Praxis Lhasa Pows?

[sf]

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?

[mr_pretzel]

As someone who wasnt around for the years of PM gear,

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

[snapt]

The 179/183 in standard and fat with modern early rise profiles would be cool.

[1000-oaks]

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/

[mr_pretzel]

https://web.archive.org/web/20170522...://pmgear.com/

Thank you!

[2FUNKY]

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 didn’t 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!

[1000-oaks]

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

[Eluder]

I'm curious

[stuckathuntermtn]

115 under foot with a 32m radius. I skied that ski exclusively for a season. Loved that ski and wish I didn’t 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)

[Vitamin I]

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/

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:


.

[stuckathuntermtn]

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.

[2FUNKY]

^ 186 Lhasa pow.

[Vitamin I]

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

.

[stuckathuntermtn]

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.

[tuco]

Lhasa too pintaily.
Didnt see a weight, but Lithic Prine 108?

[2FUNKY]

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 don’t seem correct for the newer 186 Lhasa. Solar changed the dims a bit so it’s 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.

[splat]

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.

[sf]

For some reason a ccr Lhasa speaks to me. Not sure how it would differ from a 4frnt hoji though.

[stuckathuntermtn]

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.

... :|

[2FUNKY]

... :|

So with that said, why not go to the 191lhasa that is 112 under foot? I personally don’t get the 110 category for many reasons unless doing a one ski do all halfass.

[2FUNKY]

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.

[nickwm21]

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.

[sf]

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.

[detrusor]

Prior to this year 191 Lhasa full carbon were my DD in the Wasatch. Went 192 carbon mix GPO’s 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

[MTT]

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