Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 313
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher View Post
    I think those other two are gonna collect dust

    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!!
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    close enough
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher View Post
    I think I just threw up in my mouth

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	55883A45-6F28-40DB-BCBA-13A62ADEC831.jpeg 
Views:	221 
Size:	291.2 KB 
ID:	398113
    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.
    Harvest the ride.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    363
    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

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,889
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rat6587 View Post
    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?
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,691
    Quote Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher View Post
    I think I just threw up in my mouth

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
    I don't agree.

    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.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,947
    SirVic where did you mount the 112 and 122? Have you tried both the team and midsole mounts?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,206
    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.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by kc_7777 View Post
    That’s a slug/snail on the 112s? Why? WTF? Never ever thought I would see that on a ski’s topsheet?
    I see k2 is making Telemark skis again! Ahahaha but seriously, Ty Dayberry does make them look good

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    SirVic where did you mount the 112 and 122? Have you tried both the team and midsole mounts?
    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.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    71
    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.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    363
    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

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rat6587 View Post
    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 way

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    187
    I'm considering to get the 102 and use it as touring ski.
    Any durability issue so far?
    Thanks.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,610
    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.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by ASmileyFace View Post
    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.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by ASmileyFace View Post
    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.
    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 .

    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

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher View Post
    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 .

    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.
    Last edited by ASmileyFace; 02-08-2022 at 01:23 PM.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    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

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2
    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.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    563
    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.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    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 later

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    563
    Between the lines, eh? I’d have gone with the team line left to my own devices.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    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 dentist

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    563
    Big time dentist, I just behave like a child so I prefer forward mounts.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Grandma's Basement
    Posts
    1,203
    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
    "Poop is funny" - Frank Reynolds

    www.experiencedgear.net

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •