Thread: Praxis 2011/2012

Maybe we need to connect Keith with jondrums???

Binding Freedom + Praxis Freeride = BFF?

I'm not convinced that the bindingfreedom design is best for factory installation. You need something closer to a snowboard style of insert that you can set up with a special type of drill bit and depth stopper for quick drilling and popping in before laying up the sandwich. But snowboard inserts are M5, which is too big. Do you know if the dynafit inserts use M4 screws?

Regarding the new generation Powder Boards...

If you get 'em, go +3 from the punch.

Been skiing the new 190s a moderate amount. Originally mounted at +1. Liked them a lot. Felt like a bit forward might be even nicer. Keith mentioned in an email that the more he played with them them, the more he felt +3 would be good. Deed was done and I just put 2 days on them at +3. The ski is even more off the charts in its element. Added bonus: easier in chop and on groomers. Hard to believe a 2 cm change took them up a whole notch. (fwiw, I'm about 6'1" and maybe 205 or 210 these days)

cloudpeak had her 180s remounted to +3 as well -- big thumbs up from her too.

Originally Posted by spindrift

Regarding the new generation Powder Boards...

If you get 'em, go +3 from the punch.

Been skiing the new 190s a moderate amount. Originally mounted at +1. Liked them a lot. Felt like a bit forward might be even nicer. Keith mentioned in an email that the more he played with them them, the more he felt +3 would be good. Deed was done and I just put 2 days on them at +3. The ski is even more off the charts in its element. Added bonus: easier in chop and on groomers. Hard to believe a 2 cm change took them up a whole notch. (fwiw, I'm about 6'1" and maybe 205 or 210 these days)

cloudpeak had her 180s remounted to +3 as well -- big thumbs up from her too.

Where's his punch located these days (cm from tip)?

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Where's his punch located these days (cm from tip)?

Looks to be about 105 via the usual angled down from the edge of the tip to the contact point method. Worth noting though that the ski is a decently different shape than the old one.

My +3 remount is a "direct" +3 from the punch. I'm now actually curious what a +4 would feel like. But not likely to go there...

Just a random bit of Praxis stoke from Facebook, prototype ski with Pow sidecut on one side and Protest sidecut on the other:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

Me likey.

From this morning's email -

...stay tuned for our pre order sale on 2013 models. For the upcoming year we are expanding our customization department and will be offering graphic choices, flex options, molding options, and even ingredient options for all those who place an advanced order. More info on the 2013 ski lineup as well as ordering options will be available on the website May 1st.

Hmm, that's very exciting. I would love some BPS or Powderboards with some carbon in them to lighten them up a bit.

Speaking of which, does anyone who bought a pair of the BPS care to write up a review? I've searched but I haven't heard a whole lot of feedback regarding this ski.

I'm on the email list but never get any of these emails. Looking forward to checking out the new shapes. Looking to pick up something a little more hardpack friendly to compliment my Wootests.

Originally Posted by Jim S

I just checked out my quiver and in addition to Lhasa 196 fiberglass, Line Mothership, and first gen Pontoons I've got these PRAXIS:

1. Protest
2. Concept
3. Powder (old)
4. Rx Powder (brand new)
5. Freerides (very very old)
6. BC for touring

Jim, how would you compare the Concept and the RX? Is there a lot of overlap or do they ski quite differently?

Originally Posted by Wetdog

Jim, how would you compare the Concept and the RX? Is there a lot of overlap or do they ski quite differently?

Tough call. The main difference IMHO is:

Rx Pow has a more conventional feel and is easier to smear and adapt into a variety of turns. It's OK on hardpack.

Concept has a unique feel; you have to open minded to this because it skis differently than other skis. It seem less smearable than the Rx Pow but still smearable to a degree. It carves much better than the the Rx Pow on hardpack. It's almost as if you are rolling the ski carve and then it bites and locks in the carve; it's very cool. Concept seems to not want to create as many varied turn radii as the Rx Pow.

Like many others, I too am trying to decide between the 180 and 190 in the 2012 Praxis Backcountry.

I am 6'1", 175-180 lbs, have a 330 bsl, and will ski the ski mostly mid-winter, soft snow, in the western US and occasionally in the NE (NH and Daks). I will only ski it in the backcountry and with a Dyna FT binder. It will be the widest and most rockered ski I have ever owned. This will be my ski for going on ski mountaineering objectives where I expect good snow and when I dont want to take my 84mm waisted spring mountaineering ski. In short, this will be my powder ski, but dedicated to the backcountry, which for me usually involves decently major ascents and not just lapping powder, though I am sure to use this ski for some of that too.

I want the 180 for the weight savings and for the approach/bootpacking.

I want the 190 because I feel this ski will ski short, especially with the raised tails and heavy rocker. I ski pretty aggressively generally and dont want to overpower the ski or feel that I am not able to float smear.

Basically, if people who have been on the 180 and are close to my weight and ski this ski primarily in the bc can tell me that I will still have fun and be able to slay pow with it, i will def go for the 180.

What do you all think? 180 or 190?

thanks much!!

I'm roughly your weight and skied the bc 180 tele for a couple seasons. Reliable, quick, light, stable are all good descriptors. The ski does not "smear". It does float nicely in moderate but not deep powder.

I would never need to go longer on this ski, but not sure how much of a difference tele makes in this case. Also, I do usually prefer a shorter ski.

Well, I'm 5' 8" 135 lbs and I have the 180 BC's. They don't feel too big when I'm skiing well on them (which is rarely) and the size seems right to grow into as I get a lot stronger in technique. The shovel is huge - it starts lifting 45 cm from the tip.

You say you ski aggressively, which means much harder than me, so ...

Get the 190s. Unfrozen Caveman is about your height and a touch lighter and he skis the 190s.

Oh yeah, regarding major ascents and weight, I have Speed Radicals on them. I lugged them up Shasta, with a Canon 7D + 200mm L lens - so that's already heavier than the 190's and no dSLR. You won't notice the weight and you'll want the bigger size when charging!

Thanks fellows - went 190 and think I will be happy with my decision. Now: SNOW!

You'll be happy with the 190s, but the 180s would've been fine too. People make a bigger deal out of 10 cm than they should (I know I do). I'm the same height as you, but about 10-15 lbs lighter, and I'm on the 180s as a pure touring ski. I'm happy with that length, but would've been fine with either.

Originally Posted by papatroller

I feel this ski will ski short, especially with the raised tails and heavy rocker. I ski pretty aggressively generally and dont want to overpower the ski or feel that I am not able to float smear.

I'd hesitate to call it heavily rockered. The shovels have a similar amount of splay as many skis in this class (105ish waist, directional, etc.), and considerably less than skis that are marketed as pure powder skis. There's camber underfoot, and the early rise tail is very subtle. I wouldn't say it skis short either. I'd call it true to length. No matter, I think you'll like 'em. The quality of their skis really high. All killer, no filler.

Originally Posted by pisteoff

You'll be happy with the 190s, but the 180s would've been fine too. People make a bigger deal out of 10 cm than they should (I know I do). I'm the same height as you, but about 10-15 lbs lighter, and I'm on the 180s as a pure touring ski. I'm happy with that length, but would've been fine with either.



I'd hesitate to call it heavily rockered. The shovels have a similar amount of splay as many skis in this class (105ish waist, directional, etc.), and considerably less than skis that are marketed as pure powder skis. There's camber underfoot, and the early rise tail is very subtle. I wouldn't say it skis short either. I'd call it true to length. No matter, I think you'll like 'em. The quality of their skis really high. All killer, no filler.

I agree Praxis makes great skis but I have to disagree about the length. I'jm 6'2" 185 lbs and have the 190 BC carbon for my AT setup. I think the 180 would be unnecessarily short and underkill. BTW, the BC is a great pow ski with performance that belies it's dimensions.

^^^ fair enough, but you're an inch taller and 20 lbs heavier than I am.