Thinkin' maybe a new pair of Sideshows or Aftershocks (flat) is in order @ late season discounts. Beyond the specs, I'm wondering if those in the know can offer opinions on the differences in how they ski in various conditions, speeds, radii. Quick, stable, snappy, tip initiation, tail finish, etc.? I'm a technically strong, capable of but only sometimes inclined to hard charging, comfortable in all conditions and all but most the extreme (rock bands, cliffs, pillows) terrain. Like big GS turns in crud, tight trees, & anything away from crowds. If these skis aren't that practically different, might just have to go w/ the Stones graphics!
K2 Sideshow vs. Aftershock
- 98 Posts. Joined 2/2011
- Location: south Denver metro
- Select All Posts By This User
Just noticed your question. I ended up @ the end of last season getting Aftershocks in 181, just because of a somewhat good deal and in the mood to buy something that day. But still curious as well about comparing the two. Only found one sales person who claimed to have been on both and he failed miserably in providing a meaningful comparison. Can offer my first impressions after a couple of days on the Aftershocks in both hard & soft snow... Smooth & quiet & beefier than old Recons. Best in medium/long turns, but can go short & kind of quick when given some input. Good in bumps with a decent finish & set-up, but a bit lacking in springy get-go. Rounder softer flex takes away some authority in the finish, but very predictable. Very heavy.
From what little I could tell from shop-flexing the two together and then experiencing the Aftershock on snow, I would guess the following to maybe possibly be somewhat true ... (maybe there are some experts out there that can be more convincing)
They're a bit wider, the Sideshow might still be quicker and more fun for a 180#+ good skier -- similar soft tip & rocker to start but w/ lighter wt. & stiffer mid body & tail for more bite & crisper finish.
Possibly a toss-up in soft or weird snow. With its stiffness, Sideshow probably better in blasting thru tough stuff, & softer rounder Aftershock better for truly soft conditions & tight quarters. Can't believe the 4mm waist width difference means much in soft snow.
The Aftershocks are definitely ok & I'll maybe mostly use them this year. They're an adequate, solid but unexciting old guy ski. That should suit me fine if only I could get over the old guy part. Might still end up w/ some Sideshows if a decently discounted pair w/ Stones graphics appears. I think the extra uumff w/ the lighter weight would be good. One thing about many of the newish 'fatter skis' vs. old straight sticks is that fatter seems to mean more material & more weight. Most 180's +/- these days seem sooooo heavy compared to old straight skinny 205's. The Sideshows are lighter than many, and the Aftershocks are heavier than many.
But hey, if I've sold you on the Aftershocks, hey, hey, make me an offer. 181cm w/ two 1/2 days on 'em. Drilled for Marker Pistons & 305mm boot.
Thanks for the reply! I just put in a request for pricing from my job (a division of my company sells K2s so I get a discount). I used to buy 1 or 2 yr. old leftovers at some great prices but I want to see what kind of deal I can get so the timing of your response is perfect.
From what you said the Sideshow sounds like what I'm looking for more than the Aftershock (especially since my weight usually ranges from 195 to 220). These won't be my everyday ski as I'm in the northeast and there are times that I think I'll want to stick with my skinnier skis but I've definitely had plenty of days here where I would have preferred a wider waist and something better at blasting through crud.