Just buy the 184 u pussy .
Much better skiers are on the 184.
Cope
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Printable View
Just buy the 184 u pussy .
Much better skiers are on the 184.
Cope
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Hahaha. I am a grade a grade A pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
Mounted and skied the 112’s today and they way exceeded my expectations for standard cord work. Lots of edge hold, fun, fun, fun. Can’t wait to ski them in good snow. The slide in perfect between the MB108 and MB116’s
I think those other two are gonna collect dustQuote:
Originally Posted by L8APX
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
No doubt, but I hope I still love the MB’s as the 116’s are my pow tour skis and the 108’s are my variable conditions suck days. I also have a MB106 for less pow tours. I guess you could say I am all in on the newer stuff from K2. Over the last 15-20 years I have skied a bunch of skis and the only non K2’s in my quiver are a pair of lotus 138sQuote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
What's the deal with the 106? I know they're green and made here and spendy trying to figure out how they compare to the 99s and 108sQuote:
Originally Posted by L8APX
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
MB 106’s are a lighter / quicker / crisper MB108ti. They made a run of 50 at dps like made in USA prices. I like them a lot, honestly makes me wish K2 could figure out how to mass produce a sub $1,000 USA series. All in all the are clean, the build quality is way better than dps has ever been, they remind me of my old stockli Schmidt Pros from like 2005 on finish. And they rip.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
Bump for the 122s .having an extreme amount of fun on them lately
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
From the 22/23 future
Attachment 398090
I think I just threw up in my mouthQuote:
Originally Posted by L8APX
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Don’t say that! I haven’t even skied my MB116’s yet! But when I do, I hope it is at Alpy on a new snow day!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
Attachment 398113Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
I’m also showing my age, the NS kids are all “those go hard” best graphics ever and I’m like what kind of stickers will I need to cover that up.
I kind of like the 112. The others not so much, but I think they are better than the current ones.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
That’s a slug/snail on the 112s? Why? WTF? Never ever thought I would see that on a ski’s topsheet?Quote:
Originally Posted by sk8rat6587
I don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
But I also don't care what my skis look like as long as they ski well.
Think rossi sickle. Ugly as hell but great ski.
SirVic where did you mount the 112 and 122? Have you tried both the team and midsole mounts?
I have a pair of 184 112s that I’ve got a couple days on. Mounted -.5cm from midsole (so I think that’s -6cm). They are fun, very playful, stable enough. Better in the PNW than Colorado tho. I bet Utah would be a hoot on these. Soft light deep chop is their bread and butter. Very loose after I detuned..probably detuned a little too much for hardpack.
I see k2 is making Telemark skis again! Ahahaha but seriously, Ty Dayberry does make them look goodQuote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Since I'm 250 I'm on the regular mount not the team line(at my weight tip dive is a thing) although I have been tempted to remount on the 112s on the team line since I really like skiing switch on that ski. Fwiw I have demos on the 102s and can't tell the difference between the mounts. I believe blister also said the skis have such a large sweetspot they ski identical on either line.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Anyone have info on how the 112 skis compared to a 184 Deathwish? Looking at a pair of them as a fun 50/50 ski with Tectons for Whistler. Dimensions and weight seem right around what I'm looking for and prices are great compared to the Moment tax right now..
Looking for something more fun in tighter terrain than my 190 Bibby Tours that can still handle some deeper snow and a bit of resort.
The 112s don't suck. They are taking over as the ski I pull every day. Pretty low tide in Telluride and I've been picking it over my Camox more days than not. They just do everything so well. Much more stable and damp than the weight and hand flex would suggest. So nimble and easy to throw around. I haven't found powder too deep for them yet either.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
This is the wayQuote:
Originally Posted by sk8rat6587
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
I'm considering to get the 102 and use it as touring ski.
Any durability issue so far?
Thanks.
How big are the folks who are enjoying the 184cm 112 version? I'm going to be getting some days on the 184cm version but at 6' and 180ish pounds suited up I'm thinking the 191 might be more my speed.
5'9 160 here on the 184. It's my longest ski, but is very easy to throw around.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASmileyFace
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
All the pros ride the 184 . One school of thought is that these skis were designed for 184 and then adjusted for longer and shorter lengths meaning the 184 is the reckoner in its purest form if that makes any sense. I ski the 191 but I'm 6'4 255 currently. The ski will feel short initially but after one day you'll have it dialed .Quote:
Originally Posted by ASmileyFace
Could you ski the 191? sure you could I think it would ski differently than designed. This ski's main trait is to haul ass in a straight line and then slash and change direction whenever you see fit . I don't see the point of carrying around a bunch of extra ski when skiers much better than you and I are doing it on the 184. Just some thoughts
Edited to add : demo fleets will have a 184 but not a 191. Give the 184 a go and then decide if you need a longer ski. Also k2s are still measuring a few cms longer than most every other brand
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Interesting about the ski being designed for the 184cm length. I'm going to get on that size this week and see how it goes. My style has changed quite a bit in the past couple years and I'm enjoying progressively mounted skis like the Reckoner more and more. I just hope it holds an edge and blast through the weird variable chop we're experiencing in the San Juans a bit better than my current daily drivers. I'm guessing I'll enjoy these skis quite a bit and I'll report back later.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher
Got back on the 122s after recent snow and a remount went forward 1 cm (now in between the two recommended lines) and the ski seems chargier and more damp .
Having a blast on them hopefully the faucet stays on so I can keep reaching for them instead of their narrower sibling.
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Would appreciate some more thoughts on the 122, especially in the 191.
I've got the 102 and 112 both in a 184. Think the 112 is massively under rated and capable of big lines, as shown by Max Hitzig in the fwt and fwq this year.
I’m considering the 191cm 122 as a compliment to my 190cm Sir Francis Bacons (current version). Anyone been on both?
Leaning towards the 191 because I’m 6’4” not because I shred so hard.
Do it and mount it between the two lines. Thank me laterQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasGortex
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Between the lines, eh? I’d have gone with the team line left to my own devices.
Go for it. Thought maybe you were a dentistQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasGortex
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Big time dentist, I just behave like a child so I prefer forward mounts.
Spent a day last week on the 112 and one on the 122 last week, both in the 184
112 - mounted -1cm from Team ( Jesters)
122 - at midsole ( Pivots)
112 were stiffer than I expected, in both the tips and tails. Expected something similar to the Marksman or Shreditor 102, but was more similar to the Bender 108 with slightly more compliance torsionally with a little more pop from the tails combined with a lighter weight. Almost felt like a slightly wider/lighter PB&J - so I'd be curious to hear what the Moment junkies think. Overall, I could see this as being on the short list for a single "do-everything" ski for folks who both like to ski fast, but also loose (just like your mom).
122, was right in-line with expectations...which could have been due to the clapped out nature of the skis I have. Somewhere between the Armada JJ2.0 (see review in the link below), and Shreditor 102 in vertical flex, slightly less surfy than the JJ, but much better edge hold on firmer snow, and more predictable when on edge. Was still pretty easy to get on the tips and break the tails free similarly to the JJ2.0. Chopped/mank snow, they got tossed a tad more, but nothing overly unexpected given the skis stiffness. If you're looking for a 1 - 2 ski collection, I'd probably leave this out as I think there are more versatile options out there, but based on my skiing style, and what I've heard about with the 102, on a 3+ setup I think the 122 makes a ton of sense. I could also see the 122 as an interesting storm/deep day touring ski if you threw a lighter weight tech binding
[QUOTE=L8APX;6493463]From the 22/23 future
Attachment 398090[/QUOTE
Am I an idiot? Why are there 1 set of top sheets & 2 sets of bases?
I actually thought the 112s got knocked around a lot more than a Wildcat 108 and I felt they’re a lot less stiff.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfconroy
I’m looking for a 108 - 112mm ski in the quiver…
Reckoner 112, Wildcat 108, Deathwish 122 and Nordica Unleashed 108 are all on the shortlist.
The Reckoners are the cheapest by far.
Probably the lesser ski, too.
How about a Heritage FL113? Probably out skis everything on your list with a flat camber keeping it surfy, too.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Those look nice. 187cm is the smallest size though and -11.5 mount?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Regret selling my unmounted McFetridge Reckoner 112s….