2016 PRAXIS info, mounting and resource guide

[spindrift]

Spin,I know you have commented on this before, but after getting a decent amount of time on both, any updated comparo of the GPO vs Q. Also given the much longer effective edge, how does the Q do in tighter trees and more noodly terrain?

Spin,I know you have commented on this before, but after getting a decent amount of time on both, any updated comparo of the GPO vs Q. Also given the much longer effective edge, how does the Q do in tighter trees and more noodly terrain?

Well, factor in my usual disclaimers - I'm a 60 something non-charger. six-one, and probably weighed about 220 most of the season. I lost a big chunk of the season to a harsh meeting with a crate -sized block of ice (as I think I mentioned before - on a groomer no less). So strangely, most of my time on the Q has been on groomers as I worked back into things.

For my .02, the GPO is a more forgiving all-arounder. It releases and skis looser when you want it to. With the Q, it is easier to lock in a really secure edge. The Q also just wants more attention - specifically 2 footed attention.

I like both lengths of the Q. But the 188 feels far more "nimble" and less demanding to me. A bit of a surprise since the lengths are not wildly different on paper. The one day I messed about a bit in trees, the 188 Q was great. I'm pretty sure I'd find the 194 a challenge in tight quarters.

I'm still trying to figure out if I'd pick the GPO or the Q if I could only have one.

[ScrewYou]

Spindrift, have you skied the Rx??

[Foggy_Goggles]

From the owner:

Thanks for looking to get another pair of our skis. I'd probably shorten the short list to the RX or Quixote. Sounds like you are looking for something fatter that floats more than the Freeride so I think jumping up to the 116 ish underfoot is ideal. For me this is the go to everyday size ski, because I ski mostly off piste and I search out stashes of good snow. So as long as its snowed in the last 4-5 days I'm skiing powder. But I can also ski this size ski on harder snow, or mixed off piste crud and I like the 116 ish underfoot skis for landing airs and cliffs and running things out any smaller and I start to lose confidence.

Tough call between those two and I guess honestly I'd throw the GPO in for consideration. And from those 3 skis, each has its own character but I have a hell of a time choosing the one I prefer. I used to think the RX was my favorite ski and it was my go to ski for several years. I like how it has a full conventional sidecut that rails carves on groomers, runs smooth and stable and holds GS turns. The RX was my travel ski because I could ski powder but if we were just skiing fast around resort groomers and hard off piste the RX was also good, and I skied it in a shorter length so I could jump, hit rails and park if that came up. Then I got into the GPO pretty heavy and that became my go to ski, but its more of an off piste ski and powder and will lead you out seeking fresh. Good in skied out crud and something you can ski/carve on the groomer but the RX is better for that. Now we have the Quixote and that is basically in some ways a hybrid of the GPO and RX. I say that because the inside edge is more full length, powerful and something that you can put on edge and roll with. The outside edge is like a GPO in that it slarves and will let loose, so it gives the Quixote some options depending on how you ski it.

So with all that said I think the Quixote is a good option. The #3 flex seems good and staying away from carbon fiber seems fine. The combo on your freerides of the MAP core with carbon is probably making them a little on the light side and not as damp. But I'd probably stay with the MAP (enduro) core on the Quixote as its a bit fat for the heavy core and will be...well heavy.

Checking out graphics for the 188 Q Enduro Flex 3

[spindrift]

It may sound odd, but I think the Quixote is a surprisingly good groomer ski. Obviously it is not the ski you'd pick for tight "technical" carving. But it is pretty easy to get it on edge and go. The ski's limit is way past mine and way past reasonable for crowded slopes.

Not qualified to weigh in on the Rx.

[eskido]

From the owner:



Checking out graphics for the 188 Q Enduro Flex 3

I've been intentionally quiet on this as I wanted to see how it played out, your making the right decision for sure. As was said previously (referring to someone else) I'd stay in the 4 flex but not knowing your size, weight, style, yaddyyaddyyadda, that's not for me to say, you would know best. Enjoy!

[glademaster]

Well, I just ordered myself a pair of skis.

182 Quixotes, -10mm in width, flex 3, heavy+carbon core, Buck's Beach graphic on nylon. Very excited to see how they perform as an all around resort ski.

[ScrewYou]

^^^Nice. Sounds like a good amount of people going skinny Q. Hopefully it doesnt disappoint (FrankenQ?), but either way I'm skiing the shit out of it, cuz I cant buy anymore skis

Thin Qs and Billy Gs seem like a great 2 ski travel combo for the west. I always wanted to try some skinny Billys, but the -10 Qs should handle hardpack a little better.

[galibier_numero_un]

^^^Nice. Sounds like a good amount of people going skinny Q. Hopefully it doesnt disappoint (FrankenQ?), but either way I'm skiing the shit out of it, cuz I cant buy anymore skis

Thin Qs and Billy Gs seem like a great 2 ski travel combo for the west. I always wanted to try some skinny Billys, but the -10 Qs should handle hardpack a little better.

I just posted a flex question on the Quixote thread (don't want to be redundant).

I'm curious about your skinny/handling hardpack comment. I'm guessing that you're referring to edge to edge quickness and not speed stability or them rattling about?

Dunno ... owning Billy Goats as well, I could still end up downsizing my Q's by -10mm.

... Thom

[glademaster]

Yeah, I'm pretty confident it will ski well, 108 underfoot isn't super skinny, and Keith seemed comfortable recommending it. To be honest, it seems like a 108 underfoot Q would be a great ski for variable off piste conditions.

If I had gone with the stock width I would have splurged on the veneer, but I couldn't bring myself to justify the cost on an untested ski. I think I'll probably put a 1.5 base/2 side bevel tune on them, which is my go-to on anything but a dedicated powder ski. I find Keith's tunes a little aggressive for my taste, and I prefer sharp edges with a more slack base edge bevel over detuning the shit out of a ski.

I'm 5'7" 155 pounds and I'm confident a skinny Q in a flex 3 will be plenty for me. I enjoy the sensation of bending a ski. My inbounds quiver of one in Utah for the last 2 seasons was a 186 Gunsmoke, and I found the flex of that to be really nice.

Flex 3 with the heavy+carbon core should make for a really torsionally stiff ski with a nice longitudinal flex.

[ScrewYou]

I just posted a flex question on the Quixote thread (don't want to be redundant).

I'm curious about your skinny/handling hardpack comment. I'm guessing that you're referring to edge to edge quickness and not speed stability or them rattling about?

Dunno ... owning Billy Goats as well, I could still end up downsizing my Q's by -10mm.

... Thom

Quickness yes, and the less radical sidecut being able to make a cleaner carve. Even though it's asym, I still think it's less radical than RES. I haven't skied Q's yet though, so take anything I say this summer with a grain of salt.

I'm going off of what Undertow and SupreChicken said mostly though, about how the Quixote is significantly better than the Billy Goat in bumps and firmer stuff. I would further suspect the -10 Quixote to be a better daily driver for firm and bumps, than the Skinny Billy, which one can kind of make customizing a Steeple 108 to be burlier. That might make for a better maritime snow daily though.

RES, for me, just doesn't carve as cleanly. I wouldn't trade what it does well for carving though. Its just nice to have both. Even so, RES still works fine on firm for me, its just not inspiring on edge.

I wish I had more stoke for the GPO, but for some reason I want to demo it first

[galibier_numero_un]

Got it. Thanks!

I now realize you were comparing skinny-Q (or Q) vs. Billy Goat. I thought you were comparing Q vs. skinny-Q.

I agree about the 15/16 Billy Goat on hard stuff. If I take them out on a day where there's less snow than reported (or it ends up being dust on crust), I'm ok with them, even though as you say, it's not inspiring.

Undertow's and Suprechicken's comments have been most helpful (thanks guys).

... Thom

[sf]

Ended up ordering a flex 3, -10mm, 187 GPO. Enduro, with ambrosia maple and snow/tsunami. Will get Kingpins and serve as a travel/winter touring/inbounds soft, but not deep- ski.
Should maybe have gotten some carbon in there for weight, but I haven't loved the carbon-offerings from Praxis before.

Anyone want to chime in, as I'm pretty sure I can mail Keith to have it added?

[spindrift]

Ended up ordering a flex 3, -10mm, 187 GPO. Enduro, with ambrosia maple and snow/tsunami. Will get Kingpins and serve as a travel/winter touring/inbounds soft, but not deep- ski.
Should maybe have gotten some carbon in there for weight, but I haven't loved the carbon-offerings from Praxis before.

Anyone want to chime in, as I'm pretty sure I can mail Keith to have it added?

Well, I'm a fan of the enduro + veneer you ordered. Though I have not played with carbon + enduro + veneer. As a first step, the veneer gets you a bunch of weight savings and a fell that is both poppy and damp. Carbon could save a bit more weight. And maybe the veneer would tone down the harshness I experienced with the older carbon layup on somewhat stiffer builds. But I like what you are doing with the GPO. That's gonna be a pretty light ski by my standards. But I also I tend to defer to Keith these days....

[ScrewYou]

Good choice with a -10 GPO.

[sf]

Well, I'm a fan of the enduro + veneer you ordered. Though I have not played with carbon + enduro + veneer. As a first step, the veneer gets you a bunch of weight savings and a fell that is both poppy and damp. Carbon could save a bit more weight. And maybe the veneer would tone down the harshness I experienced with the older carbon layup on somewhat stiffer builds. But I like what you are doing with the GPO. That's gonna be a pretty light ski by my standards. But I also I tend to defer to Keith these days....

Yeah, that was the effect I was aiming for with the veneer. And I have also felt that carbon has made other skis a bit funky, especially inbounds. As this might be a travel ski I need it to handle rougher snow as well

[dschane]

I think all my skis have some carbon in them (ON3P, Praxis, and Down). I doubt I could tell the difference if I had identical skis without them, but the weight savings is great, even if 0.15lb per ski is mostly psychological.

[ScrewYou]

What happens when adding carbon to the heavy layup? Give it more pop, and decrease a little weight?

[sf]

I think all my skis have some carbon in them (ON3P, Praxis, and Down). I doubt I could tell the difference if I had identical skis without them, but the weight savings is great, even if 0.15lb per ski is mostly psychological.

Obviously, it might be low mass I'm noticing, not carbon itself. But every ski I ever truly liked were sans carbon. Maybe except my bmt94s, but there the low weight gives me pretty low expectations anyhow.

What happens when adding carbon to the heavy layup? Give it more pop, and decrease a little weight?

Pretty much

[ego7man]

I have carbon, bamboo, enduro layup flex 4 wootests. If I were you, I wouldn't add the carbon. I don't think it's worth the addition

[N1CK.]

FWIW: I just threw my 180 Backcountry UL + maple veneers in the gear swap. Awesome ski but too soft a flex for this (cough) fat guy.

[meter-man]

I know this is probably like asking a Gideon where I can find a Bible, but can anyone point me to a GOOD review of the new veneer-topped GPO?? I'm asking about the stock lay-up, veneer, and flex. There's tons of comments scattered throughout this and other threads, but I don't recall seeing a specific review of the veneer version.

Interested in it for a powder touring/travel ski, potentially to replace a pair of 190 Exit Worlds (the version in the Bibby shape now called the Bibby Tour). These would be mounted with Kingpins. I'd like a big mountain-oriented ski under 2000 grams, about 115-120 underfoot that can handle a wide variety of conditions. I'm 6', 185#, ski like a fat kid, like small cliffs (30' max), generally like to ski fast but not Tabke-fast.

Should I be interested in the 187 or 192? I hear the 187 skis really short - true? There's a 187 veneer in gear swap right now, and just checking out my options. The GPO seems to come up for sale a lot, and seems comparable to the Exit World/Bibby.

Quiver looks like this:
186 Lowdown 102s / Vipec
190 Exit World / Kingpin
187 Bonafide / STH2
190 Bibby / 916
187 Protest (carbon/MAP, medium+ flex) / STH14 on Sollyfit plates

I've previously toured on:
190 Praxis BCs on Plums. I wanted more big mountain/pow prowess - BC is a perfect one-ski quiver, but felt too much like a 'tweener to me.
187 MVPs (carbon - med/stiff) on Plums. I broke them. No major complaints, but the design just never clicked with me like the Exit World or the BC.
191 PM Gear Lhasa Pows on Dukes. Broke em, and their replacements, and those replacements too. Great ski -- too much breakage.
180 BD Verdicts on Freerides....
188 Bros on Hammerheads - rad rad rad. Broke em.
180 K2 World Pistes on hammerheads....[no comment]

[/blog]

[galibier_numero_un]

I think all my skis have some carbon in them (ON3P, Praxis, and Down). I doubt I could tell the difference if I had identical skis without them, but the weight savings is great, even if 0.15lb per ski is mostly psychological.

Yup, light carbon skis are light because they were designed from the ground up to be light. A carbon swap on a Praxis might get you 3-4oz weight savings. I'm not talking about the UL core but rather throwing carbon into your skis.

I can't speak to two otherwise identical Praxis skis, with the only difference being carbon on one.

... Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

I couldn't wait until next season to test a remount of my 2015/2016 GPOs (182cm, MAP/Carbon, flex #4, no veneer). The remount was to:

• Convert the GPOs to touring use (swapping from Salomon Wardens to Fritschi Vipecs)
• Move the mount point back from -1 (I ended up at -2cm).

Testing was inbounds at A-Basin in wet, Spring slop. I normally ski the GPOs with Lange XT 130 Freetours, but because I was also dialing in a pair of Volkl Nanuqs today, I wore my mango Maestrales. I wanted the test to be more in a touring context (Scarpas) than a sidecountry one (Langes). If they worked with the Scarpas, I had no doubt about them working with the Langes.

At the speeds I ski, I don't notice differences in control between a binding like a Warden and the Vipec. Others' report experiencing big differences. I'm not slow, but other TGR bro's put space between me and themselves

I was a bit nervous about moving the mount back by a full cm, but hole conflict made it difficult to go back from -1 to -1.5, so 2.0 it was, and I'm glad I did.

Is it possible that the tips deflect even less at -2.0 than the do at -1.0 (for a skier who likes to drive the front of their boots)? This was my perception. I felt as if I was rediscovering the skis, and this was with boots and bindings that (at least in theory) would put me at a disadvantage. The skis lost none of their quickness ... only gaining tip stability.

I left this exercise asking myself: "are there any touring conditions when these skis wouldn't be my first choice?" Probably only if I were prioritizing a light ski for tight, narrow places in Spring snow that wasn't getting too heavy (i.e. warming, and trending toward corn). Other than that, I'll be reaching for the GPOs next Winter.

... Thom

[grinch]

I couldn't wait until next season to test a remount of my 2015/2016 GPOs (182cm, MAP/Carbon, flex #4, no veneer). The remount was to:

• Convert the GPOs to touring use (swapping from Salomon Wardens to Fritschi Vipecs)
• Move the mount point back from -1 (I ended up at -2cm).

Testing was inbounds at A-Basin in wet, Spring slop. I normally ski the GPOs with Lange XT 130 Freetours, but because I was also dialing in a pair of Volkl Nanuqs today, I wore my mango Maestrales. I wanted the test to be more in a touring context (Scarpas) than a sidecountry one (Langes). If they worked with the Scarpas, I had no doubt about them working with the Langes.

At the speeds I ski, I don't notice differences in control between a binding like a Warden and the Vipec. Others' report experiencing big differences. I'm not slow, but other TGR bro's put space between me and themselves

I was a bit nervous about moving the mount back by a full cm, but hole conflict made it difficult to go back from -1 to -1.5, so 2.0 it was, and I'm glad I did.

Is it possible that the tips deflect even less at -2.0 than the do at -1.0 (for a skier who likes to drive the front of their boots)? This was my perception. I felt as if I was rediscovering the skis, and this was with boots and bindings that (at least in theory) would put me at a disadvantage. The skis lost none of their quickness ... only gaining tip stability.

I left this exercise asking myself: "are there any touring conditions when these skis wouldn't be my first choice?" Probably only if I were prioritizing a light ski for tight, narrow places in Spring snow that wasn't getting too heavy (i.e. warming, and trending toward corn). Other than that, I'll be reaching for the GPOs next Winter.

... Thom

Cool, I've wondered about mounting mine back more. They are so much better at -1 than when I had them on the dimple. I like them where they are but still curious

[galibier_numero_un]

Cool, I've wondered about mounting mine back more. They are so much better at -1 than when I had them on the dimple. I like them where they are but still curious

To add a bit more perspective, the GPOs at -2 still felt quicker in slush bumps than the Nanuqs did at -1.5. With the Nanuqs, I had to really drive forward (and be a bit more on top of it) to keep the tails from hanging up, where the GPOs were much more forgiving in this regard.

... Thom