Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

[galibier_numero_un]

Quick update after multiply Q days inbounds ranging from spring pow to spring mank to spring groomers.

This is as close to a one ski quiver (as an anti-quiver guy) as I've skied. By that I mean, in a good way, that it is substantially above average at everything. Click in and go skiing. Total Ronco, "set it and forget it!"

If you have any particular questions, I will try to answer.

I'm coming the same conclusion. Other than an occasional "Tabke moment", they're some of the most versatile & predictable skis I've been on. They're bit wide for me on hard pack, but hey! they're 118 waists after all.

It took me a while to arrive at this "predictable" point - mainly getting comfortable with a centered stance.

Skiing dust over crust is much more predictible because I'm using the same centered stance on each surface. So, when I break through to the crust, I'm still in balance.

About the only thing I can see bumping them is some Down CD 114s (but this is only based on my experience of the CD 104s and you know how you can't extrapolate).

Today, I hit 10" at the Basin. I swapped between the Q's and my new (to me) Protests. The Protests had the advantage of the drier (early) powder, but the Qs prevailed, even as the day transitioned to stickier snow.

It's only day #2 on the Protests, and folks are telling me to give em 5 or 6 days. We'll see how it goes next season.

... Thom

[jmars]

Killer that you got on the Protest before the season ended.....what a spring!

[galibier_numero_un]

It was beginning to feel like a lost season until last month.

[Self Jupiter]

Has anyone with EHP experience tried Qs?

[undertow2]

Has anyone with EHP experience tried Qs?

Yes... Completely different skis...

[Self Jupiter]

Yes... Completely different skis...

Does the Q come close to matching the ehp frictionlessness in pow? I assume Q is more versatile / better on firm, so if it’s even 75% as cool in untracked then it’s very interesting.

[Banh Mi]

Anyone selling or wanna trade for Wren 108s or Kartel 116s?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MHSP1497]

Anyone selling or wanna trade for Wren 108s or Kartel 116s?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

i thought you and asym didn’t get along?

[Banh Mi]

I like asym in untracked snow. For my resort I prefer traditional skis. On skis 118mm and up asym starts to make more sense to me. I could barely even feel it on the 2017 C&Ds, even on soft packed cat tracks. I regret selling C&Ds already.

I want to experiment with the standard Q to see how it compares to my skinny versions, and how it compares to the On3ps and K2s.

I also want to try the enduro core. I think I’d like a 188 enduro Q for touring, not too heavy, not too light


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Long duc dong]

Finally going to review these

Me: Early 40's, ski 2-3 weekends a month at Mammoth, typically 35-40 days a year. 5'8" 180. I spent half a decade skiing Squaw everyday, but I left more than a decade ago.

Skis I like: I skied Volkl explosives almost every day when I lived in Tahoe. I'm not much of a quiver guy, I tend to find what I like and stick to it. For most of the last 8 years I have skied a 4frnt EHP in a 186 more often than not, and a pmgear bro in 179 on the firm days. If there is any doubt about what ski to take out I take the EHP's. I don't tend to like skis with sidecut. I like skis I can drive but also smear. I would rather make a ski turn than have something with a sidecut that pulls me into turns.

I finally bit the bullet and got the 182 Quixotes last winter. I got them standard, with, I believe, a 4 flex. I really like the flex, it is similar to the EHP.

On groomers they were fine, although it did take some time to adjust. That is partly because I ski new skis so rarely that I don't think I adjust as well as many of you guys would. I got the feel of rolling them edge to edge, and could make some nice arks. They have a bit more sidecut than the EHPs, so they felt like they wanted to be carving a bit more. I would still not call them a carvy ski, but I'm used to skis with very little sidecut. In short turns I had some issues, on the EHPs I could drive quick, sharp turns, with the Qs I felt like they were hard to drive in slalom turns. Obviously that is not what this ski is made for, but I was always able to do it on the EHPs. Overall I liked them on groomers for longer turns, but not in short turns. They have more rocker than the EHPs so I think that might have been it, the added camber on the EHPs might make them easier to drive in short turns.

I got to ski them in windbuff on Dave's in Mammoth, and had mixed results. When I opened them up and made big turns, they were really fun. But when I tried to make short, sharp turns they were hard to drive. In situations where I could make quick, rhythmic turns on the EHP I felt like I was struggling to set an edge and drive. This turned out to be a recurring problem.

I skied them in firm steeps, the avy chutes, and did not like them all that much. Like I said before, the EHPs are much easier for firing off quick, slalom turns in steep terrain. I felt like I could not drive off an edge set on the Qs, they seemed to want to pivot. Again, I think this is due to the fact that the EHPs have more camber, less rocker.

In powder they were insane. Like the EHPs, but with more float. The EHPs have rocker and are 116 underfoot, I don't think I NEED more rocker/width, but I could feel a difference between the EHPs and the Qs. On a 2 foot blower day they REALLY planed and smeared nicely. Like I said before, I don't NEED a better pow ski than the EHP, but these were really fun.

Overall, I'm a bit torn about what to do with these. I might measure the rocker on the EHPs, so that I can better comment on the difference between the skis. I think these skis would be great for someone who ski a 105-108 width ski as their everyday ski and then uses the Qs for pow and then maybe a couple of days after the storm. I really did like the Qs, but I did not find them as versatile as the EHPs. I thought they might replace my EHPs, but I have another pair in plastic that I'm going to mount up. I have plenty of confidence making quick, driving turns in firm steeps on the EHPs, not so much on the Qs. I could keep the Qs for powder and buy something around 108, that might make sense because I use the EHPs on many days when it might make sense to use a smaller ski. I ski lots of Mammoth windbuff, and while I like the EHPs in those conditions I could just as easily use something around 108, I don't NEED 116 underfoot for Mammoth windbuff. I might keep the EHPs for versatility and just use the Qs in powder, that would also be an option. If I was going on a trip and could only bring one ski the EHP would be fine, but the Qs would not be quite versatile enough for that.

I should add that it is possible I will adjust to the Qs and get used to them. It has been a long time since I tried a new ski, so the added rocker and lack of camber was something I had trouble getting used to. If I still lived in the mountains and skied everyday I might adjust to the lack of camber, but with only 35-40 days a year on the hill I have not done so yet. I skied the Qs about 5 days last year, I got them in March, and was relieved to go back to my EHPs.

Sorry I can't be more definitive. I think the Q is a great ski for what it is made for, it is just not quite as versatile as I would like. I could really feel the added rocker, and I did not like it for a daily driver. If you are used to skis with less camber they might work better for you. I think I just need to learn to pivot them better, hopefully that will happen this winter. But if you ski something around 108 as your daily driver and want something for storm days to the next two days after it clears, the Q is a great choice. Making huge pow turns they were both quick and stable. I think this is a really great ski, I just don't know if it is right for me.

[auvgeek]

Nice review, thanks for taking the time. Be interesting to see if you like the 184 RX.

I wonder if part of your issue with not being able to set an edge on quick turns is not just the rocker and lack of camber but also partially the asymmetry. Tabke specifically designed them to avoid catching the outside edge ... which could also translate to doesn't set an outside edge well.

[Long duc dong]

Nice review, thanks for taking the time. Be interesting to see if you like the 184 RX.

I wonder if part of your issue with not being able to set an edge on quick turns is not just the rocker and lack of camber but also partially the asymmetry. Tabke specifically designed them to avoid catching the outside edge ... which could also translate to doesn't set an outside edge well.

That could be, and that's good thinking. I also can't stress enough that I have only skied 3 different skis in the last 9 years or so, the EHPs around 20 days a year at Mammoth, the bros 10-15 days a year at Mammoth, and a pair of Seth Viscious' from 07/08 5 days a year as a rock ski at Baldy. Lots of you guys turn your quivers over more quickly, while I'm very set in my ways. I know the way those skis perform and I'm probably pretty geared towards them, so when something is different it would make sense that I would have trouble adjusting. It would be fun to try an asym ski with the same rocker profile as the EHP to see how it felt.

[galibier_numero_un]

I only have a dozen or so days on my Qs and was only beginning to get used to their behavior on harder snow. It's all about adopting a more centered stance than I'm used to - an old dog/new tricks thing.

If I can fully adapt (I still have to focus on it) I can see a potential advantage when skiing dust over crust, as my stance won't change as I break through the soft stuff to the underlying barnacles. We'll see how it pans out, but I like the concept.

In soft stuff, I don't find them pivot-y, but rather quick in an edge to edge sort of way. I have to say that (with my limited new school ski experience), that I can shut them down very quickly. Maybe I only slarve when shutting things down.

The first half of this season should tell the story. What they do well, I love and if I adapt to their quirks, they can be a one ski travel quiver (if flying).

I'm not usually the sort of person who assumes I should have to make major adjustments to gear. The gear should generally make sense to me within a few days. Of course, with skis, messing with tuning can take some time.

With respect to tuning, I give them the standard Praxis detune - heavily rounding to the contact points (file, not gummy stone). This was critical to my figuring out my GPOs.

In terms of adaptation, two years ago, a boot change to Lange XT 13O Freetours enforced a more upright stance which took all of 4-5k vert to get used to.

Upright now makes sense. Maybe more centered will follow ... or not

... Thom

[auvgeek]

I also can't stress enough that I have only skied 3 different skis in the last 9 years or so, the EHPs around 20 days a year at Mammoth, the bros 10-15 days a year at Mammoth, and a pair of Seth Viscious' from 07/08 5 days a year as a rock ski at Baldy. Lots of you guys turn your quivers over more quickly, while I'm very set in my ways. I know the way those skis perform and I'm probably pretty geared towards them, so when something is different it would make sense that I would have trouble adjusting.

That's great. No need to change a good thing. When you run out of EHPs, maybe consider a Praxis RX.

[Long duc dong]

That's great. No need to change a good thing. When you run out of EHPs, maybe consider a Praxis RX.

The RX looks awesome. I will definitely consider it when I am done with EHPs. I am mounting my last pair of EHPs this fall.

[galibier_numero_un]

That's great. No need to change a good thing. When you run out of EHPs, maybe consider a Praxis RX.

I'm really interested on the returns this year on the skinny Rx as well.

... Thom

[Shu Shu]

In situations where I could make quick, rhythmic turns on the EHP I felt like I was struggling to set an edge and drive. This turned out to be a recurring problem.
.., the EHPs are much easier for firing off quick, slalom turns in steep terrain. I felt like I could not drive off an edge set on the Qs, they seemed to want to pivot.
.

Having skied my Qs for probably 20 days last season, and a lot of it on hardpack, I know exactly what you are describing. I remember when I was still figuring these skis out, trying to link "slalom" esque short turns and to be honest it just felt ridiculous. I can only imagine, that in very steep terrain at slower speeds when you are trying to fire quick turns in succession by setting an edge and popping to the next turn the effect would similar

The Q, for me, works best when you just ride it down the fall line, staying centered and evenly weighted on both feet, and using the taper and relatively little friction of the down hill ski to drift and slide when quick direction changes are required. I think this approach could work well in steeper terrain as well, but that's hypothetical because I haven't had a chance to ski any steep chalky chutes on them yet.

I think your Idea of keeping them as a pow ski, and maybe spending some more time with them is good. I'm not sure you'll ever get them to behave like an EHP, but you might find with more time that they change your approach to skiing certain terrain. They did for me.They are my favorite skis I own, out of a semi-respectable quiver that includes, GPOs, Concepts, Piste Jibs and Protests.

FWIW in accumulations of less than 12" I didn't find the protest to be a superior pow experience. Different and awesome yes, but not better. The Q absolutely crushses your average to good in bounds pow and crud.

[Self Jupiter]

The MVP is the closest ski to what I would personally want a 108-110mm underfoot ski to behave like the EHP, while also behaving like a 110mm underfoot ski, if that makes sense. It has a lot of the bouncy, slashy and frictionless characteristics for a more ‘All-mountain’ ski.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

I def wouldn’t call the Q a daily driver. For me it really punches above its class in pow. Enough so I’m selling my Renegades cause the Q’s do just about everything they do in pow and are way better post storm. I’d never reach for the Q on hardpack, super firm or wind pack day though. There are just so many better skis for that stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Banh Mi]

A Fat or regular Q makes a lot more sense to me now that I tried the skinny Q. I personally feel that asym only makes sense in 115mm+ skis. Really in 125mm skis for me ideally.

That being said, I thought my skinny Qs held both edges as well as Moment PB&Js or Kartel 108s, but I just felt like I was skiing two different skis, one on the inside edge, one on the outside. All asym skis throw me off on firm, as that is just slightly unpredictable for me. Not “bad” on edge in any sense, just too different and hard for me to adjust to. Which is weird because I never have problems skiing radical skis with non traditional shapes..


This comes with a huge caveat. With all the skis I was trying, I never actually took getting used to asym too seriously. It just felt off in each ski I tried it on, so I gave up quickly. I bet if I actually spent 5-10 days in a row on an asym ski, I could probably get to a point where I could daily drive them. I could easily have daily driven those skinny Q’s if I got used to that “two different ski” feeling.

Idk too much about how I personally ski, IE how much I weight/unweight each foot/edge. Idk if that has something to do with it.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shu Shu]

I bet if I actually spent 5-10 days in a row on an asym ski, I could probably get to a point where I could daily drive them. I could easily have daily driven those skinny Q’s if I got used to that “two different ski” feeling.

Idk too much about how I personally ski, IE how much I weight/unweight each foot/edge. Idk if that has something to do with it.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

5-10 days was about what it took for me. The eureka moment was really when I actually stopped thinking of them as two different skis, and more of a single platform...if that makes any sense.

[Norseman]

5-10 days was about what it took for me. The eureka moment was really when I actually stopped thinking of them as two different skis, and more of a single platform...if that makes any sense.

Which is how one should ride any pair in soft snow, of course.

Feet together, even weight, surf's up

[Banh Mi]

Asym only messes with me on firm snow. It felt like each side of the ski performs different turn shapes and different release patterns. I like having the same performance on each side of the ski personally. Even if I got used to it, I still think I’d prefer a regular sidecut ski.

I didnt really notice it as much in soft stuff though, where I think asym makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Maybe you already covered this but did you give them a pretty aggressive detune?

[Shu Shu]

Which is how one should ride any pair in soft snow, of course.

Feet together, even weight, surf's up

I guess what I'm getting at is that the Q works best when you you take that approach across literally all snow conditions (to the extent possible). I think Thom has mentioned a few times, and I totally agree, with the Q you can surf pow, blast crud, and ride hardpack all within a few turns, and the transitions are super smooth and don't require much of a stance weight adjustment.