2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[dschane]

The new Jedi Mind Sticks look good on paper too.

[Duffman]

The GPO and MFree 108 ski very similarly. The GPO is a bit looser and the MFree is better on edge. A -1 GPO with a heavy hitter core, veneer topsheet and carbon would be one hell of an inbounds crusher.

Now that the Q has really replaced my GPO as my travel resort powder ski , I have wondered about the skinny -1 GPO. Anyone actually have experience on one ?

[lrn2swim]

New rocker profile for the Protest, tweaked sidecut for the MVP

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[sf]

Now that the Q has really replaced my GPO as my travel resort powder ski , I have wondered about the skinny -1 GPO. Anyone actually have experience on one ?

Yes. I made a separate review thread on it. Search and you'll find it. Didn't really work out for me, but then I didn't love the standard GPO either, so it might not be relevant to those who love it.

BTW; back then I wasn't completely aware of the effect of a really bad tune (especially lack of base bevel). Since my experiences with another brands tuning issues lately I can't disregard the possibility that my pair had a issue with the tune, but it did a proper detune of the tip and tail at least.

[Foggy_Goggles]

I'm of the belief that it is more about what works for you versus good skis and bad skis. What I like is a moderate side cut and low rocker with a more traditional mount point. This is the Q Series. Phish hooked me up with some 188 skinnies. If I could only have one ski, this would be it.

I haven't skied the GPO as its design doesn't seems really well matched for what I'm looking for. But for those looking at the -1 GPO, consider the Skinny Q.

[powder_to_the_people]

If you ask Keith, I think the general mantra is that if you're looking for a -1 GPO, you should be looking at the BC. But then, I'm scared to deviate from Keith's designs too much for fear of ending up with a ski that really doesn't work.

Have both the GPO and the BC, and they're both great skis. BC is definitely more versatile and I use it inbounds all the time, despite the UL core that I'm on (though I'm on a flex 4, as opposed to the stock 3). I've always thought that a flex 3 BC with heavy hitter core would be a great inbounds ski.

[dschane]

I have the BCs in a #3 with the enduro/carbon core and it is a great inbounds ski (minus bumps/carving -- does fine, but the 9D or SND is too more fun in that terrain). It replaced my -10 Rx's and I'm quite happy with them for 90% of Juneau's winter.

[N1CK.]

I have the BCs in a #3 with the enduro/carbon core and it is a great inbounds ski (minus bumps/carving -- does fine, but the 9D or SND is too more fun in that terrain). It replaced my -10 Rx's and I'm quite happy with them for 90% of Juneau's winter.

by any chance do you have a profile/rocker pic of your old -10mm RX you can post? also, how old were they?

[sf]

If you ask Keith, I think the general mantra is that if you're looking for a -1 GPO, you should be looking at the BC. But then, I'm scared to deviate from Keith's designs too much for fear of ending up with a ski that really doesn't work.

Have both the GPO and the BC, and they're both great skis. BC is definitely more versatile and I use it inbounds all the time, despite the UL core that I'm on (though I'm on a flex 4, as opposed to the stock 3). I've always thought that a flex 3 BC with heavy hitter core would be a great inbounds ski.

Excellent point. I had a pair of BCs for several years as my main touring ski. It's just a good, versatile ski. This reminds me that it could be a good alternative in a inbounds lay-up for that 105-110mm "playful charger" etc

[abraham]

by any chance do you have a profile/rocker pic of your old -10mm RX you can post? also, how old were they?

If he doesn't I can post a picture tonight. Still haven't fully clicked with them, but I'm thinking I need to put some shims under the toes.

[steveski]

I'm of the belief that it is more about what works for you versus good skis and bad skis. What I like is a moderate side cut and low rocker with a more traditional mount point. This is the Q Series. Phish hooked me up with some 188 skinnies. If I could only have one ski, this would be it.

I haven't skied the GPO as its design doesn't seems really well matched for what I'm looking for. But for those looking at the -1 GPO, consider the Skinny Q.

If anyone is interested in a skinny Q I'm probably going to part with mine. 182 - flex 3 - heavy hitter core (no veneer or carbon) - screaming bear topsheet. Single mount for attack2 demo plates.

[dschane]

by any chance do you have a profile/rocker pic of your old -10mm RX you can post? also, how old were they?

I don't, sorry about that. Sounds like Abraham can help you out.

As for age, I just checked my account and I ordered them for the fall of 2019, so not very old.

And, fwiw, the Rx's do not have much rocker. I think that's why I like the BC's a bit better at the same waist width. With the #3 flex and hair more rocker, the BCs keep my 190-lb frame on top just a bit more. The standard Rx's are among my all time favorite skis, though the 105ish waist serves me and my purposes better.

[comish]

Thinking about ordering some custom 184cm RX's for in bounds maritime pow.

Bought a used pair of stock RX's here and loved the "feel" of the ski. Charged and did exactly what I wanted. In Mammoth wind effect / maritime snow I wanted more tip rocker for our big dumps (>12" new). Talking to Keith about a pair w/ more tip rocker, 8cm to 8.5cm that rises more consistently ala FRD, and just slight tail rocker 2 or 2.5mm w/ no twin tip as I only go forwards. Otherwise stock. Enduro, #4, and I will mount -9 or -10.

I'm 5'9" 160 and like to drive the tips of skis. My ultimate feeling which I have only found in my Atomic Atlas is to drive the tip like a race ski while the tips don't dive in pow. Don't know why, but that's what I'm after.

Anyone ever ordered anything remotely similar? Really I want a Wren 114, but with a Praxis layup (Have decided I don't like the ON3P bamboo, feels "bouncy" for this 160ibs once it's not perfect pow)

[waxoff]

Anyone ever ordered anything remotely similar? Really I want a Wren 114, but with a Praxis layup (Have decided I don't like the ON3P bamboo, feels "bouncy" for this 160ibs once it's not perfect pow)

I went for a +1 cm BC with Enduro #4 layup a couple of years ago. Being 5 10 190# I went with the 191 length. Very versatile fat boards.

Close enough to a Wren 114?

[comish]

Problem is that I would have to pay the $150 for the +1cm and another $150 for the increased rocker... Can't afford that. This is already a big spend for me. Good idea though as I do like that shape.

[buildakicker]

Love the BCs!

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

[waxoff]

Problem is that I would have to pay the $150 for the +1cm and another $150 for the increased rocker... Can't afford that. This is already a big spend for me. Good idea though as I do like that shape.

Fair enough. Rocker is sweet as it is for my preference though. Are you looking for a longer rockered section and/or more splay?

[comish]

So the Wren's have about 83mm splay over about 400mm of tip rocker length and that was great. The stock RX has 70 over 450, but most of it's splay is rather abrupt at the tip. Looking for more rocker overall and for it to start closer to the binding than the RX which feels like it starts right close to the tip. That 450 length on the RX is just a few mm for a chunk of the early rise before it bends up closer to the tip.

Other examples all measure super precisely my me although my measurements jived with Blister's Wren 114 measurements.
182cm Atlas: 85mm over 460mm in length (love these tips!)
183cm Prior Overlord: 75mm over 480mm in length. Not quite enough.

Keep in mind I'm thinking for our standard Mammoth dump that is usually >12" or 18" and can easily be 2' and usually has some wind effect and is a bit heavier than your continental snow which also likely influences what I'm looking for. That and my desire to be able to drive the tips in the pow. I just love that feeling

[googledidoo]

Anyone have any thoughts on the Jedi Mindsticks?

[Shredeagle]

I've got a pair of the Jedi Mind Sticks. I'm not very good at understanding/describing skis, and I bought them from Keith when I was drunk in the parking lot - so not totally dialed on what I got

But that said, here is what I know:

190. Some type of veneer on top. Pretty light for what they are. Awesome graphics. I'd been skiing (and was stoked on) the 190 FRS (no wood veneer) before getting on these. The FRS were very heavy. I was working on skiing more upright/less forward and was having fun with that on the FRS. You don't need to have as much of a centered stance if you don't want to on the Jedi (but you can). They are a big mtn charger ski. Super fast super stable. I skied them a bunch at Big Sky this spring and was really stoked on them. I thought they were best at ripping big fast fall line turns in the off piste. I would still bomb the moguls with them and it was fun, but not a quick turner. A bit of work. I had some fun skiing Bridger with them too. But certainly not a ski I would be stoked to ski moguls/tight trees on. More fun on say slushmans lift or big sky. Aka more steep and open.

Sorry I'm not very good at this - but if you have any questions I can try and answer them.

[Long duc dong]

Thinking about ordering some custom 184cm RX's for in bounds maritime pow.

Bought a used pair of stock RX's here and loved the "feel" of the ski. Charged and did exactly what I wanted. In Mammoth wind effect / maritime snow I wanted more tip rocker for our big dumps (>12" new). Talking to Keith about a pair w/ more tip rocker, 8cm to 8.5cm that rises more consistently ala FRD, and just slight tail rocker 2 or 2.5mm w/ no twin tip as I only go forwards. Otherwise stock. Enduro, #4, and I will mount -9 or -10.

I'm 5'9" 160 and like to drive the tips of skis. My ultimate feeling which I have only found in my Atomic Atlas is to drive the tip like a race ski while the tips don't dive in pow. Don't know why, but that's what I'm after.

Anyone ever ordered anything remotely similar? Really I want a Wren 114, but with a Praxis layup (Have decided I don't like the ON3P bamboo, feels "bouncy" for this 160ibs once it's not perfect pow)

Comish,

Wow. I'm actually thinking along almost exactly the same lines. I have been thinking about ordering a 184 RX.

I ski much of the same type of snow as you, obviously. I do tend to get in quite a few Baldy days, but I don't plan on skiing the RX there for quite a while.

I have been skiing a 4frnt EHP 186 for most of my Mammoth days for more than a decade. When they discontinued the EHP I bought extra pair, that I just mounted up a few years ago. I love them for not just pow but day-to-day Mammoth. Unless it is really firm they are the ski I take out.

That changed a bit this year. I always had a 179 Bro that was 99 underfoot. I only skied those when it was REALLY firm. If I had any doubt about what ski to take out I took out the EHPs. This fall I bought a pair of 183 MVPs that are 108 underfoot. They are insane, and a great compromise between a 116 underfoot EHP and something that is 99 underfoot.

I found myself taking them on out some of the Mammoth days when I would have been on the EHPs. If it was a classic Mammoth windbuff day, a slush day or a pow day I would go EHP, but while I only skied the 99 underfoot skis when it was really firm, the MVPs have eaten into my EHP days. That's fine, I had been looking for something in between the 116 and the 99 for a while, and 108 MVP is just right for that.

The RX is going to (sort of) replace the EHP. It will be my go to ski on most days. One of the things I love about the EHP is the versatility. If the top of Hangman's or Philippe's slides (as it does reasonably often on a pow day) and I need to make a couple of firm turns before I get to the goods I'm just fine on the EHP. These are turns I would not onecessarily want to make on a pure pow/reverse-reverse type ski. If I have to take one ski on a ski trip it is still the EHP.

While I love the EHPs, I've been skiing the model since Jan 2008, there are a couple of things I would like to be different:

1) The length, 186, is fine. I would probably prefer a 184 or a 185, but 186 is okay. A 184 RX would probably be just right in the length department.

2) While I like the fact that the EHP does not have a whole lot of sidecut, I could use a bit more between the tip and waist. I don't want a ski with a wide tail in proportion to the waist, as I don't like skis that lock you into a turn. I would prefer slightly more turn initiation, but a tail that is not too wide. I would like a ski that is slightly easier to turn than the EHP.

In this regard, I think the RX might be just right. Here is a comparison of the dimensions:

EHP 129-116-123
RX 141-116-128.

I think I would be fine with the slightly wider tail. It would make things a bit carvier, but not lock me into round turns, I could probably still slash when I wanted to. I think the wider tip will help a bit with float and turn initiation. The RX sidecut is pretty close to what I have always wanted.

3) Slightly more rocker. I don't want a ton more, this is supposed to be a ski I can take anywhere, but I would like a wider tip and a bit more rocker to plow through stuff. I don't want a ski that is full-on pow, I want to be able to make a technical turn on a firm steep if I have to, but I would like a bit more float.

Here is a comparison of the tip splay, tip rocker and tip taper. I will use the EHP, which I just measured, the Armada 185 JJ, which I ski on most of my Mt. Baldy days, and the RX.

EHP: tip rocker= 30 cm, tip splay=4 cm, tip taper=22 cm

JJ: tip rocker= 41 cm, tip splay=6.5 cm, tip taper= 33 cm

RX: tip rocker=45 cm, tip splay=7.5 cm, tip taper=20 cm


I should note that I calculated the tip splay by putting one ski flat on the floor and measuring the distance from the floor to the tip. I'm assuming this is correct.

I'm pretty sure that even a standard RX, i.e. without increasing rocker, will still be a bit better in soft snow/crud than the EHP I am on now. I'm not sure I need the added rocker, although if the splay is concentrated near the tip on the RX that does concern me a bit. Still, I think the tip would be a bit better for soft snow than the EHP, I don't see how it would be worse, given the greater splay, greater tip width and greater rocker. The ideal tip splay in an RX for me might be what it is, but more gradual from the start of the rocker, rather than right at the tip. I would certainly consider adding rocker.

I do love the JJ, although I like the EHP a bit better. I got the JJs under unfortunate circumstances, a friend of my wife's had her husband pass away and she had two pairs of jjs she wanted to get rid of. They are lots of fun, much easier to turn than the EHPs. I think the ideal ski for me, in a 116 underfoot ski, would be a bit of a cross between the EHP and the JJ: A bit easier to turn than the EHP with a bit more rocker, but not with the amount of taper of the JJ. The JJs are fun, but they are a bit turny, which I think has to do in part with the amount of tip taper. The RX seems like it might be a very good compromise between the two. The EHP is a more stable ski than the JJ, which I like.

If Hegel dialectic terms:

EHP=thesis

JJ=antithesis

RX=synthesis? Hopefully that will be the case.

Sorry for the long post, but I have been thinking about this quite a bit over the last couple of months. I do need to email Keith.

I should also get back to work so that I can actually PAY for these things!

[comish]

LDD, you pull the trigger?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Long duc dong]

LDD, you pull the trigger?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Trigger pulled!!!

In the end I just went with the standard RX in a 184. Since I will be using these so often I decided I didn't need added rocker.

I will say that your post got me thinking about the rocker, and possibly going with the 185 BC in a +10mm just due to the fact that I liked the tip rocker in that one a bit more. But I don't think it will make THAT much of a difference, and honestly it will still have more rocker than the 186 EHPs. If these were skis that I would ONLY ski in pow, or a few days after the storm, I might have gone with a modified rocker. But these will be used on most of the days I used my EHPs, so I want the versatility of the EHP with a bit more rocker, which the standard RX has.

Still, I am thinking about whether a modified rocker would suit me....

I'm definitely overthinking it though. They should be better in soft snow than the EHPs, and I think they will be basically as versatile. Added rocker would be great if they were not an everyday (basically) ski, but I will want to be able to have basically the same level of versatility I currently have, so I don't think extra rocker is necessary.

I do think the 183 MVPs I bought this year are going to gradually eat in to the days I ski on the EHP/RX. There were some days I skied them this year when I would have skied the EHPs and I was happy with the added edge grip and narrower waist. But I still think most days will be on a 116 waist ski. If I spent 80-90% of my previous days on the EHP/RX that ratio now might be 50-70%. This depends on the season of course. This year was a bit on the firm side. Seasons like 10/11 or 16/17 or 18/19 would definitely call for more days on a wider ski.

So yeah, long-winded way of saying trigger pulled!

[dschane]

185 BCs! That's new this year, I think.

[powder_to_the_people]

I'm going to guess I'm mistaken, but I thought the EHP was an earlier iteration of the Hoji––isn't the EHP reverse camber as well? With its camber, I would have assumed that the RX would be more directional/more work in softer snow, at slower speeds anyway? Never skied the RX or the EHP, though I have skied (and loved) the Hoji.