Member of the Month

patagonialuke
June, 2020

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Shreditor 102 2014 vs 2015

profile picture
carljohan.estrup
Posts: 3
Hey,

Im thinking about buying the Shreditor 102, however I find it hard to decide if to go for the 2014 or 2015 model?

I tried to check out the reviews on various websites and the 2014 get significant better reviews than the 2015 model. Is the 2014 a better ski you think? According to K2 they have made a few changes for the 2015, but I would find it weird if it made the ski worse? Have any of you maybe skied both and can elaborate ?

I'm usually only buying skis approximately every third year, so I also want something future proof. So would it not be better to go for the 2015? Of course I can get the 2014 model for 25% less, but money is not the issue in this case, but I guess it still counts a bit...

Thanks!
Nov 27 2014 4:17PM
profile picture
cydwhit
Posts: 4189
The old 102 got some glowing reviews for sure, I do know that several K2 people were stoked about the changes though, I think Schmies said the new one was insane? Don't quote me on that but I feel like I got the general vibe that the new one was pretty special.

This review may be helpful: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-k2-shreditor-102
Nov 27 2014 10:47PM
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16765
The guys at blister have no idea how to ski. Id say go for the 2014, cheaper too:
http://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-shreditor-102-2014.aspx#image=68145/326545/k2-shreditor-102-skis-2014-169.jpg
Nov 27 2014 11:32PM
profile picture
foyt20
Posts: 21
Just picked up 2014's. Just because of price. Havent skied either yet though... So really this post means nothing to you.
Nov 28 2014 10:40AM
profile picture
steezee5
Posts: 1309
BUMP! Because I was about to make this same thread ….

I am stoked on the 2015 for the 184 length in the 102.

Today in a shop I flexed both the 2014 102 and a 2015 92 … the 2015 is SIGNIFICANTLY stiffer … the 2014 is quite noodle i must say.

Can anybody confirm that is among the changes? or what any of the other ones are?
Dec 8 2014 10:27PM
profile picture
M.M
Posts: 1652
steezee5BUMP! Because I was about to make this same thread ….

I am stoked on the 2015 for the 184 length in the 102.

Today in a shop I flexed both the 2014 102 and a 2015 92 … the 2015 is SIGNIFICANTLY stiffer … the 2014 is quite noodle i must say.

Can anybody confirm that is among the changes? or what any of the other ones are?


it could also just be that the 2014 has been in the shop for a year. atleast for me when checking out a ski one thing i always do is flex it so a year of hand flexing could make a big difference
Dec 9 2014 2:03AM
profile picture
Backhaus
Posts: 68
2015 is $550 and 2014 is $350

That's a decent set of bindings right there
Dec 9 2014 8:50AM
profile picture
carljohan.estrup
Posts: 3
Do you guys think I bought in the right height?

I'm 6'1 weighing 186 pounds, and I bought it in a 189 cm and it just seems quite tall compared to my 185 cm Armada El Rey. However, if I were to size down I could only choose a 179 cm, which just sounded quite small to me.
Dec 10 2014 6:45PM
profile picture
[tk]
Posts: 3863
carljohan.estrupDo you guys think I bought in the right height?

I'm 6'1 weighing 186 pounds, and I bought it in a 189 cm and it just seems quite tall compared to my 185 cm Armada El Rey. However, if I were to size down I could only choose a 179 cm, which just sounded quite small to me.


Im 6' and I got the 2015 184s. They are about the exact same height as me and I felt that was a little long. Keep in mind I just moved up from 172s though haha. Yours are on the longer side for sure but it should be fine. Ive heard typically longer is better.
Dec 10 2014 7:32PM
profile picture
Justo8484
Posts: 3897
carljohan.estrupDo you guys think I bought in the right height?

I'm 6'1 weighing 186 pounds, and I bought it in a 189 cm and it just seems quite tall compared to my 185 cm Armada El Rey. However, if I were to size down I could only choose a 179 cm, which just sounded quite small to me.


unless you're buying them to use as a park ski, 189 is fine. buddy of mine has em in 189 and he's like 5'8", maybe 165lbs and they're fine for him, you should definitely be able to rock the 189 with your size. it's a soft ski so they shouldn't feel too unweildy.
Dec 11 2014 2:37PM
profile picture
Profahoben_212
Posts: 6681
carljohan.estrupDo you guys think I bought in the right height?

I'm 6'1 weighing 186 pounds, and I bought it in a 189 cm and it just seems quite tall compared to my 185 cm Armada El Rey. However, if I were to size down I could only choose a 179 cm, which just sounded quite small to me.


yeah you will be fine. But K2 runs long....so their 189 is actually a 193.

But I am 5'11" and 155. I ride 192 Bentchetlers and I love them.
Dec 11 2014 3:15PM
profile picture
kdes6
Posts: 93
I have the 2014's and i do think that they are an awesome ski wicked playful and fun. As to the 2015s i rode those when i went out to tahoe this year and i loved them which made me want to get the 2014's. As for the changes they tapered the tip and tail and that is the only difference. The 2015's felt just as playful it as the 2014's. Over all cant make a wrong decision going with either.
Dec 11 2014 5:03PM
profile picture
[tk]
Posts: 3863
Profahoben_212yeah you will be fine. But K2 runs long....so their 189 is actually a 193.

But I am 5'11" and 155. I ride 192 Bentchetlers and I love them.


Wat? Theres not a 4 cm difference lol. I measured my 184s and they are 184
Dec 11 2014 5:55PM
profile picture
M.M
Posts: 1652
[tk]Wat? Theres not a 4 cm difference lol. I measured my 184s and they are 184


yea k2 and on3p RUN TRUE not LONG! every other company is typically shorter they say.
Dec 11 2014 6:29PM
profile picture
Profahoben_212
Posts: 6681
[tk]Wat? Theres not a 4 cm difference lol. I measured my 184s and they are 184


Well that's news! They Definately used to run long. My 2012-13 179 K2 domains measure in at about 183, and my friends 169 measure in at about 173.

Glad to hear they fixed it!
Dec 11 2014 11:32PM
profile picture
Justo8484
Posts: 3897
Profahoben_212Well that's news! They Definately used to run long. My 2012-13 179 K2 domains measure in at about 183, and my friends 169 measure in at about 173.

Glad to hear they fixed it!


domains and pretty much everything prior to them measured out about 4-5cm longer than they listed them at. things were really fun when the fujatives first came out with the mounting scale on the side that said "core center" and all the dumb arguments that created. true center on that ski in a 179 was something absurd like 14 or 15cm forward of the recommended line. you had pretty much no tail at all if you mounted them at recommended; i swear they just measured 2/3 of the way back on the ski and drew a line.
Dec 12 2014 3:41PM
profile picture
carljohan.estrup
Posts: 3
Justo8484unless you're buying them to use as a park ski, 189 is fine. buddy of mine has em in 189 and he's like 5'8", maybe 165lbs and they're fine for him, you should definitely be able to rock the 189 with your size. it's a soft ski so they shouldn't feel too unweildy.


Well I'm planning to use them as an all-mountain ski, but primarily for powder. However, I still enjoy making some casual spins and flips in the park so I do not want it to be way to bad for that.

Right now I'm thinking about putting the ski up for sale, and go for the 2015 model in a 184 cm.
Dec 13 2014 1:50PM
All times are Eastern (-4)