Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 1309
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    Keith and I picked up a years old discussion today regarding him building the lhasa pow and maybe some other bros. We're figuring out what it would take. I told him he could have free reign over the construction because our manufacturing processes were so different. He can use the tops I still have or print his own. Metal tips and tails would be replaced with a full edge wrap. Anybody think they'd want some Praxis Lhasas? We wanted to get a feel for interest before going further.
    How does the standard 112 Lhasa compare to the Praxis GPO? Especially regarding rocker, taper and mount point.

    And for those who have skied both; able to compare?
    Last edited by sf; 06-23-2018 at 04:09 AM.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    570
    As someone who wasnt around for the years of PM gear,

    Could someone post up all the different dimensions for the models?

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Behind the Potato Curtain
    Posts
    3,412
    The 179/183 in standard and fat with modern early rise profiles would be cool.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    As someone who wasnt around for the years of PM gear,

    Could someone post up all the different dimensions for the models?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170522...://pmgear.com/

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    570
    Thank you!

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,659
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    What were the dims of the 187 Bro Fat, again? They seemed pretty all mountainy.
    115 under foot with a 32m radius. I skied that ski exclusively for a season. Loved that ski and wish I didnít sell it to finance my 191FATS. Not like a really needed the funds. No issue with float, would get loose easily. Carve like a mofo. A 106 under foot 187Bro would be siiiiick!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,489
    My 2012 183 Bro Fat Hybrids are 112 underfoot and 32m radius, they fattened up a little in later versions.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120820...bro-fat-detail

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,136
    I'm curious
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,431
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    115 under foot with a 32m radius. I skied that ski exclusively for a season. Loved that ski and wish I didnít sell it to finance my 191FATS. Not like a really needed the funds. No issue with float, would get loose easily. Carve like a mofo. A 106 under foot 187Bro would be siiiiick!
    Well, Benny's in, so I am too. Thanks, my orange jacketed friend (in my mind)
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Squaw
    Posts
    2,038
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    As someone who wasnt around for the years of PM gear,

    Could someone post up all the different dimensions for the models?
    I don't have much to add to the numbers in that link, but it's kinda fun to look at the history of some of the models in my very incomplete, very unofficial archive:
    Name:  PMgearSubset.png
Views: 409
Size:  242.6 KB

    .
    - TRADE your heavy BILLYGOATS or PROTESTS for my lightweight versions at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,431
    Why is 140-110-130 at about 186 actual length, little taper, little rocker, little camber, 9lbs a pair, kinda damp (wood and fiberglass, maybe no carbon or metal) not a thing?
    Enforcer 110 comes close but it's really a 183 and it's probably not doing me any weight savings over the Q Labs.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,659
    ^ 186 Lhasa pow.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Squaw
    Posts
    2,038
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Why is 140-110-130 at about 186 actual length, little taper, little rocker, little camber, 9lbs a pair, kinda damp (wood and fiberglass, maybe no carbon or metal) not a thing?
    I think you're right that it's not a well-represented thing. But if you're mainly just wishing for a lighter-weight Q-Lab 190cm, then maybe the longer Enforcer 110 or a Rustler 11 might be kinda close:

    190cm Q-Lab: ~11.1 lbs
    191cm Enforcer 110: ~10.0 lbs
    188cm Rustler 11: ~9.0 lbs

    .
    - TRADE your heavy BILLYGOATS or PROTESTS for my lightweight versions at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,431
    The Q Lab has a bit too much shape, honestly. 2Funky, you're probably right. The huge tail taper doesn't make it slidey on really hard stuff? I don't think I've ever skied something with that much difference tip to tail to reference it.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,723
    Lhasa too pintaily.
    Didnt see a weight, but Lithic Prine 108?

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,659
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    The Q Lab has a bit too much shape, honestly. 2Funky, you're probably right. The huge tail taper doesn't make it slidey on really hard stuff? I don't think I've ever skied something with that much difference tip to tail to reference it.
    Those numbers up above donít seem correct for the newer 186 Lhasa. Solar changed the dims a bit so itís a semi pintail, more like the 191FAT. The older 186 Lhasa had mediocre firm conditions grip and wanted to slide where as the newer shape made it a much much better firm ski snow. Splat can chime with more information.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    30,086
    186 was most pintail shape, maybe 179 Lhasa was close as well. As the dims got stretched out into longer lengths, then adjusted for performance, the pintail lessened, the 191 Fat a prime example of shape tuning. I used to sand the tail side edges in half a mm just to feel the difference and it can be quite noticeable. I thought at first glance that the 186 Lhasa (it's LHasa, Benny, not Lasha) dims are the only Lhasa dims on that excel, but the same dims were on the 191 and the 196. Stretched out over 5 and 10 cm length increases, the pintail effect lessened dramatically. The 191 Fat got adjusted in the tail a couple times.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    562
    For some reason a ccr Lhasa speaks to me. Not sure how it would differ from a 4frnt hoji though.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,431
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    186 was most pintail shape, maybe 179 Lhasa was close as well. As the dims got stretched out into longer lengths, then adjusted for performance, the pintail lessened, the 191 Fat a prime example of shape tuning. I used to sand the tail side edges in half a mm just to feel the difference and it can be quite noticeable. I thought at first glance that the 186 Lhasa (it's LHasa, Benny, not Lasha) dims are the only Lhasa dims on that excel, but the same dims were on the 191 and the 196. Stretched out over 5 and 10 cm length increases, the pintail effect lessened dramatically. The 191 Fat got adjusted in the tail a couple times.
    ... :|
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,659
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    ... :|
    So with that said, why not go to the 191lhasa that is 112 under foot? I personally donít get the 110 category for many reasons unless doing a one ski do all halfass.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,659
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    For some reason a ccr Lhasa speaks to me. Not sure how it would differ from a 4frnt hoji though.
    Agreed! CCR 191 Lhasa FAT heavy core flex 4 could possibly make me sell my 191 Goats.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    livin the dream
    Posts
    3,629
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    How does the standard 112 Lhasa compare to the Praxis GPO? Especially regarding rocker, taper and mount point.

    And for those who have skied both; able to compare?
    Yeah. I own the 192 GPO and 191 Lhasa.

    I will leave the layup / build out of my comparison. Too many variables.... I have owned both carbon and non-carbon GPOs; my Lhasa's are some franken-build - 192 BRO thick core, glass/carbon hybrid layup, old baby blue topsheet.

    Focusing on shape:

    Tip - Pretty similar shape.
    Underfoot - The GPO has a little camber, the Lhasa is close to flat. Waist width are essentially the same.
    Tail - GPO has a wider tail, clear radius from the waist to the tail, slightly more tail rocker. The Lhasa tail is basically straight / no radius from the waist, very low rocker.

    What this translates too:

    GPO is better on groomers and hardpack. It has more camber, tighter turn radius, more grip.
    Lhasa is better on corn, mank, hot pow, slush. The pintail shape allows you to slash the tail around.
    They both ski cold soft snow great, plenty of float, plenty of power to charge.

    I use my Lhasa's as my winter touring ski, where I am more likely to ski hot pow, less likely to be on hardpack. I use my GPOs inbounds.
    Best Skier on the Mountain
    Self-Certified
    1992 - 2012
    Squaw Valley, USA

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by nickwm21 View Post
    Yeah. I own the 192 GPO and 191 Lhasa.

    I will leave the layup / build out of my comparison. Too many variables.... I have owned both carbon and non-carbon GPOs; my Lhasa's are some franken-build - 192 BRO thick core, glass/carbon hybrid layup, old baby blue topsheet.

    Focusing on shape:

    Tip - Pretty similar shape.
    Underfoot - The GPO has a little camber, the Lhasa is close to flat. Waist width are essentially the same.
    Tail - GPO has a wider tail, clear radius from the waist to the tail, slightly more tail rocker. The Lhasa tail is basically straight / no radius from the waist, very low rocker.

    What this translates too:

    GPO is better on groomers and hardpack. It has more camber, tighter turn radius, more grip.
    Lhasa is better on corn, mank, hot pow, slush. The pintail shape allows you to slash the tail around.
    They both ski cold soft snow great, plenty of float, plenty of power to charge.

    I use my Lhasa's as my winter touring ski, where I am more likely to ski hot pow, less likely to be on hardpack. I use my GPOs inbounds.
    Ok, thanks. Pretty much what I would have guessed.
    I have not mixed well with GPOs, standard or skinny. Should probably stay away from Lhasas, but a mount point 3cms further back might do it. And/or ccr, if available.

    If I buy Lhasas it will be for winter touring.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,250
    Prior to this year 191 Lhasa full carbon were my DD in the Wasatch. Went 192 carbon mix GPOís this year. Great ski. Can t say better but shined in the cut up and soft groomer. Actually thought Lhasa better on hard snow.

    Equal in da pow. My .02


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Verdi NV
    Posts
    8,032
    I was thinking
    If Praxis were to press a ski identical to the Lhasa pow in a 206 or 210
    I would buy it.

    Love my standard hybrid 196's But a 210 would be even better
    Own your fail. ~Jer~

Posting Permissions

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