Page 80 of 83 FirstFirst ... 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 LastLast
Results 1,976 to 2,000 of 2061
  1. #1976
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    Do you find the Q does better with a centered stance or driving the ski? How playful would you say the Q is?

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    I'm naturally a bit more upright / centered (shitty ankle dorsiflexion so stiff, slightly more upright boots) but not so much as to rock the park skiier pencil Steele stance , and they work great for me. I've never noticed any issues when really getting low and forward to drive through set up crud and such, but like I said, I'm not in an ex-racer stance most of the time. I find them to be really easy and playful when wanted ,but can easily switch gears (188 4+ flex , veneer, enduro) I spent a morning farting around w my 7 year old on blue groomers and luge track like low angle kid trees, then took them to some steeper spring condition bigger faces in the afternoon and let them run through the softening crud and slush. Can do both.

  2. #1977
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
    is fantastic in warm spring corn and deep slush.
    This, all day. Such a fun spring ski, smearing the tails around in mashed potatoes bumps is so fun. Also I can't nose butter, but I've almost done it accidently on the Qs in spring snow just goofing around. I was thinking the 108 version (-1) would be amazing as a travel ski, where things are soft, with potential for smaller accumulations.

    Name:  nose butter.PNG
Views: 292
Size:  579.6 KB

  3. #1978
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Pulling up stakes, again.
    Posts
    7,890
    I own a pair of normal width Quixotes and a pair of skinny Quixotes. Both flex 3, both set up as touring skis with tech bindings.

    The camber/rocker profile of the Q is dialed, don't fuck with it.

    I'm debating between adding another Q or a GPO with a heavy hitter core for soft days in bounds, but I also never felt the need for anything wider than 102mm underfoot this entire season, so perhaps I'm over the idea of "lift served powder skis."

  4. #1979
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I own a pair of normal width Quixotes and a pair of skinny Quixotes. Both flex 3, both set up as touring skis with tech bindings.

    The camber/rocker profile of the Q is dialed, don't fuck with it.

    I'm debating between adding another Q or a GPO with a heavy hitter core for soft days in bounds, but I also never felt the need for anything wider than 102mm underfoot this entire season, so perhaps I'm over the idea of "lift served powder skis."
    How would you compare the skinny vs normal Q? Other.than float what differences do you notice most.

  5. #1980
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
    I'm naturally a bit more upright / centered (shitty ankle dorsiflexion so stiff, slightly more upright boots) but not so much as to rock the park skiier pencil Steele stance , and they work great for me. I've never noticed any issues when really getting low and forward to drive through set up crud and such, but like I said, I'm not in an ex-racer stance most of the time. I find them to be really easy and playful when wanted ,but can easily switch gears (188 4+ flex , veneer, enduro) I spent a morning farting around w my 7 year old on blue groomers and luge track like low angle kid trees, then took them to some steeper spring condition bigger faces in the afternoon and let them run through the softening crud and slush. Can do both.
    Hmm, I'm wondering if the Q might be the answer to a more playful BG. Jeffery108 is my under 6" of new snow ski. I was thinking BG or Jeff116 for storm days. Jeff116 doesn't seem to have the crud busting ability of the BG and BG doesn't have the playfulness of the Jeff (from what I've read). I wonder if a heavy hitter Q would be a compromise between the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I own a pair of normal width Quixotes and a pair of skinny Quixotes. Both flex 3, both set up as touring skis with tech bindings.

    The camber/rocker profile of the Q is dialed, don't fuck with it.

    I'm debating between adding another Q or a GPO with a heavy hitter core for soft days in bounds, but I also never felt the need for anything wider than 102mm underfoot this entire season, so perhaps I'm over the idea of "lift served powder skis."
    Are those enduro or UL layup? Have weights on them? Looks like the got rid of stock Qs on the website so no weights to be found. Wondering if I'll over power an UL layup at 6'3 205lbs, I've never skied a touring ski but I am looking for a touring specific setup for next season.

  6. #1981
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Pulling up stakes, again.
    Posts
    7,890
    My skinny Q's have the heavy core with carbon, and a cherry veneer topsheet, flex 3.

    My regular Q's have the enduro core with carbon, an oak veneer and are also flex 3.

    I posted weights for them both somewhere on here, but I don't recall off the top of my head. The two skis are relatively close in weight though.

    I think the skinny Q skis deep snow just fine. The motivation behind the regular width pair was to get a ski that performed a bit better in upside down snow, where having a ski plane out a bit higher in the snowpack is beneficial. I also got them thinking that the added surface area would be nice for skiing lower angle terrain.

    Keep in mind I'm 5'7" and weigh around 150 pounds, so my experience with the ski is basically irrelevant to what yours will be.

  7. #1982
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by cstefanic View Post
    I'm eyeballing doing a skinny-Q in the same kindof vein as flyingskiguy with the CCR. It just seems so...clever and fun.

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...52#post6205552
    Heads up that CCR is the Praxis acronym for Continuous Curve Rocker, which is not the molding done on my Qs. CCR is full reverse camber from tip to tail, think pontoons or spatulas. My pair had a "compound camber" design, referring to two separate "pods" of camber fore and aft of boot center.

    Unfortunately I no longer have those skis after I snapped one in a crash. Keith requested I send them back so he could inspect them, and he sent me some stock 182cm FRSs as a replacement. Hopefully resurrecting the compound camber Qs in "gen 2" variation for next season.

  8. #1983
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    mammoth
    Posts
    225
    The Quixotes are a really compelling design. Very happy with my FRS but I think the Qs are gonna be my next buy from Praxis
    aerospace eng with a gravity fetish
    ig


  9. #1984
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by macon View Post
    The Quixotes are a really compelling design. Very happy with my FRS but I think the Qs are gonna be my next buy from Praxis
    I was thinking the same. Slight hesitation because it looks like they're being phased out. My guess is that the FRS is the replacement.

  10. #1985
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    mammoth
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    I was thinking the same. Slight hesitation because it looks like they're being phased out. My guess is that the FRS is the replacement.
    I don’t think they’re really phasing it out so much as it is a more complex shape. He only offers it on the “more difficult” and “most difficult” custom models.

    Not certain about that however.

    Tabke has won on both the Q and FRS, most recently on FRS however. They probably ski pretty similarly.
    aerospace eng with a gravity fetish
    ig


  11. #1986
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    468
    Anyone been on both the FRS and Protest? Thinking about an early post grad school present to myself w/an UL Protest build. But currently have a custom FRS (UL, flat underfoot). Would probably part ways with it if I went with the Protest build.

  12. #1987
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Brasso View Post
    Anyone else have experience with the RX 116? They aren't bad skis, but I prefer BGs. RX felt a lot lighter than the BGs, they're fun in the air and whipping around. I could not find their sidecut radius for the life of me though. I was not able to set edges on firm snow, not that anyone should really care about a powder ski's carving performance.

    Am I just doing something wrong or what?
    I put a lot of time on some 189, Heavy Hitter, #5 flex Rx a few years ago. I loved them. One of my favorite skis of all time. In fact, I'm thinking about having another one made. The only things that stand in the way are some 186cm Bodacious.

    I'm wondering how it would feel with CCR, but would probably stick to the original camber profile if I went that road again. I loved it on anything firm or soft, one of the best 110-120mm skis I have used as a daily driver out west.

    Compared to the BG I loved it just as much, just in a different way. The BG is better in funky or chunky snow, although the Rx is very good in that too with it's long radius and almost pin tail. Rx is a better on firm, it feels more like a 110mm ski. Again Rx a much better daily driver.

    I can't believe it's such a love or hate ski.

  13. #1988
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by macon View Post
    I don’t think they’re really phasing it out so much as it is a more complex shape. He only offers it on the “more difficult” and “most difficult” custom models.

    Not certain about that however.

    Tabke has won on both the Q and FRS, most recently on FRS however. They probably ski pretty similarly.
    Yeah and it's not a stock ski anymore is why I was thinking it was being phased out.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  14. #1989
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    I put a lot of time on some 189, Heavy Hitter, #5 flex Rx a few years ago. I loved them. One of my favorite skis of all time. In fact, I'm thinking about having another one made. The only things that stand in the way are some 186cm Bodacious.

    I'm wondering how it would feel with CCR, but would probably stick to the original camber profile if I went that road again. I loved it on anything firm or soft, one of the best 110-120mm skis I have used as a daily driver out west.

    Compared to the BG I loved it just as much, just in a different way. The BG is better in funky or chunky snow, although the Rx is very good in that too with it's long radius and almost pin tail. Rx is a better on firm, it feels more like a 110mm ski. Again Rx a much better daily driver.

    I can't believe it's such a love or hate ski.
    Damn, it sounds like a lot of fun. I just don't jive with it. The BG sucks on hard hardpack, but with any bit of 3D give to the snow, I can set edges well. I just don't feel that way on the RX. I'll probably put it up in Gear Swap some time soon.

  15. #1990
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Brasso View Post
    Damn, it sounds like a lot of fun. I just don't jive with it. The BG sucks on hard hardpack, but with any bit of 3D give to the snow, I can set edges well. I just don't feel that way on the RX. I'll probably put it up in Gear Swap some time soon.
    What core and flex do you have, and how much do you weigh?

  16. #1991
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    What core and flex do you have, and how much do you weigh?
    I'm checking in with the original owner as they were a good bit custom I think, please hold. 5'10", 180 lbs.

  17. #1992
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    Yeah and it's not a stock ski anymore is why I was thinking it was being phased out.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    I got the impression from Keith that after all the presale builds were done last year he just built out a grip of stock skis to sale with the large majority of his remaining materials as he wasn’t selling a lot of customs. So he wasn’t really building more stock as skis sold out. Don’t think the Q’s are going anywhere, he just sold his inventory. Seems to me that most folks around here dig em, I certainly do.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  18. #1993
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    84
    I loved everything about my Skinny Q's except the Asym. I should have went with the normal Q width I think, asym makes more sense on wider skis.

  19. #1994
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar View Post
    Anyone been on both the FRS and Protest? Thinking about an early post grad school present to myself w/an UL Protest build. But currently have a custom FRS (UL, flat underfoot). Would probably part ways with it if I went with the Protest build.
    I own 188 FRS in enduro/stock flex (4) and layup, and 187 Protest in MAP/carbon. Don't know the Protest flex but guessing a 3.

    I don't love the FRS - it's a great freeride/comp/pow ski, but I didn't love it in resort chop after the first couple laps. I much preferred the Rustler 11s I skied the same day. But, take that with a grain of salt, as I did not like my 187 MVPs either, so maybe I just don't get along with that shape too well. Dunno. Both were flex 4. Longer thoughts from several on the FRS: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...duro?p=6274550

    On the other hand, my Protests are cold dead hands skis. I LOVE touring in them. I just got some 196 enduro/flex 4 off gear swap for a resort pair to complement the 187s for touring. I've already skied about the scariest stuff of my non-scary-skiing-life on the 187s when they had alpine binders (Chimney Sweep and Middle Finger at Squaw if you're familiar), so they handle the technical stuff damn well. Need I mention how they ski pow, mank, crust, hot mush, evening funk, even refreeze?? They ski that shit awesome.
    sproing!

    FS: 2003 Lancelite 845 truck camper.

  20. #1995
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I own 188 FRS in enduro/stock flex (4) and layup, and 187 Protest in MAP/carbon. Don't know the Protest flex but guessing a 3.

    I don't love the FRS - it's a great freeride/comp/pow ski, but I didn't love it in resort chop after the first couple laps. I much preferred the Rustler 11s I skied the same day. But, take that with a grain of salt, as I did not like my 187 MVPs either, so maybe I just don't get along with that shape too well. Dunno. Both were flex 4. Longer thoughts from several on the FRS: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...duro?p=6274550

    On the other hand, my Protests are cold dead hands skis. I LOVE touring in them. I just got some 196 enduro/flex 4 off gear swap for a resort pair to complement the 187s for touring. I've already skied about the scariest stuff of my non-scary-skiing-life on the 187s when they had alpine binders (Chimney Sweep and Middle Finger at Squaw if you're familiar), so they handle the technical stuff damn well. Need I mention how they ski pow, mank, crust, hot mush, evening funk, even refreeze?? They ski that shit awesome.
    What don't you love about the MVP/FRS shape? I'm considering it.

    Have you skied the Bibby/Wildcat/PBJ shape, and if so, how would you compare them?

  21. #1996
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Pulling up stakes, again.
    Posts
    7,890
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    I loved everything about my Skinny Q's except the Asym. I should have went with the normal Q width I think, asym makes more sense on wider skis.
    Skiing is such a personal sport. As someone who owns both skinny and regular with Quixotes, I prefer the skinny ones in most conditions.

    From the first turn I took on my Q's, I haven't given a single thought to the sidecut/asym. The only time it seemed odd was when I first took them out of the box.
    "Hakuna matata, motherfucker!"

  22. #1997
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    As someone who owns both skinny and regular with Quixotes, I prefer the skinny ones in most conditions
    My restraint is seriously waning. Custom sale is the hardest time of the year.

  23. #1998
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    I put a lot of time on some 189, Heavy Hitter, #5 flex Rx a few years ago. I loved them. One of my favorite skis of all time. In fact, I'm thinking about having another one made. The only things that stand in the way are some 186cm Bodacious.

    I'm wondering how it would feel with CCR, but would probably stick to the original camber profile if I went that road again. I loved it on anything firm or soft, one of the best 110-120mm skis I have used as a daily driver out west.

    Compared to the BG I loved it just as much, just in a different way. The BG is better in funky or chunky snow, although the Rx is very good in that too with it's long radius and almost pin tail. Rx is a better on firm, it feels more like a 110mm ski. Again Rx a much better daily driver.

    I can't believe it's such a love or hate ski.
    Really interesting description of the RX. I have never skied it, ordered a pair to get built up this summer after discussing GPO vs RX with Kieth in March. I too have a pair of BGs and love 'em.

  24. #1999
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I own 188 FRS in enduro/stock flex (4) and layup, and 187 Protest in MAP/carbon. Don't know the Protest flex but guessing a 3.

    I don't love the FRS - it's a great freeride/comp/pow ski, but I didn't love it in resort chop after the first couple laps. I much preferred the Rustler 11s I skied the same day. But, take that with a grain of salt, as I did not like my 187 MVPs either, so maybe I just don't get along with that shape too well. Dunno. Both were flex 4. Longer thoughts from several on the FRS: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...duro?p=6274550

    On the other hand, my Protests are cold dead hands skis. I LOVE touring in them. I just got some 196 enduro/flex 4 off gear swap for a resort pair to complement the 187s for touring. I've already skied about the scariest stuff of my non-scary-skiing-life on the 187s when they had alpine binders (Chimney Sweep and Middle Finger at Squaw if you're familiar), so they handle the technical stuff damn well. Need I mention how they ski pow, mank, crust, hot mush, evening funk, even refreeze?? They ski that shit awesome.
    Thanks for the input man. I’m actually enjoying the FRS and had an old stock MVP at one point. I feel the FRS is an improvement in the MVP shape, feels a little more playful than the previous shape but still has the stability in chop. I just think for my pow touring ski that the Protest shape might be the ticket.

  25. #2000
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    334
    What would people recommend as a "first praxis ski?" Im 6'1" 190, ski 90% in tahoe and have a 190 wct and a 184 dwt for touring along with a smattering of skinnier touring skis, and a 188 r11/ 191 ranger 102fr in bounds. Looking for something chargery for IB skiing in tahoe mank and deeper days, and dont really know if a protest fills that niche. I like the idea of supporting praxis and have always wanted a pair of em, where to start?

Posting Permissions

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