 cm longer. Rocker is very similar, although I agree that it starts a lot closer to the tip on the Opus; the EP Pro does flares up more about 10 cm down from the tip. Way more contact underfoot with the Opus.. about 20 cm worth I'd say. Both are fabulously fun skis!
By: sul3313068
November 20, 2011
This is interesting Mike, I have 07/08 EP Pros, and 10/11 Bacons and just got the 11/12 Opus. The rocker profile on the Opus is at least 20mm less rocker with more edge contact than the EP Pro. And the camber on the opus is less than the 10/11 Bacons with about the same amount of rocker but more of a gradual shape.
I wonder if you have more rocker on your Opus than mine?
The length difference between 185 EP Pro and 185 Opus is in the rocker, flatten out the EP Pro's rocker and it will be the same length.
Regardless the Opus is the best all round ski I have ever skied.
Floats darn close to the Ep Pro but more stable than older Bacons, what more do you want?
Another sizing question. 5'9 155, advanced rider. I currently
Another sizing question.
5'9 155, advanced rider. I currently ski a 2010 K2 Apache Xplorer in 170, but am looking for the next ski in my quiver. Something more powder oriented. The 170 K2 Xplorer seems a wee bit short to me, and I wonder how the 178 rocker will feel. Too short or just right?
By: John Kirkman
December 19, 2011
You should be totally fine on a 178. I'm 5'7" and 140 and that's definitely the size I would ride.
By: Kalen Thorien
December 28, 2011
You should be totally fine on a 178. I'm 5'7" and 140 and that's definitely the size I would ride.
By: Kalen Thorien
December 28, 2011
Where can I purchase the skins for these skis?
Where can I purchase the skins for these skis?
By: D.
December 18, 2011
I have a friend who has the G3 alpinist skin with the twin tip connection kit and they work extremely well he got it in a 115 and just had to do a little trimming which isn't very hard on G3's for his opus's.
By: Collin Child
January 4, 2012
There is not a company that sells skins specifically designed for these skis. But you can get any skin (e.g. BD, G3, CSD) and cut it to the dimensions of the ski. I have 130cm BD Ascension STS skins on mine; took about an hour to cut the dimensions perfectly. The alternative would be to get a 110 mm skin in which case you would not have to cut them for the shape of the ski.
By: Mike Conlan
December 18, 2011
East Coast
By:
Klaus
December 4, 2011
Just skied these for the first weekend of the year at Stowe. I wasnt planning on skiing them until my other skis had some binding issues and were rendered unusuable. I was quite nervous to be bringing these out in early December, especially when there was a lack of snow.
Lets just say I was blown away. They carved extremely well on groomers, take very little effort in bumps, and are GREAT skis. They charged through the man made snow, blew through the crud of warm slushy snow, and carved all over the mountain. I am so stoked
2 Comments Last Comment: December 8, 2011 by: Taylor
By: Taylor
December 8, 2011
To help you out with your biding question D, both the Look Pivot 14 and the Marker Jester are good bindings. The Jester is made with a fat ski in mind meaning they have a wider base that is supposed to give more control on a wider ski. However, the Look/Rossignol bindings have been used in racing for years. I have both and they both function very well. I personally like the Markers more though. It is easier to switch out the brake if you happen to break them. The looks require you to completely unmount your bindings. Also, the Marker's allow for binding adjustments to fit your boot if you happen to grow a little bit. The Look's are a completely fixed to and heel piece and would require re-mounting if your foot grew. Just a couple of things to take into consideration.
By: D.
December 5, 2011
If you don't mind me asking, which bindings do you have on them? Do you recommend Look 14 or Marker Jesters?... I'm glad they handled the groomers well. I have been thinking about buying these skis for months now, and since I haven't been able to demo them so far, I haven't purchased them yet. One of my concerns was how they would handle the groomers and also whether or not they would be a good fit for me since my style of skiing is more of the traditional one. I would greatly appreciate your feedback on them
So I currently have the 09/10 Bacons with no rocker and 115mm
So I currently have the 09/10 Bacons with no rocker and 115mm underfoot. I'm 6' 210lbs and I'm looking to replace the old bacons with the 2012 Bacons or the Mr. Pollards Opus. (I really dig EP's Pro skis)
My current quiver consists of some Volkl Park skis, the old Bacons and pair of Fatypus I-rocks which are my dedicated pow ski and 126mm underfoot. I don't want too much overlap in my quiver but the skis that replace my old Bacons will also be my touring ski. I want this to be my most versatile ski to slay pow, and everything in between.
So i guess my questions are these... Which ski is stiffer, Opus or Bacon? How well do the new slimmer rockered bacons float in comparison to the old wider Bacons. And how versatile is the the Opus in comparison to the new Bacons.
Thanks in advance.
By: Travis
November 15, 2011
The bacons are definately more versitile. I would not buy the opus as you probably will get quiver overlap. I would say the new bacons are stiffer than the opus and the new bacons float differently than the old. By this I mean the skis are completely different. The old bacons were better for jibbing but the new ones are slightly less floatier and are a bit more nimble and faster. I would definately go with the new bacons. The are extremely versitile. The float well Jib well carve well and tour quite decently in comparison to the old.
By: Will Guru
November 28, 2011
go with bacons
By: Hayden Beck
November 15, 2011
I used to ski the 2010 Bacons that had full positive camber and
I used to ski the 2010 Bacons that had full positive camber and loved them but in a 182cm I found them to be a hair long in the trees and in tight spaces. Im 5 foot 6 and I only weigh 140lbs and am definitely going to get a pair of the opus but I just wanted to get your opinion on how much shorter the 178s will feel and ski. I’m a strong skier and I’m scared it might be a little short because of the center mount and rocker. I love to play around and jib on the hill but still want a ski that can handle some speed and charging at times. I also like long walks on the beach…haha kidding!
Thanks for the help.
By: Kyle
November 1, 2011
you will be fine on the 178 but with what type of ski you're looking for go with the bentchetler unless of coarse you really want these.....
By: Will Guru
November 28, 2011
good way to think about it is look at a ruler and see what 7 cm looks like; it really isn't that much. And being centre mounted, you are adding a mere 3.5 cm to the front and the back of the ski. hardly anything! I'd say go for it.
I also enjoy the above, as well as gazing at the stars under a moonless night...
By: Mike Conlan
November 4, 2011
I would go with the 185s. They only have a 154cm running length and a decent radius that should keep you from hi fiving trees. I also enjoy long walks on the beach, and sunsets.
By: josh2387
November 2, 2011
Impressively Versatile
By:
Wally Phillips
August 30, 2011
I got a chance to try this ski out at Snowbasin Mountain Resort with a little bit of fresh (6-10") and they did not disappoint. The name of the game with these is playfulness and you get it in spades. Every movement you make, whether it is to pop a feature, dip into some untracked or lay the edge down on some harder snow, just feels easy.
The amount of regular camber in the ski along with the bigger sidecut and shorter length than normal for a big mountain ski does give a "skis smaller that it should" feel. This works really well for maneuverability and swing weight, but if you are a big, linebacker size super charging skier, you will overpower this ski.
Overall, if you live to be playful in any big mountain scenario, hop on these. Just admire the artwork on the was UP.
2 Comments Last Comment: October 14, 2011 by: Wally Phillips
By: Wally Phillips
October 14, 2011
Hey D. Kash. Sorry it took so long to get back on this. The reason why i gave 4 stars out of 5 on this is because the 185cm size for me felt slightly short. I am 5'11" and 185lbs and I do charge as I am an ex ski racer who eight years ago embraced powder skiing. If there was a 193cm size of this ski, I would've gone with that ski for my everyday this year.
The positive camber, while I don't think Line lists this specification, felt like it was around the 2 to 3 mm range. I don't think it is flat as the positive camber allowed be to put in some pretty decent trenches on the groomed runs. If it is 2 to 3 mm, it would be about half or maybe less than that of traditional skis as most traditional skis can have 6 to 8 mm of positive camber.
I hope this helps you out in selecting a ski. I know that all these rocker profiles are starting to blend together, but if you know what you like out of a ski and try a few out, you will find the one that suits you best.
By: D. kash
September 3, 2011
May I ask you how come you didn't rate it 5 out of 5. Was it only because it runs a little short or was it something else? I'm interested in purchasing this ski and I'm having a hard time deciding which ski to go with since there are several GREAT skis with similar profile to that of this ski.
Also, how much camber would you say this ski offers under foot? Is it like the camber on traditional skis or would you say it offers more than that?
Your feedback would be really appreciated. Thank you.
I'm a 6'2" 155 intermediate and will be using this
I'm a 6'2" 155 intermediate and will be using this for an everyday ski in Aspen. Should I go for the 178?
By: elc4116289
October 28, 2011
Being 6'2 I'd personally go with the 185. It feels a lot shorter than it is because of the near-centre mount, which I like. Very easy to move in tight trees. I assume you will be in powder a fair amount, as that is what these skis are made for
By: Mike Conlan
October 28, 2011
are these stiffer or softer than an Armada JJ or Atomic Bent
are these stiffer or softer than an Armada JJ or Atomic BentChetler?
By: m@ pee
October 18, 2011
These are the softest of the three skis you listed. The JJ and the BentChetler are similar in flex. It's hard to say which is stiffer, but I would probably say the JJ is just a hair stiffer than the BentChetler
By: Matthew Tabrys
October 18, 2011
What bindings would you recommend for this EP model?
What bindings would you recommend for this EP model?
By: Michael
October 15, 2011
I'm also thinking about going with Look 14. Please let me know how to works out for you.
By: D.
November 10, 2011
Pretty much anything will work fine. Eric is sponsored by Marker so he uses Jesters and Dukes on them. I have Rossi Axial 2's on my EP Pro's and am putting Plum Guide (like Dynafits) on them. Base the bindings on your skill level and required din; any company bindings will be fine.
By: Mike Conlan
October 28, 2011
Hi Michael, I am also looking for bindings to pair with these skis, I have narrowed down to the look pivot 14s and the marker jesters, I have heard and read great things about them both and I am leaning to the looks, only because they are a little cheaper and the brake size is near perfect (117mm) also the looks are supposed to be a lot stronger and give you a chance to recover if you land pretty wild. Hope this helped!
By: josh2387
October 16, 2011
What about mounting points for the Opus, I´m an "old"
What about mounting points for the Opus, I´m an "old" guy who won´t be doing any switch skiing.
By: Lars
September 23, 2011
Eric Pollard has a mounting point on his ski that is right where it should be even for straight non switch skiing. He is spot on where to put binding for the best performance on his ski.
By: Collin Child
September 25, 2011
Im 5 foot 3 an a half could i fit into the 178 ?
Im 5 foot 3 an a half could i fit into the 178 ?
By: brennan
September 22, 2011
check out the jj. you could get the 178 if your good enough and ski hard enough but maybe a shorter ski would better suit you.
By: Will Guru
September 28, 2011
That would work, but you'd be pushing a pretty long ski for your height. Not sure that's the best idea.
By: Ryan Hamilton
September 23, 2011
Change me.
Out of Stock
2011 Model No Longer Available
We have a lot more Big Mountain Freeride Skis than that
Big Mountain Freeride SkisMy one and only
Couldn't be happier with this buy, one of the most fun, playful, but hard charging skis I've ever laid an edge into.
Rips the hardpack more...
- Length:
- 178 cm, 185 cm
- Dimensions:
- 144 - 118 - 141 mm
- Turn Radius:
- (185cm) 17.2 m
- Profile:
- early rise tip and tail
- Construction:
- Sidewall
- Core:
- Maple Macroblock
- Base:
- Sintered Fatty Base and Edge
- Tail:
- twintip
- Recommended Use:
- Backcountry freestyle, freeride