2020-2021 Scott Scrapper 115

After spending a good deal of time on the Scrapper 115 in a variety of conditions both inside and outside of the resort, I’ve come away pretty impressed, and have found it to be a unique ski. So I’m going to cover (a) how it’s performed and (b) how it compares to several other skis to provide a better idea of where the Scrapper 115 fits into the category of ~115mm-underfoot pow skis. On the slightly heavier side of the spectrum there are skis like the Icelantic Nomad 115, Faction Dictator 4.0, and Black Diamond Boundary Pro 115, and then on the lighter end of things, there’s the Blizzard Rustler 11, G3 SENDr 112, and Atomic Bent Chetler 120.

So let’s see where the Scrapper 115 fits in.

To start, I want to clarify a few things right off the bat. I’m going to talk a lot in this review about how the Scrapper 115 comes alive at higher speeds and likes to be pushed hard. This ski is quite stout, so at low speeds it is very tough to bend. It’s pretty easy to slide the Scrapper 115 around at low speeds (thanks to its rocker profile and low weight), it just doesn’t provide very much energy at low speeds, since it takes a good deal of force to bend it.

But at high speeds when it’s being pushed, I can bend the Scrapper 115 easier. And when pushed hard at high speeds, it has tons of energy and feels more precise. However, the Scrapper 115 is also pretty light (~1930 grams per ski), so at high speeds, it requires a very active, dynamic style to keep it from being deflected and bounced around. It doesn’t like lazy skiing. But when skied hard and done so with more finesse than brute force, I found the Scrapper 115 to produce lots of energy. As you’ll see, it’s an interesting combination, and I’ll say more about how this plays out in various conditions.


The shape, flex pattern, and mount point of the Scrapper 115 make it look much more directional and charge-y than it actually feels on snow. In powder in particular, the Scrapper 115 (even in the 189 cm length) feels pretty playful. It isn’t as pivoty as skis with lots of taper (e.g. the Blizzard Spur or Atomic Bent Chetler 120), but it is far more playful than I would have guessed based on its specs, flex pattern, and rocker profile / shape.

The Scrapper 115 is still a long, pretty straight ski with a traditional mount point, so it doesn’t feel very freestyle-oriented like skis such as the Bent Chetler 120. But in light, consistent powder, I found that the Scrapper 115 tends to prefer a neutral stance (despite its rearward mount point) and feels more willing to break free and slash than I expected. And I imagine it would feel even looser and more playful with the bindings pushed forward (though I haven’t played with the mount point).

The 189 cm Scrapper 115 is long, wide, not very tapered, and has a -11 cm mount point, so it’s not a surprise that it floats quite well. I’d say it floats a bit better than many ~115 mm underfoot skis I’ve used, like the 185 cm Boundary Pro 115, 186 cm Dictator 4.0, and 188 cm SENDr 112. In deep, light, Colorado pow, the Scrapper 115’s tips will still sink (just about all skis so), but once the snow set up just a tiny bit, the Scrapper 115 was able to stay up and play around on top of the snow.

Sam Shaheen reviews the Scott Scrapper 115 for Blister
Sam Shaheen on the Scott Scrapper 115, Berthoud Pass, CO. (photo by Patric Hughes)

As I noted above, the Scrapper 115 comes alive at higher speeds. It can, however, still noodle around at slow speeds thanks to its low weight (it’s easy to flick around), but if you want to really bend the ski and get some snap / energy out of it, you have to be going pretty fast. And on that note, if I were getting the Scrapper 115 for something like tight tree skiing, I’d prefer the 182 cm length.

The Scrapper 115 is not quite as easy and forgiving at slow speeds as the softer Blizzard Rustler 11, but it is much easier at slow speeds than the Faction Dictator 4.0, and a bit easier than the G3 SENDr 112, probably thanks to the Scrapper 115’s significant tail splay.

In heavier pow, the low weight of the Scrapper 115 becomes a bit more evident. Occasionally in heavy, wet spring pow, the Scrapper 115 would feel a bit hooky, even after detuning the tips and tails with a gummy stone. I think there are two main reasons for this: (1) there is basically no tip taper, so the tips are big, and (2) the Scrapper 115 is light, so encountering denser pockets of snow can deflect the tip more than it would on a heavier ski. However, as long as the pow was consistent, I had a blast on this ski. It prefers to be skied hard and fast, but it does not become some unforgiving beast at more moderate speeds since you can easily release the tails and slide it around.


While the Scrapper 115 probably isn’t on your radar as a great bump ski (it’s long, very stiff, and wide — none of which are traits that made me excited to ski it in bumps), I’ve actually grown to really like the Scrapper 115 as a bump ski.

I tend to approach bumps with a very aggressive and dynamic style, and this sort of style works quite well with the Scrapper 115. Yes, it is too wide and long to work really well as a fall line, zipperline bump ski. But because the Scrapper 115 is (a) so light, (b) accommodates both a neutral and a more traditional, driving stance, and (c) comes alive when pushed hard, I’ve really liked it on steep, oddly-formed or double fall line bumps. I’ve loved being able to bash into the front of a bump, then easily pivot to burn speed on the top, or jump troughs and dump speed on an adjacent bump. I can drive the ski through the shovels and also get back to a neutral stance as the terrain allows (or even get back seat if I make a mistake — the tails are supportive, but not that punishing).

Surprisingly, the minimally tapered tails on this big, stiff, ski didn’t hang up much in bumps or feel very punishing, which I again suspect is due to the Scrapper 115’s significant tail splay.

The Scrapper 115 is light enough to throw around with very little effort, yet stiff enough to be skied very hard — a combo I’ve found to be very fun given how I ski bumps. If you prefer to slide / pivot your way through moguls, the Scrapper 115 can do so, but it is still a big, stiff ski, so there are definitely better options for skiing bumps with a more conservative style.


I wouldn’t call the Scrapper 115 a great groomer ski. It actually does have pretty good edge hold (especially for how wide it is), but I think the problem is really in its sidecut and stiffness. When I put the Scrapper 115 on edge, the ski doesn’t pull me into a turn, and I think this is primarily due to its long, straight section underfoot. Scott says the Scrapper 115’s “3D” sidecut is straight near the middle of the ski and gradually tightens towards the tips and tails, and on snow, I think it feels much longer than the stated 24 meter radius. On top of that, the Scrapper 115 is so stiff and straight that I have to be going a thousand miles per hour on groomers just to bend it, which really isn’t practical — or safe — unless you’re skiing on a closed course. I’d say that the Dictator 4.0, Nomad 115, Rustler 11, Boundary Pro 115, SENDr 112, and Bent Chetler 120 are all better carvers than the Scrapper 115. While those skis all have different carving characteristics, they are all easier to bend into a turn and get up on higher edge angles than the Scrapper 115.

On firmer snow when I’m not trying to carve a turn (e.g., on steep chalk or in firm couloirs), the Scrapper 115 is fairly happy breaking free and slarving medium- to long-radius turns. It definitely doesn’t feel super locked in when on edge, so if you’re ok with sliding your turns rather than carving them, the Scrapper 115 will comply.

Overall, the Scrapper 115 is a big-mountain ski that thrives in soft snow. So don’t buy it for its performance on groomers.

Stability at Speed

As tends to be the case with light skis, the more chopped up or variable the snow gets, the more the Scrapper 115 tends to get deflected and hung up — especially at high speeds. But in consistent conditions, the Scrapper 115 feels great at speed.

In consistent snow — whether chalk, corn, or pow — the faster I push the Scrapper 115, the more fun I have. In forgiving conditions, it’s much easier to get the Scrapper 115 up to speed and access its stiff flex without having to worry about the ski getting deflected. It doesn’t bulldoze through everything like some damp charger — it requires a more active style than do heavier, damper skis. But, when skied with a dynamic style, it is quite fun in snow that is fairly forgiving.

Once the snow gets chopped up, or if there is weird variable snow (e.g. crust or sastrugi), the Scrapper 115 required strong input and a forward, driving stance to keep it pointed where I wanted it to go. It does not feel very comfortable trying to nuke through tricky, inconsistent snow.

Sam Shaheen reviews the Scott Scrapper 115 for Blister
Sam Shaheen on the Scott Scrapper 115, Berthoud Pass, CO. (photo by Patric Hughes)

Overall, the Scrapper 115 feels a touch more stable than the Bent Chetler 120, has similar stability at speed to the SENDr 112, and falls shy of the stability of the Rustler 11 or Nomad 115 (which are both heavier and more forgiving than the Scrapper 115).

Chop / Variable Snow

As I just mentioned, the Scrapper 115 is a bit too light (at its length and width) to really excel in chop or variable snow. In softer chop, the length and stiffness of the Scrapper 115 seem to help it blast through low-density powder piles pretty well. But once the chop gets a bit heavier, the Scrapper 115 requires strong legs and a dynamic style to ski it fast.

Crust is a particularly scary snow condition on the Scrapper 115. I’ve experienced fairly unpredictable behavior in breakable crust on the Scrapper 115, and I think this is because of its long tips / shovels and the lack of taper. The Scrapper 115 can get very hooky in crust. Admittedly, most skis are not fun in breakable crust, but the Scrapper 115 has been a bit less predictable than other, more heavily-tapered and / or rockered skis that I’ve been on (like the Blizzard Spur or Atomic Bent Chetler 120).

If I had to choose a ski in the ~1900-2000 gram range for skiing chop in the resort, I would rather have a ski like the Blizzard Rustler 11. It’s softer, slightly heavier, and a bit more damp than the Scrapper 115 and, as a result, more forgiving and more capable of busting through soft chop. However, I would definitely take the Scrapper 115 over the Black Diamond Boundary Pro 115 and Faction Dictator 4.0 for resort chop. While the Dictator 4.0 and Boundary Pro 115 are heavier than the Scrapper 115, they are also quite harsh and less forgiving of mistakes (important to note, I’ve found the Dictator 4.0 to be considerably more harsh and unforgiving than the Boundary Pro 115, or really any ski I’ve been on).

Scrapper 115 as a 50/50 Ski

Because of how light the Scrapper 115 is, I immediately mounted it with a touring binding (Fritschi Tecton 12). It is definitely light enough to be a backcountry pow ski, and it does quite well in that capacity. When the snow is untracked and consistent, the Scrapper 115 is a joy.

Sam Shaheen reviews the Scott Scrapper 115 for Blister
Sam Shaheen on the Scott Scrapper 115, Berthoud Pass, CO. (photo by Jacob Winey)

However, the more I’ve skied it, the more I’ve been enjoying the Scrapper 115 as a resort ski. As I’ve noted before, the Scrapper 115 loves to be pushed hard. The harder I push it, the more the ski comes to life — more energy, more pop, more precision. However, I tend to dial my skiing back a bit in the backcountry since I don’t want to get injured or put the group in more danger, so I often feel like I’m not getting the most out of the Scrapper 115 while touring. But in the resort, I can ski as hard as I want, and the Scrapper 115 makes skiing hard in the resort really fun — as long as I maintain that dynamic and active style to combat its tendency to get tossed around in variable snow.

And while I’ve personally enjoyed it in the resort, it’s important to keep in mind that the Scrapper 115 doesn’t shine in heavy chop. So as a resort pow ski, that definitely needs to be factored in. If you’re looking for a ski to blast through dense chop, heavier skis will typically be the better options as they tend to provide more of the suspension, rather than the skier having to do so.

If I was Jeremie Heitz, skiing super fast on high peaks in the backcountry, the Scrapper 115 would be near the top of my list. But for a mere mortal like me, I think I actually prefer the Scrapper 115 for riding lifts where I feel more comfortable pushing it harder and actually getting some energy and life out of the ski.

For a very light, very playful pow ski that doesn’t need high speeds to come to life, I think the Bent Chetler 120 is an excellent 50/50 option. And if you’re looking for a slightly more inbounds-oriented ski that’s more forgiving, still fairly light, and can be pushed pretty hard, I’d check out the Rustler 11.

Bottom line

The Scott Scrapper 115 is a big, lightweight, stiff ski. It offers a fun combination of quickness and power that makes for a ski that likes to be pushed hard with a more dynamic skiing style. However, it can still be slid around at lower speeds thanks to its low weight and rocker profile. It can also take both a driving, forward stance, and a more neutral stance, which makes it feel more versatile than its shape and mount point would suggest. Whether you’re interested in the Scrapper 115 as an inbounds ski, a pow ski for touring, or a bit of both, this ski has a lot to offer for a strong skier who tends to prefer lighter skis and likes to ski hard and fast.

NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics

16 comments on “2020-2021 Scott Scrapper 115”

  1. And again Jonathan, many thanks for the extraordinary review!
    And here is my question (hope in the full review you will say few words about it):
    -Can you share few thoughts about differences between Scrapper 124 and 115? Yes, I know they are different, but how much?
    I measured the 124 weight and the scale said 2020&2015 grams per ski. Not too much different weight, but may be diifferent behavior in 40+ pow? But what about old, wet (or refrozen) snow and variable conditions?
    Thank you!

  2. Scrapper 115 with a kingpin is an aggressive directional touring machine. Mounted mine +2 last year and they were my favorite ski to date. Although the few days I have on the Sendr 112 makes me think it could be just as fun but in a lighter weight.

  3. I’m now trying to decide whether to mount a pair of these for touring or inbounds so I’m curious about updates. Anyone gotten any time on this ski yet?

  4. I’ve been skiing these in a 189 with a Salomon mtn pin binding in Chamonix this winter (its been a good winter!). I’m 5’10” 165. They are crazy light in this configuration. They definitely crush untracked snow, even heavier, windblown stuff and surf pow great. They aren’t ‘easy’ but I can get them around no problem due to easy weight. Only difficulty is in cut up hard conditions where lack of weight and surface area combine to be unfun. Touring they’re great but it’s a big ski for a delicate kick turn in deep powder so think about that if you don’t have good skinning technique go for the 182. All around thumbs up tho.

  5. I’m looking for a replacement for my Punisher 110 183 that I like quite a bit, but they are getting beat up. I find it to be about the right combination of fun, stable and forgiving in all conditions when I’m going flat out or just following my kids. From your description, the Scrapper probably doesn’t sound like it is as versatile. What would you recommend in the 108 to 112mm range? I am fairly directional, but don’t really gravitate to skis that are full of metal.

  6. Any experience from yourself or others if the 182 is much different than the 189 in terms of being softer and requiring speed to bend? I’m thinking of a dedicated (well, 90/10) bc ski in soft snow, not much chop, and generally lower speeds. I’m 5’8″ 170lbs, expert skier, but not a super charger.

    • We checked in with Scott and they told us that the only difference between the 17/18 Scrapper 115 and the 18/19 & 19/20 versions was the top sheet and the addition of the little skin-clip cutouts at the tips and tails.

  7. I noticed that the carbon strips within the ski are off-center. Is one ski meant specifically for left and the other for right? And if so, should the carbon strips be on the inside or outside?

    • The skis are not meant to be specifically left and right, apart from graphics, though it’s not all that unusual for skis to have carbon stringers that are off-center (we see this often in the skis we review). Since carbon stringers primarily add stiffness in the longitudinal direction (rather than torsional stiffness), it doesn’t matter too much if they’re a bit off center so I wouldn’t worry about it.

Leave a Comment