New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 AMP Rictor

post #1 of 20
12/29/10 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 

Thought I would post a brief review of the 2010/2011 K2 Rictor in case anyone is wondering if they're worth shelling out for.

 

I am a member of the Canadian Ski Patrol (volunteer), and ski pretty much every type of terran there is out here in the Alberta Rockies. I've been through an arsenal of skis over the past 30 years and for Christmas, my wife treated me to a brand new pair of skis....have five pair but they are all trashed from patrolling LOL! I am 5"10", and weigh 175lbs.

 

After a ton of research, I was consistently gravitating toward to the new K2 Rictor because it had all the qualities I loved in an All Mountain. My only concerns? The Rocker design, and what length to choose. After being educated by knowledgeable techs, I was told the Rocker's were fantastic for diverse snow conditions, but to go 5-10cm longer than what I usually ski on since deeper snow will make the ski feel smaller due to the reverse camber.

 

SO...I took the plumger and bought them on Boxing Day....Sportcheck had them on sale for $759 including binding and mount. I took them out for the first time on December 28 for a full day at Sunshine Village. Got there early enough to catch first tracks in 4" of fresh stuff....not a lot, but better than nothing. These skis were an absolute blast!! I have owned several skis, and these are definitely the best I have ever owned in terms of diversity.

 

PROS:

 

* The Marker MX 12 bindngs are your only choice. They are mostly plastic, but they hold up well.

* These skis want to go FAST. At high speeds, they are rock solid.

* When transitioning from groomers/packed to crud or powder, you barely notice because of the rockered tip...very cool.

* Quick response when carving, and they hold their edge very well.

* A true all mountain ski.

 

CONS:

 

* The Marker MX 12 bindngs are your only choice. They are mostly plastic, but they hold up well (so far!)

* Ugly graphics,but if you like green, not too bad 

* If you go too short of a length, you will have a hard time in off-piste. I would surely go with the 174 if you ski a 170. The longest

they make is a 181.

 

If you've been thinking about this ski...DO IT! You won't regret it.

Reply
post #2 of 20
1/6/11 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertaskibum View Post

<<br />


If you've been thinking about this ski...DO IT! You won't regret it.




 


I feel the same way about my AfterShocks !

Nice review, rickp

 

.

 

 

Reply
post #3 of 20
1/12/11 at 2:08pm

So are you skiing a longer version of the AfterShock, Rick? 

 

I'm on a 170 Xplorer.  Do I want a 174 AfterShock or the 167? 

Reply
post #4 of 20
1/12/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneale Brownson View Post

So are you skiing a longer version of the AfterShock, Rick? 

 

I'm on a 170 Xplorer.  Do I want a 174 AfterShock or the 167? 

 

Yep, longer - was on a 163 Volkl AC3 and now on a 167 AfterShock.

 

Was leery of going longer, but glad I did as the AfterShock feels shorter than the Volkl when initiating turns, yet longer when you need the float and stability.

 

Don't know how big you are, but I'd err on the long rather than the short side, so probably the 174.

For reference, I'm 5'7'', weigh 155#, and the 167 seems perfect for me. 

Review URL is below in case you missed it.

 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/98988/k2-aftershock-second-impressions#post_1282505

 

Have fun,     rickp

 

 

 

 


Edited by rick p - 1/12/11 at 7:14pm
Reply
post #5 of 20
1/13/11 at 10:47am
Thread Starter 

I agree with Rick, go with the 174. You're gonna love it!!

 

UPDATE: Last time I was skiing on my Rictor's, one of the little orange "widgets" (x-shaped thing that also appeared on recent Recon's) began making a slight rattling

sound. I took it back to the tech and he spoke to K2 about it. Apparently the "widgets" are strictly cosmetic on the Rictor, and was fixed with a small piece of two-sided tape.

 

Other than that, these skis are RED HOT.  

Reply
post #6 of 20
1/21/11 at 9:16am

Great review, I totally agree.

 

I got the 174cm and this ski is so easy to ski and very versatile, good in the bumps too. Also, good at speed.

 

Cons: Bindings have some play in them but after stepping in I don't feel any play. May not be the best on hard snow. icon14.gif

 

Just wondering if you also have any play in the binding, noticed before stepping in?

Reply
post #7 of 20
1/21/11 at 10:02am

Just checked our 6 pairs of skis with Marker bindings (4 K2 and 2 Volkl), and 3 have minor play in the toe piece.

The toe pieces "teeter-tooter" a bit - moving up and down a small amount at the front and back.

Seem to be stable when clicked in and this doesn't affect performance as far as I can tell. 

 

Skis that have play - 2010/11 K2 AfterShock, 2008/09 K2 Lotta Luv, 2005/6 Volkl AC3.

Skis without play - 20010/11 K2 Lotta Luv, 2009/10 K2 Apache Recon, 2004(?) Volkl AX3 gamma.

 

I've ignored this so far, but it will be interesting to see other comments that we get about it.

Thanks for asking the question.

 

Cheers,     rickp

Reply
post #8 of 20
1/22/11 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertaskibum View Post

Thought I would post a brief review of the 2010/2011 K2 Rictor in case anyone is wondering if they're worth shelling out for.

 

I am a member of the Canadian Ski Patrol (volunteer), and ski pretty much every type of terran there is out here in the Alberta Rockies. I've been through an arsenal of skis over the past 30 years and for Christmas, my wife treated me to a brand new pair of skis....have five pair but they are all trashed from patrolling LOL! I am 5"10", and weigh 175lbs.

 

After a ton of research, I was consistently gravitating toward to the new K2 Rictor because it had all the qualities I loved in an All Mountain. My only concerns? The Rocker design, and what length to choose. After being educated by knowledgeable techs, I was told the Rocker's were fantastic for diverse snow conditions, but to go 5-10cm longer than what I usually ski on since deeper snow will make the ski feel smaller due to the reverse camber.

 

SO...I took the plumger and bought them on Boxing Day....Sportcheck had them on sale for $759 including binding and mount. I took them out for the first time on December 28 for a full day at Sunshine Village. Got there early enough to catch first tracks in 4" of fresh stuff....not a lot, but better than nothing. These skis were an absolute blast!! I have owned several skis, and these are definitely the best I have ever owned in terms of diversity.

 

PROS:

 

* The Marker MX 12 bindngs are your only choice. They are mostly plastic, but they hold up well.

* These skis want to go FAST. At high speeds, they are rock solid.

* When transitioning from groomers/packed to crud or powder, you barely notice because of the rockered tip...very cool.

* Quick response when carving, and they hold their edge very well.

* A true all mountain ski.

 

CONS:

 

* The Marker MX 12 bindngs are your only choice. They are mostly plastic, but they hold up well (so far!)

* Ugly graphics,but if you like green, not too bad 

* If you go too short of a length, you will have a hard time in off-piste. I would surely go with the 174 if you ski a 170. The longest

they make is a 181.

 

If you've been thinking about this ski...DO IT! You won't regret it.



Nice Review albertaskibum, I'm accually looking at getting them but am a little hesitant becuase of the legnth. I normally ski a 163,  would the 167 be too long or would the rocker compensate for the extra 4cm?

 

thanks again for the review  

Reply
post #9 of 20
1/24/11 at 2:46pm
Thread Starter 

Definitely go 167. If you don't, they will probably feel too short when you are in the soft stuff. If possible, take out a demo pair.

Reply
post #10 of 20
1/25/11 at 6:43pm



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rick p View Post

Just checked our 6 pairs of skis with Marker bindings (4 K2 and 2 Volkl), and 3 have minor play in the toe piece.

The toe pieces "teeter-tooter" a bit - moving up and down a small amount at the front and back.

Seem to be stable when clicked in and this doesn't affect performance as far as I can tell. 

 

Skis that have play - 2010/11 K2 AfterShock, 2008/09 K2 Lotta Luv, 2005/6 Volkl AC3.

Skis without play - 20010/11 K2 Lotta Luv, 2009/10 K2 Apache Recon, 2004(?) Volkl AX3 gamma.

 

I've ignored this so far, but it will be interesting to see other comments that we get about it.

Thanks for asking the question.

 

Cheers,     rickp



 I've been a K2 fan from the days of the first ModX Pro.

 

All the system bindings I've had over the years since they started the rail arrangement (several pairs of Crossfires, Recons, Xplorers) have developed some binding wobble in either or both the toe piece and the heel piece.  That's why my last pair of Xplorers and my new AfterShocks both were purchased as flat skis and now have Look/Rossi pivot bindings.  I'll avoid Markers hereafter.

 

I got the AfterShocks in the 174 length and have grown to like them very much, especially in the targeted off-groomer use.

Reply
post #11 of 20
1/26/11 at 7:06pm
Kneale,

Glad to hear you're happy with your AfterShocks, and thanks for the binding tip.

rickp

 

 

Reply
post #12 of 20
9/22/12 at 8:36am

Kneale,

 

By any chance, do you possibly have a pair of mx bindings that you aren't using anymore?  I've been looking for a pair but since they only come with the ski's (1:1 Ratio) I cant seem to find them.

 

Thanks,

Neil
 

Reply
post #13 of 20
9/22/12 at 9:15am
I do not, but check with Marker. Seems I remember they had spares for when something broke and they needed to replace it. Also check with rental operations in your area. Some of them had parts from when skis got damaged beyond repair.
Reply
post #14 of 20
9/25/12 at 3:59am

   How would you guys rate the bases on the K2', as far as wax retention and glide? Hold wax well or become chalkie with in a day of tuning. Fast glide on both cold and warm snow conditions. Thanks
 

Reply
post #15 of 20
9/25/12 at 11:56am

My previous skis were 163 and unrockered. They seemed about the right length.

 

I've skiied both the 167 and the 174 K2 Aftershock. 174 seemed a tad long. 167 seems just right or maybe a tad short.
 

Reply
post #16 of 20
9/25/12 at 11:57am

Forgot to say I'm 5'8" 155 pounds and Intermediate-Advanced skiier. Mostly black diamonds and steeper blues. Like to ski some moguls. Powder when available.
 

Reply
post #17 of 20
9/26/12 at 8:19pm

I just traded these in for some Line Prophet 98s, but it wasn't because they were bad.  I loved them, but they definitely skied short.  That was perfect for my tree and bump skiing, but I had to work them harder than I thought I should in powder.  If I get a chance to get a cheap pair of these or aftershocks in the 174s, I'll definitely pick them up again!

 

Answering the question on wax retention.  Seemed the based needed new wax after about 3-5 days depending on conditions.  I never had a 1day turnaround.

Reply
post #18 of 20
9/27/12 at 6:18pm
Wax retention depends upon snow conditions AND wax/waxing techniques. Manmade snow takes almost any wax off in a full day of skiing.
Reply
post #19 of 20
9/28/12 at 4:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneale Brownson View Post

Wax retention depends upon snow conditions AND wax/waxing techniques. Manmade snow takes almost any wax off in a full day of skiing.


  That is true, but it also depends on the quality of the bases as far as how well they absorb wax. I was just wondering if the K2 bases are of the same quality as say Atomic, Blizzard, Fischer race skis

Reply
post #20 of 20
10/16/12 at 6:02am
The upper end K2 all-Mtn skis all use the best base material. I think they use P-tex 4000 which is the same base they've had for years.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews