Page 42 of 121 FirstFirst ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 3008
  1. #1026
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar View Post
    My 180s plus MTN bindings come in around 4.3lbs per pair.
    ...per ski, right?

  2. #1027
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    954
    Yup thanks for the correction.

    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    ...per ski, right?

  3. #1028
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    15,570
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Ok team Praxis ....thoughts on a BC? My wife loves hers and I love the shape. I’m a die hard concept fan boy (187) flex 4, protest 192 flex 4, 184 PJ(4)& SnD 185 (5) - love all of these skis and tour on the concepts and pjs.

    Looking to lighten my load but no go full weight weenie bc my downhill is important to me.

    Clearly there is no 184 BC (sigh) but those playing in this size range of ski would you go up to a 190 or stick to the 180? 190 allows me to haul on the resort but at the penalty of kick turn length when in the side and backcountry....I can swing the concept but it’s not the best(something I made peace with bc of the skis versatility)

    Thoughts? Read though a bunch last night but thinking this build in a 190 flex 3 may be the ticket....thanks
    Size matters
    I have 190 BCs in flex 4. They do a lot very well, but I can fold the shovels in deep, maritime snow. I'm also 220lbs
    I have 192 GPOs in flex 5. Can't fold those...

  4. #1029
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Ok team Praxis ....thoughts on a BC? My wife loves hers and I love the shape. I’m a die hard concept fan boy (187) flex 4, protest 192 flex 4, 184 PJ(4)& SnD 185 (5) - love all of these skis and tour on the concepts and pjs.

    Looking to lighten my load but no go full weight weenie bc my downhill is important to me.

    Clearly there is no 184 BC (sigh) but those playing in this size range of ski would you go up to a 190 or stick to the 180? 190 allows me to haul on the resort but at the penalty of kick turn length when in the side and backcountry....I can swing the concept but it’s not the best(something I made peace with bc of the skis versatility)

    Thoughts? Read though a bunch last night but thinking this build in a 190 flex 3 may be the ticket....thanks
    I would definitely email Keith. The MVPs were sold out but I emailed him and he was making a batch for the sponsored folks and was able to get me one. So you'll never know unless you ask. He'd also have good input on the length.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  5. #1030
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar View Post
    Ordered one but had Keith take the camber out since it'll be a powder touring ski for me. Thought a little more rocker mixed with the softer flex would make a pretty versatile soft snow touring setup. Will post up photos and a short review once we get some fresh snow in Tahoe.
    Super interested in this! Did he explain what changes he made to the rocker profile? Love the idea of taking the camber out, that’s gon be a fun rig!
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  6. #1031
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Ok team Praxis ....thoughts on a BC? My wife loves hers and I love the shape. I’m a die hard concept fan boy (187) flex 4, protest 192 flex 4, 184 PJ(4)& SnD 185 (5) - love all of these skis and tour on the concepts and pjs.

    Looking to lighten my load but no go full weight weenie bc my downhill is important to me.

    Clearly there is no 184 BC (sigh) but those playing in this size range of ski would you go up to a 190 or stick to the 180? 190 allows me to haul on the resort but at the penalty of kick turn length when in the side and backcountry....I can swing the concept but it’s not the best(something I made peace with bc of the skis versatility)

    Thoughts? Read though a bunch last night but thinking this build in a 190 flex 3 may be the ticket....thanks
    180 all day. Been thinking of one a lot. He just has a blem left, maybe its sold now and he'd build one with ccr (is that the acronym?) Flat camber. Thatd cover a lot of ground for a bc ski

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  7. #1032
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,291
    I wonder what a Quioxte with CCR would be like as a powder touring ski...

  8. #1033
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I wonder what a Quioxte with CCR would be like as a powder touring ski...
    Hellz ya Q 108 ul veneer ccr. I forgot. Thats my custom sale order......

    Rushes to get loto ticket, soo many skis

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  9. #1034
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    Hellz ya Q 108 ul veneer ccr. I forgot. Thats my custom sale order......

    Rushes to get loto ticket, soo many skis

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
    I was thinking regular width. My current touring setup is a skinny Q with the heavy core/carbon and a cherry veneer topsheet. They are an absolute pleasure to ski and seem to mesh with my ski style really well. That layup combo makes for a powerful, smooth yet responsive ski, IME. But something a little wider might be nice if the snow is dense or more wind effected.

  10. #1035
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    I have been liking my Quixotes more and more in everything with 1" of fresh and above. Also nasty wind funk as long as I keep my speed up. What the heck is ccr?

    I need to detune them a bit more. Really like the edge hold but if you aren't on top of things they can spank you. I did a mach 10 face plant right under the lift when my right ski suddenly had a mind of it's own when I quit paying attention. Man they just rail through all types of snow though. The more I ski them the more comfortable I am opening them up and laughing at poor conditions.

  11. #1036
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I was thinking regular width. My current touring setup is a skinny Q with the heavy core/carbon and a cherry veneer topsheet. They are an absolute pleasure to ski and seem to mesh with my ski style really well. But something a little wider might be nice if the snow is dense or more wind effected.
    Yes i could add that to the cart now but then maybe a ccr would kill the funk and still be 108 on the sidehill skintracks? F if it, ill get both, im going to win the loto. These things need to be investigated

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  12. #1037
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by 3PinGrin View Post
    I have been liking my Quixotes more and more in everything with 1" of fresh and above. Also nasty wind funk as long as I keep my speed up. What the heck is ccr?

    I need to detune them a bit more. Really like the edge hold but if you aren't on top of things they can spank you. I did a mach 10 face plant right under the lift when my right ski suddenly had a mind of it's own when I quit paying attention. Man they just rail through all types of snow though. The more I ski them the more comfortable I am opening them up and laughing at poor conditions.
    CCR is an acronym for Continuous Curve(s) Rocker -- it's the rocker profile for the Powder Board, basically full reverse camber or with a flat spot underfoot.

    I'm not convinced it would be a good match with the Q, as I think the stock rocker/camber profile of the ski is sweet, and I do enjoy the rebound you get out of a turn from a ski that has some camber, but it's certainly worth contemplating while it rains up to 8000 feet here today.

  13. #1038
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    CCR is an acronym for Continuous Curve(s) Rocker -- it's the rocker profile for the Powder Board, basically full reverse camber or with a flat spot underfoot.

    I'm not convinced it would be a good match with the Q, as I think the stock rocker/camber profile of the ski is sweet, and I do enjoy the rebound you get out of a turn from a ski that has some camber, but it's certainly worth contemplating while it rains up to 8000 feet here today.
    Thanks, yeah I like the camber and wouldn't want to mess that up on this particular ski. Mine are the stock configuration.

  14. #1039
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    I always liked the stability a little camber gives out of a ski but my hojis have altered that opinion a bit. I still like a little camber and more camber in my spring sub 100 waist touring ski but ive been pleasantly surprised on the pop i get out of the hoji in pow. Thought itd be more of a smear weapon but its been playful. I havent tried it on the hill on a groomer or hardpack though

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  15. #1040
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Thanks team, anything I build will have a shift on it.

    Will process all comment and then be grumpy there is no 184/5/6cm option for the Goldilocks in me

  16. #1041
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    954
    No explanation from him except that he'd just take the camber out of the press and make it flat underfoot. He seemed to agree it'd be a good combination with the flex and increased width of the MVP. Picking them up tomorrow and I can post some photos and I'll ask if he did anything else to the rocker profile.


    Quote Originally Posted by eskido View Post
    Super interested in this! Did he explain what changes he made to the rocker profile? Love the idea of taking the camber out, that’s gon be a fun rig!

  17. #1042
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,465

    2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  18. #1043
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382

    2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Thanks team, anything I build will have a shift on it.

    Will process all comment and then be grumpy there is no 184/5/6cm option for the Goldilocks in me
    You never said your height and weight ... and I think you are in Tahoe?

    Most likely 190 BC is my vote, based on the size and flex of your other Praxii. It does ski exceptionally short due to the flex profile, and Tahoe backcountry tree skiing is like driving on the autobahn compared to other places (nothing so tight that you’ll be hindered by the extra length). You will notice the extra stability and great float of the 190, and it’s still reasonably light at 190 ... but you might want lighter boots to offset the heft of the Shifts.

    Grinch, how big are you?

    I’m spitballing but I’d guess that the upper fun limit of the 180 BC is around 6’ tall and 180 lbs (and this is since stock flex went up to a 3, on my softer pair the upper fun limit is more like 5’ 11’ and 160, and that’s based on watching bigger friends try out my skis). I’m 5’ 8” 130 lbs, competent skier when I’m in shape and mediocre when I’m out of shape, and Flex 2 180’s are like the most effortless skis I’ve ever seen ever tried.

    They are also amazing in pow (thanks to the flex profile of the tip and tail), up to about 2.5’ deep new snow depending on density, which is plenty. I’ve only skied two days ever in pow that was a little too deep for those skis, one was a 3+ foot dump and the other was a 6 foot dump - I still had shit tons of fun on those days but did go over the bars at least once on each day.

    And on the reverse side, I’ve only complained about them being too wide in the backcountry just once, on sheer textureless windboard where the soft tip and beat edges were having trouble holding precise turns. I’ve lugged these skis up Lassen Shasta and McLoughlin many times over the years, and never once even considered going skinnier for volcano skiing (but I have many many times considered dumping my 9.5 lbs freeride touring boots for something much lighter).
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  19. #1044
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    I was just remembering jmars has 175 gpo's for touring(i think/might be mistaken) so figured the 180 would make sense.
    Im 5"7' 170lbs. Im ok with 180. 3flex is much better. Maybe a 3+? My old 2 flex was fun but id push through them sometimes. Nice rocker profile. I dont think i need them too soft to float. I liked them on the dimple. Was thinking w a ccr i might be able to go +1

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  20. #1045
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    I’m spitballing but I’d guess that the upper fun limit of the 180 BC is around 6’ tall and 180 lbs (and this is since stock flex went up to a 3, on my softer pair the upper fun limit is more like 5’ 11’ and 160, and that’s based on watching bigger friends try out my skis).
    Very close IMO, but I'd bump that up a tad based on my sample size of one: I'm 6'2" 185lb. (okay, more like 190 these days), and my stock layup 180 BC is still my go-to. This is a 2015 version, when stock was "medium." It's honestly probably my favorite ski ever, evidenced by the fact that I now have more days on it than any other ski. Yes if feels noticeably short sometimes, and yes I can overpower it if I want to, but whenever it feels short it's a feeling of appreciation rather than frustration... but I seek out techy terrain, so I'll happily trade being able to confidently toss my way out of a jam for being able to go full mach speed with abandon. Just me.

    And as for pow, surprisingly I have yet to be disappointed. I've owned Hellbents, Billy Goats, ProTests, Hojis... but I don't bother anymore. Granted, I ski maritime, but even on interior BC hut trips where it nuked, I never lamented having 180 BCs. And for the past several years I've also never felt an urgent need to add a <100mm ski for spring. This one just does it all.

    Consider that a plug for the versatility of the 180 Backcountry.

    Also I'm on tele though so chuck everything I just said out the window.

  21. #1046
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382

    2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

    ^ all that is why I’m hypothetically torn about replacing mine with another pair of 180 BCs or a combo of 182 Yeti / 177 Woo.

    But really, I just don’t ski enough bc pow anymore to justify that combo.

    Edit to add:
    And holy shit, the durability ... wow. I literally skin and ski on lava rocks, gravel roads and asphalt parking lots, the skis just laugh at them.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  22. #1047
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Thanks everyone...I’m 5’10” 170 - no GPO 175, was an option for the wife but I had Keith build a narrow protest 177 for her which her and I need to have a honest discussion about keeping.

    I’m not a hardcore touring dude, I get out walking a bunch but not like some of you which is why weight it secondary. As for boots I’m in modified Mtn labs on a ski like this.

    A 180 BC would be a small ski to me but that may not be a bad thing either. It’s when I mash the gas that I feel I might be let down. All a compromise...and maybe the BC in the isn’t what I should be looking at but we all like our due diligence here.

    This is a purchase bc I like the shape a ton...sure not a “need”.

  23. #1048
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    Ahhh, I see. I had assumed you were bigger based on the other skis. Kick turns on 190 definitely will suck at 5’ 10”, especially on a beat and steep skinner.

    I’d say go with the 180 then. They will feel nimble and light AF, and honestly I think you are right about practical speed limits touring vs inbounds skiing - different snow and should be different skiing mentality as well. It’s really just in variable sastrugi and backcountry boilerplate, if you are used to burly big skis you’ll just have to adjust expectations and ski more like Andrew McLean than Daron Rahlves. I don’t think at that size you will really be sinking those tips either, except during the uber deep days. I also don’t think it’s a good idea to get cute and stiffen the ski to like a Flex 4 ... you end up losing so much fun factor. Worst case - you know you’ll have a buyer here if you find you need to size up!

    A slightly larger option is 183 MVP with UL core, which is what a good buddy of mine uses for soft snow touring - and he is 6’ 3”! But he’s skinny and skis with finesse.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  24. #1049
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    I’m not a hardcore touring dude, I get out walking a bunch but not like some of you which is why weight it secondary. As for boots I’m in modified Mtn labs on a ski like this.

    A 180 BC would be a small ski to me but that may not be a bad thing either. It’s when I mash the gas that I feel I might be let down. All a compromise...and maybe the BC in the isn’t what I should be looking at but we all like our due diligence here.

    This is a purchase bc I like the shape a ton...sure not a “need”.
    From you're recent comments you have me rethinking things and I'd maybe say the 180. Just because you're not a "hardcore touring dude" doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the perks of a lightweight setup. Personally, I think throwing a shift on there is a mistake unless you'll be using this inbounds or if you are fixated on the safety piece of the equation. Putting a tech binding on there, even a tecton, might also make you reel things in a bit and ski the ski how it wants to be skied and not mash on the down (you already have other skis for that) plus it'll be much more enjoyable on the uphill.

  25. #1050
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    364
    Has anyone tried a -10 Concept? I’m a fanboy and would love a similar experience for hardpack days....but will the magic still be there?

Posting Permissions

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