View Poll Results: RX or GFB?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • 193 GFB, because it's an awesome idea!

    4 80.00%
  • RX 194, because it's a proven shape.

    1 20.00%
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080

    PRAXIS CUSTOM RUN, VOTES, COMMITMENTS!

    Please read before casting votes and commenting.

    This thread is a continuation of the other thread, and is a result of emailing back and forth with Keith OíMeara at Praxis. The ski with the most interest wins, with four or more commitments necessary. Iím obviously very biased in the direction of the so-called GFBs, and would likely buy two pairs at $799 (+optional veneer), more uncertain about the RX,to be honest (the 194 would also be the same $799 + options). This is an either this ski or that situation, donít have the impression Keith is keen on bringing two new long radius chargers to the preorder.

    Iíd absolutely love to help bring the GFBs to fruition. Now, Iím down for two pairs if need be, mr_pretzel has also expressed interest in the long sidecut FRD (now called the GFB), which makes that three. Need one, hopefully even more. I'm acting the benevolent dictator on this one. If Keith wants to build an RX based on the input in this thread, I'm all for it, but the better option would obviously be the hot pink GFB. The GFB will be based on the existing FRD, I'm hoping like crazy Keith'd let us use his inventory of awesome graphics. I mean, hot pink is a sick colorway (hah!), but something else would be gooder. I'm in love with Mandala and the Powdah Sneks (B/W) myself.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gofast193.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	191.6 KB 
ID:	373108

    PRAXIS GFB (GoFastBoards)/The Contrarian 193
    Sidecut 135/114/125, 39mR
    Sidecut length: 158.5cm
    Middle of sidecut: 91cm from tail, mount point at 88cm.
    Same tip/tail taper as the FRD, but a revised rocker/camber profile. Sidecut matching reverse camber? GPO type rocker? Needs to be somewhat loose and able to pivot, with priority on stability through the fall line through shit snow. Could be flat camber underfoot. If a matching sidecut/reverse camber sort of ski, should be plenty stiff, at least a 4, possibly a 5 on the Praxis scale. Could be softer if a more trad camber/rocker design is chosen.
    Pros:

    • Unique in todayís market. Long sidecut radius, but longer sidecut contact length than Renegades and/or CBs, should be better in shitty snow where you need the grip
    • Unapologetic balls to walls charger, although versatile enough.
    • A firmly maggot inspired and developed shape, in the spirit of the Wootests.
    • Should have no real speed limit
    • Squarish tails
    • Less swing weight than the RX, but should still feel substantial

    Con:

    • A firmly maggot inspired and developed shape, meaning a limited market. Not really our problem, but we do like Keith and would like him to prosper.


    PRAXIS RX 194
    Sidecut 141/116/128, 33,7mR
    Sidecut length: 158cm
    Middle of sidecut: 95cm from tail, mount point at 91cm.
    Otherwise the same as the existing RX.
    Pros:

    • Proven shape
    • Easier for Keith to incorporate in his lineup
    • Probably more playful than the GFBs, but who needs playful in todayís marketís options?

    Cons:

    • Not a new ski. The RX has been in the lineup for 13 years or so, with slight changes.



    Not convinced people outside the maggot community would actually buy either, but I think the uniqueness of the GFBs would trump the familiarity of the RX.

    So, mags, please vote. Comment if you want to commit to either ski. Again, $799 for a sick ass ski, not before seen.

    Cheers to you. Both wifey and I are buzzed enough to allow me some CAD work. Not getting any better unfortunately. When seeing my renditions, please envision Keith's RX and FRD tips. They're sexy. Mine are homely.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    I guess commit is the wrong word. If you want to take part in forming the GFB, chime in!

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,621

    PRAXIS CUSTOM RUN, VOTES, COMMITMENTS!

    Itís a tough year for me financially so I canít commit.

    But I would love a GFB with a stiff reverse camber matching the sidecut.

    That would be my Hakuba ski.

    When is this build potentially taking place? This summer? Hmmmmmm

    Pink is unnecessary.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by gaijin View Post
    It’s a tough year for me financially so I can’t commit.

    But I would love a GFB with a stiff reverse camber matching the sidecut.

    That would be my Hakuba ski.

    When is this build potentially taking place? This summer? Hmmmmmm

    Pink is unnecessary.
    This preorder season, yeah.(by the end of May) With any luck, it could become a regular! Do you absolutely need food?

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Bumping to the top!



    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    If it’s full rocker this is gonna be super sweet in a HH core.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Yes, yes it will.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of the Long Flat Vowel
    Posts
    902
    Thanks for doing the thinking, Arild.

    The GFB with a touch of camber would be a dream ski. HH core for sure.

    Will follow your project.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    No problem. I guess one conundrum would be how important reverse camber vs some camber, as illustrated by both of you, island and pretzel. The latter and gaijin describes how a matched reverse camber would be awesome, Island would love some camber.

    I'm not a camber opponent, so some discourse to me is just interesting. I could compare the first gen sd105 from down to the second. The first has flat camber, more tail rocker, and is 202cm. It also is a crud and chop crusher, and floats extremely well relative to its width. The other has very little, if any, tail rocker, some underfoot camber, and can really handle hard snow. My only sample is the 187,even bought a backup pair, because they're fucking excellent. They are, though, excellent in truly shit snow, and can really grab some ice if need be (I compared them at some point to legend pros).

    To sort of summarize, I think camber has its place in most shit snow skis, but is not a necessity for a mixed conditions, primarily soft snow ski, with a waist width of 114mm. I'm inclined to agree that some (meaning 1-2mm over 50-60% of the ski base area, like a GPO's) camber could be nice, but not necessary, to make this an awesome ski.

    There are a couple of options to discuss camber wise.

    1) zero camber underfoot, gradual rockers front and back, ala EHP. My thoughts : happy medium. Slarve happy, probably pretty boring on anything hard (which is really what we'd like, I think). Carving is not a priority, but should be possible.

    2) reverse camber, matched to sidecut. Absolutely, in my mind, should be the most fun in anything remotely soft. Theoretically should be able to carve when leaned hard enough, but all skis with a sidecut should be able to do that.

    3) GPOesque camber. Almost non existent, but there all the same. Somewhat easier turn initiation on hard snow, but almost irrelevant in crud, chop and powder.

    Zero camber is obviously the compromise, but I'm not sure how it wins vs reverse or very slight camber. How about a combined 39m camber underfoot with 39m reverse camber tip and tail? I'm pretty convinced by the efficacy of matched reverse in the OG Renegades and their followers' stories. The OG Devastators, too, for that matter.

    I'll try to get the wife buzzed again for more drawing time over the weekend, also will actually call Keith to hear if camber/rocker molds are universally available as long as the length fits, or if molds/cassettes are model/length specific. If the former, Island could get his slight camber, the others can get reverse, everyone's happy. I'd get both, seeing as interest is still low enough that I'd have to buy two pairs..

    If the latter, a GFB specific mold would have to be built, and we'd have to nail down a very exact idea of what we want.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    So, got back, and at the very least Iīm buzzed (wife's decidedly not). so sat down with CAD for an alarming, judging by the results, hour long session.

    Pretty straight forward, really. These camber shapes are absolutely not the end-all,be-all of the project, I think Keith simply is a lot better at it than I am, but goes to show how camber/flat/matched CCR could work. The camber or flat section's length is not set in stone, just 120 or so cm centered on the mount point, just there for clarity.

    First up is CCR, which looks pretty much as you'd expect. The fun thing about a long sidecut radius matched by a continuous curve rocker (or simply reverse camber) is that the longer the sidecut radius, the less abrupt any rocker/reverse camber would be. Longer sidecut=longer reverse camber arc, ironically enough probably easier to engage a carve in semi soft snow than a shorter radius version.

    Second is matched camber/reverse camber. I have a slight suspicion that this might be the ticket, ignoring my previous ramblings. Any decambering would effectively increase the tip/tail splay, at least making its floatation attributes as good as the one with the reverse camber. Might be better for more exposed skiing.

    Third is flat camber. No decambering, just flexing the midsection would change the way the tips splay. Flat can be very good, or it can be boring as fuck. Just as safe in exposed terrain as the cambered version, but ultimately less feedback, since there's no camber to depress.

    I administer anesthesia on a daily basis, mostly elective surgery. In my mind, an endotracheal intubation is the safest and most fulfilling way to go about any airway securing for a general lights out anesthetic. A laryngeal mask airway is easier and faster, but ultimately less safe and less professionally fulfilling. This analogy might seem pointless, but I'm actually starting to convince myself that the safer, more fulfilling way to design this ski might be with that touch of camber. I know it'll be excellent as a reverse camber ski, but perhaps less confidence inspiring when in actual dangerous terrain. Idk. Input, please, gentlemen!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GFB193cambers.jpg 
Views:	100 
Size:	320.7 KB 
ID:	373888  
    Last edited by arild; 05-14-2021 at 12:17 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Made a new mock up of reverse and camber, also changed the dims just a bit. Friday!

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,621
    I donít know, dude. I donít think these drawings are going to gain any support. Those tips and tails look really hooky- like fish hooks.

    Speaking on dims aloneó the 39r and 114 waist in a stiff reverse camber ski matching the side cut is dreamy for a soft snow big mtn ski for Hakuba.

    In New Zealand, I would want camber underfoot. And at that discussion the LP105 already exists. I donít need 112 in NZ.

    If you want this thread to gain traction, weíre going to need more concise design plans for a ski that needs to be built.

    (The 110+ reverse camber r>40 190something.)

    But like three of us exist and we all admit that we can survive on whatever ski we already have.

    The 196 Renegade died for a reason. I donít know if a 112 version of that with an even longer radius would sell. Iíd buy it. But Iím an idiot.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by gaijin View Post
    I donít know, dude. I donít think these drawings are going to gain any support. Those tips and tails look really hooky- like fish hooks.

    Speaking on dims aloneó the 39r and 114 waist in a stiff reverse camber ski matching the side cut is dreamy for a soft snow big mtn ski for Hakuba.

    In New Zealand, I would want camber underfoot. And at that discussion the LP105 already exists. I donít need 112 in NZ.

    If you want this thread to gain traction, weíre going to need more concise design plans for a ski that needs to be built.

    (The 110+ reverse camber r>40 190something.)

    But like three of us exist and we all admit that we can survive on whatever ski we already have.

    The 196 Renegade died for a reason. I donít know if a 112 version of that with an even longer radius would sell. Iíd buy it. But Iím an idiot.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Hah, I agree. I did new drawings on the camber stuff while sober, looks a bit better. Posting later today, I hope. On call, so I'll likely have time. Almost convinced the reverse would be more awesome.

    Re: Ren196:
    Yup, not a huge market for a ski like that, but enough people are pissed at 4frnt for downtuning the Rens, and thankfully, there are regressive idiots out there, like you and I.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080

    GFBs

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GFB193cambers_2.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	212.6 KB 
ID:	374576
    So, the revision is attached. The tips and tails look decidedly less shitty IMHO.

    Tried to put in the differences in the small text box in the image file.

    Gaijin says the design goals are a bit wandering, so to be clear (I do agree on the LP105 being a prime candidate for lesser days):

    The GFB is supposed to be a soft snow, mixed conditions buster. Hookiness is the enemy, hence the stupid long sidecut radius with semi classic tip/tail tapers (24cm tip, 12cm tail, really close to the existing FRD's). Given a rather generous/modern rocker profile, even humans can make them turn, but they'll hold up to actual good skiers as well. 193 length along the base, probably 191-192 straight tape measure. Praxis stiffness 5/5 for the reverse camber, 4-4.5/5 for the cambered.

    I'd honestly love to ski both, but I think the more enjoyable ski might be the reverse camber.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Motown
    Posts
    646
    Reminiscent of

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by ####### View Post
    Reminiscent of
    Can't imagine why.. (I do like green skis)

    FWIW, those are Bandits,which were significantly more friendly than B-Squads. The latter were a great example as to why sidecut radius matters less than camber profile and flex when it comes to turnability. Think the 189 Squads had a radius of 35 or 36m, but had a ton of camber and really were stiff, and in comparison, XXLs with 41m were a lot easier to navigate. To start enjoying the Squads, I needed a lot more speed than with either XXLs, OG LPs or the Faction 13s (these did have a generous tip rocker for 2010 and flat camber,though).

    OG Ragnaroks were pretty great in this class of skis, and from the reviews I've read, very similar to Bro 192s. 37m, touch of camber, 30 or so cm of tip rocker, flat tail. Really fucking stiff, too.





    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    23,438
    Pintail please.
    135-115-120, flat camber, minimal rocker.
    Buggy whip forebody, stiff tail.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Pintail please.
    135-115-120, flat camber, minimal rocker.
    Buggy whip forebody, stiff tail.
    Basically a narrower OG L120?

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    monument
    Posts
    5,971
    Or Lhasa Pow @ 139-112-120 (?)
    IIRC

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    livin the dream
    Posts
    4,489
    The problem with a super long radius, flat camber, stiff, pintail - is it wonít arc.

    It will be great slashy/surfy in any 3D snow. It will excel in hotpow, overcooked corn, and other hooky grabby shit. But it wonít carve a turn on 2D snow. You need to either add some camber or add some tail width or make it softer...

    I have a pair of what I call the FrankenLhasa. Lhasa shape, 192bro stiff core, zero camber. Splat pressed a pair of these with leftover materials at some point in time and somehow I ended up with them... they are amazing in the spring, late April Pow days where the sun nukes the snow by 11am. No other ski Iíve been on is as fun in that shit, let alone skiable... But when you put that ski on edge on 2D snow and try to arc it, itís 35m radius quadruples and your back at the bottom of the hill before you finish turn #2...

    Horses for courses though... if thatís what you want... go get it!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Best Skier on the Mountain
    Self-Certified
    1992 - 2012
    Squaw Valley, USA

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    I agree about the pintails, Nick. I like to arc turns on corduroy every once in a while, but I've got other skis for those duties.

    Where do we call it a pin tail, though? At 10mm from waist to tail? 9? 8? I'd have no issues narrowing down the waist-tail delta to 9mm, making it 115/124,but to keep sort of the same sidecut balance, widen the tips correspondingly. Then we're at 136/115/124. Still about 40m radius, but pushing slightly further from what I'd think is the better balance.

    What Buster described is 2mm of tail away from the Down SD115. Its narrower sibling is pretty much it, but 10mm of float is just that, so the 105s can do all the shit/3d snow duties you want, but still is a 105 at the end of the day. Fantastic skis, though.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    23,438
    Quote Originally Posted by arild View Post
    Basically a narrower OG L120?
    Yup.
    When I want to, they arc just fine for me.

    As long as I can get a cm of edge penetration, they work great as a groimer carver.

    I think the stiffness in the tail is what helps make them good on the pack and give that satisfying finish to the turn.

    I have the CountDown Carbon 114, but they are stiffer in the forebody and don't jet out out the turn the way I'd like. There's more to what I'm getting at than sidecut.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,621

    PRAXIS CUSTOM RUN, VOTES, COMMITMENTS!

    And this is why losers like me just buy whatever the industry is selling... and why I get a wet jaw when you freaks start talking one-off design shit.

    Iím broke this year.

    In the mean time, please perfect a 110-115ish CCR thatís stiff and due to the reverse camber, pivots on a dime and shuts down when Iím going too fast and donít want to die.

    My 186 Owl Renegade is a great pow ski. But once the trees thin out, and the terrain opens up, they are limited in that they still want to turn. The dims on their longer version still says the same.

    Hintó donít ever make me wish the radius was longer.

    There is nothing more frustrating than hauling ass through a dream line and wishing your ski would stop closing turns.

    I agree abut the pintail never arcing. I donít need a surfer at high speeds on big lines. I need a carver that releases.

    I need a ~37-42 radius, reverse camber, stiff-ass 192-195 in the 110-115 width with a tail that sticks when I tell it to.

    The term pin-tail should not be a part of this motive. Iím not pursuing a pow ski with a loose tail, per se. I want a burly ski that releases because of the camber line but also sticks when my hips are dragging.
    Last edited by gaijin; 05-19-2021 at 07:00 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Gaijin, I'm sorry about all of this design jerking off, but I'm still working on what you're asking. I don't want a sub 40s sidecut ski, nor do I want a true pin tail, so don't worry. Seems the trick is to convince enough other regressive morons like us, maybe we'll get there by next year,when you probably have money?

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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