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

**peeforward** · 12-09-2011, 03:15 AM

very interested, especially in the narrower options. first choice would be -15 i think. i'll email keith sometime soon. i might be able to drum up one or two more people but none of us are a guarantee at the moment. thanks again for your efforts.

**rob stokes** · 12-09-2011, 04:26 AM

Would be interested in the 187, -10 version.....Keith's construction is the shit. Most bomber ski's I have ever ridden.

If it was any narrower than the -10 I think I would just sack up for the standard 128 protest although I find 120mm the ideal width for a pow ski, I fucking love my lotus120's but something 'looser' would be a sick compliment to them.... My ARG's were just too wide, I just wanted a bit more versitility for here in europe, but loved the shape.

**auvgeek** · 12-09-2011, 12:22 PM

Definitely interested, but price may be prohibitive (thought I was set for the year on skis, but really digging this idea).

Somebody should do a straight-tape pull on the 187 Protest. A recent post in the Praxis 2011/2012 thread says his Mtn Jibs measured 2.5 cm shorter than true. If the 187 protest is actually 184.5, that might be a dealbreaker for some.

**kidwoo** · 12-09-2011, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

If the 187 protest is actually 184.5, that might be a dealbreaker for some.

They're not. I've had a pair of 183 mtn jibs and still have a pair of 188 mtn jibs. At most they might be off 1cm. They're not volkls.

**auvgeek** · 12-09-2011, 02:42 PM

Okay. I was just going off of this post.

Originally Posted by Crusty

Gonna try touring these this year. I was hoping they would be a true 183 but they measure about 180.5. I had 186 Billygoats last year and it was a bit much for touring. These seem tiny in comparison, nice and light though. I'm not super aggro but I do weigh about 180#'s. As others have said quality is awesome. Psyched!

Thought it was worth bringing up.

**sqikunst** · 12-09-2011, 03:27 PM

If this ski gets made ill put down straight away. I have too may skis that are too fat anyways. I am about to shoot you a PM Kidwoo to get some details. Im in Euroland but am a huge Praxis fan and dig their quality and Keiths company.

I would be most down to buy the 124-113-117 Version in a 187/188. I know weight is had to estimate right now but the 184cm Rp112 with its huge tip 141-112-128 pure comes in at 3.9lb/1.8kg and the hybrid comes in at 4.6lb/2.1lb if this ski comes in anywhere between those numbers ill put money down right now.

**hoarhey** · 12-09-2011, 04:01 PM

in discussions with keith, he weighed a 187 protest from this year's lot, which came out to 9 lbs 9 oz (pair).

Actual weights of 2011/2012 skis

187 protest (128 width)
9.56 lbs/pair (4.78 lb/ski)
4340 g/pair (2320 g/ski)

177 protest (128 width)
8.75 lbs/pair (4.38 lb/ski)
4000 g/pair (2000 g/ski)

**sqikunst** · 12-09-2011, 05:59 PM

Final bump on this before I hit the sack. The minus 10mm is pointless in a blind test you would not be able to tell the difference. Some people might not want to hear that but its 5mm on either side. Draw that on a piece of paper and you will understand how little it is. If you are looking for a 187 protest like shape = 188 4frnt CRJ

-10mm concept

129-118-122

Radius: 30m

188 CRJ

130-118-128

Radius: 28m

I PM'd Kidwoo about polling the different dimensions to see which one is the most popular among the consensus. For the -10mm crowd sack the fuck up and get the real Protest. In a blind test most of us would not be able to tell which is what.

There are the dimensions I propose to poll. This would just be to see which ski people are most interested in.

______Current___-13mm___-15mm___-18mm__-20mm
Tip:____139______126______124______121____119
Wst:___128______115______113______110____108
Tail:___132______119______117______114____112

I personally more interested in the 2 thinnest versions because there is really no ski even remotely like it on the market where as the -10mm version is just the CRJ with a 2m longer radius. We would just be builing a lighter version of that. I know shape plays into things but the CRJ is also tapered.

Just for sake of argument quite a few of us think that this design will work in a skinnier for as has been said over and over again in the last 4 pages. At this point there seems to be interest but a lack of commitment on how low can you go with this design. If we all go -10 or -13 what are we really learning out of this theoretical/experimental ski. We are nit picking at dimensions that we already know work. How will the -10mm version ski. I can tell you how, exactly like the 128 version!!!

I will put money down on this thing without hesitation but not on a ski I know will definitely be surfy and loose and plane in powder. I feel as if what I am writing is way too long again but i am stubborn this way and feel that this could be a pretty cool opportunity and seems like it has a little bit of traction and would like to make the most of it. The tapered design is all that I am interested in and how skinny it cam be made until it looses its surfy qualities. I also know that the 115 version will be surfy because the shape stays the same 115 underfoot is still a deep powder ski and not what I would consider a daily driver. 115mm is still fat if its variable for example chalky snow on ice. The question that needs to be asked here is why make an experimental ski on a proven design if we know it will work exactly how we expect it to. Most of the proposed dimensions are all shaving mm of of the current protest instead of cutting!! A daily driver in my mind is between 100 and 110mm. A czar while being a completely different design is 111 under foot and its a powder ski.

For the -13m crowd go look at the dimensions for the 186 EHP and there is your ski. Its taped has a 40m radius and from what I hear is a pretty banging ski...

Now show me a Protest like shape with the dimensions 121-110-114 or 119-108-112... If you can I will give up on my quest for the ultra skinny Protests....

aight I am off.....

**kidwoo** · 12-09-2011, 07:05 PM

I actually agree with all of that^^

The -10 version isn't much of a departure.

The -15 is what I really want. I just threw the -10 in there because even someone like marshall seems to not believe that the shape will give it float so some degree. I personally have zero question in my mind that even a -20 would be perfectly fine.

Here's what I've got so far from this thread and a pm or two

Newe English -10
JFE24 -10 -13 -15 (with -13 first, -15 second)
Rob Stokes -10
skiKunst -15
Wendingo -15
Me -15

Total

-10 2
-13 1
-15 4 (I through JFE24 in for a -13 and a -15)

rabbit, afraid, TheDon, and a few others sound serious. Anyone else needs to speak up.

Right now I'm tempted to just go ahead and say it's going to be a -15 because even that should be reasonable for the -10 crowd, and certainly the -13 crowd. 5mm is pretty minor still.

I sent this thread to Keith and he's definitely down. He did mention that if there are enough people to throw down for a 197, he's considering it more seriously now.

Speak up y'all! Even smaller? Cool at -15? Holla!

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 07:12 PM

Why do you think 1cm (128 vs 115) narrower protest will ski the same but a 0.5cm (115 vs 110) will ski different?

**auvgeek** · 12-09-2011, 07:21 PM

^^ IMO that's the point. They want it to (and think it will) ski basically the same. The point is to get the dimensions as narrow as possible while still maintaining the ski's defining characteristics. By making it smaller, you're cutting the weight and making it easier to tour on.

Why NOT make it smaller if you'll get (close to) the same float? I'm not 100% convinced you will, but that's the argument. Very interested to see where this goes. I'll have to do some serious calculations for the bank account before I can commit. Wish this was going down 2 weeks ago, before I bought yet another pair of skis.

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 07:22 PM

I only ask cuz I'd much rather have a 115 waist

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 07:33 PM

I just think with a narrow tip you'll lose too much surface area if you don't have a wider waist.

**afraid** · 12-09-2011, 07:46 PM

-15. I still can't freakin figure out how to PM someone! What's the cost and ballpark weight?

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 07:53 PM

You can't pm til you get more posts

**afraid** · 12-09-2011, 08:28 PM

thanks. maybe i'll just contact praxis

**ARpowhound** · 12-09-2011, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by TheDon

I only ask cuz I'd much rather have a 115 waist

Why not make a rockered version of the current EHP (129-116-123)? Make it 125-115-120 with a lighter layup, and more rocker. Or make a 115 waist version of the Spatula with a flat spot under foot. (Both of which are my most favorite skis, with the addition of 182 Atlas.)

**monkeywrenchMoose** · 12-09-2011, 08:41 PM

Subscribing.

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by ARpowhound

Why not make a rockered version of the current EHP (129-116-123)? Make it 125-115-120 with a lighter layup, and more rocker. Or make a 115 waist version of the Spatula with a flat spot under foot. (Both of which are my most favorite skis, with the addition of 182 Atlas.)

THIS^^^!!!

**kidwoo** · 12-09-2011, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by ARpowhound

Why not make a rockered version of the current EHP (129-116-123)? Make it 125-115-120 with a lighter layup, and more rocker. Or make a 115 waist version of the Spatula with a flat spot under foot. (Both of which are my most favorite skis, with the addition of 182 Atlas.)

This pretty much IS a spat with a flat spot underfoot and a flat(ish) spot for sidecut.

And it IS pretty much a rockered EHP with those dimensions just with a longer taper.

Come on kids! Pay attention!!

**TheDon** · 12-09-2011, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by kidwoo

This pretty much IS a spat with a flat spot underfoot and a flat(ish) spot for sidecut.

And it IS pretty much a rockered EHP with those dimensions just with a longer taper.

Come on kids! Pay attention!!

Then I'm in (price pending). All I want is more versions of the spats.

**auvgeek** · 12-09-2011, 11:08 PM

Looks like I might be in (PM sent on price). Prefer the -15 version.

Can it have the sexy pure-black top sheet?

**teddyi** · 12-10-2011, 12:21 AM

I already sent Keith a note that if he would do a longer version - 196 - I am def in. I would do -13 or -15, prefer -13 though.

Also really like the pure-black top sheet as well - although, that doesnt really matter.

**AKNickolai** · 12-10-2011, 12:27 AM

Caught wind of this from peeforward. Praxis skis rock, I have gear buying problem, and am pretty stoked about this idea. My vote is for the -15cm dimensions (-13 wouldn't end it for me). If this happens I'm in.