Results 101 to 125 of 756
-
12-09-2011, 11:56 PM #101
+1 for looking skinnier... I'd even look sub 110 underfoot. I still think 98 - 105 is the best range for a touring ski that will see some hard snow and steeper sidehills.
Put a protest in that range and I'd be game. (Although that new pair of sticks with the wood finish bases )I don't work and I don't save, desperate women pay my way.
-
12-10-2011, 12:33 AM #102Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Maritime snowpack
- Posts
- 170
I'd definitely be interested in the -15, but preferrably the -18 or -20. 187 in length is fine.
-
12-10-2011, 12:56 AM #103Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- ak
- Posts
- 129
i can't commit 100% yet but -15 or a hair skinnier and since we're looking for the ultimate touring ski I would prefer light colored topsheets if there's a choice. light colors seem to melt/freeze less on the up. black seems to be the worst for sunny day skinning.
-
12-10-2011, 03:18 AM #104
-
12-10-2011, 09:37 AM #105Unregistered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Posts
- 412
Having re-read all of this, and not being an mtb-dh-person, so disregard posts making comparisons to bikes, it feels like a lot of people wants a sanouk(with a slight forward mount).
But maybe this has been discussed somewhere?
Personally I feel like the protest has too big, floppy tips and I would like to see much more, and long, tip-taper to be seriously interested in this.
Imho the 138s only flaws are wide tips and too much tail-rocker. But that's nitpicking. It's still perfect the way it is.
It would be interesting to hear what made marshal gravitate toward a lotus127 (and not thinner), but that may be a thread drift.
-
12-10-2011, 09:47 AM #106
For the guys wanting even narrower than -15. I agree with the idea but it's something you should see in person if you haven't. The closest you can get to doing that is checking out a CRJ (Just easier to find that whitedots or bluehouse). Even at a 113mm waist, this ski only gets up to a max of 124mm and it really will look pretty skinny. And skinning on a 113 isn't that big of a deal IMO. Don't harp too much on the '105-98 waist is the best touring size' because most of those skis go well above 120mm in the tip (with many going over 130). That's the same thing we'll have here. And sometimes there's deep snow in the bc
I've put in some good 20-30 mile days on a 111mm waist ski and don't really think 113 is that much. (also a praxis ski, don't you guys worry about weight )
I'm still kind of holding onto the -15 since some were talking wider but we've got at least 4 people talking narrower now. Either way stoked to see all the interest. I may do a poll just to settle it. Once we figure out the nuances of 3mm we can start talking orders.
-
12-10-2011, 09:59 AM #107
Every time I've read one of your posts over the past years about how you'd like a narrower protest, I've thought - yeah, me too. Put me in the 'interested' camp. pm incoming.
Rather than talk about waist width alone, I think a comparison of the total surface area would help predict float, and add a little more context for comparisons to other skis. I'd work the numbers up myself, but I'm leaving for work right now. Maybe later, if nobody has done it.
-
12-10-2011, 10:05 AM #108
-
12-10-2011, 10:12 AM #109
I would be 99% in for the -10 version. I would think about the -13 version, but any narrower than that, and I have too many other skis in the size range. I know these would ski differently in funky snow, but I just don't need anything that doesn't give me substantially more float than my current skis.
(If you guys end up going with those narrower dimensions, I might just throw down on regular Protests.)
As for the "just buy a CRJ" comment - I don't want a ski with only 2mm of taper from tip to tail. I don't ski backwards and I don't want a jib ski, and I'm not going to pay full price or even prodeal price for inferior construction quality.
-
12-10-2011, 10:21 AM #110
I just looked at your quiver in your freeride review and it sounds like you just need one pair of something BIG. But go ahead and get the regular protests, realize how awesome they are, and when you decide you want that shape for touring maybe these things will be around.
-
12-10-2011, 10:31 AM #111
I actually have unmounted 195 Gigawatts as well. They're no Praxis, but I skied them last year and they're not bad, and BD hooked them up wicked cheap. So that fills that resort/sidecountry big ski need. I need something to tour on, but they need to be substantially bigger than my Freerides to justify the expense.
-
12-10-2011, 01:52 PM #112
The only reason I'd go to the 98-105 is because my current touring skis are billygoats and Rx's (TRO) so the 115 range is covered.
I don't work and I don't save, desperate women pay my way.
-
12-10-2011, 02:23 PM #113
Lets pole it and be done with it.
The only thing waist discussions address is ankle torque (a valid discussion for sure, that's part of why I want it skinnier in the first place). But it's a really straight ski so the typical comparisons need to be re-evaluated a little.
-13mm loses 10.1% of surface area. -15mm loses 11.7% of surface area. -18mm loses 14.0% of surface area. -20mm loses 15.6% of surface area.
SO in all seriousness the difference between the -10mm version and the -20mm version is 7,7%. Now all of those numbers seem pretty small, right?? This is what you do to really see what the ski will look like if you have a Protest or any other fat ski. Take a tape measure and a non permanent sharpie in any color you desire . Hang the tape measure against the edge of the ski and pull parallel across the base. Put the sharpie on a given mark (-10mm to -20mm). Now pull the tape down along the edge and keep the sharpies tracing against the given mark. It does not need to be perfect but keep it close. By doing this you will can replicate exactly what the ski will look like in terms of base profile. You will see in the end how little we are actually taking away from the ski. Do not get hung up on the numbers the thinner ski translates to something that is still pretty fat. Remember we do not want a huge fat tip. Straight is good, skinnier is also good.
-
12-10-2011, 02:32 PM #114custom user title?
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- gone
- Posts
- 1,134
thats the countdown V, really. 110/117/103, with a longish flat part underfoot and rockered tips and tails. if i could just sack up and mount some dynafits on those, i would not be interested in this thread.
but so i am, and i might be most interested in a -20mm (or even a bit narrower) version, wont really commit myself yet, since i have way to much skis already...
freak~[&]
-
12-10-2011, 02:33 PM #115
Neither your billy goats, nor the Rxs are shaped like this.
The idea would be to replace your billygoats with a better ski for the application......powder and all the weird shit that's not powder, not supplement them so much. Same goal, different approach. I bought a pair of billy goats. Solid as hell but too heavy, too stiff, and far too much sidecut for what I was looking for. I was willing to live with the sidecut, but once in hand, I knew that's not what I wanted to be hiking on. I sold them without even skiing them. If my plan had been chairlifts, I definitely would have skied them for at least a season.
If you're happy with your BGs, I wouldn't even be looking at this thread if it were me. Because all I'm looking to do is come up with something that is absolutely a direct comparison to the 'kind' of skiing a billy goat is made for, just better. Or at least more tailored towards how I (and I'm sure a good number of others) want a bc ski to ride.
Anybody know how to throw a poll in the first post of this thread? I might have to just start another one.Last edited by kidwoo; 12-10-2011 at 02:48 PM.
-
12-10-2011, 03:53 PM #116
-
12-10-2011, 04:11 PM #117
That does sound like fun. http://www.downskis.com/ski-specifications/countdown-v
-
12-11-2011, 01:56 AM #118custom user title?
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- gone
- Posts
- 1,134
i do not now about downskis in north america, i think there are some in revelstoke, maybe somewhere else. i also do not know how much of the "v"s were made up to now. maybe best contact geo or sist for more information about the skis and test possibilities...
freak~[&]
-
12-11-2011, 05:29 AM #119Ozzi, Ozzi, Ozzi,.. ? ? ?
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 6
-
12-11-2011, 05:49 AM #120
So took an hour with my cousin and we geeked out in the workshop. Took a couple of photos and to make it easier to picture this ski. Looking at the numbers does not really translate that well without seeing the ski in front of you.
All I did was take a maker and pull it -20mm along the base of the ski then used some electrical tape illustrate the area we would be taking away from the 09/10 Protest.
This is the 196cm Protest.
On the left the original and on the right what the -20mm in a 196cm version would look like. Yellow tape represents the area to be taken away.
for some perspective to show that it is still pretty fat!!
The 196cm skinny Protest vs a 191cm Shogun.
The skinny Protest in the middle with the nose caped to sho it in roughly a 188-190.
-
12-11-2011, 08:45 AM #121I don't work and I don't save, desperate women pay my way.
-
12-11-2011, 09:20 AM #122
-
12-11-2011, 10:49 AM #123Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Posts
- 35
kidwoo, I'm curious what you think about total surface area vs. rocker and how each effects float. I have ZERO experience on rockered skis, still on original Gotamas! Compared to, say, the 181 Voile Charger, which has 35mm of tip rocker, the 187 skinny Protest will have 54mm of rocker. But the Charger is 137mm at the "tip" and the -15 skinny Protest will be 124mm at the "tip". Protest 187 is a bit longer, but i think it's total surface area will be less than the Charger. Will the greater rocker make up for that surface area difference with regards to float? My initial reaction is "not quite", so I'm hesitant to buy a skinny Protest any less than 113mm underfoot, and 115 underfoot is sounding better. Ankle torque while skinning might not ONLY be effected by width underfoot, tip and tail widths make a significant difference if your ski is torsionally stiff, so all those voting for skinnier and skinnier versions are selling themselves short and will get a ski that just doesn't float well.
-
12-11-2011, 11:28 AM #124
Heh......funny. I'm sitting here rendering a bunch of video in after effects and pacing my house measuring shit on all my skis regarding this exact same topic. I did something similar to sqikunst with the protests I have and compared them a bunch to the CRJs sitting next to them. I've been doing all this shit over the last few years anyway. But still, the more I look at it, the -15 keeps looking better and better. But yeah, you're absolutely right about tip and tail width also contributing to ankle torque while skinning. I know for a fact the JJs I skinned on last year were 'okay' ankle-wise. A 115 waist and way wider at the tips and tails. A similar waist and narrower tip and tail should be noticeably better. (And yeah, says something about the slighter wider versions too). I have to admit, the sick curiosity of just how narrow the shape holds up in deep snow has me curious. For something a little more traditionally shaped like the voile, you have to remember that it stays narrow for a longer time before it hits that wide spot. This shape stays wider by the foot (which will always be on the snow) so I'm of the opinion that it's kind of a wash. Watch any video of someone bouncing around in soft deep snow. Half the time the widest point of the ski isn't even in the snow. This one always is. And the 'too narrow' concern really doesn't apply in ANY other winter snow condition. Most of my days are in pow, but if it's completely bottomless, it's usually sketchy to be out in most of the places I go anyway. It happens but more often than not that we're skiing snow that's had at least 24 hours to settle. It makes stability, it makes stompable landings, and it's not always completely 'bottomless' conditions. I know guys that skied and some still do ski things like legend LPs in Utah on pow days. I think that's retarded but they get around the mountain just fine. We're head and shoulders above that, by a long shot.
Like sqikunst said, the -10 version is pretty much a CRJ. The tip is only a millimeter off, and the tail flares out twice as much. I wasn't kidding earlier when I said that's why I bought a pair.....it's the closest thing. The biggest complaint I hear about the CRJs is that they're too soft. This ski shouldn't be. And back to the 'lessons of the spatula' and all skis similar, a rockered ski is already bent into the shape that have always helped soft skis ski well in soft snow. So what the CRJ does when it flexes, the protest is already there......but doesn't flex as much past that initial shape, or at least not as easily. Plus the slightly narrower tail width should keep the tips up even more than a CRJ. That's something to keep in mind. I haven't heard ANYONE bitch about the CRJs not floating. Lots of other things but not float. The exact dimension of the -15 is LITERALLY 2mm narrower than the 180 CRJ in the tip and waist, and flares out in the tail slightly less (should 'sink' a little easier in the tail). Plus we're talking 187 length.
In short, I really do think it will work like a champ. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't.
-
12-11-2011, 11:56 AM #125Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Posts
- 35
i like what you're sayin'! i'm psyched for this ski! considering what what you say about Praxis's lightweight, any skinnier than 113 underfoot is unnecessary, curiosity aside. I'm also thinking about hard skintracks, or hard snow skinning, with the massive rocker on a skinnier version you will have issues with small surface area/skin contact. Do you think i could take those %surface area loss numbers someone posted and calculate weight loss as well? if so, i get 8.44 pounds for the -15 (with the true weight of Protest 187 being 9.56). a tiny bit lighter than the posted weight of the 190 Praxis BC!
Bookmarks