2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[SupreChicken]

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.

Attachment 358778

Attachment 358779

Attachment 358762

Attachment 358763

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.

Delightful design and use of the custom work options within the catalog. I also want one...

I would also seriously consider this sort of camber tweak to the FRS. The rocker sections are SO long on that ski, shortening them slightly to add compound camber would make sense to me.

[2FUNKY]

Very cool ski, flyingskiguy.

[GoSlowGoFar]

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

I have the FRS in that exact build with the graphic flyingskiguy just posted (why crampin’ my style man?). I had Keith press it flat underfoot to give it even deeper rocker lines. Still has energy for poppy figure 8s on low angle pow but also can easily break the tails free for a more slarvy turn shape. Haven’t had it in super deep pow yet but it’s been great for the low angle 1-2ft days I’ve had so far.

[flyingskiguy]

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!!

Everything about the ski except the rocker/camber profile is a Quixote - the top down geometry is unchanged. Same sidecut, mount point (-7, mounted on the line), etc. My initial mock-ups that I sent to Keith straight up copied/pasted the camber profile off of the Concept onto a Quixote, with a few tweaks to match it up. Per his recommendation though, some tip and tail rocker was sacrificed to make enough room for the twin camber pods to fit, while still being “gradual.” Apparently he has found this to behave better than more abrupt/drastic changes that smaller camber pods create.

The shovel on the Quixote is pretty wide, 142mm so even with less early rise it still finds its way to the surface pretty easily, doesn’t feel like I’m giving up much. Definitely a progressive and very two footed stance for riding though, and if you get too far forward when you aren’t going fast enough you can bury the tips. Get them up on a plane at speed in pow and they really just come alive, you can make turns of any shape/length and change directions extremely quickly. The cool part I’ve found, is that that behavior is maintained in firmer snow. Whether this is just a result of the Quixote geometry or something to do with the wacky camber, or the interplay of the two, is unknown to me at this time.

Before going the custom route I really just considered getting some Concepts, but I wasn’t into the idea of the Concept’s underfoot-reverse-sidecut thing, in my head if you tilt the Quixote over and load it up, you should still be able to press the sidecut into a curve that contacts most/all of the snow beneath, regardless of camber profile. Something about the reverse sidecut underfoot seemed like it would drag in the snow, or at least feel pretty unnatural to me. Again just a lot of gut feeling here, I haven’t ridden Concepts.

I will say that in a straight line on hard snow, these skis can become hilariously unstable. Not in a scary way - they just need to be constantly driven to maintain control.

[ExPowderSnob]

My favorite ski is the ULLR. It fucking rips. I swear it literally made me a better skier. I like it so much, I almost want to buy a back up copy of it to store in a hermetically sealed chamber just incase my current pair gets fucked up.
It floats in pow, It carves trenches, it flies through wet PNW chop like a SCORE/Baja 1000 Unlimited Trophy truck.
Best ski ever.

I liked it so much, I asked Keith what could be done to make the exact same ski up closer to the 100-105 underfoot for a more daily-esque compatriot to it... ( ended up in a FRD, which is also fucking rad and after one day on it had my old enforcers up on market place..)

[ExPowderSnob]

What do I need to ask the Praxis folks for to mimic this??

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.

Attachment 358778

Attachment 358779

Attachment 358762

Attachment 358763

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.

[eskido]

This is great, thanks for all the design input! Sounds like it was super well thought out and I honestly can’t think of anything I would do differently after reading all this, very cool stuff man! When I was thinking about it when I last posted I was thinking about how much I dig the multi radius sidecut on the Quixote’s and how it’d be a shame to sacrifice that for the tri cut on the Concept. Also kinda feel like if you took the tri cut and compound camber of the Concept it would just ski like a looser Concept, which honestly doesn’t sound like a bad thing necessarily, but I think what you came up with here sounds like a much more unique improved upon design, super impressive I think! Congrats on the unicorn!!

[Quandary]

After skiing the 9D8s for a few days I have to say I have never gotten so many "cool skis Dude" from the lifties.

[undertow2]

What do I need to ask the Praxis folks for to mimic this??

My exact thought... Need to take this thread and ask Keith - yes please...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[dschane]

After skiing the 9D8s for a few days I have to say I have never gotten so many "cool skis Dude" from the lifties.

The 9D8s (and the 9Ds for that matter) are awesome for those conditions below your chair.

[flyingskiguy]

What do I need to ask the Praxis folks for to mimic this??

I don't have a blueprint for em or anything, Keith definitely did the real design legwork so I guess just ask him for the compound camber Quixote and see if he'll do another pair. I think the shape would scale well to the larger sizes, I'm considering a second set myself but have not reached out yet. For a non touring version I'd go 188cm, flex 4, enduro core, and veneer topsheet.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

So after an awesome day at Alta yesterday I’ve got powder skis on my brain. Specifically the protest. How is it for an inbounds pow ski? Shape looks pretty versatile for the width.

[PeachesNCream]

So after an awesome day at Alta yesterday I’ve got powder skis on my brain. Specifically the protest. How is it for an inbounds pow ski? Shape looks pretty versatile for the width.

Years of stoke here: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...how-cool-is-it

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

Years of stoke here: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...how-cool-is-it

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Thanks boss!

[meter-man]

My buddy has been skiing the Slugger inbounds in Tahoe. Loves it.

So much so that he's thinking of buying the Slugger for inbounds, then wants to make a UL version of the same for touring!

[2FUNKY]

So after an awesome day at Alta yesterday I’ve got powder skis on my brain. Specifically the protest. How is it for an inbounds pow ski? Shape looks pretty versatile for the width.

It’s a kickass inbounds pow ski and my drug of choice for just that. Depending on your size I highly recommend going flex 4. Stock flex gets kicked around some as well as it doesn’t ski chop as smoothly as a 4 flex. My custom 192 4 flex are dream machines. One caveat is my local resorts tend to not get tracked and beat to shit within a couple hours. If that’s the case I would want to swap to something more traditional and around 112-118 underfoot, imho. If it’s a full on pow storm day then disregard my previous sentence.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

It’s a kickass inbounds pow ski and my drug of choice for just that. Depending on your size I highly recommend going flex 4. Stock flex gets kicked around some as well as it doesn’t ski chop as smoothly as a 4 flex. My custom 192 4 flex are dream machines. One caveat is my local resorts tend to not get tracked and beat to shit within a couple hours. If that’s the case I would want to swap to something more traditional and around 112-118 underfoot, imho. If it’s a full on pow storm day then disregard my previous sentence.

How tall are you? Im 6'0 225 physically strong. and am leaning 192 for length.

[PeachesNCream]

Thanks boss!

Yeah. Suuuch a fun pow ski. I'm in northern Idaho and love it but I bet at alta with the light snow it's be even more at home. So surfy

How tall are you? Im 6'0 225 physically strong. and am leaning 192 for length.

As far as size goes I'm 6'3 205 on a 192 4 flex and happy. Wouldn't change anything but I also haven't skied anything different. 196 seems a little hard to manage in trees. I would want to try a 3 flex but I'd worry it'd be lacking backbone for us larger folks. If I were you I'd go 192 4 flex.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[plugboots]

I don't have a blueprint for em or anything, Keith definitely did the real design legwork so I guess just ask him for Olivers Quixote and see if he'll do another pair. I think the shape would scale well to the larger sizes, I'm considering a second set myself but have not reached out yet. For a non touring version I'd go 188cm, flex 4, enduro core, and veneer topsheet.

How wide are these underfoot?

[nickel]

As another data point, mine are 192 f4 ultra lights for touring. If i wanted them for resort, they would likely be 196 and enduro but would still consider UL but maybe f5.

My resort can get tracked pretty quick. I would consider the ullr or bps for a resort pow stick. Protest definitely would be in the running but something a bit more versatile for resort skiing would be desirable.

[jmills]

How tall are you? Im 6'0 225 physically strong. and am leaning 192 for length.

I’m 6’2 215lbs and got a 4 flex Protest in 192 before the season started.
I had them out at the Bird yesterday and a handful of times as Alta with one being being a pow-chop day and the others skiing groomers hoping it would snow.
The couple laps I got yesterday before bailing were incredible. After skiing some firm-ish bumps on Friday then hitting the same run untracked yesterday, they popped from one bump to the next. They blast through chop almost too easy.
I’m in SLC with a 309 BSL, if you have a BSL close to that and want to give them a try PM me. I should be up LCC every weekday this week by the lunchtime at the latest



One thing they suck at is waiting in 1 hour lines.

[2FUNKY]

How tall are you? Im 6'0 225 physically strong. and am leaning 192 for length.

5’10” and normally 190, more now. Go 192, you won’t be dissapoint and fuuuuuck that lift line.

[jackattack]

Holy shit, is that gad2?

[jmills]

Holy shit, is that gad2?

Yes and Gad2 looked better than Gadzoom. I got 2.5 killer laps and then spent maybe 2 hours getting to where my car was parked on the bypass road on the other side of the mountain.
Gad2 to ski past Little Cloud to Peruvian and a line onto the tram deck. I clicked out to walk then decided to wait. It opened late enough I got a good run from it to the car.
Skied Friday afternoon and got 6” of the beginning of the storm without waiting in a line.

[Muggydude]

Just wanted to say how fun the piste jibs are. 184, heavy veneer 3+ flex. So versatile, damp, yet playful. Perfect low tide ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums