2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[undertow2]

Oh ok. I had good luck with the veers i had. No top sheet chips like my nylon top gpo. I think they were maple ambrosia. Another one too i cant remember. That was a bonus but they ski so well. Added dampness but i could still pop and they save pretty much the same weight as carbon. Thom got a recommendation, from Iggy? or Scott?, on a stain/laquer that makes them super brilliant and much more durable. Veneer looks great but that coating was crazy good looking. Hopefully he'll add/correct some of my memory on this.
My gpo's are still going from the original pressing year. My other skis havent chipped as much so maybe there an anomaly. My veneers did seem to fair better than all the nylons though. Not sure if it was the particular veneers i picked or luck. Thought that stain would just remove any worries for my next pair though

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Do not get me wrong my cherry Qs are probably the absolute best looking skis I own... I was locked on the cherry top sheets and I remember Muggy checked in with Keith on wood grain durability and cherry was the worst... They are not chipping but get scratched like crazy and do not have the same issue with nylon... I have the custom 192 GPOs with the wood grain based and octopus tentacles and are still going strong... Love them and are such a great ski but don’t have the balls like my Blizzards or ON3Ps... Feel confident heavy hitters will do it for me...

N1CK now has me intrigued on HH with carbon... I would love the smashing quality of the HH and a little pop but did they feel tinny N1ICK...?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[grinch]

Do not get me wrong my cherry Qs are probably the absolute best looking skis I own... I was locked on the cherry top sheets and I remember Muggy checked in with Keith on wood grain durability and cherry was the worst... They are not chipping but get scratched like crazy and do not have the same issue with nylon... I have the custom 192 GPOs with the wood grain based and octopus tentacles and are still going strong... Love them and are such a great ski but don’t have the balls like my Blizzards or ON3Ps... Feel confident heavy hitters will do it for me...

N1CK now has me intrigued on HH with carbon... I would love the smashing quality of the HH and a little pop but did they feel tinny N1ICK...?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Copy. We all have a bit different tastes. Carbon never did it for me. HH i really like

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[mr_pretzel]

+ 1 on HH without carbon, carbon requires a lot more energy to keep the ski flexed, which isn’t why you are buying the HH core IMO

[CovertM]

Attachment 371123

Must resist... I think it was already asked but when does the sale date end...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I emailed Keith and he said at least early May.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[galibier_numero_un]

Copy. We all have a bit different tastes. Carbon never did it for me. HH i really like

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

I'm guessing my 182 veneer GPOs (feel like Enduro / #4) don't have carbon. They feel very similar to my 182 Qs which were Enduro/Carbon/Veneer/#4.

For touring in soft snow, my 182 MAP/Carbon/Nylon/#4 GPOs feel fine, but I'm guessing they'd feel better with veneer ;-)

It seems to me as if veneer calms the nervousness of carbon.

Are folks mostly thinking of HH for crud busting, damping, or both? I'm thinking both.

... Thom

[AEV]

What would a GPO do for me that an Rx won't? It's a bit more playful and easy going, but at what cost to stability? I'd go heavy hitter core and stiff with either design. Can't imagine one of Keiths heavier layups disappointing me stability wise, no matter the shape.

There was a part of the Quixote shape I really liked, it offered something that I could not find in my Rx. I just didn't like the Asym. I almost wish for a Quixote without asym, if that even makes sense. Idk which sidecut profile I would even take though, inner or outer?? Thom, you've thought about this before right? I thought I read something

That's what intrigues me about the GPO. I'm just wondering if what I felt in the Quixote, could be achieved in a GPO, without having to deal with asym..

[CovertM]

The 187 GPOs skied like my 182 Qs, and my 182 CD 114s.

That was a key reason for my swapping the 187s for 182s - for a bit of variety. The Qs are gone, and the Downs and 182 GPOs compliment each other.

For me, it's more about where I ski. I appreciate the shorter GPOs in tight trees.

I'm not sure if I'm up to heavy hitter (5'9", 165#), but I'm 100% sold on veneer's ability to damp without making a ski feel dead.

... Thom

Interesting... I toured quite a bit this last season on the 182 and absolutely loved it in all conditions. Lift served, I felt a little undergunned and wanted more top end. Might keep the 182 as is and keep touring with it and get the 187 for lift served.

On another note, I’m thinking of picking up the BC at the easy build price and adding veneer. Seems almost like a -10 GPO and would be my do it all tour rig and substantially lighter than the standard 182 GPO. This would be replacing a Meridian Tour (never jived with the full rocker).I don’t see a lot of talk about the BC here, anyone have experience?

Also, your talk of the 187 vs. 182 GPO has me rethinking adding the 187. Currently have 182 GPO and just got Muggy’s beautiful 192 protest. What do I want to fit in the middle? My thought was 187 GPO for lift served only, but is there something else in need to try for all around days and more top end than the 182 GPO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hoarhey]

there's a lot of love for the BC on here as a do it all no nonsense ski.

[grinch]

I'm guessing my 182 veneer GPOs (feel like Enduro / #4) don't have carbon. They feel very similar to my 182 Qs which were Enduro/Carbon/Veneer/#4.

For touring in soft snow, my 182 MAP/Carbon/Nylon/#4 GPOs feel fine, but I'm guessing they'd feel better with veneer ;-)

It seems to me as if veneer calms the nervousness of carbon.

Are folks mostly thinking of HH for crud busting, damping, or both? I'm thinking both.

... Thom

Both for sure. I think similar reactions tame both. Touring is much different than resort skiing for me. I like to have a touring ski that is perhaps more biased towards damp for the occasional sporty higher speed line.Most of the time im climbing and the climb is going to take me to smooth good snow so light is right. Still torn between which one to bring/1st world problems. On the hill i dont even think about weight, even if its a slackcountry set up, within reason. Great pow skiing here ,and most times i can find some. Still no escaping the chop, refrozen, debris, crust, etc etc. Probably ski 3x the speed on the hill as the bc so i appreciate the dampness then. That could make the difference alone. For me atleast, carbons only benefit is the less weight factor. Slow twitch muscles? Idk. I never do slalom turns and even in bumps its probably a gs turn. Maybe thats it?

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[detrusor]

I’ve got ultralight carbon 192 gpo with cast for travel and general ripping around snowbird. They’re awesome for my 6’1” 175 lbs


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Cars Suck]

Interesting... I toured quite a bit this last season on the 182 and absolutely loved it in all conditions. Lift served, I felt a little undergunned and wanted more top end. Might keep the 182 as is and keep touring with it and get the 187 for lift served.

On another note, I’m thinking of picking up the BC at the easy build price and adding veneer. Seems almost like a -10 GPO and would be my do it all tour rig and substantially lighter than the standard 182 GPO. This would be replacing a Meridian Tour (never jived with the full rocker).I don’t see a lot of talk about the BC here, anyone have experience?

Also, your talk of the 187 vs. 182 GPO has me rethinking adding the 187. Currently have 182 GPO and just got Muggy’s beautiful 192 protest. What do I want to fit in the middle? My thought was 187 GPO for lift served only, but is there something else in need to try for all around days and more top end than the 182 GPO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Qs should be worth a look IMO if you’re looking for top end and all around goodness. My 182 Quixote are much more stable at speed and punching thru chop than my 182 GPOs.

Both are equally fun in spring corn and slush and GPOs have edge in surfy powder conditions but Qs rip so much harder everywhere else and are the better platform for drops.

[eskido]

What would a GPO do for me that an Rx won't? It's a bit more playful and easy going, but at what cost to stability? I'd go heavy hitter core and stiff with either design. Can't imagine one of Keiths heavier layups disappointing me stability wise, no matter the shape.
...

From what I remember of your tastes I think the RX edges out the GPO, but it’s 100% subjective. I think of the the GPO as a scalpel, just super easy to slice and dice in just about any conditions but very adaptable to just about anything, just in a more nimble fashion (will smash with aplomb when asked). RX is a bit more of monster truck in comparison but obviously very maneuverable and versatile in its own right, just maybe less nimble more smash.

[Westcoaster]

I have 184 Wildcat 116 (19-20) and FR102s along with 182 GPOs and 182 Quixote and love all those skis for charge-y, slashy Tahoe skiing.

Had OG 188 Protests and selling them was a terrible decision. They absolutely rip in heavy Tahoe dumps and skipped over chop and mank like nothing.

At your size a HH or enduro core + veneer would be a machine for deep and cut up resort days and would sit nicely at the top of your resort quiver. They are stupid fun and I need to get a new pair

Damn man dialed feedback, much appreciated.

[AEV]

From what I remember of your tastes I think the RX edges out the GPO, but it’s 100% subjective. I think of the the GPO as a scalpel, just super easy to slice and dice in just about any conditions but very adaptable to just about anything, just in a more nimble fashion (will smash with aplomb when asked). RX is a bit more of monster truck in comparison but obviously very maneuverable and versatile in its own right, just maybe less nimble more smash.

How do you think a 192 GPO in Heavy Hitter, 4 flex (or 5?), would be able to run in chop/crud with that 26m radius? How much do you think it would give up to my old 189 Rx in Heavy #5? 26m is long enough for me on paper, does it not ski that way?

I think you are right, the Rx suits me more. But I want to try the GPO so bad. I loved the Rx, but it wasn't as playful as much as it was just steadfast and confidence inspiring to the max. It wasn't not playful, that aspect just didn't stand out as much as others. You can't have everything I guess.

I must say, Keith builds some of the best skis in the world, hands down.

[grinch]

I find the gpo as stable and powerful. A little tighter radius on the gpo but still as powerful. More tail support on rhe gpo, wider and less splay. Bith dont reward lazy skiing. I think the gpo is more advanced design. Easier to break free of the turn shape with the long tip taper. A touch more float with the rx. Splitting hairs, theyre both great. Ill grab either one between storms or day after or corn crushing. Im favoring the gpo in those conditions but ive also got a lot more time on the gpo.

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[AEV]

I find the gpo as stable and powerful. A little tighter radius on the gpo but still as powerful. More tail support on rhe gpo, wider and less splay. Bith dont reward lazy skiing. I think the gpo is more advanced design. Easier to break free of the turn shape with the long tip taper. A touch more float with the rx. Splitting hairs, theyre both great. Ill grab either one between storms or day after or corn crushing. Im favoring the gpo in those conditions but ive also got a lot more time on the gpo.

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Does the GPO come close to Billy Goats/Powderboards in chunky maritimes snow? I always thought the Rx was very close, or as close as you could get to Full Rocker/RES/Reverse for chunk snow. I like a either a straight ski or a super duper tapered (think reverse sidecut or minimum Protest/Armada levels of taper) in Sierra Cement. Does the GPO taper hook up in that stuff?

[grinch]

Does the GPO come close to Billy Goats/Powderboards in chunky maritimes snow? I always thought the Rx was very close, or as close as you could get to Full Rocker/RES/Reverse for chunk snow. I like a either a straight ski or a super duper tapered (think reverse sidecut or minimum Protest/Armada levels of taper) in Sierra Cement. Does the GPO taper hook up in that stuff?

Protest does. You can relax more on the protest or bg. I find the gpo and rx want to be on the gas or you get youre ass handed to you. More precise. Different tools for different conditions. I like all the extra things a gpo can do. I dont even have a low tide ski. Gpo can do it all very well. Its just not a mach 10 chopped snow crusher while youre sending a text and eating a sammich at the same time like a bg or a protest. You have to pay attention on the gpo or rx. Protest is better in wind press or skiable crust by a tiny bit over the bg. Bg is better than a p test when there its hardpack. Im always going to have a gpo, bg and after i get another protest ill always have one of those. Gpo and bg are apples and otganges for me. If i was traveling and i could only take one ski itd be gpo, hands down

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[AEV]

Protest does. You can relax more on the protest or bg. I find the gpo and rx want to be on the gas or you get youre ass handed to you. More precise. Different tools for different conditions. I like all the extra things a gpo can do. I dont even have a low tide ski. Gpo can do it all very well. Its just not a mach 10 chopped snow crusher while youre sending a text and eating a sammich at the same time like a bg or a protest. You have to pay attention on the gpo or rx. Protest is better in wind press or skiable crust by a tiny bit over the bg. Bg is better than a p test when there its hardpack. Im always going to have a gpo, bg and after i get another protest ill always have one of those. Gpo and bg are apples and otganges for me. If i was traveling and i could only take one ski itd be gpo, hands down

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Thanks, this helps. I think the GPO would be enough ski for me in all conditions, while being a bit more "fun" than the Rx. I gotta think on this one. I also like the FRS, but..

[grinch]

Thanks, this helps. I think the GPO would be enough ski for me in all conditions, while being a bit more "fun" than the Rx. I gotta think on this one. I also like the FRS, but..

NP, im probably a bit biased with 200+ days on thd gpo and 15+ on the rx but probably close.
Also forgot bg crushes chop but you knew that

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[galibier_numero_un]

What would a GPO do for me that an Rx won't? It's a bit more playful and easy going, but at what cost to stability? I'd go heavy hitter core and stiff with either design. Can't imagine one of Keiths heavier layups disappointing me stability wise, no matter the shape.

There was a part of the Quixote shape I really liked, it offered something that I could not find in my Rx. I just didn't like the Asym. I almost wish for a Quixote without asym, if that even makes sense. Idk which sidecut profile I would even take though, inner or outer?? Thom, you've thought about this before right? I thought I read something

That's what intrigues me about the GPO. I'm just wondering if what I felt in the Quixote, could be achieved in a GPO, without having to deal with asym..

I had been musing about a non-asym Q as well. My sense is that it would be very much like my CD 114s, so I haven't pushed the idea forward.

In my short time with the 187 GPOs, they started to feel very similar to my 182 Qs and 182 CD 114s in terms of top end and wanting to go down the hill (GPOs mounted at -1). I think it's the 24m radius on both the longer GPOs and CD 114s (and the Qs having an avg. radius of 26m), but who can say for sure? I realize that turn radius is only a small part of it, but in this case, the subjective feel was similar.

Now ... a CD 114 in a Praxis layup with veneer ... the stuff of dreams ... but I think that's what a non-asym Q would be, so I guess this is getting a bit circular ;-)

Qs should be worth a look IMO if you’re looking for top end and all around goodness. My 182 Quixote are much more stable at speed and punching thru chop than my 182 GPOs.

Both are equally fun in spring corn and slush and GPOs have edge in surfy powder conditions but Qs rip so much harder everywhere else and are the better platform for drops.

Yes! This was part of the 95% that I loved about the Q. It wanted to run, and encouraged me to do so the way I recall a demo of Wrenegades did (even though they're different skis, and the Wrenegades want to charge harder). That's one of the key reasons I was musing about a non-asym Q.

Interesting... I toured quite a bit this last season on the 182 and absolutely loved it in all conditions. Lift served, I felt a little undergunned and wanted more top end. Might keep the 182 as is and keep touring with it and get the 187 for lift served. On another note, I’m thinking of picking up the BC at the easy build price and adding veneer. Seems almost like a -10 GPO and would be my do it all tour rig and substantially lighter than the standard 182 GPO. This would be replacing a Meridian Tour (never jived with the full rocker).I don’t see a lot of talk about the BC here, anyone have experience?

Also, your talk of the 187 vs. 182 GPO has me rethinking adding the 187. Currently have 182 GPO and just got Muggy’s beautiful 192 protest. What do I want to fit in the middle? My thought was 187 GPO for lift served only, but is there something else in need to try for all around days and more top end than the 182 GPO?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I lived where I skied fewer tight trees (and didn't have CD114s that like to run like my departed Qs, or my 187 GPOs) I likely wouldn't have traded out my 187 GPOs for 182s. The 187s did have a better top end and busted crud better - not like a completely different ski ... more like one that was tweaked.

Ya, the budget is stretched for one pair, let alone two pairs of skis. Otherwise, an easy build BC could be cool (says the guy who has a pair of CD 104Ls he hasn't been on due to COVID).

The prime goal for next Winter is to have a fat meadow skipper for our crazy Colorado snowpack, and that +10 GPO is gonna have to be a most difficult build. Add in veneer, and there goes the budget ;-)

Both for sure. I think similar reactions tame both. Touring is much different than resort skiing for me. I like to have a touring ski that is perhaps more biased towards damp for the occasional sporty higher speed line.Most of the time im climbing and the climb is going to take me to smooth good snow so light is right. Still torn between which one to bring/1st world problems. On the hill i dont even think about weight, even if its a slackcountry set up, within reason. Great pow skiing here ,and most times i can find some. Still no escaping the chop, refrozen, debris, crust, etc etc. Probably ski 3x the speed on the hill as the bc so i appreciate the dampness then. That could make the difference alone. For me atleast, carbons only benefit is the less weight factor. Slow twitch muscles? Idk. I never do slalom turns and even in bumps its probably a gs turn. Maybe thats it?

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Makes sense. Inbounds around these parts, if it's steep and wide open, I'm making round turns and not skiing like may ass was lit on fire. If it's not so steep (and is wide open), it's bumped up. Then, there are the trees ;-)

Maybe this says more about me than the terrain, but when I'm in Utah, my skis don't feel quite as long, if that makes sense.

... Thom

[glademaster]

The prime goal for next Winter is to have a fat meadow skipper for our crazy Colorado snowpack, and that +10 GPO is gonna have to be a most difficult build. Add in veneer, and there goes the budget ;-)

If you order those, I just want to thank you in advance for ensuring we have a deep, stable snowpack next winter.

[SchralphMacchio]

On another note, I’m thinking of picking up the BC at the easy build price and adding veneer. Seems almost like a -10 GPO and would be my do it all tour rig and substantially lighter than the standard 182 GPO. This would be replacing a Meridian Tour (never jived with the full rocker).I don’t see a lot of talk about the BC here, anyone have experience?

I think stock BC now includes veneer at 3 Flex, and on a UL core. I haven’t looked but upthread someone mentioned that custom offers 185, which would be a wise choice as the 180 can be a short ski ... in Flex 2 my 180s are perfect for me for touring at 5’ 8” 135 lbs. with pin bindings, and then many bigger folks want more ski without the kickturn penalty of the 190.

For touring the BC is so damn versatile for west coast subalpine skiing, only two conditions I’ve been wanting less or more ski. (1) Above treeline on super smooth featureless windboard my dull edges and carbon layup did not get confidence inspiring bite (once kinda gripped and scary actually), woulda wanted something skinnier and stiffer on that (Yeti et al). Note this is different from unripe MF crust, which *does* have enough surface texture for the camber contact of a soft old and dull BC to give enough bite for quick shallow (even if a bit survivaly) turns, and I’m sure that’s improved with more stiffness and newer somewhat maintained edges.
(2) In pow (consistent or variable) the BC is great, with my light weight I’ve *loved* it up to maybe 50 cm of fresh, and I was able to ski it in up to like 100 cm of fresh but would have wanted something bigger and stiffer ... once skied them after a 150 cm dump, that was pure comedy (over the bars a few times) and maybe not ideal but still FUN! Hot pow and mank the Flex 2 tip can fold up a little bit and make me feather the forward pressure at speed but this is probably resolved in the Flex 3.

Shape is very similar to Armada Tracer (Prax BC came first) but Tracer has deeper camber, slightly deeper sidecut and less tail rocker, so the BC is actually more playful and handles wet/overripe snow really well - so probably more versatile.

Haven’t tried them in veneer but I wouldn’t hesitate. My MAP/C pair from 11/12 has lost some torsional flex in the last 10 years but those damn bases and edges are so strong I just don’t know when they’ll be decommissioned to rock skis and I get a new pair of BCs or Yetis. I don’t tour a ton on them each year but they’ve had a fair amount of volcano slogging, Tahoe tree slalom in pow, corn, mush, slush, skimming manzanita and willows in shallow snow, and anything else the mountains from the Eastside Sierra up to Oregon Cascades could throw at them.

I wouldn’t hesitate for a UL/carbon/veneer for a do it all touring setup or HH/nylon for a relaxed versatile inbounds DD ski.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm 5'10" 170 and previously owned 180 and 190 BC's. They ski short, but 190 is longer than I want to deal with on skin tracks unless unless I'm hauling a big ass powder ski. 185 should be a great addition. Pretty tempting actually.

[glademaster]

Not sure what your normal ski size range is but...I will say that I bought a standard edition 182 GPO this year and wish so bad that I went with the 187. I'm 5'8" (barely) and 190# semi-beater skier. I commented to Keith that they seemed to ski short and maybe they were just that easy to ski. He agreed and recommended that I try a 187 (probably ordering one now). Something to think about.

My everyday skis are flat tailed and 183cm. I have no doubt I could ski the 187 comfortably most of the time, but at my height, the extra material length of skis over 185cm or so becomes a hassle to swing around. Maybe I'll go with a 187 GPO in a flex 3. I'm pretty light, so I actually find heavy skis with a medium flex to be more enjoyable in chop/crud than really stiff skis.

Hearing that the Q is significantly better than the GPO in chop is making me reconsider. I ski a lot more soft chop and powder over moguls than I do true untracked snow, at least riding lifts.

Maybe I'll just get some 180 BC's so that I have a sub 9 pound touring ski that doesn't have fishscales.

[Quandary]

I will add this to the GPO or RX discussion. These are Keith's thought to the exchange we had regarding ordering the GPOs or RXs;

"I'd see our GPO as a more powder orientated ski/shape and the RX as a more all mountain and firm snow shape but still good in powder. Being the RX has more edge contact and more traditional shape, and the GPO has more rocker and much more tip and tail taper (reverse sidecut) with a short sidecut length.

The RX does have the bigger turn radius, but this is also matched with more overall taper in the ski (tip is 13 mm fatter than the tail), so it still comes around well and easy on the carve. It does like to go fast and charge but again because of the tail being narrower its pretty nimble in tight spots, bumps and trees.

"What I am looking for now is a more or less a fatter version of the 108TIs. Something I can get up on the edges on groomers, bang through soft and hard chop, stable at speed, ski wind blow and float in a couple of feet of fresh. Now obviously with 116 under foot there will be compromises, but I am sure you get the idea."

I just reread what you were looking for from the skis and yeah I think the RX is what you are after. I think you will like the bigger turn radius, it gives you more stability in chop and with speed and allows the ski to be fatter underfoot and therefor float and hang up less in powder or variable snow.

All in all I like the idea of the RX and that's probably the way to go. The RX with the full length sidecut will rail into carves on groomers."