Page 100 of 101 FirstFirst ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 LastLast
Results 2,476 to 2,500 of 2523
  1. #2476
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bottom feeding
    Posts
    9,399
    Yup
    Well maybe I'm the faggot America
    I'm not a part of a redneck agenda

  2. #2477
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    809
    Haven’t posted in a while. Have zero to add…lol

    Piste Jib Octo love Click image for larger version. 

Name:	123CF652-A996-482F-B077-EF38C1C156DC.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	822.4 KB 
ID:	394972Click image for larger version. 

Name:	123CF652-A996-482F-B077-EF38C1C156DC.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	822.4 KB 
ID:	394972

  3. #2478
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    Its the slight pintail to the rx. I found that at -1 the tails disappeared. I had to concentrate on keeping my weight on the front of the ski rather than just ski. Really liked the ski but i can see it just being more intuitive at recommended mount point. Had that feeling on my on3p caylors as well but theyre not pintail at all. The deep tail rocker made the tail disappear on those when mounted behind recommended. My point is that i think its more than just the mount point. I liked all my praxis touring models on the dimple ,and up until the rx', all my standard praxis models -1(ptest -1.5). BG's on the dot or +/-.5 worked without issue

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
    I have put pen to paper and have calculated where the Praxis recommended mount spot is in relation to the center point of the effective running surface (camber contact in Praxis speak) for several of the Praxis models. There is a school of thought that the foot, preferably the ball of the foot, be mounted over the center of the effective running surface. In reading through the Praxis thread it is obvious that most prefer to mount behind the line on all Praxis skis. Grinch notes that is the case for him except for the RX. I was curious about this so I engaged in the exercise.

    In doing the calculations I found that the recommended mount mount was 1cm to 3cm in front of the center of the effective running surface for all models except the RX and the 9D8. (I have always thought that these to models look like big brother/baby brother) Consequently in moving the mount point behind the line people are moving the mount points closer to the center of the effective running surface, balancing fore/aft running surface. In the case of the RX, moving the mount back you are shifting the running surface forward of boot center. This may explain Grinch's disappearing tails.

    One final observation I have my 9D8s (only other model that correlates suggested mount point and center of effective running surface) mounted -1.5cm, putting the balls of the feet very close to the center of the effective running running. I like that mount point and don't feel like I have lost the tail.

  4. #2479
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    It’s a tough ski to recommend, reviews are all over the place. Did you detune them? I detuned the shit out of mine at the contact points and past the rocker line and I don’t keep any of the edges very sharp.

    IME the MVP (193s) was instantly intuitive and easy to ski but I really get along with an appx ~6cm mount point, likely because I had skied and owned a bunch of 4frnts that respond to the same ski stance and style. I skied them right after getting off some 184 Head Monster 108s and I don’t think I’ve purchased a ski with a more traditional mount point since, despite my preference for Stockli skis around the early 2010s. Similar to Grinch’s comments above, personally I prefer to slash and pivot around on a more ‘’modern’’ mount point ski with a straighter side cut in soft snow vs using a ski with a radius that feels like it’s locking me into a turn shape. I don’t want anything to do with a big tip in soft snow. I’m also short (5’7’’) and ymmv.

    Figuring out how to get them to carve groomers was challenging, the 187 length is a bit easier to do that. I can’t get them to lay trenches like I could with a 4frnt Devastator (25M radius and no tip/tail taper on that ski). But the MVP is way more floaty and fun than the Devs in powder, particularly in tight spots. I think it’s perfect for most of the ‘’powder’’ days we get in New England.
    I got my tune dialed on the ski. Once I figured it out I ended up liking how they rode, especially in the chop, day after a storm.

    The biggest thing for me was I never really jived how much tail there was on the ski and basically had to be on it all the time. I never tried the new size/ version but love my praxis quiver. (EXP, SnD, Slugger and Pow)....I find myself grabbing the SnD or Slugger most resort days

    Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

  5. #2480
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    636
    Any of you folks been on the MVP 94? Was thinking it could be a good ski for dry spells or when I’m on groomers most of the time with the kids, thoughts?

  6. #2481
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    I hate the image uploader on here.

    This better?

    Attachment 382864
    Day 1 report: just a quick dawn patrol lap at Alpental. Little bit of new snow overnight, plus quite a bit from the last few days with some tracks it it down lower, but mostly pretty clean pow up top. Initial impressions are that they feel like I'd hoped they would — super quick and surfy, and very intuitive to pivot around the balls of your feet. I preemptively detuned pretty significantly outside of the contact points and they felt good there too, though we weren't finding much firm anything so it wasn't much of a test. So far so good, looking forward to spending more time on 'em.

  7. #2482
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Dirty E
    Posts
    936
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20211213_172743549.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	909.0 KB 
ID:	396655

    Have a half-day on the double-camber skinny Qs. Read all the way through the normal Quixote thread and was prepared for a certain ski experience. These, due to the mustache camber pockets and revised rocker tip and tail are very very different from what I read there (never been on normal Qs). These really reward a shin-forward, double-foot skiing style on groomed runs, but in off-piste you can relax the shins and pivot super super easily. I'm very happy with what Keith and flyingskiguy put together and really really looking forward to more than a few hours on these.

  8. #2483
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,412
    This is "the ski" which was an iteration of Keith's skinny RX thinking. This one is the HH/c build and honestly it's such a great all around ski. I spent half the day switch teaching brand new skiers how to not die (mostly successful!) and the other half just buzzing around warm groomers. I had these mounted on the line but recently changed to a smaller bsl, so I'm just >.< forward of recommended and love it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	the ski.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	885.4 KB 
ID:	396657

  9. #2484
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    13,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Quandary View Post
    I have put pen to paper and have calculated where the Praxis recommended mount spot is in relation to the center point of the effective running surface (camber contact in Praxis speak) for several of the Praxis models. There is a school of thought that the foot, preferably the ball of the foot, be mounted over the center of the effective running surface. In reading through the Praxis thread it is obvious that most prefer to mount behind the line on all Praxis skis. Grinch notes that is the case for him except for the RX. I was curious about this so I engaged in the exercise.

    In doing the calculations I found that the recommended mount mount was 1cm to 3cm in front of the center of the effective running surface for all models except the RX and the 9D8. (I have always thought that these to models look like big brother/baby brother) Consequently in moving the mount point behind the line people are moving the mount points closer to the center of the effective running surface, balancing fore/aft running surface. In the case of the RX, moving the mount back you are shifting the running surface forward of boot center. This may explain Grinch's disappearing tails.

    One final observation I have my 9D8s (only other model that correlates suggested mount point and center of effective running surface) mounted -1.5cm, putting the balls of the feet very close to the center of the effective running running. I like that mount point and don't feel like I have lost the tail.
    Mount point for me has been dictated by tip float , or dive and tail support in 3d snow but its directly carried over to edge pressure on groomers as well

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  10. #2485
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    Mount point for me has been dictated by tip float , or dive and tail support in 3d snow but its directly carried over to edge pressure on groomers as well

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
    That's pretty much worked for me as well, although I confess to fewer and fewer groomers, or skis narrower than 104.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  11. #2486
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by cstefanic View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20211213_172743549.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	909.0 KB 
ID:	396655

    Have a half-day on the double-camber skinny Qs. Read all the way through the normal Quixote thread and was prepared for a certain ski experience. These, due to the mustache camber pockets and revised rocker tip and tail are very very different from what I read there (never been on normal Qs). These really reward a shin-forward, double-foot skiing style on groomed runs, but in off-piste you can relax the shins and pivot super super easily. I'm very happy with what Keith and flyingskiguy put together and really really looking forward to more than a few hours on these.
    Hell yeah! Very stoked to hear this.

  12. #2487
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,147
    Little change of pace here. How much does a pair of 192 Protests with the UL/veneer build weigh?

  13. #2488
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    Little change of pace here. How much does a pair of 192 Protests with the UL/veneer build weigh?
    Keith (or maybe someone here) would have a better answer, but my 192 MAP (essentially the older version of the Enduro core) veneers are ~2200g, and my 187 UL -1 width veneers are right at 1900. So somewhere between those.

  14. #2489
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    Little change of pace here. How much does a pair of 192 Protests with the UL/veneer build weigh?
    My UL 187s with Veneer come in at 2000 a ski plus or minus 5g. Would maybe add 100-150g for the 192s?

  15. #2490
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,420
    Semi related data point. Flex-3, UL/Carbon, veneer +10 GPOs (126mm) in 183 came in at 1900 (+/- 5 g. between each ski).

    So, 2050-2100 for 192 ProTests sounds about right, depending on flex.

    I have no idea how much going from flex 3 to 4 adds.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  16. #2491
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,412
    those sound like a lot of fun, Thom.

    did you go with veneer?

    any photos of those bad boys?
    Aggressive in my own mind

  17. #2492
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,412
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    I almost didn't select Max. My departed, almost (but not quite) perfect Quixotes had this top sheet. I didn't want to jinx these GPOs, but I couldn't resist:

    never mind found them

    Damn, those look great!
    Aggressive in my own mind

  18. #2493
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    tahoe
    Posts
    3,382
    First new skis in 7 years….. stoked with how they came out
    Gpo -10 ul flex 4
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1640332513.288507.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	1.42 MB 
ID:	397960


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #2494
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    26
    Great looking skis

  20. #2495
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    13,828
    Very nice! Theyll rip 4 sho

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  21. #2496
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,407

    2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

    Woah, those are badass! Curious where you mounted em? Like the sound of that build a lot.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  22. #2497
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoOre
    Posts
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by gimpy View Post
    First new skis in 7 years….. stoked with how they came out
    Gpo -10 ul flex 4
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1640332513.288507.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	1.42 MB 
ID:	397960


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Yes!

    Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
    I love my family. Kids are the best.
    http://www.praxisskis.com

  23. #2498
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,757
    Quote Originally Posted by gimpy View Post
    First new skis in 7 years….. stoked with how they came out
    Gpo -10 ul flex 4
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1640332513.288507.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	1.42 MB 
ID:	397960


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Holy shit I want those. Stunning.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

  24. #2499
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    203
    I had a veneer 187 GPO in my cart the day the last sale was ending and didn’t complete the purchase. My wife bought it for me instead as a Christmas present. It had an 11/30 original delivery date and was not available until 12/22. They made it is good enough for me.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	00121FB8-A742-4A47-AF05-7AE3BBD613CA.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	181.6 KB 
ID:	398144

  25. #2500
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    13,828
    Quote Originally Posted by jmills View Post
    I had a veneer 187 GPO in my cart the day the last sale was ending and didn’t complete the purchase. My wife bought it for me instead as a Christmas present. It had an 11/30 original delivery date and was not available until 12/22. They made it is good enough for me.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	00121FB8-A742-4A47-AF05-7AE3BBD613CA.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	181.6 KB 
ID:	398144
    Damn! Your wifes a legend. Veneer gpo is a must

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Posting Permissions

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