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

This is a ski I've wanted ever since owning the original praxis protests. I and most who have skied on these things love them, but don't want to hike or traverse sketchy skinning zones with skis quite that wide. The shape works but no one makes a narrower version. The lotus 138 and Armada Arg share similar design concepts but again........no one makes narrow versions.

What I'd like to do is see who would be interested in this ski and maybe approach Praxis about doing a run. Even here locally a few people have said they'd be interested in owning a pair. But first it would be a good idea to even see if there are enough people to make it worth Keith's time. That means BUYING A PAIR. Assume normal praxis costs at best.

Here's the diatribe.

Quote:

---

In a nutshell:
Why the protest rules

1: LONG Tapered tip and tail. Anyone who's ridden a spatula, praxis powder, armada arg, normal protest or similar knows that with the widest portion of the ski underfoot or just in front of it, there's no reason for the tip to get wider. You get float. In fact, making the tip narrower towards the end keeps the ski from hooking in crust, sierra cement, old warm rotten pow styrofoam windboard........whatever. This along with rocker also moves the pivot point under foot so you're smearing rather that pivoting around the front of the ski. Everyone who's skied spatulas knows this and everyone knows what smearing turns is at this point. Truly god's gift to tree skiing and techy pillow lines. And by god I mean mckonkey

2. NO STUPID SIDECUT. This where every single ski company but a very few have fucked it all up. Skiing spatulas on hard snow sucks balls. You have to stay on your heels and ride the tails to get some edge contact while turning. No one denies this and that's where skis like the dp lotus 138, armada arg, and praxis protest got it right. Even just that little bit of sidecut means you can chill out on your shins while crusing around on hard snow rather than constantly finding the weird safe zone on a full reverse/reverse. Where everyone blows it (IMO) is when they try to put the same sidecut dimensions as a 'normal' ski crammed into a short space to maintain tip and tail taper. That's where you get the sub 20m radii like the JJ, S7, rp112. Is it a powder ski or a fucking snowblade? It's both! It's "playing it safe" by sticking with familiar sidecut dimensions but those same dimensions get stupid with you shorten the length of where that widest tail, underfoot, widest tip points now span to keep them within the tapered parts of the ski. It completely ignores one of the big lessons of the spatula. Taper and rocker? Sure? A completely new way of thinking about sidecut? "Whoa hold on now, I don't know about that.......sounds scary"

Part of the reason that skis like the OG gotama, the dynastar XXL, the volkl explosiv and some others were popular is because they're really straight. It's not a reverse sidecut but it's closer to a reverse sidecut than what's on an S7/JJ etc. So even a traditional old straight ski is closer to not hooking than a lot of what's sold as 'powder skis' these days.

I bring all this up because even the popular Hjorleifsalphabet 4frnt skis take the rocker, take a TAD of the taper, but maintain a big turning radius by keeping the wide points out by the end. This gets rid of some of the stupid snowblade behavior on harder snow for sure. But in crusty, grabby natural snow, they're still just a little hooky without the extended long taper. I like skis like this (way more than the S7 style) but I think the hoji sounds so far like it's pretty much in the same vein as the EHP and Wren. Not a bad thing but not what I'm talking about.

---

Quote:

---

You can achieve great float with shape and rocker, you don't need the tip to be exponentially wider than the underfoot.

ANYONE who skied on spatulas ten fvcking years ago should know this. EVERY single bit of ski in front of the foot was NARROWER than what was underfoot.

Here are the old protest measurements.

132-137-130-131-124

Really similar to an ARG/Lotus 138.

The widest part of the ski is 7 freakin millimeters wider than the underfoot portion. And it's not that far out in front of it either......it's certainly not at the tip. Both the ARG and the lotus 138 are TWO freakin mm wider in front of the foot. Anybody want to bitch about how an ARG or Protest or Lotus 138 floats in pow?

Yeah I didn't think so.

---

What I'm thinking is literally just a narrowed down protest. The dimensions I threw around in the other thread were 123-115-117. Flat to VERY minimal camber underfoot just to give skins some grip. Rockered and tapered all to hell just like the 3 skis I mentioned (ARG, Protest, DPS138).

This would be a new cut though so there may be a little variation on those numbers depending on how much work is involved in prototyping. But who's down? Rather: Who's down to put MONEY down? Think of this as a potential group buy :D

There's the White Dot Director: http://www.whitedotusa.com/store/the-director.html

Dims: 117-121/107/111-107

That tip may be a bit wider than what you're looking for but is definitely nothing extreme. I find a slightly more carving sidecut helps in conditions where you'd want a narrower ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butterscotch

I think 130-119-123 would be money in a 183-189 cm length, same carbon layup as the current protest, get the weight down to less than 9 lbs. That's a very tempting ski.

---

Certainly in the ballpark. Since Keith should already have those numbers for the smaller protest, that may be the most likely scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D(C)

There's the White Dot Director: http://www.whitedotusa.com/store/the-director.html

Dims: 117-121/107/111-107

That tip may be a bit wider than what you're looking for but is definitely nothing extreme. I find a slightly more carving sidecut helps in conditions where you'd want a narrower ski.

---

It's not that I'm opposed to a wide nose........it's what a wide nose coupled with a narrower underfoot measurement produces when the sidecut is compacted.

Quote:

---

Radius: 19m, 21.5m, 27m

---

And that's a lot of money for skis I can't see first. Good find though. If that were made locally I'd definitely be checking them out.

^^^
27 m radius is on a 188 with a 100 cm sidecut length. That's a pretty large radius for such a short sidecut length.

I'd be pretty interested to give these a try if there was a pair to use locally.

I feel like it's a bit unfair to call the 112RPs, S7s, JJs, etc. a pure powder ski. I didn't buy 112RPs as pure powder skis, I bought them because they are all mountain skis that I can be happy on in 95% of conditions including groomers, chop, etc. and they just happen to be really fun in powder as well. I feel like some sidecut is important to carve in non-powder conditions. I'm not advocating a BBR, I just don't think sidecut is so bad for an all mountain ski.

If you're looking for a pure backcountry ski, well I guess that's a different matter.

FWIW, I have previously owned Praxis Powders and Big Mountain 120s in the past. Powders were a shitload of fun. 192 Big Mountains were a bit too stiff (for my weight) and not enough rocker. I think those got slightly modified and turned into the Protests? Anyway, I eventually sold both because they weren't versatile enough for me.

I do feel like what you're describing would make a sweet winter touring rig.

edit: OG Gotamas are hardly straight either. Likely still my favorite skis of all time, but 133 / 105 / 124 is hardly straight (google says 23.5m radius in the 176, so maybe a bit longer in the 183)

Now it says they are R/R w/ a progressive radius but looking at the tech specs it looks like there is a long flat section under foot in both camber and shape. It would be nice to actually see one in hand. Take a look and the DownSkis thread and look at the Countdown V

What about the Hoji?

EHP has a 40m radius

kidwoo, you're going to have to copy the last three pages of the Praxis 2011/2012 thread in here.

Most the known skis (Hoji, Ren, EHP, Lotus 120, etc) have been discussed and shot down by kidwoo there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfree

I feel like it's a bit unfair to call the 112RPs, S7s, JJs, etc. a pure powder ski.

---

Yeah that big wide rockered shovel on them are obviously for hardpack. ;) I skied on JJs all last year. They only thing they do well is powder IMO. They do it well, don't get me wrong. But I don't need or want snow blades when I hit a firm zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfree

133 / 105 / 124 is hardly straight (google says 23.5m radius in the 176, so maybe a bit longer in the 183)

---

That's the second gen gotamas. The white and then gold ones that were gayer than the og black ones. I have two pairs of OGs in my garage.


So right now I have ZERO for a tally of who would be interested in these things. Where are all you guys from the other thread?:tongue:

Well, I'd be interested, but I'm way over on my budget for new skis this year. Would be interested in a pair for next season, though. :rolleyes2

I'd also be interested but I cant commit to paying right now so I was trying to stay our of it. I need to go back and look at why you said the ehp wasnt right for what you want. I also am interested in the countdown Vs. To me I'd be happy with just a straight section for say 50cms followed by tapering in. You really aren't going to use the sidecut of a ski like an ARG, its just there to make it better than a praxis pow/spatula. Why not just have it straight and maybe 20-30cms of flat under foot or a reverse camber that isn't too exaggerated throughout the ski. I have some 192 bros with the absolute slightest bit of reverse camber/rocker (one of each cause of dumb early season stuff) they work on edge and still retain the pivotability that rocker brings about. I've sorta been following your comments in that thread because its similar to what I have been mentally working toward as the ski I want for touring in all conditions.

I'd be interested depending on where the numbers ended. Although I agree with what you are asking for KW, there is enough variation I'm not sure.

If its nearly 120mm under foot, I'm probably out. The more I think about this, the more I want something closer to 110 under foot.

I'll throw my design ideals into the ring:

108-112 under foot
<130 wide point
28-35M sidecut (yes, I probably want more sidecut than most of you)
Tail to match side cut
taper similar to protest
rocker profile similar to protest
total splay similar to protest
7/10 flex

Idea is a ski you can tour on, crushes it in bounds, doesn't hook, stable/predictable in firm snow. What I'm willing to give up the the ability to make short radius carves on a groomer. I don't give a shit about this!

EDIT: Put another way, I often wish for a DPS 112 that is pinched ~11-12mm in the shovel, total splay reduced (this is big for me), same running length, similar reduction in width to the tail, move the mount point and taper point of the tip up 1.5CM. DONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

Stuff

---

The EHP starts the taper a few inches from the ends of the ski. What I'm talking about starts the taper just outside the boot print. Go find any of the three skis I'm using as an example, hold them edge to edge both facing and you'll see what I mean. It's the ultimate UNhook setup.

Straight underfoot would be fine with me but that's even harder to talk people into. But a few mm of sidecut isn't going to vary from 'straight' that much. The numbers I listed aren't a huge departure from what's already out there.......it's just a narrower ski than what's out there. You know.....for hiking!

Before anyone else mentions skis that obviously are well known, read what I'm actually saying. Not all 'tapered skis' are anywhere near the same shape. Most are just half ass tapered. Half ass taper is fine but still doesn't give the same feel as running that taper all the way back to the foot area. A fully tapered ski is the spat or praxis pow. What I'm talking about is much closer to the pow or spat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

EDIT: Put another way, I often wish for a DPS 112 that is pinched ~11-12mm in the shovel, total splay reduced (this is big for me), same running length, similar reduction in width to the tail, move the mount point and taper point of the tip up 1.5CM. DONE.

---

Same goals for sure. All I could ever think while skiing those JJs is that I'd love to pinch the widest tip and widest tail measurements in. But that's the protest if you do it enough. The taper on those skis is rad. The significant difference between widest tip point/widest tail point and under foot is what sucked....just like so many other skis.

What do you think of the 123-115-117 numbers? That would be my personal 'ideal'

Looking at the DPS 112 and the JJs sitting in my living room side by side, there's a big difference in taper, ie, where the widest point of the shovel is. I think I'm more interested in the shape of the JJ with less sidecut (as per kidwoo's post above) than I am in a DPS 112 w/ less sidecut. Oh, and at the weight of the 112. :biggrin:

EDIT: Gah, I missed the last few words JefferyJim's post. I do think the taper of the 112 needs to be moved towards the boot more than a few cm though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Yeah that big wide rockered shovel on them are obviously for hardpack. ;) I skied on JJs all last year. They only thing they do well is powder IMO. They do it well, don't get me wrong. But I don't need or want snow blades when I hit a firm zone.



That's the second gen gotamas. The white and then gold ones that were gayer than the og black ones. I have two pairs of OGs in my garage.


So right now I have ZERO for a tally of who would be interested in these things. Where are all you guys from the other thread?:tongue:

---

Fair enough, make that 130-105-122. Still tons of sidecut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuco

Now it says they are R/R w/ a progressive radius but looking at the tech specs it looks like there is a long flat section under foot in both camber and shape. It would be nice to actually see one in hand. Take a look and the DownSkis thread and look at the Countdown V

---

No interest in a true reverse sidecut. I owned two of them. Not a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfree

Fair enough, make that 130-105-122. Still tons of sidecut.

---

129-105-121....I just measured. :D

Still though......that's actually straighter than a lot of what was out there at the time.

You know what I was getting at.

Now point out how explosivs and xxls have sidecut too.

The widest point of all those skis I mentioned is at the absolute tip and tail. Hence big turn radius and gradual contrast between narrowest and widest points. You understand my point.

interesting thread. i personally want to build a lotus "127" that is basically a lotus 138, everywhere, but with a 127mm waist, and therefore a ~27-30m radius.

you are talking about making basically the exact same ski, but scaling it back everywhere to get to 110-115mm in the waist? interesting. still trying to understand why you want to intentionally design a mid-fat type ski that sucks at carving, but i see where your mind is with it, to some degree.

That radius is derived from a sidecut that is how long in length underfoot, marshal?
Are you suggesting that kidwoo should put some sidecut in the straight spot underfoot?

kidwoo- if you have some time, mind putting together an idea of what you mean with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

interesting thread. i personally want to build a lotus "127" that is basically a lotus 138, everywhere, but with a 127mm waist, and therefore a ~27-30m radius.

---

Why fuck with the shape though? (proportions I mean). Then you really start approaching what other people are making. Not a bad thing but if someone made the ski I'm talking about, I'd buy it, not be making stupid threads like this. Thinning up JUST the waist of the 138 would bring you pretty close to the JJ/S7 realm no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

Still trying to understand why you want to intentionally design a mid-fat type ski that sucks at carving, but i see where your mind is with it, to some degree.

---

Maybe I wasn't clear on this. I don't really care about 'carving'. Give me 1 inch of good wet snow and I'll make any shape turn you want :D Skis good at 'carving' already exist. Narrower skis that crush crust, and super setup cream cheese pow don't. I know you've skied super tapered skis in weird snow....it's like it doesn't even matter. Those skis only exist in wider incarnations and I don't want to put dynafits on them. Quit paying attention to only the waist measurement and the 'midfat' junk that goes along with one measurement. I'm talking about a winter and funky snow specific ski.....because of the shape and rocker profile, not just the width. See where I'm going here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

kidwoo- if you have some time, mind putting together an idea of what you mean with this?

---

Holy shit that program is annoying.

Just draw up a protest and subtract 10-15mm all around. That's the general idea. I can't figure out how to move the widest point of the tip further back on the ski with that program. The shapes it DID give me were pretty friggin funny though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

still trying to understand why you want to intentionally design a mid-fat type ski that sucks at carving, but i see where your mind is with it, to some degree.

---

Because you don't go touring for several hours to carve on firm conditions.

The Kid wants it narrower and lighter for touring (well he keeps saying hiking but we know he means touring).

dont have a need, but love the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

interesting thread. i personally want to build a lotus "127" that is basically a lotus 138, everywhere, but with a 127mm waist, and therefore a ~27-30m radius.

you are talking about making basically the exact same ski, but scaling it back everywhere to get to 110-115mm in the waist? interesting. still trying to understand why you want to intentionally design a mid-fat type ski that sucks at carving, but i see where your mind is with it, to some degree.

---

ive had some smaller friends jump on my 138s and while the length is fine, the width is just too much for their body weight. Something with the same shape but 115ish underfoot would bridge the gap. Personally, a few times every year when the snow is light and deep without any hardpack in sight i pull out my spats because they maintain the reverse/reverse feeling i love, but the smaller surface area allows me to get deeper more consistently.

also love the idea of a lotus127 for nothing else then being able to actually fit in normal skintracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Why fuck with the shape though? (proportions I mean). Then you really start approaching what other people are making. Not a bad thing but if someone made the ski I'm talking about, I'd buy it, not be making stupid threads like this. Thinning up JUST the waist of the 138 would bring you pretty close to the JJ/S7 realm no?

---

nah, man, not even close to a w112/jj/s7/etc. more like a way more tapered protest.

splat - aboutt 90cm of effective edge. give or take, i guess.

Quote:

---

Maybe I wasn't clear on this. I don't really care about 'carving'. Give me 1 inch of good wet snow and I'll make any shape turn you want :D Skis good at 'carving' already exist. Narrower skis that crush crust, and super setup cream cheese pow don't. I know you've skied super tapered skis in weird snow....it's like it doesn't even matter. Those skis only exist in wider incarnations and I don't want to put dynafits on them. Quit paying attention to only the waist measurement and the 'midfat' junk that goes along with one measurement. I'm talking about a winter and funky snow specific ski.....because of the shape and rocker profile, not just the width. See where I'm going here?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

nah, man, not even close to a w112/jj/s7/etc. more like a way more tapered protest. .

---

I misunderstood you then. It sounded like of these dimensions from dps

# dimensions: 125/140/138/139/108, you wanted to JUST narrow the 138 to make 125/140/127/139/108

The wide tip point is then 13mm wider than the waist and the tail is 12mm wider. That's good bit of sidecut added. You're right it's actually closer to a crj or a new school protest than anything. Definitely the same direction I'm thinking. Just cut down on that difference in the tail and I'll buy them.

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.

---

Right but those skis don't rule windboard because they're fat. They rule windboard because of their SHAPE. You don't need all that surface area to float on windboard, super scour or heavy sun effect.....it's the SHAPE that kills it, not the surface area. Much skinner skis stay on top just as well on those types of snow......they just turn like shit because they're shaped for groomers. The 138 isn't. See what I'm saying? I can ski on scott schmitty sticks and not feel like I'm 'sinking' on windboard. I'm just saying you can take a good portion of why all these skis rule so hard in funky conditions, make a little narrower, and it will still rule in all those conditions. The only thing you sacrifice is maybe a tad of flotation in zero percent 6 ft deep poofter snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shirk

Because you don't go touring for several hours to carve on firm conditions.

The Kid wants it narrower and lighter for touring (well he keeps saying hiking but we know he means touring).

---

Walking around for hours with adhesive lint brushes on your skis so that you can take them off later and ski down.

Whatever that's called these days. Sure feels like hiking. Touring to me means going someplace. Sometimes I just go up and down in the same place :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Right but those skis don't rule windboard because they're fat. They rule windboard because of their SHAPE. You don't need all that surface area to float on windboard, super scour or heavy sun effect.....it's the SHAPE that kills it, not the surface area. Much skinner skis stay on top just as well on those types of snow......they just turn like shit because they're shaped for groomers. The 138 isn't. See what I'm saying? I can ski on scott schmitty sticks and not feel like I'm 'sinking' on windboard. I'm just saying you can take a good portion of why all these skis rule so hard in funky conditions, make a little narrower, and it will still rule in all those conditions. The only thing you sacrifice is maybe a tad of flotation in zero percent 6 ft deep poofter snow.

---

I hear what you're saying, and I like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

I'm just saying you can take a good portion of why all these skis rule so hard in funky conditions, make a little narrower, and it will still rule in all those conditions. The only thing you sacrifice is maybe a tad of flotation in zero percent 6 ft deep poofter snow.

---

i get it. i don;t think the width of the lotus 138 makes it rule the wind board. i have been selling 138's for 6 years based around the cutting edge that the ultra long tapered shovel has that allows for such rad performance in very strange snow conditions. however, the width of the ski does make it rule long steep pow runs at 50 mph that require instant changes in direction or a sudden shutting down of speed.

my question for you is: do you want different skis to ski deep pow and sun effect/wind board/etc? i want to be on the same ski, and only have to own 1 ultimate BC ski.

or, to put it another way, what i am asking you is what does making these skis narrower GAIN you? are you worried about 150g in weight like shirk?

i do know that you, like me, are riding DH bikes in the spring, not touring all day to ski a 1000 foot chute with jump-turns.

it seems to me that you are asking for a 6" dh bike. sure its fun, but it just isn't as fun as a n 8" dh bike, unless all you do is ride with uncle crud on 8 foot wide highways, and it isn't as fun as a 6" travel trail bike either, because you can't pedal the thing anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10% Groomed

I hear what you're saying, and I like it.

---

^^^^ THANK YOU!! :D


Here's a better idea of what I'm talking about when I say LONG taper. This is the praxis

http://www.kidwoo.com/protest2.PNG

A and B are the wide points of the ski more or less. Everything in front of and behind those points is tapered to their respective ends. The position isn't all that different from an S7/JJ setup. But the middle section on those skis is SO much narrower than A and B that you get the 'compacted' sidecut I was talking about. 140-115-130 is fine if those 140 and 130 numbers are way out on the end (think Bibby-ish). But when brought into A and B postitions closer to the foot, those same numbers produce a much smaller sidecut radius. They make a hooky snowblade. Why the hell this has become so common, I have no idea. The protest, ARG and 138 keep that hookiness away by still having all three measurements pretty compact, but they're not that drastically different in terms of magnitude so you maintain a larger radius, straighter ski feel. It also gets closer to the pivoty slarvy feel of a true reverse/reverse.

When I say skis like the EHP aren't what I'm talking about that's it. The A postion is much further from the foot/closer to the tip. Yeah it's tapered, but it's not tapered that much (or more to the point not tapered over as long an area). Lots of skis have a similar B located taper so I don't feel I need to do any preaching on that end. But living in the sierraS, one thing I've definitely learned is that the more you lean a ski over, the wider it is in front of your foot and to a lesser degree also behind your foot, the more it's going to hook. More taper the better in funky snow. The spatula was literally born in this shit.

I just went outside and measured my (old) 188 protests and 188 CRJs. In both cases the widest point of the tip (A) is about 40 cm down the ski. Boot toe sits at about 80-82 cm from the tip, so roughly halfway to the foot. You could even go further back towards the foot but this shape works and the further back you go, the less of a difference you need to keep between width at A and underfoot to keep the ski straight and stable. Anybody got some 138 measurements of where that taper starts? I don't have any to measure. I bet it's similar or even further back. But that's roughly the biggest feature I'm after. A narrow-ish ski with a taper that long. It just isn't out there.

l138 has 60cm "forebody", which is what you are talking about, above.

Why narrower though? Usually the reason for narrower is quicker edge control. But if you give a damn about edging, you don't want something with 80 cm of effective edge (a direct result of more taper).

Touring/weight is a legit reason, just too specific for me I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i get it. i don;t think the width of the lotus 138 makes it rule the wind board. i have been selling 138's for 6 years based around the cutting edge that the ultra long tapered shovel has that allows for such rad performance in very strange snow conditions. however, the width of the ski does make it rule long steep pow runs at 50 mph that require instant changes in direction or a sudden shutting down of speed.

my question for you is: do you want different skis to ski deep pow and sun effect/wind board/etc? i want to be on the same ski, and only have to own 1 ultimate BC ski.

or, to put it another way, what i am asking you is what does making these skis narrower GAIN you? are you worried about 150g in weight like shirk?

i do know that you, like me, are riding DH bikes in the spring, not touring all day to ski a 1000 foot chute with jump-turns.

it seems to me that you are asking for a 6" dh bike. sure its fun, but it just isn't as fun as a n 8" dh bike, unless all you do is ride with uncle crud on 8 foot wide highways, and it isn't as fun as a 6" travel trail bike either, because you can't pedal the thing anywhere.

---

Nah I want a winter snow ski like I keep saying. What narrower gives me is not being scared of ripping dynafit bindings out with their lame ass narrow mounting pattern, and more importantly, a ski that lets me skin across south facing sun crust without throwing my knees out from edging in a 130+ waisted ski for two hours at a time. Plus wider skis=wider skins=more glop sticking to them. Quite a few reasons really. But I have some 95mm waisted karhu storm bc thingamajigs for all that corn shit ;). Right tool for the job and all that. Plus the bikes.

Show me one ski that doesn't plane out like a beyotch at 50mph. With the same rocker profile even a narrower version will go sideways just as easily (or at least close) as the current 138. At least half of what enables it to do that IS the rocker and taper profile, not the width. It's not like a REALLY rockered and tapered ski that's 115 at the waist WON'T turn easily. Come on, you know this. You've skied the same lines you're probably skiing now on powder pluses. I'm talking about a ski that's STILL wider all around with more surface area than a ski like that AND a proven shape, that you KNOW you can throw around in any kind of turn you want in any kind of snow you want. Same proven shape, just narrower than that shape has been made so far. That's all I'm saying. Discount the shape and you discount what you already know you like. It's not just the surface area. I'm not talking about toothpicks here....still 112-118ish in width, and maintaining that general width for a good bit of the ski's surface. You've been skiing longer than I have, you know that still would have been the fattest powder ski ever just a few years ago.

Thanks for the 138 taper point. That's a 192 or 202 so I bet it's similar ratio wise to where the toe goes. (bout halfway?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfree

Why narrower though? Usually the reason for narrower is quicker edge control. But if you give a damn about edging, you don't want something with 80 cm of effective edge (a direct result of more taper).

---

Put it this way: Why so fat in the first place? No one ever even tried narrower with these shapes to begin with. I'm saying it'll still work like a fuggin champ :D

Hey marhsal

Let's remember something.

These are the spatula dimensions.


115-125-110 They look kind of small now don't they?


Put that 125 just a tad more foreward, a 115 just behind it, and a 117 right behind that. would move those wide points further out towards the ends.....sounds like some surface area preservation since they wouldn't be tapering off as quickly.


This is not a 'small' ski. In fact.........it's really really really REALLY close to what the OG spatulas were.....just a little flat spot in the middle on the rail. Don't you dare fucking tell me you couldn't float or throw spatulas sideways :D So what was it? SOLEY the surface area.........or what's that other thing......oh yeah the shape ;)

you probably ride plenty of the same bike trails now as you did on some horse-shit karpiel disco-volante, that does not mean you ride them the same way. same thing applies to a pow-plus and a l138, and heck, the same thing applies to a w112 and a pow plus, or an rx/concept, crj, etc and a pow +. you simply can open up such higher speed with so much more control and creativity its almost a different sport.

i mean, people rode 3" travel bikes with canti's 40mph down trails too, they just couldn't do anything other than point it and hope to not die. that was basically a different sport than DHing today. same thing.

i am on your side, of course, for the record. i really love exactly what you are after. shovel taper is fundamental to a TRULY versatile soft snow ski.... rossi axiom, spatula, 120/138, lhasa pow, crj, etc all have it, and they all shred funky snow in a way less tapered skis just cannot.

i think shovel taper is a very undeveloped aspect in ski shaping, and have been talking about the concept a long time. i think its cool other people are getting their minds around this stuff too.

but yeah, i mean, if you know what you want, no reason to order a group buy, just call up jared @ folsom or pete @ wager. done deal.


ps- why do you think every single spatula improvement ski that has come out since the spatula (praxis pow, ARG, l138, moment donner party, pontoon, pm gear spaltula) has gone to 130mm+? maybe because every single ski designer to ski spatulas wished it was wider, so it would work better? just a guess? i know the first thing i thought, after skiing a few runs on spats and getting super dialed on them was: 1. i wish these were longer and then 2. i wish these were 10mm wider. you are welcome to search my posts. i can 100% guarantee you i posted that numerous times on pow-mag c. 2002-2004, and probably at least a few times on here too, c. 2004-2005.



edit- i am not arguing with you. i 100% agree with you. i just want a ski that can carve super aggressively, but is super clean and loose off-edge. you don;t. and that is all good. the whole point of me jumping into this thread was me hoping to help you round-out your concept of shovel taper, since i have been thinking about shovel taper a lot over the years.

pps- i have some REALLY out there drawings on some of this i have been sitting on for a year or two i might scan and email over to you at some point, if you want to really go to the next place with this... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

you probably ride plenty of the same bike trails now as you did on some horse-shit karpiel disco-volante, that does not mean you ride them the same way. same thing applies to a pow-plus and a l138, and heck, the same thing applies to a w112 and a pow plus, or an rx, crj, etc and a pow +. you simply can open up such higher speed with so much more control and creativity its almost a different sport.

i mean, people rode 3" travel bikes with canti's 50mph down trails too, they just couldn't do anything other than point it and hope to not die. same thing. basically a different sport than DHing today.

---

I knew that was coming :D To be fair, let's call the shape "geometry" and surface area "travel" Both are good, and one is better than none. You know I'll take geo every time ;)

Seriously though you can't hold onto the idea that it's ONLY the surface area that gives those skis their character. I know you know what I'm saying.

I'm not going to lie. I want keith to do this ski. Because I asked him to do it years ago. I'm about to ask him again. People will smile when they ride it. They will buy it once reviews come out. I really want to say I told you so. Nah mostly it's just because his construction is the shit.

Shoot me some emails regarding the folsom and wager. I've got no baseline with those guys.

i have no technical background for ski design or engineering but have been on praxis pows since the first camo ones (and a second pair a year later) and have skied extensively on 3 different versions of the lotus 120, one version of the 138, EHP 193's and a whole bunch of other camber tweaked skis with varying degrees of sidecut, rocker and width. i still do most of my touring (about 70 days per year, almost all in Alaska) on the lotus 120's. this season i cleared out a bunch of skis to add a pair of 193 cochise for resort skiing and some 196 Protests for sled skiing with non-tech bindings/big pow days. based on that experience I've thought a lot about the kind of ski you're describing for the past few seasons.

i ski a lot of soft snow here and a lot of variable snow. for a lot of my days the 138's (or praxis pow's but 2 lbs heavier) are the most fun touring ski ever but over the last 2 seasons i find myself grabbing the 120's more often because i like narrower ski on sketchier ups on windward or varying slopes and the 138's can get a little unruly if there's going to be some really hard snow mixed in on the descent as well. i do miss the looser shape of the 138's but the big tip splay of the 120 keeps from hooking too much and they are still amazing skis. in the spring time i go even skinnier because it's just easier to handle a narrower ski when there's going to be a fair amount of hard snow on the up and down even if mixed in with some soft or breakable conditions. Many times during mid-winter spells of less-than-perfect-pow i wish I had some skinny, rockered and relatively straight so i can still surf the soft without the penalty on the firmer snow.

I only ramble on about all of this to explain why I think a narrower protest-like ski would be a fun toy to have for the days when the 138 is awesome in the softer and breakable spots because of it's shape but is less ideal in the truly hard snow because of it's width. i'd be interested in checking out a pair next season if they come to exist.

another minor point: in anything soft, if i'm skiing well and balance, I can ski hard on my 120's with my tlt 5 carbon boots (with intuition plugs and boosters). I plan to try them on the 138's but am guessing that it won't be as fun if i hit hard snow. paired with lighter boots like these, the kind of ski your talking about would be rad for the kind of spring trips i like.

thanks for bringing this up.

Quote:

---

For the 123-115-117 in a 187 the radius value is:

Haha I am so dumb its the same ratio over splay over contact length = also 50m radius.

After officially teching out and ruining this thread...

What would be cool compromise between the original Pintail and a new skinnier version of it.

Length: 188cm
Dimensions: 115-118-110-114-108
Camber length: 100cm
Sidecut length:100
Total tip taper: 54cm
Total tail taper: 34cm

Same Rocker profile as the current 188/187

Creates a radius of 41m. Tweaking the sidecut dimensions can create a radius of 30-50m. Thats the ski I could imagine would work well but shit I am not a ski builder I was just playing the inner geek tweaker.

---

I am going to quote myself so I dont have to retype. This is more what I was thinking the 115mm under good is still too wide for what I reall like side hilling Icy conditions. Taking the 15m away from the old waist of the Protest will not be that knoticeable it will just ski a bit lighter be quicker edge to edge.

123-115-117 is just something that I could not justify in my quiver. I have too many fat skis. The surface area is still going to be large on these things if the dimensions were 115-118-110-114-108. I think me and Kidwoo want the same type of ski but with different levels of weight loss. Its about getting the thing in a skin track keepings its positive features like smearyness and tree skiing performance. The intersting thing in the much skinner "abgespeckten" version of the protest is that in my mind it will still be very floaty because the weight is supported by the wide points being clost to mide sole.

2 big things for me that would need to be in this ski for me to say I would commit to buying it right now and even put a down payment on it sight unseen. Its widest point to be at 120 or under and it to have a waist in the 108-112 reigon. I have a 100mm, 101mm, 115mm, 130mm, 136mm waisted skis. This would have dynafits and be an exclusive touring ski. It can dump 100cm of pure blower and this skinner version would still be banger. You would just need to up your anti and ski faster. Carbon/glass layup to keep it light in the 8lb range and its an all time touring ski.

Thats where I am at atm with my opinions to this skinner more BC orientated ski.

Sorry for not tuning in but as a euro it was way past my bed time.

Interesting read for sure, and nice to see the CountDown V being brought into the discussion.

However: The CountDown 3 is probably closer to the mark? 190cms, 135-115-122, measured radii (FriFlyt) 28 in the tip, 54 underfoot, 36 in the tail (adding up to a 40m radius in total), and a measured sidecut length of 110cms meaning there´s a lot of taper in both the tip and tail... Want something narrower/lighter? CountDown 4, 180cms, 120-102-107, same functional geometry, 1850grams pr ski. [/shameless plug]