There has been a distinct Pro and rep culture within K2 for some years - passing around "cool" versions or prototypes, made at what amounts to their own pro ski lab. By gearheads and pro skiers in the fold. It's a real culture my friend shares in, is very loyal to. These guys ski together, hang out together, can't wait to get on the latest prototypes together, to test them, refine them, mess with them, share about them - and ski them endlessly. A culture of guys and gals who live and breathe skiing, almost 24/7. Day in, day out. And feel lucky to do this for a living. Heck, most of the associates may get free skis, free lodging also now and then at shows, testing times and demos, but don't get paid a whole lot for much of it. If the K2 folks in Colorado are representative of the rest of the country also, this has become an almost underground K2 subculture that focuses in a few ski towns all over. And it goes back to the likes of Seth, Sean and Pep Fujas, and skiers who grew up modeling after those guys and their videos. Did I mention a lot of enthusiasm among these folks? And they want proto skis they like for themselves and friends, not just skis that might sell.
It seems like this is just a hot bed of innovation and fun, potentially, and it's depended on prototypes of skis that have seen limited production that at the same time is very responsive to input from their skiers, very naturally now spilling over into a shared experience with a wider bunch of participants, seems like.
I think this distinct K2 subculture is what's driving this new enterprise, very likely (or mostly). It's a bit of a throw back to - or carry over from - their emphasis on an insider community of pros whom they at least used to publicize.
*******
To me, it may be the insider quality or thread through it all, that may be both a strength and a weakness for K2 over the years. Ever since I got to know my K2 associate friend, I've known of insider tips about mount points and tuning that the K2 pros would use, that are not marked on the skis or in their literature as suggestions. In particular, so few people ever got to know how really amazing some K2 fat skis were, since if one mounted most of those skis on the recommended lines, the skis were no where near as good as when mounted according to the insider tips of the K2 pros.
The Pinnacle 105, for a more recent example, really almost required detuning of some sort from the contact points forward: otherwise it could be dangerously hooky. The latest Mindbenders are no exception: some of them (the MB 108, for example) do best very specifically for certain skier sizes, and at certain mounts depending on skier size, and also often like similar detuning.
Going further back, most folks missed how good the last, wide Obsethed was at 116 waist, and what a breakthrough that particular ski was, because the right mount points were almost esoteric insider info, wildly different from recommended. Same with the incredible K2 Pettitor. Even Blistergear missed completely how good that ski was, how right up their alley, for want of the right, pretty extreme mount points. (The ski is almost unskiable at the suggested mount point, and requires being mounted at almost extreme forward mounts, at least +3, and better at +4 or even +4.5, depending.) But who knew? Is that any way to sell a ski? (This reminds me a bit of the similar Rossi insider or secret Black Ops culture of their leading freestyle pros, not revealing the specs of their secret Black Ops ski.)
K2 did not widely acknowledge or publicize any of this, seems like. Maybe not such a good way to get out the word about how good their skis are. And for years I've been trying off and on also - out of pure appreciation for good skis, that have made a difference in my skiing.