Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 894
  1. #501
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,758
    I've got enough days now to say the Qs are officially awesome.

    Just the right balance of carvy and slarvy. I don't see needing any other skis at this point. I would agree that even at -1.5 they prefer a neutral stance. Very fun and forgiving.

  2. #502
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    I've got enough days now to say the Qs are officially awesome.

    Just the right balance of carvy and slarvy. I don't see needing any other skis at this point. I would agree that even at -1.5 they prefer a neutral stance. Very fun and forgiving.
    Have you used them on inappropriate conditions , ie firm days? I'm curious how they will do as a travel ski if stuck bringing one pair only.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app

  3. #503
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
    Have you used them on inappropriate conditions , ie firm days? I'm curious how they will do as a travel ski if stuck bringing one pair only.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app
    I like it on groomers and chalky snow. Not horrible in bumps, but will work your stamina on a hard day.

  4. #504
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Incline Village, NV (Tahoe)
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by skibass View Post
    Anyone have any comparisons to a BG? I'm down to these two as my middle ski between my Protests and Black Crows Camox. I might want to snag the last pair of 188s. At 5'11" 185 I assume these would be the right length.
    I think so.

    I am 6‘2“ 195 lbs 54 yo and the 188 are fine for me: Provide excellent powder float and are pretty quick to come around in tight chutes and trees.

    Overall I think these are more user-friendly and better on groomers than the GPO.
    I’ve had a few amazing runs on them in fresh pow and grinned how well they mach through chopped up pow last Thursday at Squaw during a dump.**
    I’m not too thrilled about them in large bumps but then again ..

    I’m not sure which I prefer more these or the GPO. Certainly part of my bias is the GPO has been my daily driver for God knows how many years; so skiing it feels like second nature.

    Q 188– sometimes I fawn over it and sometimes I roll my eyes and go back to the GPO.

    **I literally was thinking to myself how amazingly forgiving these skis are regarding user error. At that very moment I was on the flats going back to the Funitel lift and doubly ejected head over heels like a dork .I’m not sure what happened but it must’ve been amusing .
    Every man dies. Not every man lives.
    You don’t stop playing because you grow old; you grow old because you stop playing.

  5. #505
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    I finally got my Q's out into their intended habitat - or at least close. It's been a miserable year, compounded by traveling to sea level during the February storm cycles.

    So today I found some soft stuff at A-basin - not a lot, but some boot top pockets in the trees and gulleys.

    Getting to know the Qs earlier in the year on anything from frozen reef to chalky snow was helpful however, much as I wish I got into more soft snow.

    For those who haven't followed this entire thread, I was initially bitching about how unpredictable they are in hard pack. Centering my stance resolved that, and it now feels natural (182s mounted at -1.5). I'm seeing advantages to a slighty new school stance (that's "slightly").

    I brought my 15/16 Billy Goats along. The short story is that there's a lot of overlap, and if I skied them on different days (in soft snow) I'd be hard pressed to describe the difference.

    Faster skiers than me might say that the BGs have a higher speed limit. I'll never know.

    In this not too deep snow, I can move them in tight spaces slightly more quickly than my 184 BGs. It's been mentioned that the Qs change edges quickly, which I find to be true. I can also pivot them quickly (faster than the Goats) and I find them easier to shut down than the Goats.

    They're better on dust over crust than the 15/16 Goats due to their hard snow performance. Current Goats are purported to be better in this regard, so take this into account as you read this.

    Hopefully, March/April will bring some big dumps, and I'll get to explore conditions where the BG excels (chop).

    If the Q's are close to the Goats in chop, I might seriously consider selling the Goats. This isn't like golf, where you can pull out different clubs as you work your way down the mountain, and moving in tight spaces (trees) is more important to me than a slight advantage in chop.

    We'll see how this plays out ...

    ETA: 5'9", 165 Lbs

    The 182 Q's (standard width): Enduro/Carbon/Veneer, Flex #4 (inserts for both Pivots & Vipecs - both @-1.5) Yesterday was Vipecs.

    The 15/16, 184 Billy Goats: standard build (Wardens - on the line).

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 03-21-2018 at 10:07 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  6. #506
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bay Area / Tahoe
    Posts
    2,478
    ^ really like to hear this. Been debating whether I should have gone goats over Qs all season, and that makes it sound like I made a good choice. Still haven't skied mine

  7. #507
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    I'm really in love with these skis, and I can't envision ever deviating from the Enduro/Carbon/Veneer formula - whether for inbounds or touring.

    I'm giving serious consideration to a pair of BCs in this layup, but only if I sell some of my quiver ;-)

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 03-21-2018 at 09:04 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  8. #508
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,702
    Nice to hear the back to back test. Q’s are back on top of my list between those two. They sound what I’m after. I wang something in the low 180’s. Considering a fat wootest in the new 179 size(fat would make it 180), 123 waist

  9. #509
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,758
    Like others, I'm also gelling with my Qs. Pages back I probably talked about what I'm going for in this ski. Basically, one ski for all conditions I care about. I think ya'll call this a travel skis. Must ski good snow good, must ski challenging conditions good, must be confidence inspiring.

    Personally, I think skis are most about a good fit for the skiers style than they are good/bad skis. This will probably sound dickish but this is who I think the Q is for:

    Good skiers with good balance and technique. It appears to be sensitive to for/aft balance. This is great if you are well balanced but probably shitty if you get tossed around a bit and rely on the ski for stability. You can v ary turn shape, drift, pivot etc. with more of less shovel pressure. If you are providing inconsistent shovel pressure you gonna get wierd behavior.

    This is similar to reverse/reverse is some ways. For the same reason, I think the mount point will be key. I'm at -1.5cm. Mounting forward of that would require a very centered upright technique.

    In off-piste conditions, it really is better to ski 2 footed. On groomers and smooth conditions, you can get away with being outside dominant. The more variable the snow, the more you need to pressure the inside ski to make it track. If you commit, the aysm really helps with this. If you don't commit and try to A-frame the beginning of your turn and keep you inside edge angle too low, you will suffer.

    Someone I think was talking about this with the BG. So short story long, I think is you are willing to take some time to understand the ski and the skis desired jibe with the type of skier you are, you will love the Q. Skiers with unrefined technique unwilling to go through the exercise of figuring the ski out and adapting accordingly will probably suffer.

    I think this is going to be a love/hate ski.

  10. #510
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,758
    Another note: I've always liked pintailed minimal tailrocker skis in offpiste conditions. None of the 5 point skis I tried seems to have the same balance and predictability. The tradeoff was uninspiring groomer performace due to no sidecut in the tail.

    Someone hear mentioned that, done right, with the special blend of sidecut, taper and rocker, you can have the best of both worlds. I think this is what people who love the EHP are talking about. The Q appears to have this as well.

    Even though I'm not much of a ski nerd, the comparison with a BG who be interesting. So much goes into ski design these days and so much personal preference is involved, picking skis without demoing is a super tough proposition. Praxis seems to be doing great and people are owning there bad decisions and buying more skis.

    That said, there line up has so many different skis with different personalities that a demo fleet with adjustable mount point bindings would really help people make better choices.

  11. #511
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    I finally got my Q's out into their intended habitat...





    In this not too deep snow, I can move them in tight spaces slightly more quickly than my 184 BGs. It's been mentioned that the Qs change edges quickly, which I find to be true. I can also pivot them quickly (faster than the Goats) and I find them easier to shut down than the Goats.

    ... and moving in tight spaces (trees) is more important to me than a slight advantage in chop.

    The 182 Q's:. Enduro/carbon/veneer, flex #4.

    The 15/16, 184 Billy Goats: standard build

    ... Thom
    That's good info, Thom, appreciate it. Tight tree performance is very high on my list (probably # 1). I'd also get the same length and layout Q as you describe so this is a spot on review for me. Really a 182 Q with vipecs and a 184 BG with shifts sounds absolutely perfect for a touring vs resort setup while having the best of it all.
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  12. #512
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    4,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Chugachjed View Post
    I’m at -2 and they really don’t like a lot of tip pressure.
    Interesting. My custom 188 -10 #4 heavy core (Aevergeuse) pair has 2 sets of holes already, but I am considering pushing them back a little bit to improve their already impressive float and more importantly I’m thinking that will maybe allow me to use their progressive side cut even more via shin pressure without risking ‘overturning’ for lack of a better way to put it. Beetle and I both find these to be the turniest.

    Has anyone mounted twice, first on dimple and then gone back from the line? If so how much and how much effect? I think I could get along as-is, I would just have to stay more centered than even on my 4frnt Renegades/ MVPs / 4frnt EHPs - which I think I can get on the tips more because they’re 196 and 193 lengths. Maybe I’m just accustomed to really long skis now, which aren’t always best for the conditions I ski, haha, thus why I bought Qs!

  13. #513
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    Like others, I'm also gelling with my Qs. Pages back I probably talked about what I'm going for in this ski. Basically, one ski for all conditions I care about. I think ya'll call this a travel skis. Must ski good snow good, must ski challenging conditions good, must be confidence inspiring.

    Personally, I think skis are most about a good fit for the skiers style than they are good/bad skis. This will probably sound dickish but this is who I think the Q is for:

    Good skiers with good balance and technique. It appears to be sensitive to for/aft balance. This is great if you are well balanced but probably shitty if you get tossed around a bit and rely on the ski for stability. You can v ary turn shape, drift, pivot etc. with more of less shovel pressure. If you are providing inconsistent shovel pressure you gonna get wierd behavior.

    This is similar to reverse/reverse is some ways. For the same reason, I think the mount point will be key. I'm at -1.5cm. Mounting forward of that would require a very centered upright technique.

    In off-piste conditions, it really is better to ski 2 footed. On groomers and smooth conditions, you can get away with being outside dominant. The more variable the snow, the more you need to pressure the inside ski to make it track. If you commit, the aysm really helps with this. If you don't commit and try to A-frame the beginning of your turn and keep you inside edge angle too low, you will suffer.

    Someone I think was talking about this with the BG. So short story long, I think is you are willing to take some time to understand the ski and the skis desired jibe with the type of skier you are, you will love the Q. Skiers with unrefined technique unwilling to go through the exercise of figuring the ski out and adapting accordingly will probably suffer.

    I think this is going to be a love/hate ski.
    I like your travel ski definition. It recognizes that we're quiver guys at heart, but that when traveling, you have to make hard choices.

    I don't think your comment is dickish at all. I've never been on a ski that's so fore/aft sensitive, keeping in mind that I've never been on a RR ski. In my world of audio gear, people talk about a component that's "ruthlessly revealing" and this can be taken one of two ways: (1) a piece of shit that doesn't interface well with other components, or (2) a component with very high resolution that exposes the flaws of other gear due to its extremely low noise floor.

    I think the Q's are much like #2. There's a big reward for learning how to ski them and they've taught this old dog some new tricks in the process ;-)

    Perhaps the biggest surprise (reward) is how balanced I feel when skiing dust over crust. With a more traditional ski, I want to be a bit more centered when skiing soft snow , but to drive a bit more forward on harder snow. This can throw me off my balance point when I break through the soft snow onto the scratchy stuff below. The Q's balance point is much more similar in these two conditions so it's easier to stay in balance. This is not trivial (to me).

    It's definitely going to be a love/hate ski, so this Spring/Next Fall, we'll likely see a few on gear swap ;-)

    BTW, my first clue as to how to ski them was brought up by PowTron at a recent ON3P demo. He commented that the asym. Goats like a centered stance on hard pack. I took a couple of runs on the new Goats and the lightbulb went off. I immediately translated this to my Qs after finishing the demo. I didn't spend much time on the BGs (and the day was all about frozen reefs anyhow), but I think the new BG & Q are more similar to each other than my 15/16 BGs are to my Qs.

    I think however, that I'm growing to really love Enduro/Carbon/Veneer for my skiing preferences (and the speeds I ski and tight places I gravitate toward) over the heavier ON3P layup, and obviously others will differ in this respect (mostly because of their weight and preferred speed).

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 03-21-2018 at 09:57 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  14. #514
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,491

    Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

    I’m on 194, 4 flex, heavy core with alpine clamps and couldn’t disagree more with the love/hate thing. This ski is super easy, intuitive and ready to go as a do everything stick. It even knocked two skis (111 and 122 waists) out of my quiver since 99% of the time the Q does everything those skis did.

  15. #515
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by benfjord View Post
    I’m on 194, 4 flex, heavy core with alpine clamps and couldn’t disagree more with the love/hate thing. This ski is super easy, intuitive and ready to go as a do everything stick. It even knocked two skis (111 and 122 waists) out of my quiver since 99% of the time the Q does everything those skis did.

    Thom if I read this right aren’t you on -10 Q’s? If so I think for Kieth and any prospective buyers browsing this thread benefit (since it’s almost pre-order season) you should be careful about making blanket statements and anything perceived as negative about the Q. I’m not saying they’re gods gift, but you bought an experimental ski so your experience with it isn’t exactly applicable to the rest of us on the the normal Q.

    (Of course if you didn’t buy the -10 I’ll gladly delete this and apologize in advance for my confusion)
    I'm on the standard width Qs. I edited my post (above) to clarify this for future readers.

    I agree with you about being a "ski designer" and having one shot to get it right ;-)

    A-ever-geuse got the -10's.

    From what I can tell, the folks who bonded immediately with the Q, tend to ski with a more modern stance, and those of us more used to driving the front of their boots went through a bit of a learning curve. Us old dogs can learn new tricks ;-)

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  16. #516
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,491

    Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

    Oh crap sorry about that. Not sure why I thought you were on -10. Totally my bad Thom.

  17. #517
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    4,506
    Quote Originally Posted by benfjord View Post
    Oh crap sorry about that. Not sure why I thought you were on -10. Totally my bad Thom.
    Daz me on the -10 AeverQs- so if u got questions I got answers

  18. #518
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by benfjord View Post
    I’m on 194, 4 flex, heavy core with alpine clamps and couldn’t disagree more with the love/hate thing. This ski is super easy, intuitive and ready to go as a do everything stick. It even knocked two skis (111 and 122 waists) out of my quiver since 99% of the time the Q does everything those skis did.
    ^^^This^^^
    Seriously, people really overthink this ski. It has identical turning radius on both sides, one just tapers earlier giving it less effective edge, resulting in a much quicker easier turning ski. Super intuitive, and easy to ski. The sidecut will make any shape, the long inside edge inspires confidence and edge hold and they tear up soft stuff like hot blade in butta! I just don't think they deserve all the over thinking, just look up and ski, and they will deliver
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  19. #519
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by eskido View Post
    ^^^This^^^
    Seriously, people really overthink this ski. It has identical turning radius on both sides, one just tapers earlier giving it less effective edge, resulting in a much quicker easier turning ski. Super intuitive, and easy to ski. The sidecut will make any shape, the long inside edge inspires confidence and edge hold and they tear up soft stuff like hot blade in butta! I just don't think they deserve all the over thinking, just look up and ski, and they will deliver
    Actually, it was the opposite. I got on them and expected instant bonding with them. Instead, it was a WTF experience and the thinking started (why does my inside ski seem to have a mind of its own?)

    Again, I think that folks who ski more modern/centered don't have to think twice about this, but old geezers with a forward stancelike myself are scratching our heads until everything connects. Then, it's exactly as you say.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  20. #520
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,758
    About me: I don't do quiver skis, Qs are my all the time skis

    Old School: Yes. Different skis prefer different subtleties in technique, I got into this above

    Love/Hate: I'm in the love camp. I did have the instant bonding by that probably had to do with ranging around Silverton with Buster ripping pow.

    Back to being dickish: IMO, I lot of skiers who can competently ski challenging terrain and higher speeds don't have very good style or technique. They use stiff skis and boots and a crutch to lean on as they are constantly off balance. So while I personally think this ski is easy, intuitive and rad. I can see how other people wouldn't.

    That said, I could be totally wrong. I spent a few runs Friday thinking about altering my technique to see what worked and what didn't and also thinking about how to describe the ski for tech talk purposes.

    So far they are very versatile and manageable in all conditions. I haven't skied any groomers yet but will update when I do.

  21. #521
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    So far they are very versatile and manageable in all conditions. I haven't skied any groomers yet but will update when I do.
    That's where I got wrapped around the axle - a terrible season for me with the first exposure to anything deeper than a couple of inches of chalk being yesterday (Damn! ... We've already passed the equinox and I'm writing this?)

    If I had the good fortune this year to start my season the way you did, I suspect I would have responded similarly.

    Agreed about "powerful" skiers without much in the realm of technique.

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 03-21-2018 at 02:25 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  22. #522
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    449
    I clicked in to them started skiing without any thinking. Been loving them ever since. This is my 2nd season on them. I’m more of a hack and not sure my skiing has much “technique”. I am also curious about anyone mounting on the line and then moving back. I had one extremely deep day where I was having float/tip dive issues. They have been perfect except that day. I’ll probably just buy protests instead of remounting.

  23. #523
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by benfjord View Post
    I’m on 194, 4 flex, heavy core with alpine clamps and couldn’t disagree more with the love/hate thing. This ski is super easy, intuitive and ready to go as a do everything stick. It even knocked two skis (111 and 122 waists) out of my quiver since 99% of the time the Q does everything those skis did.
    I agree with this in that I can be a hack w fore/aft balance, especially when tired , and haven't noticed a problem with these so far in 6-8 inches of pow, dust or crust, and groomers ,with the disclaimer I haven't had them in real deep or set up snow yet. I do have a Protest from the first year they were made that I've skiied a bunch, so maybe I was prepared to be more centered without even realizing it though.

    Oh edit to say I'm on the line on 188 flex 4

    Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app

  24. #524
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Actually, it was the opposite. I got on them and expected instant bonding with them. Instead, it was a WTF experience and the thinking started (why does my inside ski seem to have a mind of its own?)

    Again, I think that folks who ski more modern/centered don't have to think twice about this, but old geezers with a forward stancelike myself are scratching our heads until everything connects. Then, it's exactly as you say.

    ... Thom
    Agreed with the forward stance issue (as I've stated before), but IME these prefer to be driven much more from the shin than the more upright stance skis I prefer like the Concept and Protest. As someone who enjoys driving a ski through the shin, I much more enjoy the control and feathering that these fresher ski designs lend to, but with the Q's I feel like I can ski them upright and get all the latter attributes while being able to push through the shin and it feels like I just romped on the gas pedal of a muscle car. But that's just my experience, YMMV.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  25. #525
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Responsiveness to feathering is a great way of putting it!

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

Posting Permissions

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