2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[glademaster]

Now that I look at it, a skinny Ullr with a HH core seems like it might be an awesome resort powder ski...

[I've seen black diamonds!]

BC's, with their softer flex, float just as well as a stock GPO. But my flex 3 UL GPO's float better. That's a great winter touring ski for CO. At my weight anyway (170) that change in flex turns the GPO into more of a powder ski, as opposed to a fatter do-it-all ski. They behave quite differently.

I'll also put this here even if it won't be popular:

Everyone considering a GPO should also consider a Rustler 11. They've got a lot in common, but I think the Rustler is just more dialed. I prefer them in almost all conditions especially firmer snow and bumps. I owned some beautiful 187 veneer GPO's (either MAP or Enduro) and after skiing the 11's I sold them without a second thought or an ounce of remorse.

I won't sell my UL GPO's though. I skied them less this year as I did about half my winter touring on Protests, but I think I paid $225 for them and I hope to get them down to a cost of about $1 a day. I don't count my days, but I'd estimate that I've got 125-150 days on them so far. They don't look half their age.

[galibier_numero_un]

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."

[Edit] Sorry ... I missed the "fatter" part of your comment. Ignore the following ...[/edit]

You sound like a possible candidate for Freerides. One thing about them however (Keith agrees), is that they get hung up in tight moguls.

I ordered a pair without checkimg my ego at the door (heavy/veneer/#4) and regretted it. I've always wondered if a flex #3 would have suited my creaky knees. Then again, when it's low tide, I tend not ride lifts, so this is more a curiosity for me than anything.

... Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

BC's, with their softer flex, float just as well as a stock GPO. But my flex 3 UL GPO's float better. That's a great winter touring ski for CO. At my weight anyway (170) that change in flex turns the GPO into more of a powder ski, as opposed to a fatter do-it-all ski. They behave quite differently.

I'll also put this here even if it won't be popular:

Everyone considering a GPO should also consider a Rustler 11. They've got a lot in common, but I think the Rustler is just more dialed. I prefer them in almost all conditions especially firmer snow and bumps. I owned some beautiful 187 veneer GPO's (either MAP or Enduro) and after skiing the 11's I sold them without a second thought or an ounce of remorse.

I won't sell my UL GPO's though. I skied them less this year as I did about half my winter touring on Protests, but I think I paid $225 for them and I hope to get them down to a cost of about $1 a day. I don't count my days, but I'd estimate that I've got 125-150 days on them so far. They don't look half their age.

Next Winter (assuming I ride lifts), comparing my CD114s with your Rustler 11s would be an interesting experiment.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

If you order those, I just want to thank you in advance for ensuring we have a deep, stable snowpack next winter. [emoji3]

I think it works the other way. Maybe I shouldn't order ;-)
... Thom

[Quandary]

[Edit] Sorry ... I missed the "fatter" part of your comment. Ignore the following ...[/edit]

You sound like a possible candidate for Freerides. One thing about them however (Keith agrees), is that they get hung up in tight moguls.

I ordered a pair without checkimg my ego at the door (heavy/veneer/#4) and regretted it. I've always wondered if a flex #3 would have suited my creaky knees. Then again, when it's low tide, I tend not ride lifts, so this is more a curiosity for me than anything.

... Thom

Actual Keith suggested as an alternative a modded fatter version of the FRD as a possibility. I have the 9D8 in HH #4. I like that ski a lot. While I never asked Keith this question, studying the schematics and specs of the RX, I seems to me that if you were going to design a fat 9D8 you'd end up pretty close to the RX. Consequently I think I'll like it. If I don't I can always pull the bindings and hang 'em on the wall as art work!

[CovertM]

BC's, with their softer flex, float just as well as a stock GPO. But my flex 3 UL GPO's float better. That's a great winter touring ski for CO. At my weight anyway (170) that change in flex turns the GPO into more of a powder ski, as opposed to a fatter do-it-all ski. They behave quite differently.

I'll also put this here even if it won't be popular:

Everyone considering a GPO should also consider a Rustler 11. They've got a lot in common, but I think the Rustler is just more dialed. I prefer them in almost all conditions especially firmer snow and bumps. I owned some beautiful 187 veneer GPO's (either MAP or Enduro) and after skiing the 11's I sold them without a second thought or an ounce of remorse.

I won't sell my UL GPO's though. I skied them less this year as I did about half my winter touring on Protests, but I think I paid $225 for them and I hope to get them down to a cost of about $1 a day. I don't count my days, but I'd estimate that I've got 125-150 days on them so far. They don't look half their age.

I was going to ask what the weight penalty would be for a UL/Veneer #3 GPO vs. 185 veneer BC. I’m guessing at least 1.5#


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I was going to ask what the weight penalty would be for a UL/Veneer #3 GPO vs. 185 veneer BC. I’m guessing at least 1.5#

I have 182's. No veneer. They are right around 1800g.

[AEV]

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."

Everything Keith is saying is exactly how I felt with my HH#5 Rx. I loved mine on the ice we get in Tahoe, some of my favorite wide skis on firm snow. They like long radius turns, but they do rail and the tails do come around fairly easily. Idk how carvey they are, but they do extremely well on firm

[galibier_numero_un]

I have 182's. No veneer. They are right around 1800g.

That's interesting. My nylon top, MAP/carbon / # 4 s come in at just about 2000g.

So, dropping to flex #3 is good for more than 200g. in this width? That's more than I would have expected.

... Thom

[I've seen black diamonds!]

That's interesting. My nylon top, MAP/carbon / # 4 s come in at just about 2000g.

So, dropping to flex #3 is good for more than 200g. in this width? That's more than I would have expected.

... Thom

They're also a UL layup.

I think I recall someone with flex 4 UL 182's saying they weigh 1850ish. 50g is probably close to the margin of error between two pairs with the exact same layup.

[galibier_numero_un]

Ah! That makes more sense (much as it would have been cool to drop that much weight by going from #4 to #3).

... Thom

[hoarhey]

just for comparison, 175 UL GPO flex 3 with nylon topsheets are 1600 g. (width reduction as well as length).

[dschane]

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 have the BCs in 180cm, #3, enduro with carbon, maple veneer. I'm 5'9", 185ish lb.

Absolutely love these skis. Just the right amount of rocker for skin track up and then same for the down on Juneau's enjoyable snowpack = anything from hero powder to skiable, not-quite mashed potatoes. They're nimble through trees and definitely respectable in crud, cut up powder, and chunder. They don't crush crud like my skinny Rx's did, but they also don't get tossed around.

I may be getting old, but I don't need anything fatter. OK, maybe 1-5 days per year I do.

I am not a fan of the UL core, but if weight were a higher priority for my winter ski, I'd go with that. For spring skis, I'm happy with a lighter core.

[powder_to_the_people]

Jeez, took my eyes off this thread for a couple of days and there's a lot to catch up on all of a sudden.

I see a lot of chat about the BC, and I can weigh in on that ski for those of you that are on the fence (TLDR get a pair). I bought mine at the beginning of the 2018-2019 season for my touring rig. At 6'4 and 220, and on Keith's recommendation, I went with the 190, UL core + veneer and bumped up the flex to 4. I wasn't too worried about weight (and much more concerned about the bindings releasing when they needed to) so I slapped some shifts on them.

I've ended up skiing them inbounds a lot, and they are a ton of fun (probably 20+ days inbounds over the past couple of seasons). They're great on groomers (a big plus in my book), good in icier conditions, and very fun as soon as there's a bit of soft snow. I guess that's my main point, they're a fun ski to be on; you can slarve them on mounds of fresher snow and quickly lock them in once you hit that patch of harder snow. Just had another awesome day with them today with a suprise 5-6 inches at Crystal Mountain (and a bit more in sheltered areas), with a bit of a crust underneath. The only place where they're not quite as good is super slushy conditions, which is understandable given their lighter weight.

I bought the enduro 192 GPO with veneer at the beginning of this season and just haven't reached for them quite as much. Definitely more of a ski that will kick your ass if you're not on top of them. Pretty confident I won't ever find their speed limit though. Funnily enough, I wonder if I should have dropped the flex down to a 3. This is my first pair with the enduro core, and I think that it's plenty damp (for me), so that a #3 flex would probably be easier to bend and be a bit more "fun" in the softer conditions that I bought them for. Anyone experimented with a softer GPO?

[steveski]

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 would say that it prefers more of a centered stance than forward/driving. Occasionally I would find myself skiing forward more than I normally do and as soon as I actively skied more centered I was back in the sweet spot and things felt much better. Any turn shape, any speed, etc just felt much more intuitive centered than with alot of forward pressure.

[N1CK.]

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

I have / have had a couple skis that are MAP/c and now HH/c and I don't find anything in the ride that I dislike.
They're damp and they pop. I'd like to ski a straight HH core ski too to compare.

[hoarhey]

Jeez, took my eyes off this thread for a couple of days and there's a lot to catch up on all of a sudden.

I see a lot of chat about the BC, and I can weigh in on that ski for those of you that are on the fence (TLDR get a pair). I bought mine at the beginning of the 2018-2019 season for my touring rig. At 6'4 and 220, and on Keith's recommendation, I went with the 190, UL core + veneer and bumped up the flex to 4. I wasn't too worried about weight (and much more concerned about the bindings releasing when they needed to) so I slapped some shifts on them.

I've ended up skiing them inbounds a lot, and they are a ton of fun (probably 20+ days inbounds over the past couple of seasons). They're great on groomers (a big plus in my book), good in icier conditions, and very fun as soon as there's a bit of soft snow. I guess that's my main point, they're a fun ski to be on; you can slarve them on mounds of fresher snow and quickly lock them in once you hit that patch of harder snow. Just had another awesome day with them today with a suprise 5-6 inches at Crystal Mountain (and a bit more in sheltered areas), with a bit of a crust underneath. The only place where they're not quite as good is super slushy conditions, which is understandable given their lighter weight.

I bought the enduro 192 GPO with veneer at the beginning of this season and just haven't reached for them quite as much. Definitely more of a ski that will kick your ass if you're not on top of them. Pretty confident I won't ever find their speed limit though. Funnily enough, I wonder if I should have dropped the flex down to a 3. This is my first pair with the enduro core, and I think that it's plenty damp (for me), so that a #3 flex would probably be easier to bend and be a bit more "fun" in the softer conditions that I bought them for. Anyone experimented with a softer GPO?

I have first year GPO's in a 182 with medium flex (I think that's a 3 now), and I don't find the skis very exacting.

Haven't had the stiff tail experience.

MAP with carbon

I would like to try a heavy hitter core or enduro core without carbon.

[galibier_numero_un]

So, back to my own personal, meadow-skipping journey, it's been 3 days where it's +10 GPO, with nary a waver to the Ullr. Two or 3 more days, and I'm set to pull the trigger.

Keith wrote the following about the two skis, in response to my passing comment about one being the predecessor for the other (Ullr --> GPO I think, in terms of time sequence).

As for the evolution of the designs, the GPO and the Ullr didn't really come together as a result of each other or in sequence. If I remember correctly and I might not... but I think I do.. we had the Ullr and then Tabke and I started working on the GPO.

Could be a chicken or an egg thing as I'm not really sure how it all progressed or if they had really anything to do with each other from the start.

The Ullr I originally made to be a powder ski for resorts with a lot of vert, like Jackson, or snowbird. Powder and bowls up top and then run some groomers to the bottom, hop on a tram and do it again.

So the Ullr was set up to carve as a modified shape powder ski. The GPO was made to slarve as a "mid fat" powder ski. If that makes sense, and really I'm not sure it does.

But in a way they developed independently and ended up being similar almost cousins in the lineup kind of by chance. I don't think Drew ever even tried the Ullr.

... Thom

[grinch]

Jeez, took my eyes off this thread for a couple of days and there's a lot to catch up on all of a sudden.

I see a lot of chat about the BC, and I can weigh in on that ski for those of you that are on the fence (TLDR get a pair). I bought mine at the beginning of the 2018-2019 season for my touring rig. At 6'4 and 220, and on Keith's recommendation, I went with the 190, UL core + veneer and bumped up the flex to 4. I wasn't too worried about weight (and much more concerned about the bindings releasing when they needed to) so I slapped some shifts on them.

I've ended up skiing them inbounds a lot, and they are a ton of fun (probably 20+ days inbounds over the past couple of seasons). They're great on groomers (a big plus in my book), good in icier conditions, and very fun as soon as there's a bit of soft snow. I guess that's my main point, they're a fun ski to be on; you can slarve them on mounds of fresher snow and quickly lock them in once you hit that patch of harder snow. Just had another awesome day with them today with a suprise 5-6 inches at Crystal Mountain (and a bit more in sheltered areas), with a bit of a crust underneath. The only place where they're not quite as good is super slushy conditions, which is understandable given their lighter weight.

I bought the enduro 192 GPO with veneer at the beginning of this season and just haven't reached for them quite as much. Definitely more of a ski that will kick your ass if you're not on top of them. Pretty confident I won't ever find their speed limit though. Funnily enough, I wonder if I should have dropped the flex down to a 3. This is my first pair with the enduro core, and I think that it's plenty damp (for me), so that a #3 flex would probably be easier to bend and be a bit more "fun" in the softer conditions that I bought them for. Anyone experimented with a softer GPO?

I think the veneers need 15ish days to break in. I bet the stiffness grows on you too. Or maybe -1 is the spot [emoji12]

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[lucknau]

I had a 192 GPO heavy hitter carbon veneer all queued up and decided to search for chatter about it before pulling the trigger.

Lots of chatter over the past 7 years, but has anyone here done it? It’s gonna be a beastly ski, I think, probably a bit above my preferred daily driver weight, but still really appealing.

I forgot how much I can’t get enough of the spring custom sale tech talk frenzy.


::::::::::::@::::::::::::

[hoarhey]

Is there a estimation on the increase in weight for going Heavy Hitter core?

I'm more interested for the wider skis, like GPO, as mentioned in the previous post.

[lucknau]

Is there a estimation on the increase in weight for going Heavy Hitter core?

I'm more interested for the wider skis, like GPO, as mentioned in the previous post.

HH = 1.05*Enduro
More or less. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m working off a sample size of 2.

If you use a veneer on the heavy hitter ski it reduces the weight by 4-8oz (113-227g), which should bring it down to around the factory stated weight of a nylon topsheet enduro.

... and carbon would reduce it a bit more.

::::::::::::@::::::::::::

[hoarhey]

Thanks.
Is the 5% from Keith?

[lucknau]

No, it's based on the two skis I've had that are the same model but different core types. The 4-8oz weight reduction for veneer is from the praxis website.

[hoarhey]

right. bad reading comprehension on my part.
You did say sample size of two.