The Official Great Pacific Octopus Thread

[adrenalated]

compared to some around here my problem is minor

Yeah I was gonna say... cute quiver.



(That's after trimming out a few pairs of Praxis in favor of some ON3Ps.)

[SupreChicken]

I'm thinking that the difference between 0 & -1 is how you'll stand on the skis to get the same characteristic. IOW, you'll get the same float (for example) mounted at 0 if you pressure the center of your arch, as you would if you mounted at -1 and pressured slightly more forward.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something? Would I even be able to tell the difference in a blind test I'm a bit of a princess and the pea, but I still have to wonder. I also wonder how much quickness I'd give up in tight trees at -1. I can easily talk myself into either mount.



This makes me want to mount at 0, but I can find similar valid arguments for -1.

I'm mounting tonight and still waffling. A bit of paralysis by analysis, knowing that I can't really go wrong with either point.

The fact that the holes would be so close if I remounted doesn't bother me (inserts are strong), but the fact that I might also mount some Kingpins on these might throw a monkey wrench into the whole affair. The good news is, that after doing a hole overlap analysis of the Ion, Vipec and Kingpin, it's only the Kingpin that presents a minor overlap problem at the toe.

Cheers,
Thom

I dunno. I had to weight my heels pretty hard on the dimple and I hate skiing that way. Got some 187 UL on the way (also destined for kingpins) and I'm going to go -1.

[galibier_numero_un]

I dunno. I had to weight my heels pretty hard on the dimple and I hate skiing that way. Got some 187 UL on the way (also destined for kingpins) and I'm going to go -1.

Dang! I didn't want to hear that, 'coz I'm the same way. Templates printed, ready to drill ... hmm ...

Cheers,
Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

Slippery slope bro and compared to some around here my problem is minor-Good luck with the mount

Indeed (slippery). Of course, one could of course justify them as works of art and display them prominently in the house.

[edit] Done @ minus 1. Pics tomorrow (stained glass trees), but I'm hitting the sack to go uphill in the morning. It was a quick mount (no epoxy - just Tite-bond). If I turn them quickly tomorrow, then the inserts go into the holes in the current location. I suspect this will be the case.

I don't know if it's the shape of the front of the ski, but they look really short, even at -1. As a reality check, the toes are almost identical to the location of my Automatic 109's so it must be the ski's graphics or tip shape. I can see moving Kingpins (or Vipecs) on these sooner rather than later and getting a longer pair for riding lifts.

For the helluvit (hey! the drill was already out!) I remounted a pair of early (no rocker) 181 Coombas. Funny ... when the skis are already Swiss cheese, you work much more quickly and just as accurately

Cheers,
Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

Firstly, thanks to everyone on this thread. You gave me a lot to chew on, and at points, I thought I was getting a bit OCD about this, but at the end of the day, I've come to a mount I think works for me.

My strategy was to start out at -1 and then follow up with an insert installation at either -1, or possibly at both 0 and -1 (toe only), if at all uncertain.

Given that the I-70 ski areas in Colorado shifted to a high pressure flow this week, my hand was forced to evaluate hard snow performance first. My thoughts were, that if -1 is quick enough on hard snow, I'd be fine in deeper stuff. The initial mount was with Salomon Wardens. Between Vipecs, Kingpins and Ions, I would still be able to manage hole overlap for a touring setup as well. I did a hole overlap analysis and posted some .jpgs (post #9) in this thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ding?p=4630095

Rather than go through an extended diatribe, let's just say that an aggressive detune is mandatory for this user. Reading all of the comments to this effect, I only partially believed them.

The first three runs (before the detune) I was miserable, and this was on firm, chalky snow. After the detune (aggressively hitting them at 45 degrees with a file to the sidecut contact points: about 13" from the tip and 8" from the tail) I was able to pivot around bumps with ease, and still rail on groomers - perhaps giving up the slightest bit of "railing" capability.

Maybe I've been skiing on too many wus skis the past 10 years, but these skis harken back to the days when I had access to race stock Dynamic VR-17's (I'm dating myself). I wouldn't believe the following comment if I heard someone else say it, but these skis ski sharper than their tune.

Comments about these skis taking off if you get in the back seat are also true, but in general, I'm finding (on firm snow), that -1 is quick enough, and any slowness is due to pilot error. My stance feels balanced as well - pretty much mid-arch pressure (perhaps slightly forward of this) to drive the ski - basically how I feel balanced on a ski.

My take is, that if they're quick enough on hardpack at -1, I'll accept their deep snow performance (at -1) as their basic characteristic, and I'll install inserts and ready myself for a second mount with tech bindings. I have a bit of ski-width overlap in this category at the moment (Megawatts/Ions), so I'll do this until later in the season, or alternatively, dedicate the next pair of tech binders to a pair of BC's or Freerides. This may make more sense, because the 100-108 spot is the biggest hole in my quiver (touring or resort). Then, there's always the "need" for a pair o Protests for the few days I might get to use them here.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I'd sense much difference on hardpack between 0 and -1. Perhaps it's best stated by saying that -1 feels balanced and quick enough on hardpack, so why not insulate myself (a bit) from potential tip dive by staying at -1.

Of course, everyone stands on their skis a bit differently, but this is what seems to be working for me.







Cheers,
Thom

[Breomonkey]

After a good first outing on my GPO's at -1.5cm I'm quite pleased. The mount was forced by a prior mount so I went with it and was pretty happy. Conditions were all hard pack. I was surprised how well they carved and the stability of them. In the bits of soft snow I found they were great. I'm going to do a bit more investigation and see if I can get closer to the line to help with the pivots feeling.

[galibier_numero_un]

After a good first outing on my GPO's at -1.5cm I'm quite pleased. The mount was forced by a prior mount so I went with it and was pretty happy. Conditions were all hard pack. I was surprised how well they carved and the stability of them. In the bits of soft snow I found they were great. I'm going to do a bit more investigation and see if I can get closer to the line to help with the pivots feeling.

If you're at all from a traditional background, give them some time at -1.5 and don't overlook the de-tuning as I initially did.

Cheers,
Thom

[Danny Noonan]

I will chime in with another 2 cents as this discussion has come back to mount points again. I too mulled around on this for a long time before deciding on -1cm on my 192 stiff minus. I would consider myself a pretty traditional skier with some new school influence (drive the front of the boot, but seeing some fun in these newer shape skis the older I get). I am not going to pull the "I love to ski fast and drop 30 footers on resort days" bullshit but I can ski well enough to understand what I like about a ski and why.
I think the GPO is absolutely dialed at -1 after 5 full days on them now. I did de-tune out of the box as they felt like machete's and never had an issue with not liking the way they carved and released. It took a little getting used to where the real money spot for pressure was but find that no matter what the slope or condition, a constant pressure on the ball of the foot as opposed to the shin brings this ski to life. Don't get me wrong, I am still on the front of the boot, but not the same way I am on say my XXL. The -1 mount for me still leaves a lot of supportive tail and doesn't feel like you have a couple meters in front of you for when you are in the tight stuff. I can still throw them sideways when I want and don't feel like the tail is going to wash out on me or hook my upslope. I have yet to get these in anything deeper than boot to knee deep, but at that level they still float incredibly well and slash around. I think it will still ski deeper stuff really well but now that 116mm is an all mountain ski for a lot of us I am not sure what fat-ski really means.
As far as comparables, I know it may sound weird, but I find I can ski them really similarly to my BD Megawatts (that are mounted +2.5). When comparing these from the front of the binding, they were pretty spot on in distance to the tip and rocker profile. No doubt the GPO is snappier in between turns and a lot smaller radius, but the way they behave is pretty similar for my style.

Take it for what it's worth, but I cannot imagine wanting this ski mounted anywhere else than that -1cm mark for a traditional guy making the transition and still wanting some ability to power the ski the way you know how.

[steveski]

Mounting up my 182s on the dimple last night and my friend helping me with the mount was chiming in with his two cents regarding how tiny a 1cm difference is for a mount. I realize that the debate, rather discussion, continues to go on with good input for people who want to try different mount points and really feel they find or know when a certain spot is ideal.

For me, I chose to mount on the dimple again for the 182 (also on the 187) because I really feel I am used to how the ski rides there. Would mounting back a cm help me ski the shorter 182 quicker, give me a touch more tip float, etc? Probably. But I has such a good experience trusting/trying out Keiths recommended that I want to do that again even on the shorter ski.

[Shu Shu]

Having had Tyrolia railflex demo bindings for a while on some other skis, I found I had to do some pretty dramatic movements (at the least +- 2cm) off the mount to say I really felt a big difference. But that may speak more about my hack skiing abilities than anything. It seems from discussions Praxis skis have pretty large sweet spots that start at the recommended mount and goe back up to 2-3cms in some cases. Personally I have also had all my Praxis skis on the line and loved them, but I think its cool that people can move back a little to account for skiing styles and the ski still responds well.

The one thing I feel like I never understood was the de-tune issues. I have never de-tuned a Praxis ski. Never felt the need. Is it possible that I have just gotten a bunch of skis that aren't representative of the infamous Praxis tune? I mean the edges have been sharp but not insane sharp. I am wondering if I should just go ahead and try a detune for the hell of it and see If I like it any better?

[adrenalated]

It may be a preference thing. I personally can't ski a stock Praxis without detuning it.

[galibier_numero_un]

It may be a preference thing. I personally can't ski a stock Praxis without detuning it.

Indeed! When I mentioned that they ski sharp (to me), it's as if they're a fully cambered ski. The tapered front and rear sections really dig in, in a way that's counter-intuitive to this armchair ski designer.

Of course, I went out without de-tuning them first (easier to remove material than to add it back) and the skis were really hanging up on me - on chalky, grippy snow. After the de-tune, I could easily release the tip or tail to navigate tight spots. I might (emphasis on "might") have given up a touch of high speed railing capability, but it was so little, and the ski feels so balanced after the de-tune that I don't care about it.

Cheers,
Thom

[undertow2]

It may be a preference thing. I personally can't ski a stock Praxis without detuning it.

I am with you...! I have a handful of Praxis's and everyone I have owned I detuned the shit out of the tips and tails... Keith's skis come razor sharp and when I had the shop tune my GPOs after buying they forgot to do the front rocker and sweet baby jebus did they catch... Took them to the local pro shop where I was skiing and had them knock the tips down and it was instant love after that...

[grinch]

x4 on the detune. only forgot once. last time for that. after all part of what rocker is for. easier initiation into or out the turn and or pivot. I like them razor sharp where the sidecut is. if the rocker isn't the same location as the taper I just take a little less off the edge between the two. from the tip or tail to the taper or rocker(which ever comes first) I take a fair bit off the edge. I'm only carving with the sidecut but I'm no racer so different strokes

[Shu Shu]

this is pretty much why I feel like i've gotten skis with different tunes than u guys...which doesn't really make much sense. Maybe I'll bring a gummy to the hill this weekend try a few runs, then hit them similar to how Thom did to try it out.

[grinch]

this is pretty much why I feel like i've gotten skis with different tunes than u guys...which doesn't really make much sense. Maybe I'll bring a gummy to the hill this weekend try a few runs, then hit them similar to how Thom did to try it out.

possibly different tunes. picked up some 9d8's in the clearance sale and they don't seem as sharp as my previous skis. all previous praxis I got into the habit of mounting and detuning with gloves on. no loss of blood. that being said I'm going to detune the 9d8's more but maybe that won't help. it took a few laps to get used to the minimal rocker on the 9d8. need more mileage on them to make any kind of decision though

[Andeh]

Can anyone here directly compare the '15/'16 Moment Exit World to the UL GPO (either standard shape, or CCR), as a powder touring ski? I'm really interested in both, for something in the 115-120mm-ish waist class. Both are significantly more affordable (and lighter) than the DPS Lotus 120 or Volkl BMT 122. I really like my 180 UL BCs, but on deep days I find myself wishing for more float. I've toured 1 day on a pair of used Flex 2 192 Lotus 138s, which were fun when I found pockets of untracked powder, but are pretty heavy and hard to manage on the steep Tahoe skin tracks. I do most of my touring in trees, so don't get to set up long, ripping lines.

[hoarhey]

I haven't skied the Exit World but I was on a hut trip with Bobcat sig who skied the 184 Exit World's, I believe.
I have the 182 GPO in carbon for in area skiing, and the 175 UL GPO for powder touring.

I'd highly recommend the 182 UL GPO in the standard rocker for you...
nimble enough for tighter trees, etc...

I ski mine with Dynafit mercury's and verticals.

There is a pretty good weight benefit with the UL GPO versus the Exit Worlds (182 UL GPO is 8.0 lbs for 116 underfoot) and I think 184 Exit World is heavier than 8.0 lbs.

So no direct comparison from me, but a vote for UL GPO.

If you really wanted to go light weight, it seems that the wood veneers are a way to go lighter in the Praxis build.
Like the special model GPO that was released. the wood veneer is stiffer than the standard topsheet, so they can use less glass in the core...

I find the 111 mm GPO float fine in pow at the 175 length for me at 5'8" and 175 lbs...but I was looking for minimum weight with the GPO shape, so my medium flex 175 UL GPO's weigh 7.1 lbs for the pair.

[Andeh]

Awesome, thanks. I'd remembered reading something here about the wood veneer ones coming in light, so was considering the birch (since it's the lightest veneer color - have noticed way less snow buildup on my white BCs). Looks like stock is the Med/Stiff... any thoughts on that, considering you have both? I know the Med is lighter. Med seems pretty good for my weight (150 lbs) and soft snow on my BCs.

186 Exit World is listed as 8.1 lbs, so slightly heavier, but also slightly wider (118).

[hoarhey]

I'd say medium is fine...I went medium+ on my carbon GPO's for resort.
At your weight and for pow, no need to go stiffer

182 GPO skis plenty long for me (I was used to 188 S7 beforehand). (I think they ski longer than equivalent length BC's.

182 UL GPO in medium in birch and you'd be solidly under 8 lbs...

No offense to my buddy Ryan, but I'm gonna say GPO's all the way over Exit World,

[galibier_numero_un]

this is pretty much why I feel like i've gotten skis with different tunes than u guys...which doesn't really make much sense. Maybe I'll bring a gummy to the hill this weekend try a few runs, then hit them similar to how Thom did to try it out.

I think what we're noting is that people have a different perception of what razor sharp is. I grew up skiing in Northern Vermont, and I don't find the Praxis factory tune to be excessively sharp - only that sections of my GPO's needed tip/tail de-tuning.

It's weird (and a positive) attribute IMHO, but the skis make great use of the tune. That's what I meant by skiing "sharp". Likely this is all about damping and the ski staying on the snow. My GPO's are the MAP core with carbon stringers. I suspect that the all glass versions would rail even better. They're plenty damp for me, however as any air taken is accidental, and I keep it to under 40 on groomers.

I just touched up my skis after a slight rock baptism, and for the area covered by the sidecut, they're sharper than the factory tune. They're still (literally) rounded off from the end of sidecut to the tip and tail. As I continue to dial in both myself and the tune, I may experiment with extending the sharpness an inch or two (especially at the tip), but no more than that - maybe just feathering the transition a bit more.

After my first 3 runs (stock tune) I hit the shop at A-basin and (for a $5 tip) they layed out an assortment of files and stones to borrow. I used a beat up mill bastard file for the task. After a few quick swipes with a gummy stone, I went straight to the dull file. I doubt the gummy would have been sufficient, but it's hard to say. Of course, doing things incrementally is the smart approach which may not be a strength of mine

Cheers,
Thom

[fire.on.the.mountain]

Anyone want to trade a pair of 182 standard layup ccrs for your regular GPOs? They are unmounted and still in the plastic.

[garuda]

///spam/// - If anyone is looking for some 192 GPOs in the UL layup, check out my FS post: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-Radical-FT-12

[spindrift]

Anyone want to trade a pair of 182 standard layup ccrs for your regular GPOs? They are unmounted and still in the plastic.

What is the motivation for getting rid of the CCRs? IMO they rock if the bias is softer snow of ay kind &/or more pivoty turns. They are noticeably looser than the standards. The standards do better across more mixed conditions - esp if icy. Though last I heard, Tabke was still on CCRs...

[enginerd]

I have a pair of older carbon 192's mounted up with tracker 16's in very good shape for being a couple years old. I would happily trade for a pair of new CCR 182's flat so I could put dynafiddles on them and use as a dedicated powder touring rig. Let's do this!!!!