I’ve ordered from thelasthunt before and they shipped to the usa but I’m getting the same thing on the website that they’ll only ship to Canada.
Printable View
I’ve ordered from thelasthunt before and they shipped to the usa but I’m getting the same thing on the website that they’ll only ship to Canada.
cart says they only ship to Canada. No USAQuote:
Originally Posted by carterhudson
I haven't skied the 184 122, but have the BC120 in 184 and think they are pretty similar.
I found the 191 just too stiff to be "fun" like I like them. I like a ski that flexes in the middle. Planky at 190lbs. Still maneuverable in the tight stuff, just not really "fun". I did have one like pillow run where the snow was deep enough for me to roll up onto the tails, and then I felt some flexy goodness. Otherwise it was too stable.
They were great at straight lining. I just got lazy and straightlined many things. Turning just seemed unnecessary. I really wanted longer for high alpine, deep snow conditions so I could pop off fresh takeoffs without loosing speed. But I just ended up fall line blasting over all my crosscourt jumps.
Now I'm happily on the BO118, which are beasts but quite flexy in the middle.
I do wanna try the Krazy Karls in a 190, they could be the soft 190 I'm looking for.
I’m exactly your size and have the 184s. Never once wished I went longer, even though I’m happiest on skis slightly longer than that generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
I have new/undrilled Reckoner 122 177cm (the green ones, whatever year that was) that I would sell for $250 USD shipped. Coming to my senses and thinking they won't get much use here in Eastern Canada...
I have been looking over all the new skis from the mainstream brands lately. Out of all of them, the ones I want most are the Reckoner 124s.
Son is freshman U of Utah first season in the mountains; very intermediate Midwest skier. We are looking at the Reckoner 102 184cm for his everyday ski. He’s 6’6”. Any input on the ski choice or size would be greatly appreciated.
Going off the 122 talk, I’ve decided I don’t really have a need for the 122’s I just bought from the last hunt the other week. Definitely just folded when I saw I could get them for $315 all in. I’m located in Calgary, but would sell for $350 CAD shipped ($250 USD) for my pair of 191’s. Also have STH2 16’s I could maybe throw in for an extra $65 CAD.
Does anyone know the main differences between the K2 reckoner 122 and Volkl revolt 121?
Very much personal preference I have skied both in maritime PNW pow. Some love the Reck 122 … for me it was not a keeper just too soft and floppy through runouts. Hoping the new K2 replacement is much better. Have an idea it and the Line TW 122 are both much better. Have owned Revolts and it is in a completely different league than the 122 Reckoner. Immediately felt more confidence and just dial a pow turn with some built in backbone and a more weight for runouts. Revolt 121 is soft too just not a noodle. I am missing my Revolts as a go to big day ski but my BO/Sender 118’s will suffice until a good buy on the 2025 Revolt comes along. I am not anti K2 at all and have some serious overlap issues haha with Reckoner 110’s and KF’s both in the longer length …for science sake right..?.. in reality a guy could buy a Revolt 121 and call it good in terms of a pow ski for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurel192
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Ended up getting some 184cm 122s. Hand flex in the garage confirms that they are very soft.
I think there's a strong argument for having at least two pairs of powder skis in the quiver, a pair to charge on and a pair to mess around on.
n+1 amirite?
n+1 and then someQuote:
Originally Posted by MoeSnow
Optionality reigns supreme
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Speaking of n+[emoji637] my pair of [emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]]][emoji637] KF’s are on the market as my gluttonous appetite for new shiny things outweighs any common sense I have left. New un drilled if there’s any interest pm me. Thinking [emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]] shipped.
Stoked to be skiing the Reckoner [emoji637][emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]]’s tomorrow. Good stretch of weather finally going to boost conditions in the PNW.
can’t resist riding these 191 KF’s … I just gotta know ya know. A lil more substantial in the forebody with a hand flex and tail is softer than the front…so in a month or two I’ll have a reasonable view of differences between the 110’s same length snd the Previous 184 KF I rode last winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Skier
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
6 posts in 12 years deserves an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisBlow
Keep in mind I haven't been on Reckoners yet so this is more of a general response (though I am shopping for some.) College skis of choice at UofU seems to be ON3P (Jeffs and Woods), Reckoners, Bents, some Optics now and then, that kind of thing. The ski scene at the U is very much like fraternities/sororities elsewhere - lots of trying to have the right gear and the right look. Reckoners would fit right in.
There is a wide variety of skill levels there. Lots of intermediates to ski with, and a ski like a Reck 102 should be forgiving enough for him to do well on, but capable enough for him to still use as he improves. And he will improve if he skis frequently there. He'll improve a lot. There be lots of folks to push him to new levels, skilled skiers to chase.
And the skill level there can be off off the charts. I've skied with a handful of students there that are damn near FWT worthy but don't even think of competing - just ski 80 days a year and do so with unreal skill. And they ski in these little groups of ever changing regulars that unthinkingly push each other to absurd heights.
102 is a nice width that will work for everyday and still not be awful when there is fresh snow. 112 is a bit too wide for that IMO. My daughter is at UofU and her DD is a 108 Jessie (women's Jeff). But she also has some narrower skis for just ripping on. My son's daily for SLC is a 102 Folsom but he also has a bunch of other skis including wider. FWIW, his regular posse includes some pros your son probably knows, and he is shopping for Reckoners right now too, so there's an endorsement for that ski in those mountains. So I think 102s for daily drivers will be good for your son.
But keep in mind this is TGR, and if your kid doesn't have about 4 pairs of skis by the time he graduates, he's doing something wrong.
Hope that helps.
I'd also say 184 is too short especially on a Reckoner if you're 6'6". You should be on a ski near 190 at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
Fkn emoji attack
KF 191 vs 124 189?
Alpental.
Thoughts?
KF 191 vs R124 189?
Alpental.
Thoughts?
I think the reckoner has a little more backbone than the kf. But the kf is poppier.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Also interested in comparison between kf191 and 124 189.
In and ideal world (for me), the KF would be 124.
Anyone have experience to share yet with the Reckoner 110 (especially compared to the 112)? I had to warranty my Reckoner 112 (184) in the spring and got a 110 in return, but was interested to hear some more feedback before getting it mounted up. (I only got to use the 112 on one trip to Mammoth -- it was in a ton of snow, and I liked the powder performance a lot.)
[ATTACH][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji638][/ATTACH][ATTACH][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji639][/ATTACH][ATTACH][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji640][/ATTACH][ATTACH][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]][/ATTACH]
Some [emoji637][emoji638][emoji640] stoke…rolled the dice on these hoping for stiffer and hand flexing confirms.
Sent from my iPhone using [emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]][emoji640][emoji638][emoji638][emoji638]]TGR Forums
Is there any interest in 191 reckoner 112s? They have some miles on them. Edges are dull. Decent gouge on the base, but not a core shot. 2 mounts. 1 pivot mount on center, holes filled. Current mount is with inserts for 328ish, pivots. I can include the screws for the inserts. Could be a simple and cheap plug and play for someone with a similar bsl
Thinking $180 including the insert screws. I can provide pics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting that you say the 124 is stiffer ... The skiessentials review of the 102 says it's softer than previous years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Skier
I believe you, it's just interesting.
Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
Yep for sure I was somewhat shocked in a good way. Definitely the stiffest in the Reckoner line not that they are uber stiff. Can’t wait for some pow now.
Sent from my iPhone using [emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]][emoji640][emoji638][emoji638][emoji638]]TGR Forums
what's are the available mount points on the 124?
Looks like the rear indicators are at eighty four point five cm from the tail which is a smidge over five cm back from center. The markings ahead of that point move forward another two point five cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by volklpowdermaniac
Attachment 510478Attachment 510479Attachment 510480
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
nice dude! thank you! not bad, can you put some decent power into the tips or always needs to be driven from center?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Skier
worried about the weight, might be burlier than what i'm looking for i have the 30 m 189 pon2oons and those things are heavy and fast
really looking for a fun shape slasher in the 122-127 range, maybe last years 122 better
just arrived mounted them but yet to ski them. Made a decision to go shorter on these as there is some mass on the 189’s and because of their shape and width would feel that as a sluggish feeling possibly out toward the tips. Hoping these have a beefed up Hellbentish feel. Man so many great pow sticks with everything being so nuanced. Hard to ignore all the new HL stuff out there with all the stoke on them.
For a proven slash machine stable on runouts I still think the Volkl Revolt is probably the best more pow oriented ski I personally have tried for maritime pow anyway. Night Trains Ghost Trains were other worldly slash masters that still spark favor in my inner being. Have not experienced Renns and would love to. Skied last years one twenty two but personally not fan
as it was just too soft.
Road trip planned in Feb. Hoping the new Reck one two four will always be in the box with me and or Revolts. BTW the Reck one tens in a one ninety one are money for all days sub six or seven inches. Love em.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Whiskey measurement on length oopsieQuote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Skier
70 3/8ths so 179ish
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Does anyone have any comments on the 112 or 110 compared to the Bent 110 or Moment Countach? I found the Bent to be too soft (not surprising) and super harsh in variable snow. I currently have the Moment Countach 194 in this slot. It's really stable but somewhat sluggish in tighter spots. I love this ski in big open terrain, its great on groomers, and I didn't find its speed limit. Would the Reckoner 110 or 112 be a more playful yet stable option?
I'm 6'4" 205
I can only go based on what I’ve read but I’ll give my best assessment. I’ve heard the bent 110 is a noodle, the reckoner does have softer tips and tails, but it is not a noodle, it does better in chop than its flex would suggest (I’m not the only one saying this, check out the reckoner thread). The reckoner is more comparable to the wildcat. Going to be better in tight spots but not as chargy as the contach (less ski out in front of you). Probably about halfway between the bent and contach as far chargery/playfulness goes. Hopefully others chime in. I thought the reckoner is one of my favorite playful yet stable options.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBogey
6’3 205.
Edit: thought this was my reckoner FS thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just skied two days on a brand new set of one-ninety one, one twelves, mounted +one from rec with FKS eighteens. Single mount. Mount is for a three hundred BSL. Ski too long for my taste, don’t work with my quiver. Thinking two-fifty USD flat, or four twenty-five with bindings. Buyer pays shipping. PM me if you’re interested.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Just got some 184 KFs to that I'll try out tomorrow with a bit of fresh snow. Sold some SF110s to swap, so they better be good!Skis weighed 2180 and 2179 so... go china?Mounting at -2cm from true center. The tails feel softer than the tips, so I'm wanting to add a little more tail power. Overall nothing objectionable about them. Long rocker lines, but the splay is mellow. Softish flex, but not crazy.If they're good they might replace both the SF110 and the BO118 (but BO might always have a place in the quiver).
Reckoner one two four does things outside of powder you just would not think a fat mamma could do. Fun. Deeper than six or seven go one two four if you are into Reckoners. Had mine out on a nine to ten inch day with some month old hard pan underneath.
Less than six would go one tens the longer the better. One two four is s huge improvement over the one twenty two.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
First day on the KFs in the best ski testing snow, 8-12 of pure fluff on top of 3d ice.
This type of snow, you might as well be on a slalom ski as theres not much resistance from the fluffiness.
The skis didnt ski super soft or bouncy, but there wasnt much to push off. When I did get them loaded, they seemed nice.
They are way looser than skis Ive been skiing lately (SF110 and BO118), probably better than the Blackops in this type of snow (BOs powerful nature likes to ski the bottom layer and hooks up). Theyre like hoji loose.
Even mounted +2.something there is a soft spot behind the bindings that will let you get in the back seat, but once I had a few runs and had some ok visibility there was nothing objectionable.The tip splay is straightish and tracks under the snow well.
Skiing into town was a mixture of wet crud and pure ice. Crud and wet was just fine, super wiggly, the ice was not so great. Way worse than the SF110, not really feeling planted at all. Gotta lose somewhere.
Overall, just a predictable ride, but no real opportunity to try out the poppy poppiness. Tomorrow or Monday when the snow settles Im looking forward to juicing them.
First day on the 110s (191cm). 9in overnight, 31in past 48 hrs @ The Bird (most of the mountain was closed yesterday).
Before my thoughts, some background. I currently ski the entire 2024 Reckoner line up. Bought a pair of the 112s last year and loved them so much I not only bought them in another size, but got both the 102s & 122s as well. I ski the 112s about 90% of the time.
102 (184cm) - low tide days with the groms
112 (184cm) - any soft snow day with the groms or up to 12-14" fresh in BCC
112 (191cm) - any soft snow day w/o the groms in LCC
122 (191cm) - only the deepest days at either an uncrowded spot or if snowing so hard it's refills all day. As much as I love this ski in untouched deep, I'm starting to question if a 122 is just too much for resort days. After a couple runs the mtn is pretty much skied out and these aren't as good in the chop as its little brother.
All mounted in-between team & recommended.
Bought the 110s as possible replacement for 112 191s and so far, I think they fit that bill. They are noticeably stiffer than the 112s, which for charging SB on pow/soft snow days will work out great. The handled the chop way better. They're also better on soft groomers. The downside being that they're less playful and I didn't find myself trying to jump off every little side hit, slash, or butter as much as I do with the 112s, but I get my fill of that when I'm cruising with the groms.
I'm really interested in trying the KFs and would've preferred to snag a pair of those instead. It's just that I'm a fruggle ski buyer and have a hard time paying full price for skis (found the 110s on sale for $360). edit: sorry for the formatting issues- this forum
I also have the one ten one ninety one. Got them as a warranty for some one twenty twos. I love my on twelves but so far I’m not as in love with the one ten. The one twelve is so smooth. I feel like the one ten while stiffer under foot isn’t as damp. It’s definitely better on groomers and fine when everything is soft. But the tips seem unruly when the snow is variable. Skied the blade optic one fourteen today at the bird and holy shit does that ski rip. Ideal soft snow bird charger.
I broke my collar bone, so I only got to try the KFs 3 days I think, but it was a mixed bag.
I actually sold the SF110 (184) and got the KFs (184). I had been skiing 100% on either BO118 or SF110. I just needed to try the KFs. Needed.
Almost instant regret.
I live in Austria, and its a bit of a low tide winter. Almost NA style in that storms have finished cold, and weve had weeks of cold high pressure. So way more chalk than normal, but lots of left overs. I just think the actual technique between how to ski the BO/SF and the KF is a polar opposite. The rossis are about as sure a thing as they come with high edge angles on hard/smooth alpine snow. I had a few nasty blowouts on the KFs going from pow to windboard up on edge and they just kicked out. More taper, softer tips, high frequency carbon vibes, they just couldnt hold an edge. Even just swiveling down cruddy chalk, they are a super rough ride. Carbon vibe. Ice is just stand up and slow down the slide, no performance skiing is happening there. Maybe they just arent the ski for the alps.
I did get a few airs to load up the ski, and the pop was unreal, but it wasnt an ever present feature. Soft snow takeoffs didnt seem to reliably produce pop. Not in the way the Bent 110 would (more camber, but also a ski that would blow out on hard snow). Landing switch in tracked/dense power was nice, no snags and super loose to revert. Tracking through chop they feel strong enough, but a little out of control. Maybe going back to the rec -4cm would help.
Its just hard to understate how good the SF110 is in variable snow, even crossing sections of alpine ice. You can go through a few different types of snow, stacked on your edges, and they dont skip a beat. Also they are like butter sliding around, but when youre ready to hook up and shoot off in a direction, they are a sure thing.
Im gonna keep the Karls around for next season and see how they do in our normal cream cheese style wet snow. I could see the pop working well, and if theres not hard snow under. But Im def. gonna get a another SF110, but this time in 191. Maybe Id like the karls better at 190 too. The Karls to me ski like the old hojis, very much a too much reverse camber feel. You roll back onto the tails in a heartbeat. I did have a lot of good years on the old hojis, but if you get used to that new rossi style, its hard to go back. Its tough because the BO118 love dense pow with a passion. But the KFs, have a much lighter feel, and so spins and switch just might be more fun.
Would this ski kill at Brighton? Yes, but Id still want it to be wider. If the Recokener 124 was a KF build, then I think it would make more sense to get pop out of deep pow. I wouldnt say this is a good JH/Snowbird ski, but I did see Gaffney on them on instagram at Squaw, so maybe Im wrong.