Praxis Backcountry as DD for lighter skier?

[full_zirkel]

I was in Keith's shop recently and saw a pair of 160 Backcountry's with new graphics perched up against the wall. I thought they'd fit my gf rather nicely. Keith said he'd give me a good deal on them.

https://www.praxisskis.com/skis/bc/

She's 5'2" 115 pounds and a former 15-year patroller at various Tahoe resorts. She's skis 100% off piste regardless of the conditions. She's not a hard charger, but a very slow, methodical skier on the steeps. She consistently skis over 100 days a season.

Anyone here have any insight about a small lightweight skier using this ski as a daily driver? She ALWAYS skis on hand-me-downs, freebies, etc and I thought it would be nice to surprise her with a pair of brand new skis for xmas.

Her current quiver:

2012 165 Line Celebrity (100 waist) - Her daily driver for YEARS. Currently rock, powder and DD skis. Some might argue they're pretty big for her size and weight? Base ground last season.

2017 161 Santa Anas (100 waist) -- Hand me downs. She feels she has to ski pretty aggressively to stay on top of these. They tend to get used less often, and only in firmer conditions.

2017 Elan Ripstick (94 waist) -- Her backcountry skis with Dynafit TLT Superlite bindings. Pretty narrow waist width for bc skis? She likes this light setup. Maybe a Backcountry + Shift would cover this and more?

She is currently using Atomic Hawx Ultra boots (both in area and backcountry) and Look bindings (not sure of model) on both sets of skis.

I'm a snowboarder and not knowledgable about skis. I'd also like to support a local business. How would the Backcountry work as a daily driver in all resort conditions? Any durability issues with them being so lightweight? Or would a special order (next year) with Enduro core be better suited for resort use?

Insight appreciated. Thanks!

[N1CK.]

100%
thats such an underrated ski IMO. I owned 180s that were too soft, but the shape was dialed it's the flex that didn't work.
If I could have got a 185-188 in a #4 I'd DD that ski fo sho.

[nwslider]

I skied the 180 BCs with inserts for FKS and Radical 1's. I'm 170lbs and found them fine for a resort daily driver. No durability issues at all. I probably put 25-30 days on them. I didn't find that they were too light for resort skiing. They may have been a bit lacking in manky snow conditions but that could also just be my skiing ability.

I will say that I bought these absurdly cheap ($150) 3rd hand on the local FB classifieds page so I was willing to take a punt on them. I also knew I was going to insert them for Rad 1's to take as travel ski to the Euro BBI. BC with shifts would be pretty heavy for touring. Especially with her being pretty light already, they would probably seem even heavier.

If I were paying anything close to full price I would probably look elsewhere for a resort daily driver. However, the top sheets in the link are awesome.

That said, they will be my resort daily driver this season until something I'm more interested in (and is similarly cheap) pops up.

[plugboots]

I have them in 190 as my touring skis, and I think the flex and design would work for a woman’s dd, but maybe 106 wide might be too much for a dd in 160.

[toast2266]

Wife had them as her dd. She's a bit taller and heavier than your wife, and she was on a longer length (I forget if they were 170s or 180s). Nice skis, but they were a bit much for her. Just a little too stiff. I'd call her a pretty solid advanced skier; spends 95% of her time off groomed, skis pretty much any terrain no problem, but isn't super aggressive.

She switched to blizzard shevas (prior generation that were similar to gunsmokes) and likes them waaay more.

[galibier_numero_un]

Standard flex for the 160s & 170s is #2. They definitely would not be too stiff for her.

180s are #3. Were @toast2666's wife's BCs 180s? I'd expect the BC to have quite a bit longer turn radius than the Sheeva 10's 14.5m.

I'm not making excuses for the BC, but rather commenting that they seem to be considerably different designs and I can see folks lining up on both sides with respect to these two skis.

That's all I got.

... Thom

[toast2266]

180s are #3. Were @toast2666's wife's BCs 180s? I'd expect the BC to have quite a bit longer turn radius than the Sheeva 10's 14.5m.

That'd make sense. It's been a while, but I remember hand flexing those bc's and they weren't all that soft. So yeah, they were probably 180's.

And for whatever it's worth, she's on the older sheevas that have a longer radius (although still not super long) and I believe are stiffer than the newer 10's.

[Huskier]

I rocked BC's in 180 for 3.5 seasons. Such a versatile ski. Plane well enough in pow, good edge hold on firm (width considered). 6'2 175 fwiw. Go for it.