Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,341
    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.
    Training for Alpental

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Central OR
    Posts
    4,928
    Fatypus emotion. You're welcome.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,124
    Are you a level II, III, or III+? Help us help you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,008
    Are you aggressive?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,185
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    28,862
    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
    .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,159
    rx sounds good...
    what about 163 protest at 118?
    Aggressive in my own mind

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,041
    the fuck why?

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

  12. #12
    spook Guest
    hey dane, can you post a picture of your autograph for me

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    215
    171 caylor @114

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525
    Nice call willie...good write up. Thanks for the pointer.

    https://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.
    Last edited by Dane1; 03-15-2014 at 11:18 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    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.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 03-16-2014 at 09:08 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    783
    Following XD's...
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    If you don't need a ski over 170 why do you want it over 110?
    Where/what conditions/depth is she skiing?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525
    Cascades. Where we get several feet over a night or two on a regular basis. And it is almost never blower.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of the Long Flat Vowel
    Posts
    798
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    783
    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
    Last edited by steved; 03-16-2014 at 04:54 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    525
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    28,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane1 View Post
    Cascades. Where we get several feet over a night or two on a regular basis. And it is almost never blower.
    how about on an irregular basis unless your now cliff mass too.
    b
    .

Posting Permissions

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