2015-2016 K2 Shreditor 102

Jason Hutchins reviews the K2 Shreditor 102 for Blister Gear Review
15/16 K2 Shreditor 102

Ski: 2015-2016 K2 Shreditor 102, 184cm

Dimensions: 131-102-125

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 130-101.5-124

Sidecut Radius: 20 meters

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 184cm

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2038g & 2052g

Mount Location: +3 from “0” mark (-4.5 from true center)

Skier: 6’, 160 lbs.

Boots / Bindings : Rossignol All-track Pro 130 / Marker Griffon (DIN 10)

Test Locations: Alta Ski Area, Alta Backcountry, Park City Mountain Resort

Days Skied: 10

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 14/15 Shreditor 102, which was not changed for 15/16, except for the graphics.]


For the 2014-2015 season, K2 has made a few changes to the Shreditor line. The range now includes a ski that is 92mm underfoot, as well as a completely redesigned 102mm underfoot model.

The redesigned Shreditor 102 reviewed here replaces the long standing Kung Fujas (which was basically retagged for the 2013-2014 season as the first rendition of the Shreditor 102, with only minor changes), but K2’s intentions remain the same: deliver a one-ski-quiver for everyone to enjoy. And I think the new Shreditor 102 ought to appeal to a pretty large audience, including the folks looking to keep their feet on the ground and toes pointed forward.

Shape & Hand Flex

I haven’t skied the 2013-2014 version of the Shreditor 102, but I can talk about the difference in shape and sidecut between that ski and this new version. The new shape of the Shreditor 102 shadows the lines of the Shreditor 112 and 120, all of which feature a lot of taper in their tips and tails. The widest point of the 102’s shovel is ~19cm back from the nose of the ski, while the widest point in the rear is ~21cm from the tail. The new Shreditor 102 is also 3mm narrower at both the tip and tail than the 13/14 version.

The Shreditor 102’s tip and tail rocker is low and gradual, which is great given its intended purpose. The rocker line extends well beyond (~25cm) the widest points of the tip and tail, but because of the fairly low splay, it’s still possible to engage the ski’s entire effective edge / sidecut (~144cm) on firm snow.

Hand flexing the ski, the tip and tail are are quite soft, but the flex increases pretty quickly as you move toward the bindings, becoming fairly stout underfoot. The flex feels pretty symmetrical in hand. I can’t say how similar / different this flex pattern is from the ‘13/14’ Shreditor 102.

Freestyle Performance & Mount Points

Given what I’ve just said about the shape and flex of the Shreditor 102, it shouldn’t be too surprising that it encourages a lot of playful skiing.

The Shreditor 102’s swing weight is light in the air and on snow, making the ski very easy to maneuver in general. The compromise here, however, is that the light weight and energetic rebound of the Shreditor 102 contributes to the ski getting tossed into the air a bit on fast, bumpy, jump in-runs. The longer, 20 meter turn radius of the Shreditor, fortunately, keeps it from feeling too twitchy on these bumpy in-runs, but I’ve still had to work on sensing where I’m standing on the light ski (in regard to fore/aft balance) to keep it tracking well as I approach the jump.

The progressive flex and energetic rebound of the Shreditor makes for smooth releases off well-shaped jumps, cat tracks, or natural features. “Kicky” or rough take-offs are not dampened well by the ski, however, so you’ll have to stay focused on leaving the snow from a balanced stance.

Jason Hutchins reviews the K2 Shreditor 102, Blister Gear Review
Jason Hutchins on the K2 Shreditor 102, Rocky Point, Alta.

With the bindings at +2 (from the “0” line) or behind it I definitely found myself wishing for more supportive tails on hard landings. Soft snow and/or steep landings did help mitigate this somewhat. But even when landing a sizable air to the balls of my feet, if there was enough impact, the tails would buckle under the pressure and throw me into a wheelie.

At +3cm (as far forward as I could move the binding track on our demo pair, still -4.5cm from true center), the flex of the Shreditor 102 started to feel more balanced and the tail felt far more supportive.  At +3 I could start playing with nose ollies and butters, and tail presses and butters were possible without the tail just feeling squishy and unenergetic.

I had a ton of fun on the Shreditor when it came to jibbing around the mountain, but I would have loved to get the bindings even further forward on the ski in order to better assess its freestyle performance.


I have been satisfied with how well the Shreditor 102 floats in powder, considering its waist width; it is comparable to anything else I’ve ridden in the ~100mm underfoot range.

The rocker profile and soft flex at the tip and tail help give the ski a light, floaty feel through moderate amounts of new snow. In more than about 12” of light, low density snow, I wished for something wider underfoot. In thicker, heavier snow, the Shreditor 102 easily stays on top regardless of how deep it is. The ski’s heavy tip and tail taper keeps the ski running predictably down the fall line and resistant to hooking / overturning when the snow stacks up more than a few inches.

Soft Chop

Whether skiing through deep (~16”) or shallow soft chop, I have been very impressed with how confident I’ve found myself aboard this ski, even mounted at +3cm. The fairly narrow and streamlined tip, moderate sidecut radius, and progressive flex of the Shreditor 102 work very well together to keep the ski from wanting to “wall up” and deflect in any direction. High angulation slarve turns were an easy (and fun) way control speed in steep terrain, as was smearing turns with more of a baseses-flat “foot steer” technique.

Jason Hutchins reviews the K2 Shreditor 102, Blister Gear Review
Jason Hutchins on the Shreditor 102, Eagle’s Nest, Alta Ski Area.

Powder over Refrozen Moguls / Slush

The biggest surprise on the Shreditor 102 came when skiing late season “dust on crust.” For me, the key features of a ski that does well in these conditions are a strong enough forebody to allow an athletic stance, a flex that doesn’t get overwhelmed by sudden variations in the snow surface (but isn’t so rigid that is bucks my 160 lb frame around), and a sidecut radius that is long enough to be predictable transitioning from hard to soft snow, and isn’t overly turny / hooky.

The Shreditor’s light swing weight means that it does require a bit of a light touch in variable conditions (I’ll explain more about what I mean by that below), but  at +2cm and +3cm, I feel it meets all of the above criteria.

27 comments on “2015-2016 K2 Shreditor 102”

  1. Wow great review , sounds like you really covered the bases as always. Have you ridden the Shreditor 112 or plan to, and how do the 2 compare since they are similar shape now.

  2. Hey there Jason.. Another great review.. Can I highjack it a tad? A few words on those Rossi Alltracks ? You’ve been working them a lot this season. Replaceing the Enforcers ?

    • I have been in the AllTrack Pro 130 for most of the season and really like them. I can’t say I don’t miss my Enforcer’s with intuition liners, but unfortunately that boot is completely demolished. I wouldn’t call the AllTrack Pro 130 a 130 flex boot, but they are comparable to my Enforcers (115-120ish) and very smooth, which is exactly what I like. You’ll have to try them on to see if the fit works for you. I’ve had to shim them up to take up volume over my foot.
      My pre-production boot has had a few durability problems, which is why I haven’t published a review yet. The production boot supposedly doesn’t have the problems I have experienced, but my size has been unavailable. I will post the review soon and include what Rossi has claimed to have fixed.

  3. Hi Jason

    Great review as per usual. I bought the 2012 Sickle after reading your review on Blister and love the ski for it’s versatility and useability. I ski in Whistler and it is my daily driver. I will likely be looking for a replacement for it sometime next season and was wondering if the Shreditor 102 would be a worthy replacement for the 2012 Sickle (bear in mind that I ski the 174cm Sickle so it’s only 106mm underfoot) ? I am considering going a little narrower than the 2012 Sickle to maybe around the 100mm mark for a little bit of added quickness (I have something wider for deep pow). Would welcome your thoughts.


    • Ian,
      I’m torn in my answer for you. Part of me says yes, the Shreditor could be the ski you are looking for, because you will find it a bit quicker/livelier than the Sickle. At the same time, you may find yourself missing the calm/damp feel of the Sickle, as well as the long effective edge length when the snow stiffens up.

      Unfortunately, I haven’t found a ski yet that I would consider a straight apples to apples Sickle replacement.

      • Thanks Jason. Yes, one of the best things about the Sickle for me is the dampness and the long effective edge which engages even at low edge angles. Have you had a chance to ski the new Atomic Automatic 102 or 109 at all ?

  4. Hi Jason

    sounds like the K2 Sidestash is whar you are looking for. rockered tip , flat(more substantial) tail. wish Blister would demo more K2 skis.

    • I actually have skied the SideStash quite a bit. In fact, I owned and competed on it (along with the Obsethed and Kung Fujas) for an entire season. I liked it, but in the end a directional ski with a stiff(ish) tail and very traditional mount just doesn’t fit me that well.

      We hope to get on more K2 skis for the upcoming season!

    • I’m sorry, I haven’t ridden the TST yet. I think Jonathan will riding the Shreditor 102 a little bit over the next few weeks and hopefully will be able to chime in.

  5. Great review, thank you.

    How would you compare this ski to Line Sick Day 110/95? The Shreditor has more/deeper rocker in tip and tail and should be surfier. Maybe you could share your thoughts.

  6. I have just done 12 days (New Zealand winter) on the 184cm 102s. Conditions were, as usual for NZ, all over the place from 30cms and soft, through to ice and spring slush. The review really gets it right. I might worry if I was 25lbs heavier, but I am 160lbs, and had mounts approx 2.5cm – 3cm (I have not got out the tape measure out to check) in front of manufacturers recommended, and they were a blast in anything soft. As the review said, while they do not hold a tight track over harder irregularities and they don’t respond well to just loading up the tips, if I stayed balanced and worked with (or over the top of) the contours, I found them almost bomb proof. And so much fun, I still have not stopped smiling.

  7. Hello, great review as always!

    6′ 4″, 210lbs

    I am looking for a “one-ski quiver”-ski for when I am going skiing on the long weekends, that can let me float in somewhat deep powder(but maybe that is tough considering my weight?), have fun with/playable ski, and as good as possible on the groomers. I am willing to sacrifice the skis ability to carv, because I do honestly have a lot of fun in the piste with my Hellbents, both early morning and late afternoon, and I can’t imagine a 100-110mm waist being worse than the Hellbents. I have a racing background and have just been skiing off-piste for a couple of years so I have not got a lot of experience with these skis.

    I want to be able to ride and land switch, although I do not hang in the park too much, but having fun on pillows and cliffs is the best part. I have been looking at the Sir Francis Bacon (is it unchanged for 14/15 or is it a completely new ski?), the Peacemaker and then the Shreditor 102. Are those too much jibberish for what I need? I feel the Hellbents are way too soft for me at the moment and I am looking for a one or two levels stiffer ski, although not stiff ski per se.

    I used to be 190lbs and I am trying to go down to that weight again(or more if needed), so take that in moderation.

    Thanks a lot in advance!

    Best regards, Marcel

  8. Can anyone adress whether the 2014/15 version reviewed by Jason differs sufficieintly from the 2013/14 version to offset the deep price discounts now available on the 2013/14 version?


  9. Really hoping to hear if you have been on the 189 112 yet? K2 is always bad about listing info on anything. I would be interested to see weight and radius of the 112, as well as seeing if the bigger brother of the 102 shares characteristics. As an aside, I was also looking at the J ski Friend as a comparable ski to the 112. I expect the K2 would be heavier and less poppy, but they seem similar in shape and intended use. Thanks for all the great reviews

  10. Just discovered this site and found the review unbelievably helpful and I ended up buying a pair per my little story below – thanks Jason! You should get a K2 commission. Basically I’m here to validate Jason’s review and help anyone else on the fence about giving these a try to just go do it.

    I am 6 feet tell and 185 pounds give or take and because they didn’t have the 184 available, I demo’d the 177 length this past weekend over 2 days at Mary Jane. Skied all conditions except ice and these were an absolute blast. Saturday was my first full day in-bounds since blowing out my ACL/LCL/MCL last season, and I got my confidence back real quick on these – they’re quick enough edge to edge to charge bumps and off-piste conditions with confidence knowing I could put down a real quick slash or turn to bail from anything too sketchy, and despite the general short length, I let them fly on the groom and never felt unstable – they were certainly a bit twitchy at high speed, but given the short length, that was expected. Had great fun bouncing around Mary Jane through early-season moguls, massive bumps, early-season hazards, groom, deep stuff, you name it.

    I dropped a few small rocks less than 5 feet high and didn’t feel that the tails were unstable, although they were a tad soft – put myself in the backseat the first time around, but also in part due to it being my first time charging around like a dummy in a year bc of the knee. I do agree with Jason’s insight about mounting a bit farther forward. Got two early runs on Panoramic – was one of the first 100 or so people up there for the season and the snow was mid-thigh and it was probably the most fun I’ve ever had on skis – they had plenty of float (and my usual deep snow ski is the 185 JJ) and despite the softness in the tails on the hardpack, still felt solid in the deep stuff. I’d say they have a fun bend-but-don’t-break sort of attitude. They’re playful and soft but also surprisingly retain enough stiffness when you need it.

    I was looking for an everyday setup in the 95-105 waist range that will preform on the groom but have plenty of pop and play to feel slashy and buttery – had narrowed down a number of options but these were the first I demo’d and I was easily sold. I bought a new pair in the 184 length and am having them mounted up at +3.5 from 0 based on my experience on them (soft, playful, poppy tails) and Jason’s advice which I believe to be very accurate. I intend to put some dynafits on them down the road and use as a bc setup as well.

    Lastly, considering they were demo’s, I didn’t worry about beating the hell out of them and I am sure they’ll hold up just fine – only time will tell, but the topsheets seemed in good order and the bases absorbed some solid early-season impacts without shredding to the core. Or maybe I just didn’t ski over enough rocks.

  11. Great review! Quick question: I am 5’11” 175lbs, intermediate-advanced skier. I am at the point were I am beginning to really practice bumps and explore trees. Would the 177 be an appropriate size given my skill level? Or would your recommend going with the 184?

  12. Jason, I currently ski the shreditor 102’s as my daily drivers and am looking to find some fatter powder skis that are just as playful. Any suggestions you might have based on your experience?

  13. Anyone ripping on a pair of these bad boys in a 190? I’m looking for a pair for my hubby. Anyone just not riding theirs or want to get rid of a pair of demos? :)

Leave a Comment