Praxis custom run idea (charger), might even be PM Gear related

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Why don’t you guys just buy a Prior Husume. It’s pretty much what you want in the 193. Turn radius is a little short but that metric isn’t really relative with skis this shape.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[arild]

Sidecut radius is a metric in both an absolute, literal and figurative metric in a ski this shape. The Husume is probably a lovely ski, but it's not in the scope here. A Husume with a 40m radius would probably work, though.

What I discovered when finally succumbing to the allure of short radius chargers ( sub 26m,GPO,Cd114) was that I really dislike a ski initiating a turn before I told it to. A 26m radius ski will do that, a 35 or 40m won't.

Pfuff: best of luck with your recovery.

[east or bust]

Interesting thread, I’ll have to think on this a bit.

Relative to the discussion skis heavily used in the quiver this season:

189 RX - 4 flex, stock MAP layup from 6ish years ago)
191 Lhasa pow - praxis remake, 3 tip/4 body flex, stock core
194 FRD - 4+ flex, heavy hitter



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[arild]

Fantastic, east. If you could pick a few common denominators, strengths and weaknesses from each, I'd be very happy to read your thoughts.

[pfluffenmeister]

Sidecut radius is a metric in both an absolute, literal and figurative metric in a ski this shape. The Husume is probably a lovely ski, but it's not in the scope here. A Husume with a 40m radius would probably work, though.

What I discovered when finally succumbing to the allure of short radius chargers ( sub 26m,GPO,Cd114) was that I really dislike a ski initiating a turn before I told it to. A 26m radius ski will do that, a 35 or 40m won't.

Pfuff: best of luck with your recovery.

Thank you!
Smooth so far.
What ever happened to those sweet ~200cm veneer topped, Lotus 120ish, missiles you had built by Wagner(?)?.

[arild]

Thank you!
Smooth so far.
What ever happened to those sweet ~200cm veneer topped, Lotus 120ish, missiles you had built by Wagner(?)?.

Hah! Still missiles, made by Parris at Igneous, so what happened was that Igneous were charged with building them to my exact specs, which was fun. The specs were 134/120/124, 50-54m radius (in that range), huge tip taper, say 45 or 50cm or something ridiculous like that. Almost reverse camber, just a short flat area underfoot. Fairly pliable tip flex, stiff underfoot to the tail.

They are stupid fast doing arcing turns with some forward pressure. I fudged up the tip design a bit, huge taper combined with a relatively agile flex pattern making the tip into a huge lever when pushed hard, creating sort of an oversteer sensation, especially in heavier pow. The tips could hang up a bit, while the tails would want to release further down the fall line. The remedy was to chop some 5cm off the tips, creating a better balance. No issues with the fix in terms of float, and they actually punch through chop even better. Look like shit, though.
They're relegated to touring duties for the time being as they're both the lightest and the floatiest skis I own, but as said in a previous post, touring is not a habit of mine. Beer, kids, wife, covid travel restrictions combined with my location just makes it a bit harder.

Other skis I own and ski too seldom are lp105s, SD105s (187 and 202),CD114 bimboes (gifting these to a co-worker, didn't jive with them at all). Had 5 flex 192 gpos, but gave them to a buddy for the same reason. The pattern obviously being me not loving heavily tapered, tightish sidecut, super stiff flex skis.

LP and SD105s are awesome, ended up liking SDs more for general use, but the Lps still kill it on ice and refrozen shit snow. The sd 202s float like crazy for their dims. The 187s still float, but never really had them in deep powder.

Long post, sorry.

[arild]

Finally found good, free CAD software (nanocad), with nothing better to do, I sketched the three main competitors of this poll.

I have no idea the actual sidecut length of the Bro 192,but if I were to make sense of the dims and stated sidecut radius, I had to set it at 180cm,which in this day and age is almost obscene, but reading from old threads, Splat sacrificed some tail length to add the Lhasa tip without making it into a 2m ski, but ending up with a 194 straight pull measure ski. I had to make my imitation about 198 material length to fit that in. Splat, please chime in if that's over the top. Also, I suck with the spline tool. Sorry about making the Lhasa tip look crappy.

The "40m" FRD ended up in this rough sketch with a sub 38m radius. Guess 114 or 115 would be the waist required to push 40m, easily fixed. Wouldn't really matter.

The 192 rx/frd/gpo would pretty much be a slightly fatter version of this version of the FRD.

Awesome graphics, I know.

[splat]

I will still emphatically state that I did not like the tail rocker added to the most recent iteration of the 191 Keith pressed. I just don't think people who called me old fashioned grasp what I was striving to achieve in the tail changes I had made over the three previous versions of the ski - to have a tail that released as if it had rocker but would have just enough grip that it didn't require the nose over the tips stance the 186 demands. Said tail dims would allow hardpack carving (do people still carve?) while also allowing the release through windblown cake, heavy slop, and powder chop; which the Praxis version did with ease but at the expense of the carve. With a 3/1 degree edge bevel, I have carved the 191 on hard ice to my great satisfaction because it also released in the aforementioned conditions of shit. I sold off the rockered tail 191's and returned to my 3rd iteration pure carbons I sold to detrusor and bought back from him. Best decision I ever made. They are my go-to skis until I break them. No argument will change my mind on that.

Reading this re: the 192 Bro, I have to wonder if peeps who've not skied it understand that it is an all-condition carver with the square centimeters of surface to float most anything very well, with almost too much width for hardpack - but they ski the hard very fucking well. I'm trying to imagine a Lhasa tip on the 192 and what immediate advantage would manifest with it. What do you think, arild?

[abraham]

Aren't these 192s with a lhasa tip? I remember talking to eon?, claire? Someone at the bird about the change. Both of these are nominally 192s but the red one is 1.5 inches longer. The tails are kind up for this picture. I can make some measurements for arild

For what it's worth I thought the rockered brown ones skied pow better than the red pair.

[arild]

Very interesting to read your thoughts, splat.
Re: lhasa tail rocker, I would think the design intent of the pintail itself is to release easily, having substantially more than the OG probably exacerbated/improved their release willingness, no?

When referring to "lhasa tip bro 192s", I'm just looking at the version tuco posted. The tip does look sexier than on the OG blue bombers, and since a few of us do get to look at our gear more than ski it, it's not unimportant. Makes me think of green b-squads.. Mmm. From your old site on the wayback machine, I read the 192s have an effective edge of 1605mm. Is that just the cambered portion of the ski?

Regarding the intended use; basically a rockered, fat SG ski? Sounds good to me. The Ragnaroks I had were basically that, but were boat anchors. 5500g/pair or so. Thanks for chiming in!

Edit: those are the ones I'm referring to (red ones), Abraham.

[splat]

Interesting, Abraham. I'm so fukking senile, I forgot that I had changed that tip. There are a lot of variables that take place run to run of manufacturing the skis. The length of rocker, the tip curve, the start of the effective edge and sidecut all manifest characteristics resultant of this in how the skis perform at turn initiation. If that purple 192 with the Lhasa nose has a rocker extending back and beyond from just in front of the start of the sidecut, it will not initiate turns as well as the tip curve/rocker/sidecut relation will in the browns. It can well change a radius from 35 to 48 on the snow just with a slight dif. I want to think it wouldn't matter as much in pow, but it very well could, as you report. This was a discussion I had with Keith re: the Praxis 191s.

It's amazing how much juice can be vamped out of performance unless that shit is exact. And with multiple employees entrusted to be as anal about stuff like that as I am; their ineptitude, laziness, or hangover status could cause different batches to perform differently. I swear, the relation of rocker to start of sidecut/effective edge/widest point in tip width is one of the most important things to understand when gauging how a ski performs. It's something to examine on skis in the rack at the store if you're shopping. HUDGE deal. Quite honestly, ski reviewers can relate how a ski skis in different conditions but, understanding the construction elements and how they influence performance; I'm not sure I've ever seen those details in reviews beyond the basic material list. I hate to sound all conceited but I can't believe I've never been invited to review skis by the long-gone magazines or even other ski companies. I see construction and how it influences performance very well. At least I think so.

Consider this a reply to your post, too, arild. Unless I missed a question you had.
Edit: Oh, yes, rockering a tail that was already pintailed for the killer hold and release effect made it release like a motherfucker. Way more than I liked. But it was so fucking easy in deep shit snow.

My old bud, TeleRob had the perfect saying for this back when fat and rocker started to come onto the scene - "Yes, the new skis will allow you to ski better. But they won't make you a better skier."

Fuuuuuuck. I could ramble on about this shit forever.

[arild]

Fkna, thanks! So, did the latest iteration of the 192(or 194) actually have a material length of 197/8?

[splat]

No fucking recollection of that detail. I think, per the CAD, it was 192 on paper. I could be wrong, but prolly not. We're talking 6, 7, 8 years.

[abraham]

I left my calipers at the office last week, I'll make measurements tonight. And send you an email arild!

Looking at the picture, that's not a full lhasa tip, but it looks like you extended the tip to add taper without changing the sidecut. The rocker is completely different between them too, the brown ones were Atrain's with a small flat underfoot and full rocker. I had a single blue 192 with full rocker that was fun but not as dialed as an all mountain ski compared to the brown one. The red ones have a much higher and more abrupt rocker in the tip.

It's possible I liked the looser tail as a pow ski even though it's a really slight difference. I remember they did well on firm snow with a bit of tipping them up, but were just so easy to ski.

[splat]

Actually< Abraham, I remember now. arild, I do think I just extended it, so yes, it might have added a few *air cm's* to the original length. I thought it looked and performed so well on the Lhasa, why not? Might have even been dreaming about Teton or Wasatch superlight neck-deep dreamsnow and how the Lhasa tip was such an antisubmarine functionality. I also believe I had one of the engineers morph a 191 tip onto it so I could use the same metal tip piece on both. I had so many fucking different tip and tail pieces for the whole catalog of skis, I really wanted to get it down to two or three.

[arild]

Re: splat So, given enough interest, would you work with Keith to bring back the 192? I'm still convinced the long radius praxis FRD would be killers, but the bro 192s must be in another ballpark.

Abraham :looking forward to that email, but no rush.

[splat]

Keith and I will make any PM Gear ski with orders for twenty-five pair.
That number is pretty much etched in stone.

[east or bust]

I'm busy as fuck with work right now, hence not following up on my previous post yet.

But I do have access to full on CAD, if someone can feed me dimensions I could probably put something together in a fairly professional fashion.

[arild]

So, I mentioned this thread to Keith, pretty much saying "I would like a ski added to your lineup, what would it take to make either this or that happen?"

RX 194 is one option, a 38-40m FRD type ski is the other. Keith likes both, commenting the 194 RX as a logical addon to his existing series, but that a single length of an FRD type ski also would be awesome. Ideally, he needs four or more commitments on either ski, at preorder pricing of $799 plus optional veneer. We have until the end of May to figure it out, but sooner commitment would be better, which would mean Keith could add whichever ski we decide on to his store.

Like Splat said, they need 25 commitments to build a Bro, and while a 192 gathered more votes than the others, 7 won't cut it, so I'm starting a new thread/poll over the weekend with possibly less shitty cad renditions. I'm feeling optimistic about this little venture.

Thoughts?



Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

[mr_pretzel]

I’m down for either the 40m FRD or a bro whatever we can get

[arild]

I’m down for either the 40m FRD or a bro whatever we can get

Fuck yeah. Like I said, new thread over the weekend. Gotta get the wife buzzed enough to not care about my stumbling into cad (again) and myself buzzed enough to stumble into cad.

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

[arild]

Here it goes, new thread!

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...S-COMMITMENTS!