K2 vs faction

you're probs good with either, the factions will be lighter and maybe a bit less durable if youre hard on your skis. honestly whichever is cheaper tho

I appreciate that. Would a 95 brake( look Pivot) work with 102 underfoot?

Yes, I have 95 Pivot Brakes on my Reckoner 102 right now. They scrape the sidewall a bit, but if you bend them slightly you'll be fine. 115 is way too wide.

dwalker17I appreciate that. Would a 95 brake( look Pivot) work with 102 underfoot?

Suitcase_Yes, I have 95 Pivot Brakes on my Reckoner 102 right now. They scrape the sidewall a bit, but if you bend them slightly you'll be fine. 115 is way too wide.

Thanks for the help!

The Reckoner 102 would have similar weight but with more rocker, a softer flexing tip/tail and a bit more taper than the 22 CT 2.0. The Reckoner 102 will be a bit more playful and surfy, the CT 2.0 will grip hard snow better and be a bit more precise. The 22 Faction are made in the Atomic plant so very good build quality.

The 21 Fisher plant built CT 2.0(or CT 2.0x-same ski different top sheet) is another option if you wanted a stiffer, beefier built option as there are some of them still around on deals. Sierra.com has the 173cm 21 CT 2.0x for $299.99 right now which is a great deal.

Corbetts.com has the 21 Reckoner 102 in 177cm available for $489.99 CAN/$390 US or the 22 versions for $559.99 CAN/$450 US.

Some Canadian places have the 22 CT on for 20% off deals but not sure what places ship to the States or not.

Full specs are here for the CT 2.0 and Reckoner 102 in lengths between 170 and 178.

Look at the weight: the R102 177 is particularly light for its size and the CT 2.0 178 is the heaviest of the bunch. The R102 have a lighter construction for the same surface area.

Shapes are similar, but look at the running length. The R102 170 should feel shorter compared to the other skis. In general, the R102 has more tail rocker (20%) than the CT 2.0 (15%).

R102 170 has a 16m sidecut radius. All the others are in the 18-19 m range...

Stiffness profile for both bending and torsion are way different. The CT2.0 have stiff tip/tail and soft center. The R102 is the opposite. That is inline with what greg_k said...

The referenced post has been removed.

not really?

**This post was edited on Dec 29th 2021 at 5:22:45pm

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the CTs have strep in them or something so they are stiffer, allowing you to charge more if that’s your thing. The reckoners are super playful tho, kind of noodly imo, but I like that kind of ski

I would like something that can do it all. powder, all mountain all conditions( east skiing is terrible snow rn) While going fast more fast down hill rather than doing tricks but will try those.

K2 for durability level 100

dwalker17I would like something that can do it all. powder, all mountain all conditions( east skiing is terrible snow rn) While going fast more fast down hill rather than doing tricks but will try those.

The CT 2.0 probably has a higher speed limit than the reckoner 102. Both skis should be good for what you describe but if you value speed the CT should be better.

Appreciate it, I ended up going with the recknor, and in fact the 95 brake does fit. I appreciate the help. Next ski will be ct 2.0 thank everyone