Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

[galibier_numero_un]

Galibier, why do you go -1 on your Praxis'?

Also, remind me, do you have anything 100-110mm underfoot?

Sometimes I question my reading comprehension. I edited my original answer a few posts up ... basically, what adrenalated said.

... Thom

[ScrewYou]

Soooo many numbers.. I should have clarified that was about mount point.

If you have auto 109s, you're fine to go with standard Quixotes. I got skinny Qs to fill that spot. My 191 Monster 108s, although astonishing all mtn tools, are just too heavy for jumping off side hits left and right. The maple/ash layup is definitely beefy, but I should still save 400g/ski compared to the monsters, while having a more playful shape and rocker profile.

It will be my "easy" do it all ski. Short enough (185cm tape pull) for messing around and tight stuff. Stiff enough to shut down speed under my 200lbs, without folding like some other easy going skis.

[Shu Shu]

Just wanted to post up some thoughts from Keith. I told him I was basically trying to build up a ski for 6+ inches pow/crud resort based fast reckless skiing. I went with Q 182 4 flex heavy carbon veneer

"I think the weight will be good on the 182 Quixote, not too heavy but ideal. I look at things to offset the weight if you are trying to use the heavy core option on a fatter ski. So carbon or veneer top. You have both and I think that will end up being an ideal weight for this ski. If you went with a heavy core, nylon top, and #5 flex, I'd suggest a gym pass but the build as you have it makes sense"

[Duffman]

Just wanted to post up some thoughts from Keith. I told him I was basically trying to build up a ski for 6+ inches pow/crud resort based fast reckless skiing. I went with Q 182 4 flex heavy carbon veneer

"I think the weight will be good on the 182 Quixote, not too heavy but ideal. I look at things to offset the weight if you are trying to use the heavy core option on a fatter ski. So carbon or veneer top. You have both and I think that will end up being an ideal weight for this ski. If you went with a heavy core, nylon top, and #5 flex, I'd suggest a gym pass but the build as you have it makes sense"

Shu, why a 182 for a resort charger rather than 188

[Shu Shu]

A bunch of reasons actually. Most of my days are in smaller EC terrain, and pow days are always a mix of blasting crud piles on trails and ducking in and out of the woods for stashes. I love my 187 GPOs and Protests, but they are MAP carbons and really excel in untracked. I wanted to build something burly and really focused on resort skiing. My piste jibs in the same build (184) are just awesome and I reached for them most days this year, even when the snowfall legitimately warranted something fatter, just because this layup feels sooo good across all resort conditions. I knew I wanted to get something with that same layup for deeper days but I felt a 4 flex heavy core 188 Q would be a little overkill and maybe a little unwieldy for everything but the comparatively few days I get in bigger terrain on trips. Also FWIW I skied the absolute crap out my Concepts in a 177 and rarely felt they were too short. So put that altogether and you get the 182 Q heavy carbon veneer. F kn A. For reference i am 5,10 160lbs.

[Duffman]

A bunch of reasons actually. Most of my days are in smaller EC terrain, and pow days are always a mix of blasting crud piles on trails and ducking in and out of the woods for stashes. I love my 187 GPOs and Protests, but they are MAP carbons and really excel in untracked. I wanted to build something burly and really focused on resort skiing. My piste jibs in the same build (184) are just awesome and I reached for them most days this year, even when the snowfall legitimately warranted something fatter, just because this layup feels sooo good across all resort conditions. I knew I wanted to get something with that same layup for deeper days but I felt a 4 flex heavy core 188 Q would be a little overkill and maybe a little unwieldy for everything but the comparatively few days I get in bigger terrain on trips. Also FWIW I skied the absolute crap out my Concepts in a 177 and rarely felt they were too short. So put that altogether and you get the 182 Q heavy carbon veneer. F kn A. For reference i am 5,10 160lbs.

Makes sense. I'm looking for similar performance out of the Q, but went 188 #4 flex but I'm 6'1 205. Still debating between MAP Veneer vs MA Veneer + carbon

[Muggydude]

I ski primarily in CO but like shu, still went 182 Heavy w/carbon and veneer 4 flex. Im 5'9 ~175lbs, was 165 this season but after herniating two discs back up to 185 :/

The way I see it and what I'm hoping from that layup is it that it's along the same lines as the stock ON3P build. Looking at weights for comparable skis and lengths, that layup should still be somewhat lighter than the normal on3p build.

Combined with claims of the Qs skiing long I went with the shorter length. For you I wouldn't shy away from Heavy w/carbon and veneer for a pure resort ski. It still won't be a Heavy ski compared to other brands

[galibier_numero_un]

I ski primarily in CO but like shu, still went 182 Heavy w/carbon and veneer 4 flex. Im 5'9 ~175lbs, was 165 this season but after herniating two discs back up to 185 :/

The way I see it and what I'm hoping from that layup is it that it's along the same lines as the stock ON3P build. Looking at weights for comparable skis and lengths, that layup should still be somewhat lighter than the normal on3p build.

Combined with claims of the Qs skiing long I went with the shorter length. For you I wouldn't shy away from Heavy w/carbon and veneer for a pure resort ski. It still won't be a Heavy ski compared to other brands

This is only extrapolation based on my short experience with the Maple/Ash/Veneer (no carbon) Freerides I sold after receiving delivery last Summer. I'd say that yes, you're approximating an ON3P build. Also, yes to my recollection that the skis will still be a bit lighter than an ON3P.

Keith got back to me regarding my slight reticence about flex #4 for my 182 Enduro/Carbon/Veneer Q's. He said I'd be fine based on liking my MAP/Carbon GPOs (flex #4) from two years ago, combined with the fact that I have a bail-out plan for lazy or early season days (a pair of Atomic Automatic 109's). I'm guessing that I'll only pull out the Automatics when it's rock/shark season, although the bases are quite fragile - more fragile than many skis from big companies let alone those from Praxis and ON3P.

Ouch on the disks! This season, I could well have been posting mostly on gimp central, but I let my chiropractor listen to my whining. BTW, I'm learning a bit about how my crappy balance is affecting my lower back. We're doing Cerebellum balance/coordination exercises to re-educate the neural links (neuroplasticity). I've always been the sort who tips over sideways in a whiteout (it's a wonder that I can ski or climb at all).

Thom

[ScrewYou]

Damn MuggyDude, I feel for you. L5-S1 Herniation here, and ive put on about 15 extra lbs.. luckily its healing, no surgery will be needed. Not at this this stage anyways..

I am a lil over 6'2", about 215 lbs. I went with the shorter 188 skinny Q (187-tape measure 185cm), even though its smaller than most my other skis. As much as I like long skis to truck, I needed a shorter ski for daily driving, and whipping around in bumps and trees and some tight stuff.

My maple/ash #5 Rx are pretty damn beefy. Probably the beefiest ski without metal I've seen. The 187cm true length is still weighty in that layup too, they are significantly heavier than my 189 BGs or 191 C&Ds.. which are 2400g/ski. If I had to guess (no scale), id say 2500 grams. They are pretty heavy, which is good. They are also significantly stiffer than my 191 Wrenegade 114s. Keith is right, you better have a gym membership for this layup.

Im hoping the maple/ash with #4 flex tones it down a little, more along the lines of On3ps flex and weight.

[Muggydude]

^ that's the one that's causing me the most problems. So far it's improving a little, hopefully no surgery in the future. No more spartan races for me and carrying around 90lb buckets of sand up mountains

For some weight comparison (assuming GPO is close to Q and BG) per pair:

GPO Stock Weight
182: 8.9 lb
187 GPO stock weight = 9.3 lb
192: 9.8 lb

Here's some other weights on Praxis Website: not sure which core thickness the Quixote will be most like, probably GPO and weigh a little bit more.

179 RX: 8.5lb
189 RX: 9.2 lb
187 Concept: 9.0 lb

Then

+ 1b Heavy core, - 3oz carbon -6 oz veneer
= ~+.5lb a pair

Heavy/Carbon Veneer Flex 4 GPO:
182: 9.4 lb
187: 9.8 lb
192: 10.3 lb

My Guess for same layup in Q:

182: 9.5 lb
188: 9.9 lb
194: 10.5 lb

Billygoat:
179 Stock weight: 9.87 lb
184 stock weight: 10.27 lb
189 stock weight: 10.71 lb

So basically I think a flex 4 Heavy carbon veneer layup for Praxis is about .5-.6 lb Lighter per pair than ON3P still. Or the plain heavy layup is about the same weight as stock ON3P

Not that that means they perform the same. Just some analysis

[ScrewYou]

My 189 Rx (heavy, #5 with nylon topsheet and fiberglass) feel significantly heavier than my 189 Billy Goats. At least in hand. They feel more like 11 lbs, but I'll have to get them on a scale.

Maybe the stiffer flex adds the extra pound? They are pure beef..

What do we have now, around 100 days until our skis are done?!

[Muggydude]

You should weigh them and report back. The +1 lb for heavy core was just a ballpark, will obviously depend on ski length and width. Might be closer to +1.5lb for something like a 189 RX. Stiff flex would only add at most .25-.5 lbs I'd think.

[pembyguy]

Hey guys. Can one of you gentlemen send me a code please? Thanks 👍

[Muggydude]

Sent you a PM with a code!

[pembyguy]

Thank you 😊

[galibier_numero_un]

The time is drawing near to obsess over mount point of my soon to arrive Q's (182, flex #4, Enduro/Carbon, Ambrosia Veneer).

From what I'm reading (especially shu shu & suprechicken), mount points are very parallel to the GPO. It's not surprising, given that Drew provided the key input. I'll likely toss a coin between -1 & -1.5.

I had an interesting experience with a remount of my GPOs this Spring (15/16 model, 182, flex #4, MAP/Carbon, plastic top sheet). They were mounted at -1 for BSL=302 and I liked them.

I remounted them for Vipecs, and wanted to try -1.5, but due to hole conflicts, they're at -1.8 for BSL=297. I only got one mucky Spring day, but I did get to find some scratchy stuff before the sun hit. Bottom line, I'm liking them as much or perhaps slightly better at -1.8 than at -1.

This is pushing me toward -1.5 on the Q's

... Thom

[Muggydude]

My plan is to mount both my 192 enduro/veneer/3 flex protests and 182 Heavy/Carbon/veneer/4 flex Quixotes at -1.5

I really liked my GPOs at -1.5, my 192 protests felt a little too far forward on the line.

[galibier_numero_un]

Thanks! After posting, I thought more and more about the fact that this ski (like the GPO) has heavy input from Drew. From that perspective, I think -1 to -1.5 would work for me as well.

What was interesting about moving the GPOs back to -1.8 is that I feared I might lose control of the tip. If anything, it was more stable in Spring slush than at -1 and they didn't lose agility in tight spaces.

... Thom

[Shu Shu]

What's the recommended mount?-7 - 8?

[galibier_numero_un]

1st world dreams ... this morning, I woke up to a dream where my custom order was a ski so wide that it made a 138 look like skinny sticks, and after a day on them, I'd look like a bow-legged cowboy.

Whew! I'm better now ...

... Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

The GPO tail can kick your ass in moguls, even at my size. I also mounted back -1 after having them on the line. Much better pow float , but the slight trade off is that I definitely need to stay forward more in junky or demanding snow. I actually didn't notice the tail in bumps as much when it was mounted on the line.

I didn't find this to be the case at all (182 GPO / MAP Carbon / flex #4 / Nylon top sheet). 5'9" / 165 Lbs.

What really surprised me was that after re-mounting with Vipecs at -1.8 (previous mount was -1 for Wardens), was that I didn't feel the least bit slower in bumps than at -1. Even bigger of a surprise was that they were quicker in tight bumps than a new pair of 177 Nanuqs (mounted on the line with Vipecs).

Frankly, the only advantage the Nanuqs have is weight. They're slower to turn and less stable.

This leads me to go with -1.5 on my Q's, but I'm still hemming and hawing between this and -1. I doubt it will matter.

... Thom

[Muggydude]

I'm going -1.5 on my 182 Qs. Not sure what I'll do for my 192 protests, between -1 and -2.

I found my 187 GPOs to be tiring in tight moguls if I was skiing them for a large portion of the days. Still good for a ski it's size, very maneuverable

[undertow2]

Holy shit do you guys overthink this stuff...!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

Holy shit do you guys overthink this stuff...!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using TGR Forums mobile app

It's Summer ... lazy daze with time on our hands ;-)

[undertow2]

Completely understand and just poking... I actually talked to Keith when I ordered my GPOs amd talked to him about the mount point and he said he got some laughs on TGRs disecting of his mount points... Obviously he says go the line, which I do like a good soldier...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using TGR Forums mobile app