Printable View
Yeah, more looking to see if the 191 was different. But SicVic has some tip rocker shots earlier in the thread of the 191.
I saw a storm coming and found some flower graphics for cheap and pulled the trigger.
I cherish my role as a citizen scientist!
Fuck yeah budQuote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
My guess is they’re the same as I have 191 and 184 112’s and the profile seems identical. However I do prefer the 191 as the longer length actually seems to absorb terrain bumps better, probably due to physics of a longer lever as they actually feel softer while skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
Okay, getting pivot 15’s mounted onto the 191 112’s I bought this past fall later tonight. I’ve read through this whole thread dozens of times and I’m still undecided on mount point but leaning either midsole (-5.5) or +1 from midsole (-4.5). Either way I will be sure to have the shop detune them heavily.
Info about me: 6’3”, 190-200 pounds. Home mountain is lake Louise where I ski the back bowls off summit 90% of the time. In my mid 20’s and still throw 3’s, drop 10-15 foot cliffs, backies off windlips etc. My preferred way to ski is to charge hard typically, but in pow I want to be able to slash at will.
Current Quiver: 189 QST 98’s mounted +2 from rec (-6.5 from TC) this is my daily driver ski and I love them. Have them detuned pretty heavily up till just past the contact points to have them be slashy enough for my liking.
Current Pow skis are the old Rossi Super 7 in a 188. Not certain but I believe they’re mounted around -5 or so from centre. I really love these in pow but I definitely wish I had a little more ski in front sometimes, especially when the soft gets chopped up.
The 112’s will be replacing my Rossi’s. Please help with my analysis paralysis. Midsole scares me that I’ll have too much ski in front, +1 I’m scared I might feel there’s too much tail behind me. Unsure what to do.
Nice, at 5'8" it's a bit of a stretch, but I saw how hard I could blast on the BC 192s, so as long as the R122 is more flexible then I think I'll be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Going Team line 100%. Part of wanting to size up is to have more tip but keep a centered mount.
Unless skiing switch I’d go mid sole line. But Mount points are very much personal preference, and others will say team lineQuote:
Originally Posted by carterhudson
Quick little anecdote. I’ve been so impressed with my 191 112s that I ordered some 191 122s from Corbett’s for only $280. Skis showed up today and there is a massive difference in flex from one ski to the other. Like they aren’t even the same ski model. The tail on one ski is 3-4 points softer than the other ski. They are 2022 skis but we’re brand new in the wrapper. Called k2 and they told me they’d send me the 2025 model this summer. So disappointed the skis I bought suck but stoked I’ll get the newest model for a discount.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Nice. I had a great time on the Reck 122s today at Alpental (though in the 184). At 5'10" 165 it feels right on the money for the pivoty, turn-y skiing I like to do. Feels super easy to change directions. Great float.
I'm Bent 110/120 curious but haven't skied them to compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Thanks for the heads up, I'll check before I mount. You getting the 189s of the 25 version?
I recently picked up a lightly used pair of 112 Shreditors, they came with touring bindings and skins. I bought them mostly so my son could tour with me, we both have the same size boot. But I am finding I really like them better than my long time main skis, Line Opus'. On a nice powder day a couple days ago, with the Shreditors I was on fire like I never have been before, my ski bud asked, what's gotten into you? I was tearing it up, it was awesome. I didn't have to think at all about the skis, they just went where I wanted them to. By comparison, the Opus' are heavier and can take more effort to handle, especially in heavier PNW "ice cream". (FWIW I am 56)
My question is, how do the Reckoners compare to the Shreditors (112) ? They are supposed to be the successors, are they very similar? I like that the Shreditors aren't so center mount like the Opus'. I assume the Reckoners would have the same recommended mounting point. ( I did google and couldn't find anyone comparing the 2)
My son has Mindbenders 116 which i have skied a couple times and liked, and I was thinking of replacing the Opus next year with a new set of those. But I think I like the Shreditors better than both. We'll be skiing together this weekend, and we will swap back and forth. I should have a better feel after that.
I will say though, the Shreditors were a lot more squirrely on the flat runouts...
A bit outside the scope of the thread, sorry. Any opinions on the Reckoner 92's for lanky lightweight intermediate-> advanced teens? They are what I would call "occasional" skiers... like it a lot but not enough to build a quiver. Most of our family ski days are low tide PNW with the occasional fresh snow, so I'm looking to keep width in the 90s. Seems like a decent option for less demanding skiers? Price is right for sure.
I asked this exact question of another member here and he pointed out that the construction on that ski is totally different than the rest of the line. The shape seems similar but it's not the same skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by chaka
If they aren't rippers they might be good? The price is right for sure.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Anyone go behind the back line on the 112 want to share some impressions?
I think altacoup is -2 on those?
Anyone else?
I had a fun day today in day or 2 old powder but felt like I might have wanted a little less tail.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
I went -1 behind mid sole mostly to miss existing holes. I’m used to a more traditional mount and these felt awesome on the 2 days I got em out so far. I could see going another cm back as well/if needed but am pretty happy where they’re at right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I ski the 112 at -1 from midsole and it feels perfect there especially in soft snow.
Another mount point question for y'all: I mounted my 177 112s at the midsole (5'8" 140#s, 24.5 boot, getting old at an alarming rate) to be a pow/soft day ski at Bachelor, where it's all about noodling around to find tree stashes - I've got other, longer skis for the few times a year when summit is open and big, fast open skiing happens, but the 112s are for the usual storm days of glades, wind and low viz - hence the 177. Mounted my 170 102s at midsole and they're insanely fun and intuitive, but don't ski them in anything deep.
The tips on the 112s are plowing in pow, throwing me forward. In low-angle, butt-wiggling powder they ski great, but when carrying decent speed, I have to be way back and ski more from my heels to keep the tips from bogging down. Given the short-ish ski, remount for -2, right?
Anyone know how next year’s Reckoner 124 differs from the current 122?
(Other than a 2mm wider waist, jackasses!)
150/124/148 179 is a 22meter ski…different ski imo…the 124 and 110 may be a bit stronger as well over current iterations the 112 and 122
I think Jeff over at Ski Essentials has given the clearest explanation (so far) on the new builds and internal layups. The dimensions on the new 110 are 138/110/135
and the KF Reckoner 114 is at 137/114/134
edit: ^^^actually own these in a 184^^^
also just purchased the 191 112 23/24.
going to follow altacoups’s lead @ -1 recco on the 191 but didn’t really have issues in pow with the midsole mount point on 184’s that I just sold … could be I am slightly lighter don’t know? Shell size 26.5?? Feel free to opine.
edit…measured the straight pull at 75.25 inches or 191.135 cm
Midsole is 2.8125” or 7.144 cm back from straight pull center. Hmm
Attachment 489842
These are fun but going to spin out of em.
Bought two 23/24 longer lengths this week. Just a hunch. Hope I’m right [emoji28]
Getting rid of 2 pair of future skis go figure.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Very symmetrical. I'm all about the 10-5mm diff tip to tail, but 2-3 is a bit extreme.
Reckoner 122 191s came in.
It's incredible how similar they are to the Bent 120 192, like almost identical shape. Rocker length is the same, more early kink on the rocker with reckoner, but overall splay is about the same (Bent curve more in the tip).
The flex is pretty firm on the Reckoner, but the tip is a bit softer and flexes deeper into the forebody. The tails seem the same, but prob a little softer. Reckoner is about 1cm longer.
BC has a few mm more camber, and I can't fully decamber squeezing with one hand, that last mm is rock solid. (Prob explains my issues with the ski.) Reckoner is a very light squeeze to decamber.
I'm gonna give them a rip. Team line measures out at 3cm (straight from tip), and Midsole at 5cm. Going with 4cm cuz I wanna make sure I can float, but these a gonna go backward.
One ski weighed 2280g, so middle weight. I didn't weight the Bents, but I think they're like 1900 something in the long version.
Light considering the Sender Free 184 is about the same.
Snow tomorrow and Weds, can get out on Thursday.
So BC 192 is 2000g, and measures to 191cm. Same length as 191 Reckoner.
First day out, in basically a mix of dream snow in the alpine, and mixed conditions lower down. 6" of fluff on baked in tracks in the forest, up to 2' of snow up high.
I'm 5'8" 170ish and dropping (lil pudgy), lupo hd pros with powerwraps (pretty stiff, but still give when I hit stuff).
For me, these skis are pretty burly. This is my first foray into the 190 length skis and didn't quite appreciate the extra surface area I wanted would come with extra stiffness (duh). BC 192 was just too stiff in the tips. These are Perfect!
They were basically unsinkable. They were very easy when I needed to noodle, but honestly I just wanted to go straight a lot. That stiff middle part of the ski, stiffish tails and a floaty tip: I was just straightlining out of cliffs, straightlined one whole face.
My overall speed limit was about 5-10mph faster than normal.
The stiffness kicked back more in the lower sections. They are very strong, but a little pingy off the harder stuff. Tight forest exits with ice base made me plan how I hit the the bumps, the skis weren't gonna flex through tight troughs.
But that's all good, I've got a good DD in the Sender Frees (which are softer in the middle of the ski). And this is a pow day ski.
In a perfect world the mid ski would be 1 grade softer, but when I'm not pinging off the bottom, I like the stiffness.
Did some nice 180s, and the tail is stiffer so it was snagging a bit, but just leaning forward was fine till I turned around. It was pretty deep too. I'm not tempted to change the mount point cuz I'd rather have unskiable tips than tails.
Stoked for this. Buy a ski that's too big for you ...Be a man lol
Kudos for getting after it. Sounds weird but spend a few days on this ski on icy groomers and you'll become one .
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
Thanks Vic! Yeah, it's kind of dangerous. I'm thinking if the 191 sender frees might be nice too...
You're right, I just need to find their pressure points and gel with how they buck when the going gets rough.
I did blast across some fresh avi debris doing about 40, not too much bucking at all there.
I'm here to reclaim the TGR Forums of Old!
1. Very impressed that you were able to make power wraps work in your lupos.
2. I also notice the 122 gets deflected/knocked around a bit in debris or heavy chop. It's just a lot of surface area for those conditions. I've been enjoying the 184 Reckoner 122 and the 192 M-Free 108 as a one-two combo this season. They can both be skied with a similar style and are similarly loose. It feels easy and natural to go back and forth between them, and the M-Free picks up where the Reckoner leaves off when it gets heavier/tracked out.
1. I'm in the Chicken Feet group. I pulled an even more impressive feat and stuffed a 27 powerwrap into a 25 lupo carbon. The first run of those was even shorter. It was like a 5mm shell fit. I couldn't fit an insole, but skied great without. I moved up to a 26 lupo and just used the same liners. Now that I've skied them 20 or so days they're perfect in that boot (even a little short doesn't matter, not touring on that boot).
The lupo is easier to get a fat liner into, because of the tongue. And you have to heat it to floppy marshmallow levels. But it's the best fit I've ever had, in the 25 for pure skiing. In the 26, no real loss in performance, but more comfy walking. I did the Golden mod with my Lupos to heat and remold the instep to make it lower, it rules.
I also molded the heel cup very well from those 25s because I stuff so much crap in the toe cap my foot had to push back. Most painful fitting process to date, but the heel pocket is lovely.
2. Back on the SF 110 today for cleanup, and they really rally a lot harder. I still have a hankering to try the BO 118. Interesting you go long for DD, and shorter for Pow.