K2 Reckoner 102 112 122 Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

These skis have balls?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

Skied my testicle free pair of 112 184’ proto Reckoners today. Clear top sheets and all. Tiny bit different dims. Got em from Peter B an engineer designer at Line etc. Mounted them on the team line. Total hero snow surface today. Everything was soft pretty much with 35-50 mile per hour winds packin 5-7 new everywhere last night then died off completely by opening. First time on them no complaints at all. They made ya want to ski more and get after it in places where a stronger heavier ski would be more 1 or 2 dimensional. You can carve through roughed up soft crud and pushed around piles with no worries and although lighter than I generally care for made ya want to jump into soft bumps and pop off of stuff. Guys I am old but these made me feel a little younger today. Changing directions at will they were pretty quick. There was a wide long section of hardpack off camber groomer and they held and carved just fine rollin up into the hill and bombin down. All in all fun.
White Pass Ski Area


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

No trigger pulled yet, but after concluding that the revolt 121 is just not the ski for me…I really want a jibby phatty that I get along with and actually enjoy skiing that doesn’t sink when mounted at recommended. Right deal shows on this years ski, I’m probably a Reckoner 122 buyer.

Anyone have anything bad to say about it?

It was less jibby than I expected (note: this coming from a Sir Francis Bacon daily skier). More composed, less playful. Damper than I prefer. Kind of reminds of the widest Jeffrey/Kartel skis. I’m having good days on them just not the type of day I want to (they are more serious than fun). Outside ski had a tendency to run away from me (take a wider radius than the inside) on hardback which was probably user error on my part but I didn’t like it. They have a touch wider radius than I prefer and I’m apparently a carve guy because I expect even my powder boards to effortlessly roll up on edge on the way to the lift. I have the pink and blue model where they flattened out the tail a little and I don’t think it was a good change for me but I suspect it makes it a much more capable ski for some people. I mounted on the forward line which felt like the right place.

I’m on the fence between giving them another chance or selling them. I gave up on them really quick for a pair of JJ ULs that I really do not like; mounted on the forward line they sink and are terribly hooky/grabby on soft snow. As is, there are no conditions I’d choose them over my narrower SFBs. I haven’t decided if I should remount on the rearward line (and/or heavily detune) or move on. I’m basically in a wide resort ski crisis where I’m questioning what my preferences are because I keep getting on the wrong skis. The ski in the category that i was always curious about but never got on was a Faction CT 4.0 or 5.0.

CN: Reckoner 122 is a good ski that I found less playful/more substantial than reported. I basically wanted Hellbents and these certainly are not. Most would say they are better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasGortex

CN: Reckoner 122 is a good ski that I found less playful/more substantial than reported. I basically wanted Hellbents and these certainly are not. Most would say they are better.

---

Oh man, try to find a pair of Catamarans. The 191 is so extremely surfy, slashy, maneuverable but still stable enough not to feel like a liability at all when things get chopped up. Nice round even flex and heavy but not noodly like the old Hellbents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

No trigger pulled yet, but after concluding that the revolt 121 is just not the ski for me…I really want a jibby phatty that I get along with and actually enjoy skiing that doesn’t sink when mounted at recommended. Right deal shows on this years ski, I’m probably a Reckoner 122 buyer.

Anyone have anything bad to say about it?

---

It's a great ski for soft snow and I personally like it a lot in hard snow (icy groomers night skiing shenanigans) however it is not a crud buster. Loose as fuck in pow and loves to slash . I'm on my 2nd pair of 122s and have a pair in plastic but I ski tight trees and cliffy chutes vs wide open terrain.


Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasGortex

It was less jibby than I expected (note: this coming from a Sir Francis Bacon daily skier). More composed, less playful. Damper than I prefer. Kind of reminds of the widest Jeffrey/Kartel skis. I’m having good days on them just not the type of day I want to (they are more serious than fun). Outside ski had a tendency to run away from me (take a wider radius than the inside) on hardback which was probably user error on my part but I didn’t like it. They have a touch wider radius than I prefer and I’m apparently a carve guy because I expect even my powder boards to effortlessly roll up on edge on the way to the lift. I have the pink and blue model where they flattened out the tail a little and I don’t think it was a good change for me but I suspect it makes it a much more capable ski for some people. I mounted on the forward line which felt like the right place.

I’m on the fence between giving them another chance or selling them. I gave up on them really quick for a pair of JJ ULs that I really do not like; mounted on the forward line they sink and are terribly hooky/grabby on soft snow. As is, there are no conditions I’d choose them over my narrower SFBs. I haven’t decided if I should remount on the rearward line (and/or heavily detune) or move on. I’m basically in a wide resort ski crisis where I’m questioning what my preferences are because I keep getting on the wrong skis. The ski in the category that i was always curious about but never got on was a Faction CT 4.0 or 5.0.

CN: Reckoner 122 is a good ski that I found less playful/more substantial than reported. I basically wanted Hellbents and these certainly are not. Most would say they are better.

---

These are interesting comments I'm just trying to re-digest.

That they sink on the forward line is not surprising but being hooky in soft snow there is surprising to me. You might have a bad tune but if the issue is happening in soft snow I would think a detune would not do much. But you have very little to lose by trying that.

Also, on paper I wanted to love the CT 5.0 but I just did not jive with it. Definitely not hooky but also didn't really want to float until you were going really fast... I think that stiffness and that mount point require speed all the time.

I haven't skied my reckoner 112 yet but if you found those less playful than you expected I would personally suggest you steer clear of the CT series.

Basically they seemed loose and playful until the exact moment they did not... because part of the long and stiff sidecut just decides to engage at some point I'm not expecting.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

I’ve found k2 skis to have edges that are way too sharp especially towards the ends. Gummy stone necessary

I think the reckoner comparison to Kartel/Jeffrey is pretty good. Similar shapes, similar stiffness underfoot, but a little softer at tip and tail and definitely lighter.

I was looking for a Kartel 108 replacement that was a bit more maneuverable and had a little more float when I got the R112 and I think it fits that very well.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

I have a few days on my 184 r112 now and I am very happy with them. Mostly slushy/soft EC snow, but also a morning on firmer groomers. Mounted on the team line, definitely needed to detune the tips and tails a little bit beyond the contact point with a light file to get the slashy feel I wanted from these. K2 factory edges are definitely super sharp. Glad I picked them up, will be a go-to ski on softer days for sure.

^^^ I've only put a half day on mine so far but I agree about the need to de-tune. I did a little before I skied them but they felt a little catchy to me... mostly in the tips. Did 2 small sessions of extra on-hill detuning and they are better but not perfect.

I mounted on the mid-sole line despite what everyone told me about the team line being better. I suspect a little forward might be a little better, but I'm going to try a little more de-tuning before I put more holes in these skis... and the fact that you felt something similar at the team line leads me to believe I might be able to get where I want without a remount.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

^^^ I've only put a half day on mine so far but I agree about the need to de-tune. I did a little before I skied them but they felt a little catchy to me... mostly in the tips. Did 2 small sessions of extra on-hill detuning and they are better but not perfect.

I mounted on the mid-sole line despite what everyone told me about the team line being better. I suspect a little forward might be a little better, but I'm going to try a little more de-tuning before I put more holes in these skis... and the fact that you felt something similar at the team line leads me to believe I might be able to get where I want without a remount.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

Detune the fuck out of em.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher

Detune the fuck out of em.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

---

Will do.

On the patches of soft snow I found they fealt great... but I don't want to feel nervous letting them run on the groomers back to the lift.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Will do.

On the patches of soft snow I found they fealt great... but I don't want to feel nervous letting them run on the groomers back to the lift.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

They're not a ski that wants to carve back across the fall line they like to stay in the fall line and they like to be thrown side ways and drifted without losing any speed as you point and shoot to your next feature. No need for edges for that

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thinking about the 112 as a 75/25 resort/tour travel ski. Mounting with duke pt/tecton/cast/shift depending on how I want to balance light vs durable and how much $$ to spend (I already have shifts but dont really like them). I'm looking for a lighter jeffery108 and with all the comparisons these seem to fit the bill.

Question regarding sizing. I'm 6'3 205 lbs but spend a lot of time trees and like a playful ski. My instinct was to go with the 191 but after reading they measure like on3ps had me rethinking. The 191 jeffery108 felt a little too long and the 186 jeffery116 feels good. Thought on 184 vs 191?

Also bumping the question on the 112 vs the deathwish/deathwish104/wildcat108 as these are the other main contenders for this slot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeachesNCream

Thinking about the 112 as a 75/25 resort/tour travel ski. Mounting with duke pt/tecton/cast/shift depending on how I want to balance light vs durable and how much $$ to spend (I already have shifts but dont really like them). I'm looking for a lighter jeffery108 and with all the comparisons these seem to fit the bill.

Question regarding sizing. I'm 6'3 205 lbs but spend a lot of time trees and like a playful ski. My instinct was to go with the 191 but after reading they measure like on3ps had me rethinking. The 191 jeffery108 felt a little too long and the 186 jeffery116 feels good. Thought on 184 vs 191?

Also bumping the question on the 112 vs the deathwish/deathwish104/wildcat108 as these are the other main contenders for this slot.

---

Are you able to demo them in 184? I find the 191s extremely easy to ski and tour on but a lot of ppl prefer shorter skis for kickturns and what not.
You're pretty tall for a 184 imo. I think this is definitely a ski you can go up a size on unless your really concerned with corks and flips lol. Demo the 184 if you can.
Haven't skied the other skis you referred to but I would say there isn't a ski that is as playful and versatile especially in tight trees as the 112

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeachesNCream

Thinking about the 112 as a 75/25 resort/tour travel ski. Mounting with duke pt/tecton/cast/shift depending on how I want to balance light vs durable and how much $$ to spend (I already have shifts but dont really like them). I'm looking for a lighter jeffery108 and with all the comparisons these seem to fit the bill.

Question regarding sizing. I'm 6'3 205 lbs but spend a lot of time trees and like a playful ski. My instinct was to go with the 191 but after reading they measure like on3ps had me rethinking. The 191 jeffery108 felt a little too long and the 186 jeffery116 feels good. Thought on 184 vs 191?

Also bumping the question on the 112 vs the deathwish/deathwish104/wildcat108 as these are the other main contenders for this slot.

---

They are lighter and more maneuverable (easier/quicker to flick around) than the Jeffrey. I had Kartel 108 in 181 length and got the R112 in 184. I'm 5'9 160 and like to spend most of my time in the trees with a playful ski.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher

Are you able to demo them in 184? I find the 191s extremely easy to ski and tour on but a lot of ppl prefer shorter skis for kickturns and what not.
You're pretty tall for a 184 imo. I think this is definitely a ski you can go up a size on unless your really concerned with corks and flips lol. Demo the 184 if you can.
Haven't skied the other skis you referred to but I would say there isn't a ski that is as playful and versatile especially in tight trees as the 112

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sk8rat6587

They are lighter and more maneuverable (easier/quicker to flick around) than the Jeffrey. I had Kartel 108 in 181 length and got the R112 in 184. I'm 5'9 160 and like to spend most of my time in the trees with a playful ski.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

---

191 it is. Thanks yall

Still regret selling the 2021 McFetrige version unmounted. I also like this graphic.
Attachment 453557

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

Bought some brand new 2021 Reckoner 112s for pretty cheap. Gotta read my own thread again to see where to mount. Still regret selling the McFetrige version unmounted.

I like this graphic. Mounting with black STH.
Attachment 453557

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I know we are all creatures of habit, and the post you started this thread with said you planned to go behind the line...

But I would advise you against that.

As you know, I like my volkls with their traditional mount points. But based on 1/2 day on my reckoners on the midsole line (-5.5cm) and 3 or 4 sessions of detuning mostly in the tip, if I had it to do all over again I would probably mount in between the recommended lines. So -4.5cm. And yeah... I still like my volkls at about -10cm.

Definitely do not go behind the midsole line.

Also of note: I like those pr-otos I bought from you at +1cm from recommended. I think you liked +2cm? Even though I like traditional mounts, I actually tend to prefer slightly in front of the line on most of my skis.

I'm an enigma wrapped in a conundrum... I know.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Shorty - Protos were good at +2cm. If I did again I’d go +1cm …..since I’ve sized down to smaller boots I’m on the line on all my skis except the Season Forma at +1cm.

I’m thinking on the back line on the Reckoners. -5.5 cm seems right for what I want these for.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Specs, shape/splay look perfect.

177 K2 measures like a 179cm.

-5.5 cm from tc.

Attachment 453936
Attachment 453937
Attachment 453938
Attachment 453939


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

^^^ nice.

Did you do a decent detune yet? Or do you carry a diamond stone with you for on the fly work?

I also don't know if I mentioned it in my posts above but I actually elected to go with the 184 in this ski even though most of my stuff is 178 to 180. Wanted to try something different then the rest of my collection.

That extra length MAY be part of why I fealt the need to detune so much... but my 177 K108 have a longer effective edge and more rearward mount so I don't think the length should be my issue here.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Shorty!

You did not mention that…and it explains a lot.

The 184 K2 measures 184.5cm in a straight pull (per Blister).

For comparison a 184 Moment Wildcat is about 182cm in a straight pull.

So you’re really skiing a ~186 cm ski on the 184 Reckoner.

Which is why you wanted to be forward of the back line (going forward makes ski feel/ski shorter) and is also why you want to detune (edges feel long).

I think it’s too long? The only reason you can ski it is cause you are so used to -10 cm mounted K108s.

That being said I also ski a 185cm Season Pass (@ -4cm) in side country pow……it’s good to have longer lengths sometimes.

KC

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

No I don't think it's because I'm used to or prefer a -10 mount... I regularly ski my rocker 2s that are at about -5 I think? And my other rocker 2 100s which are pretty similar to that. I actually think those 100s are probably the most versatile ski I've owned and I'm quite comfortable with that mount.

I think it has more to do where I am in the usable part of the ski.

I agree it's possible the longer length exacerbates that feeling though... that's why I mentioned it.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Laying flat on my tuning bench my 184 r112s and 187 masterblasters eyeball out to approximately the same length. Mounted on the team line the reckoner needed some heavy detuning for sure to make it ski like I wanted, looser in soft stuff. A week ago I would have said it didn't want to make a clean arc in soft groomers, but I got a day on them this week that made me think otherwise. Digging trenches on softening cord then fun in the slush piles. I know it's not that this ski is meant for , but it's quickly becoming my softer snow everyday ski

Has anybody been on both the Poacher and 102 Reckoner ?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Was able to pick up a pair of Reckoner 112s for a bargain in the 184cm length. Decided to pull the trigger after reading the Blister review on them. Big selling point was the Blister reviewer saying they've got a huge sweet spot and don't demand a centered stance as much as ON3Ps Jeffrey.

Not going to mount until next season, but curious if anyone has thoughts on the mount point? I'd like to drive the skis a bit when it's convenient, but retain the fun surfy-ness. I've read the rest of the thread and it seems like y'all like the forward mount point, but I'm a bit leery of going that far forward.

Any feed back on a reckoned 102 for screw around skiing with the kids skis? They look like a good option to learn how to spin and butter while I follow my son down the easy blues instead of manhandling my bonafides. Would likely size down to 177s from my 189 bones. Any leads on a cheap set?

After some more detuning of my 112s, no more nervousness or catchiness from the tips.

I'm glad I mounted on the back line because there is a lot of tail on these... only really noticeable in the 1 stash of powder I found and in moguls.... but in these conditions I actually fealt like they favored a slightly forward stance to keep the tails loose... which is just fine with me for this ski.

Very loose and drifty with a neutral stance on the corn, and still held a very nice edge on softish groomers despite all the detuning. They don't want to pull you across the fall line quickly, and while they can be carved into tighter arcs, they tend to prefer to carve 1 turn shape. Which is ok because this is really a soft snow ski I want to feel comfortable riding the groomers back to the lifts... and they do that. My katana 108 (in a 177) are easier to vary the turn shape with than these (in a 184).

Lots of pop and feel very comfortable on the small airs I was playing around with... much more intuitive than something like the katana. They also land softer than the katana does, for some reason.

I actually find the underfoot section of the ski quite stiff.... just the extremities are soft. They are also moderately damp... quieter than I expected.

I like them.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carlh

Any feed back on a reckoned 102 for screw around skiing with the kids skis? They look like a good option to learn how to spin and butter while I follow my son down the easy blues instead of manhandling my bonafides. Would likely size down to 177s from my 189 bones. Any leads on a cheap set?

---

They are about $315 shipped right now from Corbetts and they have all lengths.

Max Hitzig was nice enough to share with me that he mounts on the midsole line. I'll never be as good a skier as he is, but I can mount my 112s where he does haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carlh

Any feed back on a reckoned 102 for screw around skiing with the kids skis? They look like a good option to learn how to spin and butter while I follow my son down the easy blues instead of manhandling my bonafides. Would likely size down to 177s from my 189 bones. Any leads on a cheap set?

---

I bought a pair of 184 as I was just curious how a ski this soft would ski. As someone who generally prefer directional chargers (with a progressive mount), I think they’re great. Only 2 days in spring conditions. I find the soft tip to just go up and over piles of soft snow, the softness of the flex provides its own type of suspension/dampness. They feel pretty composed and I’ve been able to ski them pretty damn fast, took the air out of diagonal chute at the bird that dantheman posted a last week and I was shocked how well they handled it. Blast to carve on groomers. I tend to really dislike lightweight skis, but the soft flex makes these lightweight skis work way better than expected and makes them significantly more fun on any sort of kicker. The top sheets are beyond hideous but so far I’m very happy with them. They are really easy to ski but can be skied harder than the flex would imply (just don’t look at the tips bouncing around you can’t really feel that in your boot). I mounted -1 from midsole line and like the mount 5.5 from true center.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

The top sheets are beyond hideous but so far I’m very happy with them.

---

I want to pick up a pair, but I think the top sheet is so ugly I am willing to wait a year. Looks like the mushroom theme is making a comeback.

https://images.newschoolers.com/imag...926w_640h.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoeSnow

I want to pick up a pair, but I think the top sheet is so ugly I am willing to wait a year. Looks like the mushroom theme is making a comeback.

https://images.newschoolers.com/imag...926w_640h.jpeg

---

Ya I don’t get the recent Reckoner top-sheets? Damn Corbetts has the 2021 122s on sale for $299CDN ($220US). Sigh.

Attachment 459201

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

Ya I don’t get the Reckoner top-sheets?

---

Yeah, current 102 graphics with the dog and the weird-looking scarecrow dude are downright bizarre. Next season's mushroom topsheets are acceptable.

That's an awesome pickup for $220. I want to try out every waist width at some point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

Ya I don’t get the Reckoner top-sheets?

Damn Corbetts. Had these 2021 122s on sale for $299CDN ($220US).

On the way.

Attachment 459201


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

The best top sheet for the 122s except the red ones that haven't come out yet

As far as the other ones go I met the designer and told him he's trash . The 1st gen is acceptable across all widths and 2nd gen 112s are the shit everything else is hard to love even though they ski so damn good

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Damn, Corbetts is out of the 184cm. I’m sad, but glad. Shouldn’t be spending the $ right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g_man80

Damn, Corbetts is out of the 184cm. I’m sad, but glad. Should be spending the $ right now.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g_man80

Damn, Corbetts is out of the 184cm. I’m sad, but glad. Should be spending the $ right now.

---

They've been out for months now--I think I picked up the very last new 184 reckoner 122 in that graphic from ptex1. For a good price, but it wasn't $220!

Hmmmmmmmmm. I think I want a 122 to Cast-ify.

I'm back and forth between that and the 4FRNT Ren. It would replace my BC 120 with Shifts. Hmmmmmmmm.