Printable View
I think waveshello skis the 192 mfree is because the 182 is too short whereas the 184 reckoner measures a lot closer to 188. Both skis are extremely easy to ski but one of the main gripes with the mfree is they don't make 186
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
That was the same thing I experienced on the 184’s. I didn’t hold on to them long enough to see if a mount point change would have fixed it. The talk of more rocker in the 110 next year makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyski
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
I'm on the back line and I'm going to try them again before I commit but I think I'm going 1+cm back.
They actually feel great on groomed and chopped up spring snow on the line, but in actual powder I feel like there is too much tail.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Pretty much exactly the same for me. Skied them today in nonpow and they were fucking awesome. I like them 100% better than the 182 mfree. The only thing they haven’t flat out ruled at is untouched pow - the mfree was way better at that. Maybe one more pow day (look like Sunday) to try at midsole then will decide. Likely go back 1.5 if so. There really isn’t much tip rocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
The 2 of you need to adjust your skiing style instead of moving the mount. Or grab 122s for pow. I've never thought the 112 was a pow ski. Pow skis are 120 up
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
Bit of a review on the new KF Reckoner 114. The 114’s dimensions are 137/114/134. The composition of the ski is different in a couple ways than the predecessor 112 and the new 110 which replaces the 112. One of the pics spells out some of the construction materials. Noteworthy is that the KF 114 in the 184 length weighs exactly what a 191 Reck 112 weighs 4400 grams a pair. I’ll never use this ski for what it was designed for or never do it justice. For me the Reckoner 112 or the new Reck 110 are better options for me. When I heard the retail price of 849 KF I started to get a nose bleed. I mean its a K2 and I use to build these on Vashon Island back in the day but here we are spending our own hard earned money for science sake. I digress, when hand flexing these it becomes apparent that the tails are softer than the firm but nicely flexing fore-body and tips. They are designed that way for jumps and just being jibtastic but has side benefits on the groomers later in the morning when the pow on the upper mountain is trashed. The 114’s bait you into smearing side hits and blowing up piles of snow.
Seriously fun ski that also just rips through turns. On edge they charge through piles of pushed around snow with the new torsionally stronger fore-body. Definitely finishes the turn in a much faster and tighter way than the beloved 112. Part of that directional quickness stems from the symmetrical dimensions, part of it the softer tail. The turn finish reminds of the Blade Optic 96. Found you can finesse both slalom and gs turns out of these and change cadence easily at speed. Overall I feel the KF Reckoner is purpose built, and they are a hell of a lot of fun. We find our fun in different ways on the mountain. I personally prefer the flex pattern of the 112’s and what seems to be a longer turn radius (but isn’t according to K2). Also look forward to possibly owning the new 110 in a longer length. Speaking of length the 184’s straight pull length is identical to a BO 118 186. Oh yes, the 114’s float fairly well too at least for me in PNW pow. They come around quicker in pow than the 112. Had these out a couple back to back pow days last week on some steeper lines for a minute or two and they blew it up just fine. All I got for now … just may ski em again before I decide to release.
Attachment 490293Attachment 490294Attachment 490295Attachment 490296Attachment 490298Attachment 490299
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^^^can't wait for the big size to drop
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
ULLR provided and I got to test the 191 Reckoner 122s in Sierra/Austrian Cement during a storm.
The lower angle super wet was still a bit of a lean back game, mounted at -4. But better than I've ever had it, didn't even have to ski in walk mode.
As it got steeper and a little higher up, they were ripping hard.
I think the kicker for me comes down to mid ski stiffness. On high alpine bluebird pow it's an asset, lower down it's just a little less bounce than I want. I love the length, I still have the 192 Bent Chetlers, I'm a little tempted to make Hell Bent Chetlers with a heat gun and clamps.
But otherwise I'm moving on to option 3, BO118. Fer Sciance!
The new KFs do look super fucky fucky, but 114 just seems a little narrow for my pow ski.
Loved my 184 112s mounted on the back line in spring corn and slush.
I still feel like going back of that line will work better in powder but they feel so good everywhere else that I'm hesitant.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Looking for a ski for my soon to be 15 year old for next year. Would the Reckoner 102 be a good AM ski for CO? He's (currently) 5'8 135 lbs, very aggressive bump skier - does not ski park. Looks like a blast in bumps and softer days but wondering about edge hold in steeps and low tide days? Also looking at Bent 100 and a couple other skis.
Picked up a pair of 184 112s as my everything in between deep pow days and cruising around with my lil groms ski. Anxious to get them mounted up later this week and out on the mtn. Thinking of mounting them on the back line as I'm on the bigger side for this size- 6'3" 190 lbs. Thoughts? I generally ride a 185-190 ski and if these didn't tape measure long, I would've sized up.
Coming from rearward mounted, longer skis (Katanas, M102s, Mfree 108) I went midsole (backline) on my short 112s (177 at 5'7", 140 lbs) and am glad I did - and am considering even a touch back from that. Others in this thread are all in on the Team line, but I suspect it depends on how forward-mounted you're used to/prefer.Quote:
Originally Posted by factive
Not sure if this link works for los americanos, but the last hunt has a great deal on 122’s in all lengths right now with free shipping in Canada.
https://www.thelasthunt.com/products...k2s-s220301301
Swooped a pair - $216 (USD) shipped to USA with discount code :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by carterhudson
I ski mine (191 and 184) at -1 from midsole line. Feels perfectQuote:
Originally Posted by factive
I'm on the line and I'm 90% sure I'm going back to -1.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
What’s the discount code to get them that low?Quote:
Originally Posted by factive
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
FIRST10 = Additional 10% off. My conversion was a bit off, they were closer to $230 USD shipped
That’s the math I had. Still a good deal. I bought a pair from Corbetts for about that. They were defective upon arrival. One ski was way softer than the other. Talked to K2 and they said ship them in and they’d send me next years reckoner this summer. Contemplating buying another set of 122s and getting the new 110 as a warranty ski. K2 warranty guy was super nice on the phone. As well as the 112 skis, i imagine the 122 would be an absolute blast in pow.
Seeing a lot of info in this thread on the 112 but not as much on the 102. Reviews I can find say its one of the softer skis out there. Wondering if its a good choice if you don't ski park? And how is the edge hold?Quote:
Originally Posted by slcdawg
I love mine and don't find them mega soft. I ski the 170 at 5'7"/140 lbs and ski pretty fast. If it's full on hardpack nearing ice, I'm on M102s, but the R102s have plenty fine edge grip - they're far from terrifying on harder snow. I just skied them all day Monday where the day started on some pretty hard/rough groomers and they were totally solid - very fun actually. I don't ski in the park at all and end up skiing the 102s way more than I thought I would because they're so fun. I'm continually surprised by how hard I can push them. Kind of depends on what you're used to: don't expect it to ski like a 2-layers of metal, 2200g, -10 mounted battleship. It's a playful, fun -4.5 mounted ski. The Blister review is pretty spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by slcdawg
Thanks, sounds like it may be a good option for my kiddo. He's coming from a Blackops youth ski - which is likely really soft. I'm really curious to try them out myself. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyski
All the local freeride kids at my hill (like 1st place thru 10th) ski the 102. And they rip. I would have 0 2nd thoughts about putting my kid on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by slcdawg
Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk
I have a pair of 102s and they have completely blown me away, and made me question everything I thought I knew about skis. They’re also the reason I’ve tried the other reckoner skis and loved them. They are by far the softest flexing skis I’ve ever owned. But the rip. That said there is a huge caveat. If you can’t stand balanced in the middle of the ski you will hate them. Lean too far forward or backward and they fall apart. If you stay in the middle of the ski and use high edge angles, you can absolutely rip on them. The soft tip and tail work to provide suspension but underfoot the ski can hang with a charging skier who is very balanced. They’re my new favorite spring ski. My previous favorite was the head monster 103. Basically the complete opposite style of ski.