Ski: K2 Omen Team

Reviewer height/weight: 6’2” / 175lbs

Ski weights (per ski): 2094/2098g

Length skied: 184

Actual length (with straight tape): 184.6cm

Dimensions: 125-96-119

Mounted: Team Recommended

Bindings: Pivot/FKS 18

Locations: KIMBOSESSIONS, Sunshine Village, Åre

Conditions skied: Spring park and sunset shoots!

Days Skied: 15+ (I lost count)

Photos: Chris Foote

Video: Chris German & Alex Ferreira

_

Intro

The K2 Poacher has been an absolute staple park/all-mountain skis for YEARS. A fan favorite, bombproof, blah blah blah. Great fucking ski. So, what are K2 doing replacing it with the Omen? Keep reading and you just might learn something.

The Poacher was a pretty burly ski, stiff but with a playfulness if you knew how to bend it - kind of like an ON3P in that regard, though with significantly mellower rocker lines. The shape was, in simple terms, “surfy” but somewhat heavy and took some skiing, maybe not the most ‘accessible’ ski to a lot of people. I think the reasoning behind redesigning this park ski in the K2 lineup as the Omen was to make a somewhat easier to ski model while retaining the aspects of the Poacher that we loved while modernizing aspects to fit in with changing trends in the industry.

For die hard fans of the Poacher, this ski may divide opinion, then again, you’ll still find used Poachers in the wild looking brand new - less can be said for fans of the Hellbent so count yourselves lucky there.

But the real question is, was it all worth it?

_

Shape/Flex/Construction

_

This isn't my home anymore

Unfortunately, I don’t have a pair of Poachers on hand to do a side-by-side comparison though the internet helped me pull some stats and the dimensions are near enough the same, as is the radius and weight.

"So what’s changed?" I can already hear you yelling.

Well, the core is the main thing, there are still carbon braids running through the Omen Team (here-on referred to as the Omen coz I’m lazy) as there were in the Poacher. However, they stop sooner on the Omen, where they have been milled out in the tips and tails than they did in the Poacher where they ran the full length (see below). The wood used in the Poacher was a double barrelled Fir / Aspen combo whereas the Omen is just an Aspen veneer leading to the lighter feeling ski and softer flex. The Omen still has a full sidewall so you can smack them into rails with reckless abandon like we know you will.

This is the key difference in the feel of these two skis. I would say the Omen feels less ‘planky’ than the Poacher - I don’t mean that to sound negative towards the Poacher because I loved it just the way it was. The Omen just feels lighter and softer immediately upon clicking in and in a hand flex. K2 lists the flex of each ski as an 8/10 on a scale of playful (1) to precise (10) whatever the hell that means. The flexes are not identical in any way.

To me, the Omen feels like a stiffer version of the new Chronics from Line, it has similar milled tips and tails to the Chronics too - for durability purposes. Comparisons come later down the line but this fits nicely between the 94 & 101 Chronic in the park ski landscape, as a slightly stiffer option.

_

Omen Team Core

Poacher Core

_

On Snow

This is always the hardest part of a park ski review in my opinion, they’re park skis first and foremost so on snow only really matters between features and riding to the bar. Plus, what are edges even for? I thought edging was a bedroom maneuver all these years…

Before I ruined these edges with a file at Unrailistic (thanks Wallisch) these were great fun. They have good energy in and out of turns and I felt like these would be a great all-mountain ski for those who maybe felt the Poacher was too much ski for them. Though as an all-mountain option, the Poacher still takes the biscuit here.

As I said in the intro these feel more accessible than the Poacher, more of an “anyone can jump on them and have a good time” kinda ski than your hardcore rail rat/jump jock bombproof send stick. Fear not, they still excel in that realm.

The TL:DR is: I took all the edges off. Put them sideways to go slower and straight to go faster.

Pizza, french fry, we’ve all been to ski school.

_

Chris Foote snapped some bangers at our sunset shoot at @ShredSSV

_

Park

While @curt_ has taken on a lot of our Roofbox Reviews for park skis recently, as the only member of the NS Staff that can consistently land a 2p2 it’s probably fitting. I’ll do my best here regardless.

I first rode these skis at Sunshine Village during our ski test. Every year, there’s one ski I get one and think, “this is the park ski of the year” and the Omen was just that - the testers may have disagreed with me as the Reckoner 102 pipped it to a BOT. Last year it was the Chronic 101 (see my review here). Even with Marker demo bindings, something just felt right, it’s a confidence inspiring ski and for me that’s a huge acid test. They only got better with a Pivot on... duh.

I digress, when I talk about a confidence-inspiring ski I mean that compared to for instance, my experience of the 1000 All Mountain ski. It made me second-guess my movements. I couldn't think about skiing when I was too busy thinking about the ski and what it was doing - twitching, grabbing, and hooking; mostly. The modest, but still present (thank god) taper in the sidecut combined with the surfy rocker lines we had in the Poacher mean I don’t hate this ski - sorry to any zero taper skis out there, I just don’t get it.

I rode rails, jumps, and did butters and they felt (again, in the best way possible) like any other park ski. Stiff when they needed to be and playful enough to butter. There’s more to them than skis like the Chronic 101 and Reckoner 102, which is why you’ll see much of the K2 team riding them during the comp season, and, for someone that doesn’t get on well with skis that are super noodley they're *tastes porridge* just right.

I landed my first ever 720 on them so they must be doing something right, whether it was the Kimbo magic, the ski, or Alex Ferreira hype man extraordinaire we’ll never know but they passed my tests with flying colors (which would be a good name for them given the graphic).

If I had to be critical it’s the fact I don’t have loads to say other than it’s another great park ski, and that is the problem. Where’s the pizzazz? Does it have a certain something, a je nais se quoi? Does it make you say ‘holy fuck what is that?’ - maybe that wasn’t the Poacher either but it sat in its own lane, adored by many, and didn’t need to be replaced. That being said, I’ll be skiing this ski until another park ski shows up at my door or I break it because they are awesome.

_

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/1101143/Omen-Kimbo-Clips-mp4

You either die posting horizontal clips or live long enough to see yourself post them vertical.

_

Durability

I can't be accused of having a delicate touch in many regards in life, and it certainly isn't my strong suit on skis and as such I have an edge-cracking tendency. So far, so good on these. I will likely have these as my go-to park ski for this winter so I will update if I ever blow these up.

_

Comparisons

Poacher

This is the key comparison and I think I’ve covered most of the differences between the two skis at length throughout this article. The buzzwords are, it’s lighter, softer and easier to ski but still got a lot of that Poacher DNA we know and love. If you liked the Poacher, you’ll love this ski, unless you really NEEDED that stiffness. Your knees might even thank you.

Line Chronic 101/94

I’d say the Omen is more like the 101 than the 94 despite being closer in underfoot width to the 94. The 101 feels like a perfect park ski to me. Maaaaybe lacking a little bit of stiffness throughout and that’s where the Omen really pips it in my eyes, it just has a bit more to it underfoot and has a little bit more stompability than the 101. Although I’ve held on to a few wheelies on the 101 I’d trust the Omen a bit more to go bigger. If you’re torn between the two, the Chronic 101 is more of a playful jibber than the Omen. The 94 is more of an out-and-out park ski in my eyes.

K2 Reckoner 102

See Chronic 101 vs Omen, the Reckoner 102 is very similar to the Chronic except maybe even softer and lighter. I think you can decide if the Reckoner or the Omen is right for you without too much handholding here.

Volkl Revolt 90

The Revolt 90 was another park ski I absolutely loved, this is stiffer and narrower than the Omen, ‘traditional’ as park skis go. It feels more like that burly freestyle plank, similar to the OG poacher only narrower, than the Omen and would be my pick for hardpack, icy jump days over the Omen. Once the Revolt broke in past its super stiff out-of-the-box feel it was near enough perfect.

_

Conclusion

K2 know what they’re doing. The Omen is another testament to that. I can’t say that die-hard fans of the Poacher won’t feel the world of park skis lost a GOAT when it was discontinued - I lament it too - and if I had one criticism of this ski it would be that K2 made it too generic.

There are so many skis out there that do what this ski does already and not many that do what the Poacher did. So my question is, “What’s the point?” The Poacher may be outdated and heavy, but so is the Hellbent and we miss that ski. Every. Single. Day.

Yes, I loved this ski (and maybe I’m getting too philosophical about planks of wood) but let’s keep the shapes that are different and not for everyone because that’s what makes skiing so interesting. The plethora of styles and preferences require a plethora of designs, not more of the same. Brands are making skis that are for everyone and therefore no one in particular and while the Omen does a good job of replacing the Poacher, it's a more modern ski, but did it need replacing in the first place? That's for you to decide.