Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 881
  1. #851
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Western MT
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by pembyguy View Post
    I consider my Qs as my all mountain driver. It just behaves like a much narrower ski; charges and floats a bit. I donít feel like thereís 118 under my feet when Iím throwing it around; it does lock into larger arcs but easy to release. Takes the place of a 100-110 daily ski. Best carving 118 ski? Large sweet spot.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    That's what I'm finding too. Which is why I have yet to mount my new MVPs.....

  2. #852
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    608
    x3. even sold my 107 under foot ski. fuggit the q's can do it

  3. #853
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    608
    Has anyone actually used as skinny q as a touring ski? Been thinking about how I want a chargy, 108ish do it all touring ski that's either full rocker or close to it, and I'm seriously considering a skinny q. Love 188 stock veneer q's as my daily

    Also, skinny q owners - what do your builds weigh in at?

  4. #854
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,799

    Praxis Quixote - Jumped the Shark or Legit?

    ^^^
    Paging Glademaster to the Skinny Q courtesy phone.

  5. #855
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,252
    Anyone have a CCR Q built and have an opinion on it?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #856
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    5,875
    Quote Originally Posted by sruffian View Post
    Has anyone actually used as skinny q as a touring ski? Been thinking about how I want a chargy, 108ish do it all touring ski that's either full rocker or close to it, and I'm seriously considering a skinny q. Love 188 stock veneer q's as my daily

    Also, skinny q owners - what do your builds weigh in at?
    I have a pair of 182cm skinny Q's as a touring setup. I've mentioned it in other threads, but for reference, here's the rundown:

    Skier: 5'7" 155-160 pounds w/o gear. I'm a technically solid/strong skier, but am more of a finesse than power skier.
    Ski Build: Flex 3, cherry veneer, heavy core w/carbon
    Binding: G3 Ion12 mounted at -1cm from rec
    Boot: La Sportiva Spectre 2.0

    ETA WEIGHT w/bindings: 2540g and 2547g for a total of 5087g.

    I'm somewhat biased because I really clicked with the skis right from the first run I took on them, and they feel intuitive and easy to ski in a wide range of conditions.

    I haven't weighed my setup, but I did just order a kitchen scale, so I'll post a weight up later this week. I didn't originally purchase them in that build with the intention of using them as an AT ski, but their weight feels reasonable to me and is well worth it for how well they ski. I schlepped them to the top of Mt. Adams and I didn't feel like they were a drag on a 6 day hut trip where we averaged around 5k vert per day (short days in late December in BC), to give you some frame of reference.

    I think it's an extremely capable touring ski in a wide range of conditions. I've skied it in everything from July 4 suncups on Rainier to waist deep powder on a hut trip in BC to quick after work laps at Hyak back when you were allowed to ski in Washington, and they haven't let me down.

    They're quick edge to edge but the radius is long enough that they don't feel hooky in crusty snow, they float well for being 108mm underfoot, and they're a delight on spring corn. If you already have Q's and they work well for you, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pick up a skinny pair.

    FWIW, I love the way my skinny Q's ski in powder, but I went ahead and ordered a pair of regular width ones a couple days ago for deep snow touring. That new one is going to be: 182cm Q, Flex 3, Enduro w/carbon, Oak veneer, to be mounted with Vipec Evo's. Should be a bit floatier and a bit livelier/poppier in soft snow, while weighing pretty damn close to my current skinny setup.
    Last edited by glademaster; 04-07-2020 at 04:55 PM.
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  7. #857
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    girdwood
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by sruffian View Post
    Has anyone actually used as skinny q as a touring ski? Been thinking about how I want a chargy, 108ish do it all touring ski that's either full rocker or close to it, and I'm seriously considering a skinny q. Love 188 stock veneer q's as my daily

    Also, skinny q owners - what do your builds weigh in at?
    I now use my skinny Qs as my early season touring rig. Mine are 187s, #4 flex with heavy build (I didn't plan on using them as touring ski). I think they're around 9.5lbs but will weigh them this evening and verify.

    They're a pretty good touring ski. The shape and build works well for maritime snow.

  8. #858
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I have a pair of 182cm skinny Q's as a touring setup. I've mentioned it in other threads, but for reference, here's the rundown:

    Skier: 5'7" 155-160 pounds w/o gear. I'm a technically solid/strong skier, but am more of a finesse than power skier.
    Ski Build: Flex 3, cherry veneer, heavy core w/carbon
    Binding: G3 Ion12 mounted at -1cm from rec
    Boot: La Sportiva Spectre 2.0

    I'm somewhat biased because I really clicked with the skis right from the first run I took on them, and they feel intuitive and easy to ski in a wide range of conditions.

    I haven't weighed my setup, but I did just order a kitchen scale, so I'll post a weight up later this week. I didn't originally purchase them in that build with the intention of using them as an AT ski, but their weight feels reasonable to me and is well worth it for how well they ski. I schlepped them to the top of Mt. Adams and I didn't feel like they were a drag on a 6 day hut trip where we averaged around 5k vert per day (short days in late December in BC), to give you some frame of reference.

    I think it's an extremely capable touring ski in a wide range of conditions. I've skied it in everything from July 4 suncups on Rainier to waist deep powder on a hut trip in BC to quick after work laps at Hyak back when you were allowed to ski in Washington, and they haven't let me down.

    They're quick edge to edge but the radius is long enough that they don't feel hooky in crusty snow, they float well for being 108mm underfoot, and they're a delight on spring corn. If you already have Q's and they work well for you, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pick up a skinny pair.

    FWIW, I love the way my skinny Q's ski in powder, but I went ahead and ordered a pair of regular width ones a couple days ago for deep snow touring. That new one is going to be: 182cm Q, Flex 3, Enduro w/carbon, Oak veneer, to be mounted with Vipec Evo's. Should be a bit floatier and a bit livelier/poppier in soft snow, while weighing pretty damn close to my current skinny setup.
    Quote Originally Posted by STLHD View Post
    I now use my skinny Qs as my early season touring rig. Mine are 187s, #4 flex with heavy build (I didn't plan on using them as touring ski). I think they're around 9.5lbs but will weigh them this evening and verify.

    They're a pretty good touring ski. The shape and build works well for maritime snow.
    How would you say they do with shorter radius turns at slower speeds? I ask because some people have said the Q prefers the fall line and some speed to come alive.

    Love the idea of a skinny Q instead of skinny GPO. Spent time thinking about both and the tip shape and asymm properties of the Q make me think it would do better - 10mm width. Maintain looseness and ability to throw sideways anytime. Regular GPO can do that but I worry about the scalpel like tip when narrower.

    I'm rambling but appreciate the feedback on these narrow versions of awesome designs , very helpful.
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  9. #859
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    5,875
    Quote Originally Posted by steveski View Post
    How would you say they do with shorter radius turns at slower speeds? I ask because some people have said the Q prefers the fall line and some speed to come alive.

    Love the idea of a skinny Q instead of skinny GPO. Spent time thinking about both and the tip shape and asymm properties of the Q make me think it would do better - 10mm width. Maintain looseness and ability to throw sideways anytime. Regular GPO can do that but I worry about the scalpel like tip when narrower.

    I'm rambling but appreciate the feedback on these narrow versions of awesome designs , very helpful.
    I find that in the flex 3 and the 182cm length, they're plenty maneuverable at low speeds or in tight terrain for someone my size. The low camber and asym makes them easy to skid/smear/pivot short turns on. The tail is supportive but not overly stiff relative to the rest of the ski, so they can be shut down relatively easily too.
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  10. #860
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    girdwood
    Posts
    416
    Mine are more stable and predictable with speed and when pointed down the fall line. At slower speeds or with larger arcs, I find that they want to initiate the turn too quickly. But if your style is more suited to pivot/smeared turns, then you'd likely find them very intuitive. They are definitely loose.

  11. #861
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    608
    Thanks for the comments - now I'm seriously interested.

    Thinking about a map / carbon / veneer layup in a 4 flex. 185, 5'10 what I lack in technique I make up in speed...

    Just to check my reasoning - if I have no problem bending a full width 188 q into tight turns in the trees, the same should apply w a skinny q, right?

  12. #862
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,331
    My buddyís skinny Qs are in my ski storage, 188, heavy hitter core nylon top. I know heíd let them go for a very reasonable price, shoot me a PM if interested

  13. #863
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    My buddyís skinny Qs are in my ski storage, 188, heavy hitter core nylon top. I know heíd let them go for a very reasonable price, shoot me a PM if interested
    If only they were 182! Have that exact build in the cart right now...
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  14. #864
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    5,875
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    Anyone have a CCR Q built and have an opinion on it?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I haven't, but I seriously considered it for this year. I exchanged several emails with Keith about the idea and he thought that the shape of the Q would pair well with the CCR rocker profile. After mulling it over, I decided that one of the things I like about the Q is it's rocker/camber profile, and I know full reverse camber skis can be a bit of a chore to skin on.

    I find it interesting that some people think the Q doesn't ski well in deep snow. I own 184cm Steeple 116's, and my skinny Q's are better deep snow skis than the Steeples. Then again, I think the Steeple/BG is at best a mediocre powder ski. It's one of the best crud/chop skis ever made, but they're slow and lifeless in truly deep powder. That makes the Steeple/BG a great resort pow ski, where you're spending most of your day skiing soft chop and not truly untracked. I've always had a preference for skis without the "clown shoe" rocker that the BG's have with the steep, hugely rockered shovels. Lower profile/rise rocker shapes like the EHP or DPS Wailer RPC have generally jived better with my style.

    Perhaps some of it comes down to powder skiing technique/style. I have a somewhat old school style and prefer to weight and unweight my skis pretty aggressively, and I want a ski that will bend and have enough life/snap to porpoise up and out of the snow between turns even in blower. Steeples seem to reward just standing on them and "smearing the frosting."
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  15. #865
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I haven't, but I seriously considered it for this year. I exchanged several emails with Keith about the idea and he thought that the shape of the Q would pair well with the CCR rocker profile. After mulling it over, I decided that one of the things I like about the Q is it's rocker/camber profile, and I know full reverse camber skis can be a bit of a chore to skin on.

    I find it interesting that some people think the Q doesn't ski well in deep snow. I own 184cm Steeple 116's, and my skinny Q's are better deep snow skis than the Steeples. Then again, I think the Steeple/BG is at best a mediocre powder ski. It's one of the best crud/chop skis ever made, but they're slow and lifeless in truly deep powder. That makes the Steeple/BG a great resort pow ski, where you're spending most of your day skiing soft chop and not truly untracked. I've always had a preference for skis without the "clown shoe" rocker that the BG's have with the steep, hugely rockered shovels. Lower profile/rise rocker shapes like the EHP or DPS Wailer RPC have generally jived better with my style.

    Perhaps some of it comes down to powder skiing technique/style. I have a somewhat old school style and prefer to weight and unweight my skis pretty aggressively, and I want a ski that will bend and have enough life/snap to porpoise up and out of the snow between turns even in blower. Steeples seem to reward just standing on them and "smearing the frosting."
    I thought my original Qs would replace my beloved Shiros, but it wasnít to be until I skied them for 5 days straight in Steamboat and the Qs lost all their camber. I was 100% in love with them in pow, which was where I wasnít sold on them previously. I didnít ski them for a few days and when I got them out again, they had regained their camber, and got sold soon after.

    I donít mind rocker skis, so that isnít an issue for me, just have had a few misses with going off the custom ski deep end.

    Thanks for the thoughts. Iíll keep thinking and see where I end up. Iím pretty happy with my Mindbender 116c, BMX 115, Shiro rotation, and I donít really need to replace any yet.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #866
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,053
    Very weird thing for a ski to have camber, lose it, then regain it again. Wouldnít think would would deform that way


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #867
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    608
    Most of the ccr photos i've seen have been on protests and are pretty dramatic. The fully rockered skis I like most - bmt 122's and 94's for touring, as well as the old blizzaarhd scout, are all pretty much flat. There is so little camber under foot on my q's that I'd be hesitant to replace the sweet, mellow and deep tip and tail rocker profiles of the q with anything more aggressive. If it were just flat underfoot with the existing profile? sounds sick

  18. #868
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Muggydude View Post
    Very weird thing for a ski to have camber, lose it, then regain it again. Wouldnít think would would deform that way


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Yeah I asked Keith about it and he said skis change profile depending on temp, humidity, altitude, use, etc. Most of my skis keep their profile no matter the use, or I sell them to you guys too quick, so whatever, heís the ski manufacturer Iím just a skid.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #869
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    After mulling it over, I decided that one of the things I like about the Q is it's rocker/camber profile, and I know full reverse camber skis can be a bit of a chore to skin on.

    I find it interesting that some people think the Q doesn't ski well in deep snow.
    Q profile is cash fucking money IMO, I wouldnít change it for anything and Iím a full rocker convert recently (but I have stips). I would really want a FRS or ULLR CCR for sure (probably flat on the FRS actually, but I want a CCR ULLR somin fierce!)
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  20. #870
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    5,875
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    I thought my original Qs would replace my beloved Shiros, but it wasn’t to be until I skied them for 5 days straight in Steamboat and the Qs lost all their camber. I was 100% in love with them in pow, which was where I wasn’t sold on them previously. I didn’t ski them for a few days and when I got them out again, they had regained their camber, and got sold soon after.

    I don’t mind rocker skis, so that isn’t an issue for me, just have had a few misses with going off the custom ski deep end.

    Thanks for the thoughts. I’ll keep thinking and see where I end up. I’m pretty happy with my Mindbender 116c, BMX 115, Shiro rotation, and I don’t really need to replace any yet.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I think it's worth discussing with Keith more if you have the cashish for a pair. The CCR profile is truly continuous reverse camber (think Spatula type rocker profile) without a flat spot underfoot.

    The other option would be to see if he would press a pair that uses the standard Q tip and tail rocker profile, but flat underfoot. Depending on how his molds are built, that may be a possibility, and would likely be more in-line with what people here are looking for than the true CCR shape.
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  21. #871
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    90

    Exclamation

    Hi all,

    As the OP on this thread, I think it is safe to say that the Quixote has, in fact, not jumped the shark. However, in an interesting twist of fate, I have a pair of Quixote that I am putting out there for a feeler to see if anyone is interested. The skis have been sparingly used, 15 days cat-ski and 3 heli, so bases are perfect and topsheets in line with 18 days of use by a psuedo-dentist in perfect conditions.

    Details are:

    Quixote Custom:
    Length: 194cm
    Ski Flex: # 3
    How Fat: Standard Width
    Graphic Art: Stained Glass Trees (Veneer)
    Base Graphic Option: Pure Black
    Wood Veneer: Karelian Birch (+$200)
    Core Option: Enduro

    Bindings (One Mount):
    Pivot 14 at -1cm for 306 BSL

    Pictures are from when the skis were new, can PM current pictures if interest expressed. Skis are currently in storage and will ship from Calgary, AB. Thinking $450 mounted, $400 bare (+shipping). Price Police welcome.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Qmounted.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	661.0 KB 
ID:	324638
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Custom Quixote.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	518.3 KB 
ID:	324639

  22. #872
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I think it's worth discussing with Keith more if you have the cashish for a pair. The CCR profile is truly continuous reverse camber (think Spatula type rocker profile) without a flat spot underfoot.

    The other option would be to see if he would press a pair that uses the standard Q tip and tail rocker profile, but flat underfoot. Depending on how his molds are built, that may be a possibility, and would likely be more in-line with what people here are looking for than the true CCR shape.
    Hum, doesnít sound like CCR is right for me then. Shucks


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #873
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,736
    Quote Originally Posted by eskido View Post
    Q profile is cash fucking money IMO, I wouldnít change it for anything and Iím a full rocker convert recently (but I have stips). I would really want a FRS or ULLR CCR for sure (probably flat on the FRS actually, but I want a CCR ULLR somin fierce!)
    Much as I didn't bond with the Q, I could see a +10 Q as being very cool.

    All of my "issues" with the Q related to hard snow and dust over crust. I abso-fucking-lutely love their soft snow behavior and could see a +10 Q putting a big smile on my face on a deep day.

    I love Keith's core recipes and could see preferring a Fat-Q to a C&D. I know harder chargers love bamboo and it certainly has its good points, but this much weight seems to be a brute force approach to me - at least in the context of skiing in continental snow. I can see where it would be helpful in maritime snow. For how and where I ski however, veneer is great at adding damping.

    As far as adding CCR to a Q, this could lead to misery, but perhaps this is more about me than anything.

    The times I got into trouble with the Q was when I got off-center - hard snow (occasionally), and dust over crust in whiteout conditions (where I'm balance challenged). When this happened, the inside ski got squirrely and I had to fight to re-establish the ski's balance point. I think CCR would exacerbate this attribute unless your name is Hoji.

    Of course, when you say "CCR" it's about powder, and perhaps this could be a game changer ... just not one that I'd risk my coin on to find out ;-)

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 04-12-2020 at 01:06 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  24. #874
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Much as I didn't bond with the Q, I could see a +10 Q as being very cool.

    I love Keith's core recipes and could see preferring a Fat-Q to a C&D. I know harder chargers love bamboo and it certainly has its good points, but this much weight seems to be a brute force approach to me - at least in the context of skiing in continental snow. I can see where it would be helpful in maritime snow. For how and where I ski however, veneer is great at adding damping.

    As far as adding CCR to a Q, this could lead to misery, but perhaps this is more about me than anything.

    ... Thom
    Hell motha f n yes! Any Praxis pow ski I build will have the enduro/Carbon/veneer build (oddly same build for my touring sticks, but I already have a UL for long days)! If I want a chop resort destroyer itíll be heavy/veneer for sure. I personally really dig the Goats but thatís not how Iíd build my pow sticks, and obviously ON3P somewhat agrees as the CnD has their touring core. I like my pow sticks playful and poppy, resort pow/chop chargers is a totally different story, Keith does both extremely well! I do however absolutely love the enduro/veneer build in my Quixotes, feel like itís a really nice balance for a do it all ski which is exactly where the Q sits in my quiver, if itís soft I know Iíll be very, very happy on those sticks wherever I take them!
    RE CCR Qís, I agree flat camber way over CCR, which Iím pretty damn sure Keith would do because he built a pair of FRS flat for someone here, and they looked dope AF!!! Thatís how Iíd ask him to build mine (FRS) if I buy a pair. Really dig the idea of a +10 Q for a true pow ski but Iím very preferential to my Protests.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  25. #875
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    782
    Trigger pulled:

    182 skinny Q - heavy/nylon - flex 3 - screaming bear.

    (Also got the wife a small GPO).

    Very excited!
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

Posting Permissions

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