The theoretical narrow protest/arg/dps 138 gangrush praxis thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

I have to admit, the sick curiosity of just how narrow the shape holds up in deep snow has me curious.

---

I skied the Monarch (96 waist, narrow tip/tail) on a couple pow days and I can say this:

I'd rather have a narrow rockered ski than a wide cambered ski in pow. No contest.

The Monarch sank farther into the snow than my One Lifes, but they didn't ski much differently than any other rockered ski. The differences are that you're more likely to be on the bottom (due to less float), and you have to be going faster to get a slarve going. (Both obvious consequences of less surface area)

The reason I like <100 waist is that 110+ tends to be chattery and ankle-torquey on ice, and therefore is not a true all-around ski IMO. OTOH, <92 waist sinks too far into the snow. So I find 92-98mm to be the sweet spot for an all-conditions ski.

As I said, Monarchs would be perfect if they were straighter. Shave down the tip/tail and we're there.

Just found this and am interested. I think I would prefer -15 in a 196cm length. 187cm not a deal breaker and would be lighter anyways. I been waiting to get some praxi's for a while now after seeing the build quality, meeting Keith at Alpine and fondling mcpheets 196 protests this last week.
I think these could fit nicely into my quiver.
I would be mounting them with sollyfits to increase versatility and make sure dynafits don't rip out. I know kidwoo mentioned that as one of his issues with wider skis and with mounting to carbon skis I was to concerned from a few threads. I really like how wide they spread the mount pattern and being able to go solly or dynafit means most of my skis only see one mount for life or when sold.

What is the point to a skinny pow ski? If it isn't 115ish underfoot it is a deal breaker. Skinny=No Float

skinny is no float look at the -20mm photo... how is that skinny? what makes 108mm underfoot skinny? look at what is being taken away = not very much... it is still pretty fat! peeps are still hung up on numbers...

you'd have to be a huge dude to not make a tapered, fully rockered 113-115mm ski not float.

Please add me to the certainly in list.

-15 sounds good to me.

Love my protests and having a ski like this really would be brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDon

What is the point to a skinny pow ski? If it isn't 115ish underfoot it is a deal breaker. Skinny=No Float

---

*sigh*

Quit looking at JUST the waist and making conclusions. The whole reason I'm doing this is because I KNOW the shape gives it float without having to be so wide. There's no question in my mind that this shape in a 113 waist will float better than ANY even remotely traditionally shaped ski with the same waist width. If it really scares you that much, stay with 115+ waist skis that need a huge shovel 20-30mm wider just to float at all. That's so 2000's man ;)

The fact that you even bring it up makes me think I STILL haven't sufficiently explained what and why this ski is, or you're just not reading the whole thread. You think the CRJs don't float?

I guess my other feeling would be could we have less sidecut. Like do the dims from the older protest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xtrmjoe

Just found this and am interested. I think I would prefer -15 in a 196cm length.

---

Me too, however can't imagine we would get 8 or so people interested at 196.

Current suggestion from kidwoo:

(Current) (-10) (-13) (-15)
139 129 126 124
128 118 115 113
132 122 119 117

This might be over thinking it but a change I didn't like in this years protest was the extra side cut so I would vote for this:

124
115
117

Basically the -15 with the -13 waist. Won't make a huge difference but with the long taper and therefore the short distance between the wide points that bound the sidecut it would change the turning radius a bit.

Just got done emailing Keith.

Price for the skis will be $540 merikkan. That includes the carbon, the same badass construction that Praxis is known for (that somehow still gets better every year), and a January finish date.

That's a pretty awesome deal in my opinion. And if you're playing hacky sack with what I've been dropping in this thread, then you know you'll have a ski that's better for the given application in several key areas, than anything else out there right now. If you're not familiar with Keith's flex patterns, the best way to describe them is 'just about right'. They're not unwieldy planks, they're not noodles, they're a good example of a solid medium flex that holds up to damping out chatter while still conforming to input in tight places. Think progressive flex dynastars without the weight. Oh yeah......I've still never picked up a Praxis ski that I thought wasn't insanely light for its size. All of this is part of the reason I wanted this ski to come from the Praxis shop. If you know anybody with a pair of any model, go check them out. I'm not a gram counter so that's as scientific as I'm going to get with the weight estimation. If you get them and have ANY complaints about the weight, I'll be extremely surprised. Remember.....I'm using these exclusively for hiking. Keith might be able to give you a close estimate, but no one knows for sure yet since it doesn't exist.

The size is going to be -15 all around off the current model. That's the 124-113-117 version. Keith said he's had a handful of people that are interested in a 196/197 email him. He's down to do a run if there is enough interest. The 187 is definitely happening based on the PMs I've gotten and some of the interest here.

What that means at this point: If you're down with the idea, and want a pair, go ahead and shoot Keith an email (keith<at>praxisskis{dot}com). Even if you've told me you want a pair, make sure you send him an email. Rather than me jockey around the interest, it's just easier to go straight to the source if you're ready to commit. He's expecting it.

Since everyone is taking kind of a chance on this idea, I really want everyone to know what they're getting and what to expect. If ANYTHING comes up as far as changes I'll speak up.

Thanks a bunch for all the interest y'all! Can't wait to ski on this thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliBrit

Current suggestion from kidwoo:

(Current) (-10) (-13) (-15)
139 129 126 124
128 118 115 113
132 122 119 117

This might be over thinking it but a change I didn't like in this years protest was the extra side cut so I would vote for this:

124
115
117

Basically the -15 with the -13 waist. Won't make a huge difference but with the long taper and therefore the short distance between the wide points that bound the sidecut it would change the turning radius a bit.

---

When I first got this wild hair up my ass, the current shape didn't exist so everything I was asking for was based off the Old protest which is really close to what you're describing. Check the 2012 praxis thread, I even put up a post bitching and moaning about the increased sidecut. After seeing the current ski in person, it's really not that big of a deal. There's still barely any sidecut there and it does arc out at 30m in the 187 (32 in the 196). I think the old one was like 40m though, it WAS straighter. Keith asked me if I wanted to do the old design and my thoughts on it were that, Drew wanted to make the change, it's his ski, and making a deviant of what's already in production would be easier than going back to something that hasn't been pressed in over a year. Plus if it takes off, it can literally be sold as (the same ski we already make, just narrower). With the popularity of the JJs and s7 shapes, just having ANY sidecut seemed like it would be easier to swallow for anyone that needed convincing than one or two mm of sidecut like the old one. Considering this has skinning in mind, you actually DO get a tad more edge contact for icy skinning without going anywhere near the snowblade crap of the JJ/s7 shapes. It's not all bad.

Have you skied both versions of the protest? The few people I know who have sounded like they still think the new one is the best pow ski they've ever been on. After seeing it, I kind of felt like I was making a big deal out of nothing.

If everyone that is serious about getting a pair wants that extra 2mm, I'm sure we could make it happen. I really don't care either way, I just picked the new one because I thought the change was minor and it would be easier to get it made. It's one of those things that either way, I'll learn how to ski either version and either version still accomplishes the overall goal.

kwoo leading the charge, hope my humble purchase from keiths shop helps in your technological pursuit of the perfect ride. i'm gonna float the life into my new rx. whether it wants to or not. keep thinking bro i like
bobbyf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

When I first got this wild hair up my ass, the current shape didn't exist so everything I was asking for was based off the Old protest which is really close to what you're describing. Check the 2012 praxis thread, I even put up a post bitching and moaning about the increased sidecut. After seeing the current ski in person, it's really not that big of a deal. There's still barely any sidecut there and it does arc out at 30m in the 187 (32 in the 196). I think the old one was like 40m though, it WAS straighter. Keith asked me if I wanted to do the old design and my thoughts on it were that, Drew wanted to make the change, it's his ski, and making a deviant of what's already in production would be easier than going back to something that hasn't been pressed in over a year. Plus if it takes off, it can literally be sold as (the same ski we already make, just narrower). With the popularity of the JJs and s7 shapes, just having ANY sidecut seemed like it would be easier to swallow for anyone that needed convincing than one or two mm of sidecut like the old one. Considering this has skinning in mind, you actually DO get a tad more edge contact for icy skinning without going anywhere near the snowblade crap of the JJ/s7 shapes. It's not all bad.

Have you skied both versions of the protest? The few people I know who have sounded like they still think the new one is the best pow ski they've ever been on. After seeing it, I kind of felt like I was making a big deal out of nothing.

If everyone that is serious about getting a pair wants that extra 2mm, I'm sure we could make it happen. I really don't care either way, I just picked the new one because I thought the change was minor and it would be easier to get it made. It's one of those things that either way, I'll learn how to ski either version and either version still accomplishes the overall goal.

---

Hear what you are saying. I am sure it is not a big deal. If others are interested in my dims shout out. Otherwise I am happy to go with the norm.

I could go for either version. 2mm more sidecut for icy skinning sounds better, but then again i'm a shitty skinner so i need all the help i can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VC

Me too, however can't imagine we would get 8 or so people interested at 196.

---

I emailed Keith so that's one more vote closer for the 196 to happen.

@VC and @ xtrmjoe, i got an email from Keith earlier and he said if another 6 or so commit to the 196, he would do it. i guess that means we need 4 or so more folks to want a 196.

kidwoo, this is rad. Narrower than I was hoping for, but very cool that you got this rolling and props to Keith for hooking it up. Going to think about it, decide between this and the regular Protests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i don;t ski 138's 50-75 days a year for the last 5 years on lotus 138's because it snows a 900" in colorado. i ski them 75 days a year because they rule windslab, sun effect, wind scoured funkiness, that are everyday conditions in colorado. trust me, i get you. i just don't see why i would want them any narrower.

---

Not to throw this thread off track, but my I reaction after reading page 1:

After starting to read through this thread, I can't help but do concur with Marshal. This is, and has been, my go-to pow touring ski w dynafits for the last three years. Don't get me wrong, there are other skis in the quiver for ski mountaineering but for pow, no question.

When I'm not on this set-up while in he bc, I usually wonder/fucking kicking myself why I went out w something else. This something else in my quiver is no camber w tip rocker.

Bringing down the waist 1 - 1.5cm may be interesting for added performance in less than ideal conditions and added comfort while skinning in pre-set skin tracks... But. The only BC condition that the 138 does not "win" is ~4 to 6" on crust/ice which we luckily don't get much of in the PNW.

But, if you talk it up enough and put a video on the internet while rippin' the shit, I may buy it:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foreal

When I'm not on this set-up while in he bc, I usually wonder/fucking kicking myself why I went out w something else. This something else in my quiver is no camber w tip rocker.

---

Well considering there are like 4 skis that even have a shape like this, you still have no idea how much is due to just surface area and how much is due to shape. Because all of them are about the same width too. It's not a 'there's something better than your lotus in the bc', it's 'I bet there's something almost as good as your lotus that's way eaiser to hike on and edge over on ice'. You and I both know that even on many of those days when your lotus is by far the best ski in your quiver, even your buddies on skinnier skis aren't sinking much more than you. But you can out-turn all of them with way less effort because of the shape of your lotus. I know what the snow does up there.

I'm kind of done explaining the reasoning behind this to be honest. If you want to try it, cool. If not, no biggie. But just speaking for me personally, I'm about two years past being talked out of it. It really is an old topic with me and I've given it plenty of thought. But I can tell you for a fact that you don't need ginormous surface area to ski on settled pow. Especially high moisture settled pow. It's on the magnitude of millimeters from skis that already exist and work fine, and shaped even better. It's really not that big of a mental leap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bouguer

you'd have to be a huge dude to not make a tapered, fully rockered 113-115mm ski not float.

---

Ya you're right I was smoking...


So is it going to have the same rocker profile as the protest? Where will the rocker start at the taper points in front and behind the boot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDon

Ya you're right I was smoking...


So is it going to have the same rocker profile as the protest? Where will the rocker start at the taper points in front and behind the boot?

---

Yup, same camber/longrise. About the ONLY thing I'm thinking about tweaking is the flat/tiny camber length underfoot for more skin contact. Like half an inch each side of the foot at most. I'm still waiting on Keith's opinion on this (and how much of a pain it is to redo the press). I know people that skin on the current protest and obviously know OF lots that use the 138s from here without griping..... but the contact length is about the only thing I see as maybe in need of improvement. I don't want to screw with it too much though because that's a big part of why the normal version rules so hard. It won't be much if at all. The transtions into the taper zones are really really mellow on this ski and a little more 'vague' than some others. I 'think' that gives a little more room to do this without changing how the ski behaves when leaned over in weird snow.

edit: Oh yeah...and a tiny flat spot on the tails for skins.

Good thread. I've skied and toured on the og protests since 2009. A killer ski for all the funky snow we get while touring here in scandinavia. When you have a run that includes steep pow via windblown chalk and breakable crust and ends up in wet soggy deep snow in the trees, there is no better shape to be on.

However the weight and ankle torquing forces can be tough on the way up. A skinnier, lighter protest sounds like a winner to me. 187 is more than long enough for touring (at least for me at 180cm)

Ok. Now that the trivial stuff is dealt with, let's move on to what really matters: graphics.

^^ I'm really, really hoping for those sexy pure-black topsheets.

Not a dealbreaker or anything obviously, but I think they are easily the best Praxis graphics. Plus, it makes sense to have different graphics than the current Praxis offerings.

From the Praxis thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikemcee

Figured I ought to cross post a couple of pictures from the paper mount thread.. Praxis goodness at it's finest. Thanks Keith.

Toes done and a quick dry mount double check before drilling the heels:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/c...e/39b2284e.jpg

Drill, glue, and screw. Plum's on Concept's.
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/c...e/43f839df.jpg

---