Page 1 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 756
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419

    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.

    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.
    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
    Last edited by kidwoo; 12-06-2011 at 04:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,350
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    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.

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,350
    ^^^
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SnoqWA
    Posts
    2,203
    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)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calgary/Golden
    Posts
    5,531
    What about the Hoji?
    It doesn't matter if you're a king or a little street sweeper...
    ...sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper
    -Death

    Kaz is my co-pilot

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Crested Butte, CO
    Posts
    756

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,134
    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.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 12-06-2011 at 08:35 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by bfree View Post
    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 View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,134
    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.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,049
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    2,454
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by abraham View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyJim View Post

    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'

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,134
    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.

    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.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SnoqWA
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    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?
    Fair enough, make that 130-105-122. Still tons of sidecut.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    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 View Post
    Fair enough, make that 130-105-122. Still tons of sidecut.
    129-105-121....I just measured.

    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,482
    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.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,125
    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?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,049
    kidwoo- if you have some time, mind putting together an idea of what you mean with this?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Trouserville
    Posts
    14,419
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    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 View Post
    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 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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by kidwoo; 12-06-2011 at 10:45 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    6,182
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    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).

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    3,287
    dont have a need, but love the concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •