lwt expert skier..skis under 170cm @ 115mm wide..suggestions?

**Dry** · 03-14-2014, 09:28 PM

Top of the list I came up with is the Praxis RX@ 169cm. But no experience with the ski to make a legit recommendation. Is it anything like a GPO?

Really like to see a lwt carbon GPO in that catagory @ 169.

**Sessiøn** · 03-14-2014, 11:06 PM

I would say that since it's not even close in shape to the GPO, that it ski's nothing like the GPO. Not sure why you would even think it would.

**Flyoverland Captive** · 03-15-2014, 12:19 AM

Fatypus emotion. You're welcome.

**Conundrum** · 03-15-2014, 12:56 AM

Are you a level II, III, or III+? Help us help you.

**54-46** · 03-15-2014, 07:58 AM

Are you aggressive?

**creaky fossil** · 03-15-2014, 09:55 AM

dude when I get that hand-wrapped Sagington & Bluster 9 ft 6 wt I'll be punching size 12 hoppers into a 20 mph wind and landing them on the snout of that 23" rainbow in that little 3 foot radius spot 75 feet away.

**Dry** · 03-15-2014, 08:32 PM

A working PSIA Level 3. Been so for a decade. Wants to be more agressive. Skiis hard with the boys any where on the mtn.

Fatypus Emotion looks to be a good start. Anyone here actually skied both the RX and a GPO? I'd be interesed in that comparison if so.

Line Pandora is another suggestion as was the Huascaran.

**userA** · 03-15-2014, 08:39 PM

i ski the praxis RX on every snow type for 200 days at alpental.
not like the gpo more like a bigger mvp. the RX is a great ski.
bF

**hoarhey** · 03-15-2014, 08:43 PM

rx sounds good...
what about 163 protest at 118?

**Dry** · 03-15-2014, 09:59 PM

Protest is an option. But having them I would suggest something even more playful and more user friendly for the full season.

That said knowing full well some here happily ski them their entire season.

**XavierD** · 03-15-2014, 10:04 PM

the fuck why?

If you don't need a ski over 170 why do you want it over 110?

spook · 03-15-2014, 10:22 PM

hey dane, can you post a picture of your autograph for me

**wildmanwillie** · 03-15-2014, 10:52 PM

171 caylor @114

**Dry** · 03-15-2014, 11:05 PM

Nice call willie...good write up. Thanks for the pointer.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ylor-171-11-12

She is on a Line Profit 98 now @ 172cm. Which she calls "a tank". Compared to her 162cm Exp. 88's I can understand that sentiment.

**auvgeek** · 03-15-2014, 11:30 PM

166 Billy Goat. But if she charges, she should probably be on the 176.

Edit: the effective edge is just not that long, and companies don't scale the rocker for smaller lengths.

**steved** · 03-16-2014, 01:41 PM

Following XD's...

Originally Posted by XavierD

If you don't need a ski over 170 why do you want it over 110?

Where/what conditions/depth is she skiing?

**Dry** · 03-16-2014, 02:36 PM

Cascades. Where we get several feet over a night or two on a regular basis. And it is almost never blower.

**Island Bay** · 03-16-2014, 03:20 PM

I'm with Hoarhey on the 163 Protests. They're so good in heavy, manky non-blower (and obviously unreal in powder). Amazing skis for lighter women who don't want to lay trenches.

**steved** · 03-16-2014, 04:06 PM

When you've mentioned length, like the RX @169 is rockered and is somewhat close to a ~162+/-cm ski.
High 160s or 172 (only 3 cm diff..lol) sounds better for a rockered, off-the-groomed ski...imho.
Our(northern NewEngland) snow is heavy as well...

$.01

**Dry** · 03-16-2014, 05:11 PM

I'm coming around on the idea of a short Protest. Hard to argue how well the bigger ones ski bad snow so easily.

Anyone have some feed back on the 163 version? I would think Keith might lay them up thin and light at that length knowing who was going to riding them.