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