Hello Bob ! I currently own the mindbender 96C. They are good ski but I'm not sure if they are right for me. I used to be more of a freestyle guy (park,moguls), now moving into the freeride aspect of skiing. I ski the whole mountain and will go on jumps, groomers, soft snow, woods... Could the reckoner 102 replace the 96C and not lose too much performance on groomers and moguls ? Quebec skier, very advanced. Hope we get to chat :)
The Reckoner is quite flexible in the tips and tails. Picture the flex of the Mindbender's shovel also in the tail, with more rocker in both and a more central mount point. Certainly, you can move the bindings back on the Reckoner if you wish. Personally, I'm too heavy for the Reckoner 102 for it to be useful, but there are a lot of other great options out there in the 100 mm twin tip range. At the top of my list is the Nordica Unleashed 98, mainly with carving performance as a top priority but also quite versatile. Line Chronic 101, Blizzard Rustler 10, and Armada ARV 100 (2025 specifically), are also worth a look. I just feel that the Reckoner is too flexible for consistent non-park skiing.
@@SkiEssentials thanks ! My problem with the mindbender 96c is that I feel it needs to be always driven from the tail. Like there is nothing in the front.
The Playmaker feels more consistent than the Reckoner to me, as a heavier skier. I can effectively ski the Elan in the 188 in all sorts of conditions and terrain while the flex of the Reckoner puts it more in the park/creative spectrum. Elan has more versatility to more skiers as result.
You certainly can. The skis are on the flexible side, so they will lose some capabilities in an all-mountain format when central. The factory line already feels forward to me, and the Team line even more so..
The biggest differences are in the forebody flex and the directional shape. The 96C has a stiffer shovel that holds up well to more aggressive and directional skiing. That follows with the shape as well--the Reckoner has more taper and rocker in both tips and tails, creating more of a symmetrical look to it. The 96C is decidedly wider in the shovel and narrower in the tail, with a flatter tail, giving it more of a fall-line and on-piste mentality.
The 95 is the better choice. There will be some rubbing, and you may want to give the brakes a bit of a bend, but the 115 will have quite a bit of overhang.
The Reckoner is one of the more flexible skis on the market today and skis very centrally/freestyle-oriented. If you're looking to be more creative and playful with your skiing, I'd go that route.
The flex of the Reckoner is a lot softer in both the tips and the tails. If you're looking for more playfulness and creativity on snow, the K2 is an amazing choice, but for more power, dampness, and directional performance, the Salomon is a stronger performing ski for sure. If you're looking for any type of stability at speed in a carved turn, the QST 98 is a better option.
@@SkiEssentials ok I'm not to focused on speed. I spend all my time in the trees here in New England. I was leaning towards the K2 but reviews seem to lean towards the QST. thank you for the input
Torsional stiffness is where we see the bigger difference. The K2 has it while the Bent does not so much. That said, you can ski the Bent in more of a traditional tip to tail format while the K2 needs to be operated more centrally. That makes the K2 more playful and freeride oriented with more flexible tips and tails but a sturdy feel underfoot. If you're into tricks and creative skiing, I'd go with the K2.
just bought these super exited to ride them
Hello Bob ! I currently own the mindbender 96C. They are good ski but I'm not sure if they are right for me. I used to be more of a freestyle guy (park,moguls), now moving into the freeride aspect of skiing. I ski the whole mountain and will go on jumps, groomers, soft snow, woods...
Could the reckoner 102 replace the 96C and not lose too much performance on groomers and moguls ?
Quebec skier, very advanced. Hope we get to chat :)
The Reckoner is quite flexible in the tips and tails. Picture the flex of the Mindbender's shovel also in the tail, with more rocker in both and a more central mount point. Certainly, you can move the bindings back on the Reckoner if you wish. Personally, I'm too heavy for the Reckoner 102 for it to be useful, but there are a lot of other great options out there in the 100 mm twin tip range. At the top of my list is the Nordica Unleashed 98, mainly with carving performance as a top priority but also quite versatile. Line Chronic 101, Blizzard Rustler 10, and Armada ARV 100 (2025 specifically), are also worth a look. I just feel that the Reckoner is too flexible for consistent non-park skiing.
@@SkiEssentials thanks ! My problem with the mindbender 96c is that I feel it needs to be always driven from the tail. Like there is nothing in the front.
Bob, the mostly interesting question - is there any differences form past models, or just new graphics?
Just new graphics on that 102, and for my money, much better ones, too!
@@SkiEssentialsthanks. Hope that You'll anounce that further in Youre reviews.
What would you recommend for length? Same height as you or would you recommend on the shorter side?
These skis are on the flexible side, so if you're hesitant at all, it's okay to go longer.
How would you compare the Reckoner to the Playmaker 101? Thanks!
The Playmaker feels more consistent than the Reckoner to me, as a heavier skier. I can effectively ski the Elan in the 188 in all sorts of conditions and terrain while the flex of the Reckoner puts it more in the park/creative spectrum. Elan has more versatility to more skiers as result.
Should/could someone center mount this ski if they plan on using it mainly in the park? If so would it still preform outside the park center mounted?
You certainly can. The skis are on the flexible side, so they will lose some capabilities in an all-mountain format when central. The factory line already feels forward to me, and the Team line even more so..
How does this compare to the Mindbender 96c?
The biggest differences are in the forebody flex and the directional shape. The 96C has a stiffer shovel that holds up well to more aggressive and directional skiing. That follows with the shape as well--the Reckoner has more taper and rocker in both tips and tails, creating more of a symmetrical look to it. The 96C is decidedly wider in the shovel and narrower in the tail, with a flatter tail, giving it more of a fall-line and on-piste mentality.
@@SkiEssentials thanks!!
If I wanna mount pivot 15s which break width should I go for, 95 or 115?
The 95 is the better choice. There will be some rubbing, and you may want to give the brakes a bit of a bend, but the 115 will have quite a bit of overhang.
K2 reckoner 102 vs black diamond impulse 98 ? i tried the black diamonds and loved them but i'm not sure wich ones to buy
The Reckoner is one of the more flexible skis on the market today and skis very centrally/freestyle-oriented. If you're looking to be more creative and playful with your skiing, I'd go that route.
thx@@SkiEssentials
Reckoner 102 vs the Salomon QST 98?
The flex of the Reckoner is a lot softer in both the tips and the tails. If you're looking for more playfulness and creativity on snow, the K2 is an amazing choice, but for more power, dampness, and directional performance, the Salomon is a stronger performing ski for sure. If you're looking for any type of stability at speed in a carved turn, the QST 98 is a better option.
@@SkiEssentials ok I'm not to focused on speed. I spend all my time in the trees here in New England. I was leaning towards the K2 but reviews seem to lean towards the QST. thank you for the input
Vs bent
Torsional stiffness is where we see the bigger difference. The K2 has it while the Bent does not so much. That said, you can ski the Bent in more of a traditional tip to tail format while the K2 needs to be operated more centrally. That makes the K2 more playful and freeride oriented with more flexible tips and tails but a sturdy feel underfoot. If you're into tricks and creative skiing, I'd go with the K2.