Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

[undertow2]

Undertow, Chicken,

Its the very fact you both have had really different experiences on hardpack that makes me think it's more that I suck at skiing than there is anything inherently weird about the design of the Q for groomers. And thanks for the compliments on the topsheet, I am also beyond stoked with how they turned out.

Shu, disagree... I love Praxis, but my biggest bitch is their tune... I know the skis you like and the only issues I have had with any new skis have been Praxis... I could understand if they were to much for you or handful in other conditions, but the fact that it is on the groom says something is up with the tune...

Just one mans opinion, but I hated my beloved GPOs on my uphill ski as it was catching like a bitch and that was after my shop did a tune/detune... Was on a trip and losing my mind and took them into a local shop and did a full tune on both skis and it has been instant love since...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

Shu, disagree... I love Praxis, but my biggest bitch is their tune... I know the skis you like and the only issues I have had with any new skis have been Praxis... I could understand if they were to much for you or handful in other conditions, but the fact that it is on the groom says something is up with the tune...

Just one mans opinion, but I hated my beloved GPOs on my uphill ski as it was catching like a bitch and that was after my shop did a tune/detune... Was on a trip and losing my mind and took them into a local shop and did a full tune on both skis and it has been instant love since...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

Agree with refining the tune/de-tune to one's taste. For my GPOs, there was significant tip/tail detuning.

I just put the true bar on my Q's. Dead... Nuts... Flat.

[edit] Initially, it didn't dawn on me to check the base bevel (never been an issue with previous deliveries from Praxis). There's hardly any base bevel on the skis (much less than 1 degree).

I marked the edge with black marker (to observe what if anything I was removing) and then ran my 1 degree SVST base bevel guide over them. It took quite a few passes to get to the point where I stopped removing material.

This is a surprise from previous Praxis deliveries which were both flat (true) and had a 1 degree base bevel. I'd definitely check the base bevel folks.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the "the Final Cut" SVST tool, it stops removing edge once you've established the bevel (it goes ever so slightly past the edge to the base - depending on your edge width).

... Thom

[Duffman]

Agree with refining the tune/de-tune to one's taste. For my GPOs, there was significant tip/tail detuning.

I just put the true bar on my Q's. Dead... Nuts... Flat.

... Thom

Base flat or edges flat too w zero bevel? My GPOs were the grabbiest skis on Earth until I hit the tips w a damn bastard file. The stock tunes do kind of suck. Even now I feel like they could use some more base bevel, but I haven't touched it yet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

You beat me to the punch. I was just editing my above post. There's hardly any base bevel (considerably less than 1 degree). Herein could lie the answer to varied responses to hard snow predictability. I have to admit that with my limited time on them, I was a bit depressed at not being able to get a handle on them in low tide.

This exercise gives me something quantifiable as to why this may have been the case. I've always been picky about base bevel. We'll see if this translates to the hill.

BTW, with my GPOs, the base was flat and the bevel was 1 degree. I did need to do heavy tip andtail detuning, but not re-tuning.

... Thom

[SupreChicken]

I was actually going to get a veneer #4 flex Enduro glass GPO during the presale, but decided to try something different and do the same layup Q. Sounds like you did nearly the same.

How do you think the Q would fare as an inbound only ski? Still to much of a fall line charger for farting around in tighter trees, bumps , etc on a mixed conditions day?

Yeah. Did the same thing.

The Q would destroy shit in bounds. Not quite as nimble in tight trees as the GPO if that’s your jam (it’s mine), but really would trust them to be pointed through just about any variable snow type. And that’s talking about the enduro/Carbon layup. A full heavy core would be a freight train in any length. If I were younger or cared more about touching up the minute details of my technique,

I may have kept my Q and sold my 191 Billy goats. But those are worth $4,999. It’ll jump to $6k once bitcoin tops $20k. Gotta hang on for now.

I’m genuinely interested in undertow’s SG vs 194 Q. I think the Q will be more of a truck.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

I’m on a #4 flex, 194 heavy core. Can confirm they’re freight trains.

[Banh Mi]

I’m on a #4 flex, 194 heavy core. Can confirm they’re freight trains.

I should have went 194. Some guys on here even told me to do so. I should have listened.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Muggydude]

Really looking forward to seeing how going shorter 182 and heavy core makes the Qs compare to my old enduro 187 GPOs. Hoping they'll blast through everything but the length will let me whip them around in tight places

[galibier_numero_un]

I should have went 194. Some guys on here even told me to do so. I should have listened.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I'm beginning to think that a cheap flight to Reno to demo (Keith has some demos in popular sizes for local use?) would be money well spent.

... Thom

[Muggydude]

Can anyone tell me where the dimple is at on the 188s? How far from center.

Dimple on 182s is at -6.75 from center.

Not sure if I go -1 from dimple or -8 from center (-1.25)

[galibier_numero_un]

I’m sticking with the plan to re-hab the knee by going self-propelled skiing through the holidays. This morning, I got out on a forest service trail adjacent to the Eldora ski area. On the return trip, a couple hundred vertical feet of easy blue groomers are available for the poaching, so I decided to take out the Q’s.

This is way overkill for a jaunt you could do on x-c skis, but the puzzle that is these skis is really bugging me. Conditions on the groomer were an inch or two of pushed around graupel over a packed base.

Anyhow, adding a 1 degree bottom bevel didn’t significantly change the predictability of the inside ski. Initiating might have been a bit easier and the skis might be a bit slarvier, but the inside ski of the turn still feels as if it has a mind of its own. This is going to take tens of thousands of vertical feet to figure out.

… Thom

[Banh Mi]

I’m going to list my 187 Skinny Q’s for sale, just putting it up here first. PM me


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[STLHD]

I love my skinny Qs. I’ll put up a full review later, but i think they kick ass. I could see going longer, but i think they handle heavy crud on par with my 98 wrens and do fine on groomers and ice. Haven’t noticed the feeling that Thom and others have referred to. Mine also came with the dullest edges I’ve ever received from praxis, which was welcomed as i normally take a gummy to them right away. Really psyched to use these as my DD this season. Would also make a nice touring rig. Tempted to snag avers’ pair for that purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[galibier_numero_un]

I love my skinny Qs. I’ll put up a full review later, but i think they kick ass. I could see going longer, but i think they handle heavy crud on par with my 98 wrens and do fine on groomers and ice. Haven’t noticed the feeling that Thom and others have referred to. Mine also came with the dullest edges I’ve ever received from praxis, which was welcomed as i normally take a gummy to them right away. Really psyched to use these as my DD this season. Would also make a nice touring rig. Tempted to snag avers’ pair for that purpose. Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yeah, I'm still hopeful that it's a weird learning curve for me, but at the end of the day, I'm also open to the possibility that it's for a different skier type. We'll see ...

... Thom

[Banh Mi]

I love my skinny Qs. I’ll put up a full review later, but i think they kick ass. I could see going longer, but i think they handle heavy crud on par with my 98 wrens and do fine on groomers and ice. Haven’t noticed the feeling that Thom and others have referred to. Mine also came with the dullest edges I’ve ever received from praxis, which was welcomed as i normally take a gummy to them right away. Really psyched to use these as my DD this season. Would also make a nice touring rig. Tempted to snag avers’ pair for that purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I’m glad you like them, I had a feeling you would, cuz I think you are lil lighter than me, with the same layup, and you went veneer(?). They are almost there for me, just not quite.

They are good skis, they just are probably too short for me, and my weight just places a lot of pressure on the wrong part of the sidecut. That’s how it feels atleast. Which makes them turn sharply when I try to get forward and drive the tips. Undertow said I would regret going 187, and he was right. I bet the 194 would have given me that drive-able tip, yet still made for a maneuverable ski, almost matching On3p’s RES design in terms of ease of intiation in crudy or manky snow, and in trees.

On3p’s RES and Praxis Q designs seem like they belong in a similar category for me, where they dont work very well on firm, but they will get you down the hill just fine (and still fast)..kind of thing. Then in softer, manky, or cruddy day after powder, they really excel and allow you to maneuver without hanging up, allowing for creativity and confidence.

They have two different approaches to that similar feel though, if that makes any sense. Getting along with either design, depends on the specific person, and whichever they prefer. The asymetrical sidecut feels slightly more “traditional” than RES, if you will, and it will turn on me if I pressure those tips. Whereas RES will also turn through chunkier snow as easily, but only when you ask it to turn. Not every time you pressure the edge.

RES is less turny, and more predictable, but that may because the skinny Q measures like 186cm, and I have only ever skied RES in 189-191cm. Making this entire point moot..Still, I thought I’d add it for anyone 185lbs or more, and thinking of sizing down in this skinny layup. For future purposes.

Both good skis, different strokes for different folks. I do not like radical taper points, and that could be why I didn’t “love” it, and just overthinking all this.. the outside edges on Q’s have a radical taper point, and feel like they have less effective edge.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[glademaster]

All you people messing with the mounting point on the Q need to start there if you are having issues. People on here are adamant about mounting asym ON3Ps on the recommended point because they are so sensitive, and yet everyone here is going off the dimple on the Q. Mount them on the line.

Second, Keith's tunes suck. Full stop. Fleet demo skis arrive with a better factory tune than every pair of Praxis I've purchased new (4 pairs so far). They need a full tune, including base structure, base and side edge bevel set. I don't even mount my Praxii before I get them tuned any more, as I have consistently had such heinous experiences skiing them out of the wrapper.

All that being said, I tend to agree that the Q is a bit of a wonky ski, and was released before it was ready for prime time. Keith's craftsmanship and passion for the sport are without match, but I haven't skied a single pair of Praxis that jumps out at me as a "great" ski, including my Protests. I think my Q's will likely be my last pair of Praxis (note, this isn't a slight against the brand, they build gorgeous skis, just not sure they work all that well for me). They're fun, but the inflection points between the taper and sidecut (i.e taper radius) isn't as refined as it should be, particularly on the outside edges.

[Banh Mi]

Both my praxis are mounted on the line, and I love the stock tune on both..

The Q’s are “almost” great, just feel too short/turny for my size. I dont think the tune has anything to do with it. I feel issues with the sidecut.

Rx are phenomenal skis. Better than great. The stock tune on them rocks.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[galibier_numero_un]

All you people messing with the mounting point on the Q need to start there if you are having issues. People on here are adamant about mountain asym ON3Ps on the recommended point because they are so sensitive, and yet everyone here is going off the dimple on the Q. Mount them on the line.

I'm in general agreement with you, but having asked Keith about it, he said to mount the Q's where I like my GPOs (at -1). I'd say that +/- 1cm is generally safe with most skis.

Having said that, I've had success with on the line mounts with ON3P, and I don't think I'd ever call into question their recommended mount points.

I wonder how the two companies compare as far as the variety of testers skiing styles as far as determining mount points.

... Thom

[Muggydude]

Can anyone tell me where the dimple is at on the 188s? How far from center.

Dimple on 182s is at -6.75 from center.

Not sure if I go -1 from dimple or -8 from center (-1.25)

Anyone mind taking a tape measure to their 188s? Where the dimple is

[Banh Mi]

My 187 skinny Q’s measure 185cm on the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Muggydude]

My 187 skinny Q’s measure 185cm on the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

How far back from the tips is the dimple?

[Shu Shu]

A few more days on my Qs over the holiday up here in the deep freezer.

So two things happened, (1) I got some intuitions in the stocking which transformed my aging Rx 130s. (2) I got over the hardpack learning curve on the Qs and found their happy place.

I think the intuitions had a lot to do with it actually, I really hadn't realized how packed out and shitty my stock liners had become. All this to say I felt waaay more connected to the ski, and the whole two footed approach really finally clicked. I don't feel like I was overthinking it either, with my boots dialed it just felt natural to weight both skis more or less evenly all the time, and then all of a sudden I could make nice clean arcs when/wherever. I want to get back on my GPOs now that I've got the Q figured out, but I wouldn't think twice anymore about taking the Qs as my one-ski on a trip that look liked a mixed bag with potential for decent accumulations. They inspire so much confidence in all kinds of shitty leftover setup garbage snow, I still can't believe how fast I'm skiing on them.

[Chugachjed]

I’m sticking with the plan to re-hab the knee by going self-propelled skiing through the holidays. This morning, I got out on a forest service trail adjacent to the Eldora ski area. On the return trip, a couple hundred vertical feet of easy blue groomers are available for the poaching, so I decided to take out the Q’s.

This is way overkill for a jaunt you could do on x-c skis, but the puzzle that is these skis is really bugging me. Conditions on the groomer were an inch or two of pushed around graupel over a packed base.

Anyhow, adding a 1 degree bottom bevel didn’t significantly change the predictability of the inside ski. Initiating might have been a bit easier and the skis might be a bit slarvier, but the inside ski of the turn still feels as if it has a mind of its own. This is going to take tens of thousands of vertical feet to figure out.

… Thom

For me on the Qs on groomed I have to really focus on being on both skis otherwise one wants to wander.

FWIW Qs work out of a heli

[Chugachjed]

The mount point is wack. I’m at -2 and it’s money for me.

[Muggydude]

Yeah I was surprised how forward it is. Dimple is -7 on 188 and -6.75 on 182