2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[wwwllw]

Anybody go with a RX 189 heavy hitter #3 flex ?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Also curious about this. I’ve been on the fence between 187 gpo and 189 rx flex 4 heavy hitters. My most skied ski this season was praxis pressed Lahasa fats. Standard layup and flex veneer. 188 Quixote and 192 protests also in the quiver. Keith thinks that the rx is more similar to the gpo. I skied 192 gpos years ago, but they were in a carbon layup that I didn’t mesh with.

[GuyonaBuffalo]

Also curious about this. I’ve been on the fence between 187 gpo and 189 rx flex 4 heavy hitters. My most skied ski this season was praxis pressed Lahasa fats. Standard layup and flex veneer. 188 Quixote and 192 protests also in the quiver. Keith thinks that the rx is more similar to the gpo. I skied 192 gpos years ago, but they were in a carbon layup that I didn’t mesh with.

I had an old version of the Rx . I found the GPO to be far more playful and fun. The Quixote perhaps even more than the GPO. The Q is my favorite ski.

[3PinGrin]

My MVP are the '21 vintage, HH/C, 3+ flex, mounted just fwd barley 1cm, love them.

That’s the layup of the MVP I ordered (except 3 not 3+). Then I read how a lot of folks don’t like the carbon added to HH due to losing dampness through chop, etc. How heavy are you? Contemplating whether to remove the carbon addition, but thought it would be good for reducing swing weight with the HH and not sure I want to spring for veneer.

[mr_pretzel]

I’ll say it everytime, dont add carbon to the HH, makes it heavy and demanding without the plush. Might aswell stick with the enduro then as the ski will actually be lively.

[3PinGrin]

Thanks mp. Jeebus, keep accidentally deleting post when trying to edit on phone.

Maybe just remove carbon, or replace with veneer, hmmm. What about hh + veneer but no c?

[galibier_numero_un]

3 years - a combination of COVID restrictions and gimpy knee and I'm back. I've been waiting since Fall '21 to try my +10 GPOs (UL/Carbon/Veneer/Flex 3 - mounted with Raider 12s).

Only a handful of us are ski designers, and the rest of us ... well, you know.

So I chatted with Keith about my love of the GPO and my disappointment with the Protest. I know I'm in the minority with respect to the latter, but what can I say? I'd rather reach for my Automatic 109s on a deep day over the Protests I owned. Different strokes ...

Keith thought a +10 GPO would be a perfect match for me - this, over a BPS, Ullr and various other choices. The short story is that he was right.

So, I'm dreadfully out of shape, but got day #2 in today. It was by no means an ideal day for a ski that's 126mm underfoot, but in a sense, it's good test of the ski's boundary conditions. You know ... that day when you expect deep stuff, only to find that the wind blew all the snow into Kansas.

So A-basin had about 3" of wind-fucked snow over a semi-crunchy base. I took my Down CD 114s for insurance (much more suited to inbounds, with a CAST mount).

I had a bit of trepidation as I was skating to the Pali lift. I felt as if I couldn't engage my inside edges. Fortunately, that was the worst if it.

I think it's @lucknau who described the GPOs as scalpels, and I was surprised to find this to be the case with their fat, big brothers. When I broke through to the crust, I had nary a care in the world. They grip like my std. width GPOs.

I felt as if I had been skiing them all season. They felt like a nicely broken in pair of jeans.

Obviously, this is a first impression, and I can't wait to get them out in their intended snowpack, but the fact that they pivot on a dime and rail on relatively crunchy stuff is a good start.

Photo taken before the Raiders were mounted ...



... Thom

[mr_pretzel]

Welcome back Tom! Those are pretty!

[hoarhey]

Congrats on the long awaited maiden voyage


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[grinch]

I had forgotten the build on them as well. Thats great Thom. Got me thinking now. Killer graphic too!
Wait!?! You ski in jeans

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Jim S]

3 years - a combination of COVID restrictions and gimpy knee and I'm back. I've been waiting since Fall '21 to try my +10 GPOs (UL/Carbon/Veneer/Flex 3 - mounted with Raider 12s).

Only a handful of us are ski designers, and the rest of us ... well, you know.

So I chatted with Keith about my love of the GPO and my disappointment with the Protest. I know I'm in the minority with respect to the latter, but what can I say? I'd rather reach for my Automatic 109s on a deep day over the Protests I owned. Different strokes ...

Keith thought a +10 GPO would be a perfect match for me - this, over a BPS, Ullr and various other choices. The short story is that he was right.

So, I'm dreadfully out of shape, but got day #2 in today. It was by no means an ideal day for a ski that's 126mm underfoot, but in a sense, it's good test of the ski's boundary conditions. You know ... that day when you expect deep stuff, only to find that the wind blew all the snow into Kansas.

So A-basin had about 3" of wind-fucked snow over a semi-crunchy base. I took my Down CD 114s for insurance (much more suited to inbounds, with a CAST mount).

I had a bit of trepidation as I was skating to the Pali lift. I felt as if I couldn't engage my inside edges. Fortunately, that was the worst if it.

I think it's @lucknau who described the GPOs as scalpels, and I was surprised to find this to be the case with their fat, big brothers. When I broke through to the crust, I had nary a care in the world. They grip like my std. width GPOs.

I felt as if I had been skiing them all season. They felt like a nicely broken in pair of jeans.

Obviously, this is a first impression, and I can't wait to get them out in their intended snowpack, but the fact that they pivot on a dime and rail on relatively crunchy stuff is a good start.

Photo taken before the Raiders were mounted ...



... Thom

Amazing graphic.

I had an old version of the Rx . I found the GPO to be far more playful and fun. The Quixote perhaps even more than the GPO. The Q is my favorite ski.

Post above is different username that I accidently logged in to. I have no idea how that happened.

[galibier_numero_un]

...
Wait!?! You ski in jeans

One day, a long time ago, when I was a renegade ;-)

This exercise has me thinking. I have the papa bear (+10) and mama bear (std. GPO). Maybe I need a baby bear (-10 GPO, or perhaps a BC)?

... Thom

[grinch]

One day, a long time ago, when I was a renegade ;-)

This exercise has me thinking. I have the papa bear (+10) and mama bear (std. GPO). Maybe I need a baby bear (-10 GPO, or perhaps a BC)?

... Thom

Had me thinking the 175 gpo could end up being a 122 or 102 waisted scalpel too. Not a bad option for a shorter touring ski

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

Had me thinking the 175 gpo could end up being a 122 or 102 waisted scalpel too. Not a bad option for a shorter touring ski

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

I just noticed that going +10 or -10 is a price adder. I seem to recall that the easy/more difficult/most difficult pricing tiers from a couple off years ago were a bit more attractive. I ain't complainin', but it might affect my decision on BC vs. -10 GPO.

Of course, getting the "wrong" ski sucks the most. If my knees wobble, and I cave, I'll email Keith. I don't want to waste his time unnecessarily.

Somewhere on this thread, I seem to recall that the BC was based on the GPO (or developed with the same concept in mind). They sure look similar.

... Thom

[grinch]

I just noticed that going +10 or -10 is a price adder. I seem to recall that the easy/more difficult/most difficult pricing tiers from a couple off years ago were a bit more attractive. I ain't complainin', but it might affect my decision on BC vs. -10 GPO.

Of course, getting the "wrong" ski sucks the most. If my knees wobble, and I cave, I'll email Keith. I don't want to waste his time unnecessarily.

Somewhere on this thread, I seem to recall that the BC was based on the GPO (or developed with the same concept in mind). They sure look similar.

... Thom

Canadian pesos tempers my enthusiasm. Barrels of crude are climbing and dragging our pesos with them. $100/barrel soon might make a custom mvp happen. 6 or 8 yrs ago our $ was pre much at par, we had free veneer, reward points , codes and dirt cheap postal shipping. That was insane for such quality skis. This could be the year. Come on $100 barrels!! Poppa needs sum mvp's!!

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

Canadian pesos tempers my enthusiasm. Barrels of crude are climbing and dragging our pesos with them. $100/barrel soon might make a custom mvp happen. 6 or 8 yrs ago our $ was pre much at par, we had free veneer, reward points , codes and dirt cheap postal shipping. That was insane for such quality skis. This could be the year. Come on $100 barrels!! Poppa needs sum mvp's!!

;-)

[macon]

Post above is different username that I accidently logged in to. I have no idea how that happened.

I was randomly signed into that exact same account a few weeks ago. I think it's an error with TGR's backend.

[macon]

One day, a long time ago, when I was a renegade ;-)

This exercise has me thinking. I have the papa bear (+10) and mama bear (std. GPO). Maybe I need a baby bear (-10 GPO, or perhaps a BC)?

... Thom

I've heard the GPO shape doesn't lend itself well to a -10 layup. That's why I went -10 Quixote. Will let you know how it rips when I get it.

[galibier_numero_un]

I've heard the GPO shape doesn't lend itself well to a -10 layup. That's why I went -10 Quixote. Will let you know how it rips when I get it.

I seem to recall hearing that as well about -10 GPOs, and I'm leaning toward a BC.

I'm guessing that this is the reason the BC's dimensions are subtly different from a -10 GPO - that Keith applied the same basic concept as the GPO, and tweaked it from that point.

When you look at how similar they are, it makes sense that very few of us on this thread qualify as ski designers - that it requires experience to tweak a design when changing the width.

I'm one of those in the minority who couldn't bond with my full width Quixote's. I absolutely loved them in deep stuff, and seriously considered a +10 Q instead of the GPOs.

On snow where I'd break through to crust, I had trouble managing my center of gravity on my Qs, and it was worse in a whiteout. Folks who ski more centered than I do don't seem to have this problem.

As for me, I was always waiting to have a "Tabke Moment".

Was it on the ON3P thread where Iggy ssid that he didn't think THEIR asym translated well to skis narrower that a full width Billy Goat?

The one day I demoed BGs, they reacted very similarly to m to Qs.

... Thom

[macon]

Was it on the ON3P thread where Iggy ssid that he didn't think THEIR asym translated well to skis narrower that a full width Billy Goat?

The one day I demoed BGs, they reacted very similarly to m to Qs.

... Thom

Yeah that is what Iggy said, however Keith said the 108w of the skinny Q is still plenty of width for the asym to be a noticeable difference.

I mean just look at the ripstick - it's an Asym and it's 106mm wide in the widest version, yet ppl like Glen Plake still rave about it.

[galibier_numero_un]

Yeah that is what Iggy said, however Keith said the 108w of the skinny Q is still plenty of width for the asym to be a noticeable difference.

I mean just look at the ripstick - it's an Asym and it's 106mm wide in the widest version, yet ppl like Glen Plake still rave about it.

No doubt, it boils down to skiing style - what's gonna work and for whom. I'm sure the asym would show itself at 108.

If I bonded with the low tide characteristics of the Q, I'd be real interested in a -10 version. I once asked what a non-asym version of the Q would be, and the answer (in the words of our dearly departed alpy) was ... Praxis Rx ;-)

For me, I'd upsize a Q, but not down. I came really close to pulling the trigger on a pair of C&Ds when they were asym.

... Thom

[eskido]

Thom, thanks for the review!! Been waiting for that one for a long time. Stoked the papa bear retains that scalpel like maneuverability, that’s a really cool aspect for such a big stick!

Totally agree that a baby bear wouldn’t work well, think that’s exactly where you want to start looking at the BC. I haven’t skied the BC but have a fondled a pair and have only heard good things.

[galibier_numero_un]

Thom, thanks for the review!! Been waiting for that one for a long time. Stoked the papa bear retains that scalpel like maneuverability, that’s a really cool aspect for such a big stick!

Waiting (and walking by them all this time) was really getting to me. My primary quiver is in my small basement workshop.

Now ... to get out on them in their intended conditions ;-)

Totally agree that a baby bear wouldn’t work well, think that’s exactly where you want to start looking at the BC. I haven’t skied the BC but have a fondled a pair and have only heard good things.

I'm weakening, and will likely contact Keith for advice/recommendation/confirmation today.

... Thom

[SupreChicken]

I seem to recall hearing that as well about -10 GPOs, and I'm leaning toward a BC.

I'm guessing that this is the reason the BC's dimensions are subtly different from a -10 GPO - that Keith applied the same basic concept as the GPO, and tweaked it from that point.

When you look at how similar they are, it makes sense that very few of us on this thread qualify as ski designers - that it requires experience to tweak a design when changing the width.

I'm one of those in the minority who couldn't bond with my full width Quixote's. I absolutely loved them in deep stuff, and seriously considered a +10 Q instead of the GPOs.

On snow where I'd break through to crust, I had trouble managing my center of gravity on my Qs, and it was worse in a whiteout. Folks who ski more centered than I do don't seem to have this problem.

As for me, I was always waiting to have a "Tabke Moment".

Was it on the ON3P thread where Iggy ssid that he didn't think THEIR asym translated well to skis narrower that a full width Billy Goat?

The one day I demoed BGs, they reacted very similarly to m to Qs.

... Thom

Other way around.

BC model predates the GPO. The BC is super dialed for touring. Keith has said to me a few times that cheap dynafits plus a 180 bc is all he needs for touring duties.

One of the taller dudes on here got some 190 BC in a heavy layup for inbounds duties and sold them.

Point is, they are really different skis.

MVP is the clear design winner in the 105-110 waist range for versatile application.

Skinny Q and skinny RX both seem better than the skinny GPO

[galibier_numero_un]

Other way around.

BC model predates the GPO. The BC is super dialed for touring. Keith has said to me a few times that cheap dynafits plus a 180 bc is all he needs for touring duties.

One of the taller dudes on here got some 190 BC in a heavy layup for inbounds duties and sold them.

Point is, they are really different skis.

MVP is the clear design winner in the 105-110 waist range for versatile application.

Skinny Q and skinny RX both seem better than the skinny GPO

Thanks! The lineage (sequence) has faded from my memory. Unfortunately, with this year's pricing, the -10/skinny option adds $200 to a $949 ski (UL/Carbon/Veneer).

I was/am seriously interested in a skinny RX however (based on @neckbeard's comments from several years ago). The MVP has been below my radar all these years. I should explore it as well.

Skinny Q is a definite "NO" for how I stand on skis ;-) I'm thoroughly disoriented by these skis when I transition from soft to hard snow.

I had my Qs (Enduro/Veneer/#4) out on two successive days in 8" over crust, in whiteout conditions. When I broke through to the crust, I spent the next two turns recovering my balance.

Down to the car I went for my trusty Down CD 114s and I was smiling the rest of each of the two mornings, as if it was a completely different day. I sold the Qs when I returned from my trip and haven't looked back ;-)

Those Downs and my GPOs have become my "cold, dead hands" skis.

... Thom

[Shredeagle]

It looks like you have them on the line. Do you think they work back a little?

I like the look of the rocker, can you push the tips, or do you have to stay centered?

I thought about your question while skiing the past couple days. Fun to have a little project to work on. My take is that these ski best when you weight the center of the ski. Then as the ski gets into the flex you can feel the tip hook up and you can then do what you want with the tip from there. It feels really cool and is super intuitive once you figure it out. I was having a ton of fun skiing the steep techy lines with that style. They really shine in that. U can just fly through that stuff staying off the tips but then if you need to dump a little speed just flex the ski and engage the tip as needed. They don’t seem to me to ski as well when you try and drive through the tip to initiate the turns. If that is what you are after I think I would try something else. But once you get the tip engaged it gives you a lot of options. Really stoked on the 190s - super stable at speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk