2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[galibier_numero_un]

Finally spent a full day on my fresh 193 MVPs after they spent almost a month and a half in shipping purgatory.

Sick ski. Carves well, holding a nice edge and giving a good amount of energy back to the driver at turn exit. Very predictable in crusted over pow. Certainly not as frictionless as my protests or anything but predictable and manageable. Lots of pop, no obvious speed limit and float pretty well in what actual pow i could find. Pivot easily enough without sacrificing edge hold.

Overall, they seem like exactly what Keith says they are: a stellar do everything daily driver. Very happy with my purchase.

Dust over crust performance. You have my attention.

Dust over crust performance is why I sold my Quixotes. This was a case of my natural stance not jiving with the asym. Skiing in a whiteout (dust over crust) two days in a row, I'd find myself getting bucked about when I broke through to the hard layer. I'd have to adjust my stance slightly rearward to keep the left and right ski working in the same direction, but I was skiing reactively. On both days, I swapped out to my CD 114s and suddenly everything was easy-peasy again.

... Thom

[nickel]

Yep. Keith's rec mounts have now been lovely for me on 3 different sets of skis. I know many others find them too far forward but ymmv and all that.

[nickel]

Dust over crust performance. You have my attention.

Dust over crust performance is why I sold my Quixotes. This was a case of my natural stance not jiving with the asym. Skiing in a whiteout (dust over crust) two days in a row, I'd find myself getting bucked about when I broke through to the hard layer. I'd have to adjust my stance slightly rearward to keep the left and right ski working in the same direction, but I was skiing reactively. On both days, I swapped out to my CD 114s and suddenly everything was easy-peasy again.

... Thom

I got bucked around a couple times but largely just getting used to the skis. I adore a ski that gives back as much energy as you put in. The trade-off is that every once in a while, i wasn't ready for it. That phenomenon was basically eliminated by run 3 or 4 once i knew what was coming at the end of powerfully laid turns.

[galibier_numero_un]

I got bucked around a couple times but largely just getting used to the skis. I adore a ski that gives back as much energy as you put in. The trade-off is that every once in a while, i wasn't ready for it. That phenomenon was basically eliminated by run 3 or 4 once i knew what was coming at the end of powerfully laid turns.

Bucking might have been a poor choice of words on my part.

With the Qs, I found that on hard snow, I needed to shift my weight back slightly, so I was pressuring the ski from center of my arches (mounted at -1). It's an unnatural stance for me, but I could generally make the adjustment. In soft snow, I could drive forward with the Qs and I really loved those skis in those conditions. In dust over crust however, I'd be merrily cruising (center-forward) until I hit a spot where I broke through to the crust and with my weight slightly forward of where the skis wanted me to stand, the left and right ski had a mind of their own - each one wanting to turn with different radius.

It took me a while to figure out what was going on, and about that time, I was demoing the asym. Billy Goats. @powtron told me to move my weight rearward, and suddenly, it all made sense ... except (in the case of the Qs) in transitional snow.

I think the folks who bond with Qs, naturally ski more centered than I do, but with the Qs, it seems as if even Tabke can have a Tabke moment. I've always wondered if this was why he switched from the Qs to the +10 MVPs (FRS), and that in conjunction with my GPO love raises my curiosity about the FRS.

... Thom

[PeachesNCream]

With all this MVP talk I'll throw my skis out there if anyone is interested. Looking to trade 193 veneer MVPs, current mount is shifts. Oak veneer with GPO graphic. Probably 10 resort days, 5 touring days, great condition. Looking to trade for a 190ish touring ski. Something like a wildcat 108 tour with tectons. Playful one ski touring quiver type ski with burlier bindings. Willing to separate skis/bindings and have cash on either side

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[powder_to_the_people]

Thats the graphic that my rx have , and my old piste jib. Looks amazing in veneer. "Powder to the people" has that in veneer on his gpo's as well, or maybe his bc's
Bg and rx share p18 toes for cast2.0. My "og" gpo have cast 1.0 with ffg's, still work albeit with some slop in the toe plates. Couldnt even guess how many days are on the gpo/cast 1.0. They dont owe me a nickel, no change required

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Oh fuck yeah bud, modern graffiti graphic FTW. My 192 stock GPOs with veneer, arguably the sexiest looking ski I've had. Mounted at -0.5. Had my second day on them about a week ago, and in good conditions this time (my last day before the recent pineapple express ruined all the snow). They did very well. There was a lot of fresh, though it was slightly heavier PNW snow. Didn't experience any of the dreaded tip dive, though I suspect that I ski more centred than a lot of the people on this thread. They're very stable through chop and do want to go fast, but I'm progressively getting more comfortable pivoting them at lower speeds. Given how quickly I started feeling comfortable on these, it's just pretty clear that the BG wasn't for me and I'm glad I replaced replaced those with the GPO.

[grinch]

Oh fuck yeah bud, modern graffiti graphic FTW. My 192 stock GPOs with veneer, arguably the sexiest looking ski I've had. Mounted at -0.5. Had my second day on them about a week ago, and in good conditions this time (my last day before the recent pineapple express ruined all the snow). They did very well. There was a lot of fresh, though it was slightly heavier PNW snow. Didn't experience any of the dreaded tip dive, though I suspect that I ski more centred than a lot of the people on this thread. They're very stable through chop and do want to go fast, but I'm progressively getting more comfortable pivoting them at lower speeds. Given how quickly I started feeling comfortable on these, it's just pretty clear that the BG wasn't for me and I'm glad I replaced replaced those with the GPO.

Glad that seems to have worked out. Same as Og's. Pivots too. Veneers look and feel next level
Most difficult snow ever today. The windpressed pow of yesterday now has a breakable wind crust topping and the chopped up terrain has stiffened chop piles. Keeps you honest i guess. Rx stabilitt worked as well as could be.
Was always thinking i'd like an mvp. My piste jib was just a narrower mvp with a 3 flex rather than the mvp 4 flex. Piste jib was just good everywhere and no surprises. Undortunately in both those skis i wish the sizes graduated in 5cm lengths rather than 10. I'd seriously consider both if that was the case. The new slugger 102 looks similar in dimensions and falls in the length im after. Heavy hitter core too

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[nickel]

Glad that seems to have worked out. Same as Og's. Pivots too. Veneers look and feel next level
Most difficult snow ever today. The windpressed pow of yesterday now has a breakable wind crust topping and the chopped up terrain has stiffened chop piles. Keeps you honest i guess. Rx stabilitt worked as well as could be.
Was always thinking i'd like an mvp. My piste jib was just a narrower mvp with a 3 flex rather than the mvp 4 flex. Piste jib was just good everywhere and no surprises. Undortunately in both those skis i wish the sizes graduated in 5cm lengths rather than 10. I'd seriously consider both if that was the case. The new slugger 102 looks similar in dimensions and falls in the length im after. Heavy hitter core too

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

If it makes you feel any better about them, my 193s strait pulls at 190.5

[grinch]

If it makes you feel any better about them, my 193s strait pulls at 190.5

Thanks, i think i convert praxis length as much as i convert metric/imperial [emoji12]
Im thinking the slugger fits all my measurements

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[nickel]

Just to clarify, the mvp is available as a 163, 173, 183, 187 and 193 so 5cm increments until you get into the smaller sizes where it goes to ten.

The slugger is 175 and 185 only.

[grinch]

Just to clarify, the mvp is available as a 163, 173, 183, 187 and 193 so 5cm increments until you get into the smaller sizes where it goes to ten.

The slugger is 175 and 185 only.

Yes 178 would be preferable for me. The 175 slugger would work i think

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[SchralphMacchio]

I really want a 178 MVP. Cant stomach the idea of 173 or 183. May end up pulling the trigger on a 183 Flex 2+ just to make it easier to ski ... we’ll see!

[grinch]

I really want a 178 MVP. Cant stomach the idea of 173 or 183. May end up pulling the trigger on a 183 Flex 2+ just to make it easier to ski ... we’ll see!

Does Keith still offer the +10/-10 width option jn the custom sale? The slugger could be a 112 waisted ski similar to an mvp. That would make the 175 slugger a 176 as the extra width grows the length a cm

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[SchralphMacchio]

Isn’t the Slugger based on the RX? +10 slugger would have totally different dimensions from the MVP. 17m sidecut vs 24, way less taper, and less rise in tip and tail.

[grinch]

Isn’t the Slugger based on the RX? +10 slugger would have totally different dimensions from the MVP. 17m sidecut vs 24, way less taper, and less rise in tip and tail.

Yes it appears so. Rocker looks ti be a short radius skinny rx. I like the mvp more. More rocker, more taper and longer radius on the mvp.
Piste jib is still listed in the custom selection. Fat pj would be 175. Fairly close

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[SchralphMacchio]

Hmm, that’s definitely intriguing ... it would be a shorter, more locked in MVP due to the longer effective edge and camber / less tip and tail taper.

[grinch]

Ya im on the fence now too. Im looking for a low 102ish waist ski though. I really liked my piste jib but in a 184 it didnt suit its use for me. My 116 wasted skis are 180ish so id like my low tide all mt ski shorter

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[flyingskiguy]

Jumping in here to share a bit of an experiment in ski design that Keith made happen back in the fall. The idea was for a fat, tourable, ultra pivoty, yet-somehow-still-chargey ski that could be my daily driver. Based on some experience with multiple-camber pocket skis like the moment deathwish, some general curiosity regarding asym ski design, and a bit of gut feeling, I asked Keith if he could build a modified Quixote with a compound camber profile, as seen on the Concept and BPS - fore and aft sections of camber, with rocker underfoot. Other build notes: 182cm, flex 3, ultralight core w/ carbon. The ski came out beautifully - the two sections of camber are contained within one larger, very minor section of camber that runs the length of the contact patch. When pressed flat, the two camber sections and rocker underfoot become visible. Single ski weight is 1850g. Mounted up with Cast/Pivots. The tip and tail rise is pretty different than a stock Q, and the contact patch is significantly longer.









I have about 25 days on the skis and have to say that I've never skied anything like them. They pivot into/out of/within turns like nothing else I've experienced. Wicked maneuverable, rail carves on groom, super stable through chop. Especially fun in the dust on crust of earlier this season. In deeper fresh the camber design isn't really noticeable, but on anything firm-ish they are just the most god damn fun ski I've ridden. I can't really expand on how much the compound camber is playing into any of this since I haven't ridden a stock Q but I can recognize the feeling of the multiple camber pockets from my time on the Deathwish. All I can say is I've nearly stopped skiing anything else. Shit is wack.

[SchralphMacchio]

Where are you based and what’s your BSL???

[HAB]

Where are you based and what’s your BSL???

I, too, am HIGHLY intrigued.

[Cars Suck]

Is that a skinny Q or standard width?

Such an interesting custom. So good 👍🏼

[sk8rat6587]

I also absolutely love that top sheet and it's the one I would choose if I go the custom route.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

[flyingskiguy]

Is that a skinny Q or standard width?

Such an interesting custom. So good ����

Standard width.

[galibier_numero_un]

So, for someone whose "cold, dead hands" ski is a 182 GPO, what say yee about a fat equivalent for meadow skipping? These would be a UL/Carbon/#3 layup for touring.

@grinch pointed me to the Ullrs (why I've never considered them is beyond me). Just for grins, I marked up what 175 and 182 GPOs (+10) would look like (in addition to Ullrs and FRSs).

The one thing that jumps out at me in these shorter (180-ish) lengths is that I like the longer turn radius of both the Ullr and FRS. Lengthening the radius of my 182s is the single change I'd make to them.

I've mounted various GPOs anywhere from -1 to -1.75 and like 'em there. Who knows? Maybe I'd have kept my 187 GPOs if I mounted 'em on the line . Anyhoo, I see where the Ullr mounts at -7 and -8 (175 & 185) and the FRS (182) mounts at -6.

Camber rocker profile looks nice on all 3.

Protests are not on the list. My 187s were my my biggest disappointment, and I couldn't sell them quickly enough. Call me weird, but given a choice, I'd take my Atomic Automatic 109s out on a powder day over those Protests.


... Thom

[eskido]

I love every bit of this, from concept to reality! Just came out beautifully and I really dig how stoked you are on em! I would no question buy a pair if the opportunity and cash required presented itself. Couple questions, they look to be more center mounted than a normal Q and Concepts, and they look to be mounted on the line. Was that intentional in the design, unintended, or my eyes just playing tricks on me? You said the tip and tail rocker were quite different than the Quixote, I am assuming from your comments that was to give it better all conditions performance and maybe give up a bit of pow performance (I.e. shorter rocker up front and rear)? With those questions asked, were the sticks based more off of a Quixote or a different stick? Is the turn radius and sidecut shape of the Q intact? If so what was the reasoning not to go with Concept tri cut and/or rockered underfoot section? Sorry for all the questions, but very excited about your sticks, they look rad AF! Also, those binders look like they were made for that graphic, great looking setup!!