2016 PRAXIS info, mounting and resource guide

[eskido]

Edit:wrong thread

Haha!! I was wondering, but wasn't gonna give you shit

[Breomonkey]

Cross posting this for anyone who has thoughts on my GPO mount dilemma. Do I go back to -1.5 or with a complicated mount to move forward to -0.5cm?
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-mount-Dilemma

[hoarhey]

Cross posting this for anyone who has thoughts on my GPO mount dilemma. Do I go back to -1.5 or with a complicated mount to move forward to -0.5cm?
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-mount-Dilemma

crazy centered on other skis should be fine at 0.5 cm back

[Muggydude]

Finally got a couple days in on my 192 carbon hybrid protests, med+ flex.

My first day on them there was maybe 3-4 inches overnight and another few fell during the day. If I hadn't been loaning my GPOs to a buddy I would have used those.

To be honest I wasn't too impressed with how they handled the conditions, somewhat of a handful and not great on the packed snow or groomers. If you try to slide more than carve, groomers can be fun. Additionally, seemed like I felt every bump and rut (will blame that more on the carbon). Overall they weren't bad per say, but not great. I know a lot of people like using them in a lot of conditions but for low-snow days I'd have to say leave them at home.

However, those conditions are not what they're really made for nor what I bought them for. I also think that a 187 glass version would be more versatile.

That being said, today I got to ski them in the conditions I bought them for. Snow from the first day, plus another 12+ overnight. Higher density snow, surfy. One word-
Amazing.

They absolutely killed it. Sooo good. Could do whatever I wanted with them, any turn shape, pivot on a dime, truck over everything, pressure the shovels, etc. No speed limit whatsoever. Great in the air and really stable on landings. Skating on catwalks is easy too haha. Took them everywhere from steep open faces to tight low angle trees, and they did everything I wanted them to and more. I'm very happy with the 192 length (I'm 5'9 175 lbs for reference). Never felt like they were too long today. Stiffness seemed spot on, as did the dimple for mounting.

To summarize, basically buy the protest, and bring it out when there is good 3d snow with at least some depth (maybe 6-7+ inches). Some of my first day issues might have also just me getting used to skiing them, definitely think it's a ski you need to learn how to ski so to speak.

Also- who did I talk to this afternoon with the other pair of 192 protests off of Blue Sky? Never caught your name.

[neck beard]

To be honest I wasn't too impressed with how they handled the conditions, somewhat of a handful and not great on the packed snow or groomers.

Totally agree. It is a powder ski, nothing else.

[Nordic Giant]

I picked up some 192 Protests ultralite layup med-stiff this fall. Thanks Muggy!
Only had them out a small handful of days so far. Fun sweet smeary surfy amazingness fo sho. Still haven't done any detuning and liking them alot.
I mighta chosen medium flex if I'd been sure they weren't gonna be noodly, first time Praxis buyer here tho. They're perfect in deeper snow but a little planky for those windblown spots or maneuvering thru the bushes n trees n whatnot.
I'll definitely keep 'em forever.

Yo Neck. So why exactly are you selling the Woo's? Just too long? I've been enjoying mine.

[neck beard]

Yo Neck. So why exactly are you selling the Woo's? Just too long? I've been enjoying mine.

Just spent $2000 that I did not anticipate, need to sell to cover.

I tour a lot in deep variable density powder/soft snow, and they are not good for uphill trail breaking in that.

I ski a lot of deep powder, and they are not good for downhill skiing in that. Particularly relative to how long they are, which is already too long for me. The tips are just too narrow.

[grinch]

Just spent $2000 that I did not anticipate, need to sell to cover.

I tour a lot in deep variable density powder/soft snow, and they are not good for uphill trail breaking in that.

I ski a lot of deep powder, and they are not good for downhill skiing in that. Particularly relative to how long they are, which is already too long for me. The tips are just too narrow.

177 protest ul with the numbers of the 163 protest(ie 119 waist). Fly around the switchbacks and floaty smeary goodness everywhere. Can go shortish on those because super stable floaters. Gots to get dis together.

[SupreChicken]

177 protest ul with the numbers of the 163 protest(ie 119 waist). Fly around the switchbacks and floaty smeary goodness everywhere. Can go shortish on those because super stable floaters. Gots to get dis together.

Working on it. Hoping for a custom order option available from praxis after Christmas for the chicken test. This ski in a 180x. A suitable chariot for my beasts.

[grinch]

Working on it. Hoping for a custom order option available from praxis after Christmas for the chicken test. This ski in a 180x. A suitable chariot for my beasts.

Anxious to see it Supre!! I'm prepping early for custom sale

[TheElk]

Yeah, there's two things going on there. First, the recommended line got moved 1cm forward when the Freeride got a minor redesign in 2013. Basically, the tip and tail got a little more taper, and the mount moved forward 1cm. The center of the sidecut did NOT change as far as I can tell. You can see the taper difference in the photos, especially in the tail. And second, I always mount tele bindings 1-2cm behind the recommended line for alpine mounts.

So my AT mount is on the line, which is the same as the line on the current Freeride. The older, tele pair are mounted 2-3cm back from that. The AT pair has inserts for Dynafit, so you can look at the GPOs and kinda get an idea of where the boot toe would be on that pair.

I have a pair of GPO's that I'm looking to mount tele with a Meidjo and wondering if -1 cm is still the consensus. Keith said he generally recommends on the line, but he also said that he hasn't dealt with tele a lot. I've found all the hits for tele and telemark in these threads, and the consensus seems to be around -1 to -1.5 (factoring in that adrenellated's default for all skis is -1 to -2 whereas mine is on the line). My takeaway for the -1 is because Keith's recommended mounting point is a bit forward in general but specifically vis-a-vis telemark.

To the extent it matters, I've never owned/skied Praxis before; for the prior decade, I've skied K2 Anti Piste/CoomBacks mounted on the line and more recently, a Romp Custom Pintail which I mounted where recommended.

Thanks for the help. It's been a brutal month, and i am so looking forward to getting on these soon.

[dschane]

As far as I know, the dimple is where it is on any/every Praxis ski because Keith, Kevin, & co ski them and decide what's best (of course they start with a rough idea based on the balance point, center of side cut, etc.), but at the end of the day, personal preference matters. And they tend to prefer more forward mount locations. A counter example is DPS, which puts the alpine center line so that the ball of foot lines up with the center of side cut, and that puts you farther back on the ski.

This year, I've been on a pair of Rx's and Freerides and loving both, esp the Rx's. I prefer a more rearward of about 2.5 - 3 cm than the O'Meara clan on pretty much every Praxis ski I've tried. I ski low and use tele gear, so I think I've just become accustomed to having more ski in front than the avg Praxis ski calls for. I had been skiing Voile Chargers and Vectors for the previous 5 or so years, and they tend to be a tad more rearward, so I probably just got comfortable there.

I think you'd adjust to the feel if you go on the dimple, -1, -2, or -3 etc. But you might consider where you've been on the previous skis in terms of balance point and the center of side cut and aim for a similar location on the GPOs. Worst case, you remount once.

I have a pair of GPO's that I'm looking to mount tele with a Meidjo and wondering if -1 cm is still the consensus. Keith said he generally recommends on the line, but he also said that he hasn't dealt with tele a lot. I've found all the hits for tele and telemark in these threads, and the consensus seems to be around -1 to -1.5 (factoring in that adrenellated's default for all skis is -1 to -2 whereas mine is on the line). My takeaway for the -1 is because Keith's recommended mounting point is a bit forward in general but specifically vis-a-vis telemark.

To the extent it matters, I've never owned/skied Praxis before; for the prior decade, I've skied K2 Anti Piste/CoomBacks mounted on the line and more recently, a Romp Custom Pintail which I mounted where recommended.

Thanks for the help. It's been a brutal month, and i am so looking forward to getting on these soon.

[mfa81]

^headwall secondo to none!!!

[newe english]

whats up all? haven't posted in a bit, but looking for a code for some new PBs to tame the sharks of big sky. can anyone help me out? thanks,
peter

[Muggydude]

Pm sent

[newe english]

Cheers muggydude! Can't wait to check out those edge beveled powder boards soon!
peter

[Muggydude]

Yep. Be sure to report back on how they ski!

[Banquo]

Interesting!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...d=361494356322

[Shu Shu]

Clearly these have a left and right ski. Can't wait to here more about Keith's design thoughts on this one.

[jmars]

Concept 187 MAP-C mounted on the line with Kingpin13s. Not sure if I've ever been this excited in a setup

[jmars]

Interesting!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...d=361494356322

Looks like an A-sym....

[grinch]

Concept 187 MAP-C mounted on the line with Kingpin13s. Not sure if I've ever been this excited in a setup

I'd say good choices were made.

[eskido]

I'd say good choices were made.

Yup, sticks are cash money, and after some resort time to break in my boots, those binders are legit!! Never intended em to see resort time, but boots needed some time. Don't use my Concepts BC so I'm thoroughly stoked for ya! The burl is worth the non weight for sure! I didn't meet any day with my set up, but I'm close, think you killed it!

[BWA]

Is there anyone here who has time on a med/stiff flex who can compare it to a 190 Bibby Pro? I checked the flex chart and don't really have much time on any of the skis measured.

Looking to pick up something that flexes like my Bibby's but is shorter and skinnier and the 183 MVP looks like just the ticket.

[spindrift]

Wednesday, I took my new “3D” Praxis Powderboards out for a spin. These have a “3D” base - so they take the game from reverse/reverse to what I’d call reverse/reverse/reverse. While the shaping is subtle, the base is reminiscent of a modern play kayak hull. This is the standard build for the '16 Powderboard.

From the Praxis Website:


From my viewpoint:


Initial reaction based on one day: Big fun in soft snow. These are the far end of the soft snow end of a quiver. They are a one trick pony. But they do that trick really, really well. They have a unique personality - sort of reverse/reverse on steroids. Build quality looks to be typical Praxis - excellent. Light for their size as well. They are fun, predictable, and confident in soft snow. You do not want to spend a ton of time on groomers.

These join a small but interesting group of skis with hull type bases. Of that group, I’ve previously skied Garywaynes and the Elan Boomerang TBT (a ski that got neither the marketing nor the market appreciation it deserved IMO). I have not skied the newer generation Bent Cheaters or the DPS spoons. My experience with the Garywaynes and Boomerang TBTs convinced me that having a full length 3D base on a Praxis Powderboard would be pretty sweet (I promised Keith in advance I’d be a customer…). They did not disappoint.

I’ve owned every generation of Powderboard, so I know the genetic stock pretty well. Before I took these out, Keith at Praxis offered some comments based on his experience with the ski. Obviously he thinks they ski well in Powder or he would not be making them. He noted two other things. First, that the skis can behave sort of like a drift car on firmer snow. The second was that they are slow on groomers - noticeably so. He also suggested not going from powder onto groomers too fast . So I had a reasonable enough idea of what to expect.

Conditions at Stevens were 6-10” of heavy-ish new snow. There were a decent number of bumps and terrain features lurking underneath. Not surprisingly, these skis are definitely soft snow specialists. And it showed over the course of the day.

Not surprisingly, these skis are way at home in soft snow. They come into their own when it is a bit deeper than the old non-3D base model needed. But as soon as you get into more then a few inches, they are even easier to ski than the old ones.

Where you might have to patient with another ski or where an edge might have caught or dragged on underlying ice or layering, these were smooth and quick as could be. They were incredibly nimble. For as small as that base beveling looks, it loosened the skis up an amazing amount. And the original design was already pretty loose and slarvy.

Even compared to a “regular” reverse/reverse ski, it felt like skiing on controllable ball bearings through “powder” covered bumps, trees, or small terrain features. This is clearly not a technical description - but subjectively it seemed as though the beveling loosens the ski up enough that you can let them slide side to side under you - so you can sort of engage a turn instantly by sliding the ski from one set of “edges” under you to the other set of “edges” - without having to be as deliberate about releasing the prior turn as you’d normally have to be. Of course you really don’t ski the edges, and this is just a subjective description - not trying for literal mechanics here… but the reality is they are super loose and that allows for crazy fast and easy direction shifts. Once I got comfortable with them, I was willing to duck in and out of trees and rocky areas much tighter than I’d normally ski. The fact that there is a ton of surface area underfoot and the hull shape extends underfoot is clearly a big part of what makes the ski able to do what it does.

They behave exactly as advertised in terms of limitations. While not impossible to ski on groomers, they were demanding. And drifty in terms of turning. Sometimes drifty was fun. Sometimes not so much… For anyone who complain about people on fat skis making skidded turns on groomers - welcome to your worst post apocalyptic ski nightmare. That said, they are manageable enough to get from point A to point B in control on a vanilla groomer if you are just a bit thoughtful about skiing them. If you get them angled enough (I hesitate to say on edge), it is almost like throwing a bit of a grappling hook out as the edges actually grab a bit - fun actually. They are indeed slow on groomers. I was usually first to the groomer and always last to the lift. We'll see what happens if I ever need to take them out on icy groomers.

Two unexpected things jumped out at me. First, the aforementioned slidy, slinky ability. It was truly dramatic. And fun. I was amazed at how they’d just snake though things. Second, they were incredibly unfazed by soft chop. I was expecting to be thrown around a bit in places where the soft snow was cutup - the usual sort of late morning packed inconsistent cotton candy stuff. These things just did not care. They transitioned from one turn to the next without any hassle. And were happy to slide sideways or scrub speed smoothly as well. I’m pretty mediocre and I comfortably skied in control through spots where lots of folks were frantically dumping speed or catching edges.

The 3D bottom means you have almost no base contact when you put them base to base. So they don’t exactly sit tight together. Be sure to bring a Voille strap… And good luck using your usual tuning stuff - OTOH, hopefully lots of tuning is not on the menu for these.