K2 Reckoner 102 112 122 Thread

I just picked up a 184 cm 2022 102reckoner and skied it a week after the last storm out at Palisades-KT22. I was very happy about their light and lively put anywhere and rip construction. Forgiving in the tips and tails but totally solid under foot. Super fun in the soft hidden powder staches and easily handled the more refrozen death cookie for a lively ski. Super quick edge to edge and although the tips fluttered a little bit on the straight lining grommed, I never felt the chatter under foot.

I also got them for a steal at Sports Basement here in the Bay Area. $360

PSA: reckoner demos on sale at powder7. seem like pretty good prices but looks like only 191s at the moment.
https://www.powder7.com/K2-Reckoner-...-2021/for-sale
https://www.powder7.com/K2-Reckoner-...-2021/for-sale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvskier

PSA: reckoner demos on sale at powder7. seem like pretty good prices but looks like only 191s at the moment.
https://www.powder7.com/K2-Reckoner-...-2021/for-sale
https://www.powder7.com/K2-Reckoner-...-2021/for-sale

---

Not a bad deal, but you can get the 112s new with attack 14s from Corbett's for $60 USD more. Or flat for $440 USD and put on whatever bindings you want and they have every size available.

I got mine from Corbett's a couple springs ago for around $350 USD IIRC.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Just picked up a pair of 184cm 112s, going to be mounted with Pivots for an EC soft snow/play around/slush/hopefully more DD than not ski. 187 Masterblasters for when it's firm. I was thinking of mounting on the team line. These are pretty much replacing a 10 yr old pair of Bacons, so I'm used to the progressive mount. Any reason to reconsider this??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rightcoast

Just picked up a pair of 184cm 112s, going to be mounted with Pivots for an EC soft snow/play around/slush/hopefully more DD than not ski. 187 Masterblasters for when it's firm. I was thinking of mounting on the team line. These are pretty much replacing a 10 yr old pair of Bacons, so I'm used to the progressive mount. Any reason to reconsider this??

---

I bought the same ski and I will either go on the back line or even 1cm behind that.

Blister review mentioned a huge sweet spot and not much difference between the forward line and -2cm from the back line.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

I did see that in the Blister review. My thinking was that the team line would be fun for playing around switch, jumping off things, etc. without giving up too much performance. I should have them tomorrow, I think I may just eyeball them with my boots/ bindings and see how each line compares to my old skis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rightcoast

I did see that in the Blister review. My thinking was that the team line would be fun for playing around switch, jumping off things, etc. without giving up too much performance. I should have them tomorrow, I think I may just eyeball them with my boots/ bindings and see how each line compares to my old skis

---

Maybe split the difference on the recommended lines then? Sounds like it's tough to go wrong WRT mount point on these.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rightcoast

I did see that in the Blister review. My thinking was that the team line would be fun for playing around switch, jumping off things, etc. without giving up too much performance. I should have them tomorrow, I think I may just eyeball them with my boots/ bindings and see how each line compares to my old skis

---

Team line for sure reckoners ski better fwd

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

definitely the team line

You 2 most recent posters care to elaborate? Have you tried them anywhere else?

I'm open minded... just curious after blister talking openly on how little they noticed a difference.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

I'm curious too, even though that was the way I was leaning I'd love to hear any feedback.

The ski was designed to be skied from the team line

I've tried them all. Team mount most bestest

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I only got on them for a day last week in CO but can confirm they skied better moved forward. Had them mounted on the back line before lunch and then moved them up. Felt a little quicker edge to edge, did get a little backseat the first few times I got in the air since I'm used to having quite a bit more ski in front of me.

Wanted to really get on the 102, 112 isn't the ideal ski for wisconsin, but all they had was the 163 and 170. Anybody been on them in either the 177 or 184? With that much tip and tail rocker I know they'll ski short but I don't need something super stable for mellow park laps with the kids and sliding around the 400' of vert we have.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

You 2 most recent posters care to elaborate? Have you tried them anywhere else?

I'm open minded... just curious after blister talking openly on how little they noticed a difference.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

I have not skied the 122 or 112 on other mounts outside of the team mounts, as I was reusing a previous mount that was a for a larger BSL.
However, the ski is designed as a playful freeride ski, which the -3.5cm mount point is in line for. Additionally, I've found that the overall stiffness (particularly in the 112) still allows me to drive the shovels when charging in in consistent snow, while still having plenty of tail for flat landings, and also allowing me to slash/slarve around. I personally wouldnt go beyond -4.5cm as you'll start to loose some of those characteristics. BUT... if you're used to a ski that has a more traditional mount point, it will definitely take some time to get used to.

^^^ I am used to more traditional mount points but I also have skis I like at about 5 or 6cm back of true center. And I'm on relatively flat ramp angle bindings and upright boots.

I also like the mfree 118 and katana108 1cm in front *gasp* of the recommended line... and the blaze 2cm in front of the line! Sacrelidge!

Thanks for your feedback.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

So the team line is at -3.5. I'm pretty sure my SFBs are at -2. I definitely want these to feel slashy/slarvy

I'd go team line. Skied it as far back as -2 from recommended all the way to dead center and team line is the way to go.

Thanks to all for the info. Now that I have the skis in hand, I am going with the team line. I ski with a fairly neutral stance in softer snow and I think that is the mount I'm looking for. Also I'm pretty impressed with the build quality, and the snails look better in person than I thought they could have!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rightcoast

Thanks to all for the info. Now that I have the skis in hand, I am going with the team line. I ski with a fairly neutral stance in softer snow and I think that is the mount I'm looking for. Also I'm pretty impressed with the build quality, and the snails look better in person than I thought they could have!!

---

Those aren't snails they're testicles

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher

Those aren't snails they're testicles

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

---

These skis have balls?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

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