2018-19 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[ex-powderbroker]

Scralph-

I have a stock veneer BC 180 that I find too soft in the three flex for regular duty for me at about your height and weight. There must be loads of them around where you are, but if you’re ever out this way and would like to try them then just bring some boots.

I think you were asking about the mvp94 earlier - I still have yet to find a better in bounds do it all. I’m so happy with that ski.

[SchralphMacchio]

Thanks … I wonder if you’ll feel differently if you make that move out west. I think the point of the BC has always been to have a softer flex to maximize fun in soft snow. I’ll put a standing offer to take those off your hands if they never jive with you, my MAP/C BCs were pressed in 2011!

Thanks for the MVP94 feedback. Keith’s last email about MVP94s and GPOs being back in stock has me thinking those must be the two most popular selling skis right now (and a solid two ski quiver as well!).

[slowroastin]

Anybody looking to get rid of 187 GPO’s or 190 BC’s?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Foggy_Goggles]

Hey Praxis nerds. I'm looking for a bit of guidance. I want something between 195 PBs and 188 Skinny Qs. I already have 188 Qs for touring. Basically, I want something with more suspension that the PBs for when the pow days start to get bumped out. I threw the feelers out and below is an list of what is available. Can you guys comment on the difference between

GPO
Q
FRS
Concepts

[SchralphMacchio]

I want something between 195 PBs and 188 Skinny Qs … Basically, I want something with more suspension that the PBs for when the pow days start to get bumped out … Can you guys comment on the difference between

GPO
Q
FRS
Concepts

I only have firsthand experience with the GPO, but I can comment on the shapes of the other skis and the comments I’ve seen in the Praxis Superthread.

GPOs were developed as a big mountain comp ski for Tabke and Chickering Ayers based on the BC. BC plus 10mm, less camber, more stout, more sidecut/turny, moved mount point up to -7 cm (BC is -8 now but back in the day I think it was -10), pointy shark nose to not get hooked up when edging on variable snow at haul ass speeds. The shark nose is not as good in powder as the 116 waist would suggest, so for more suspension and float I think most people have enjoyed mounting from -1 to -2 cm, as the ski has a pretty big sweet spot and I’ve seen people say -3 worked for them (probably at higher boot lean angles). Like the BCs these skis seem to have a huge mount point sweet spot. Where I’ve been really impressed with the GPOs was how they handled wind effect like sastrugi and sudden density changes, you can just rail turns at speed and that stuff disappears. They ski snow that is firm but in process of softening really well too.

Q came after the GPO and was Tabke’s next comp ski evolution I think. Less sidecut, more waist, offset taper for inside and outside edges, ever so slightly less tip and camber height and ever so slightly more tail rocker … same mount point as GPO. I think most feedback was that stock Qs skied a little bigger than stock GPOs despite having more tail rocker, if you are considering the GPO.

FRS came next as Tabke’s powder comp ski experiment for Japan, it was a +10mm MVP 109 that had some rocker tweaks. More tip and tail rocker than GPO and Q and slightly more forward mount of -6. I don’t remember much feedback about suspension or how these handle chop and bumps compared to the GPOs or Qs, which seem to have rave feedback for that kind of stuff.

I don’t see Concepts anywhere now … they were a mustache camber (tip rocker, then camber in front of the boot, then rocker below the boot, then camber behind, then tail rocker) profile with a slightly reverse sidecut underfoot and then regular sidecut in front and behind the boot. A lot of comments I seem to remember that they were loose, floaty and could still bite on hard pack.

[SchralphMacchio]

By the way, Giant Pacific Octopus ans Quixote have their own thread if you want to mine them for deets. Not sure if the FRS has one.

[toast2266]

I currently own the FRS, and previously (quite a while ago) owned the concept. I like the FRS a lot as a resort powder ski. Which means it's good in pow, but not singularly mind blowing. But it's pretty decent in chop, which is realistically a big part of any resort pow day. It's stable and damp enough, while still feeling reasonably playful. It just feels like a straightforward soft snow ski that does everything pretty good without standing out in any particular category, and it's generally easy to get along with. Which is also my take on the MVP, which makes sense since the FRS is basically just a fat MVP.

I wasn't a huge fan of the concept. Kinda just felt like it had too much going on. It could do a lot of things pretty well, but it was very sensitive to small weight shifts, which often made it kind of annoying to ski.

Haven't skied the GPO. Personally, I have yet to find a ski with a bunch of tip taper that I like.

[slowroastin]

My veneer FRS 194’s weigh 2300g each. About 100 grams lighter than stated on the website. Just wanted to put that out there in case the weight was holding people back.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PeachesNCream]

Looks like they’re only doing wood veneer tops from here on out and adding more models and lengths. Also:

“After over 20 years of Praxis having an annual custom pre order sale in April, this year was the first year that we were not able to offer that option. But good news for those who have been looking for this sale option to return! We will be having a limited custom pre order sale starting Wednesday May 15th. But get ready we will only be offering this discounted price for

10 DAYS
LIMITED TO ONLY 50 ORDERS.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grinch]

Awesome news on the veneer. Sadly ill miss out on the sale. Was hoping to get some veneer mvp's this summer

Sent from my SM-S711W using TGR Forums mobile app

[m2711c]

sluggers on da way!

that's to bad about the plastic graphics. they had what seemed like an unlimited selection of cool shit to slap on. i've never had so may people comment upon and compliment my skis before.

the japanese got a big kick out of my yeti...








the tahoe graphics were so popular they got swiped from killington! i was amazed that people actually knew what lake it was supposed to be.







fact.

[singlesline]

You can still do custom graphics on the veneers...they are just far more muted/subtle.

That said--yeah, the boldness of the colors of the plastic topsheet is half the fun. I have also never had so many people compliment my skis before.

[tang]

These get so many shout outs! But the new stock GPO veneer looks sweet too

[dschane]

I mean yeah, but also, everyone who sees my veneer skis is pretty blown away too. Sexy as fuck. But yeah again, IMO, simplicity is better with veneers -- let the glossy wood shine through.

[Hoss Worthington]

Does anyone have any input on the 3 vs 4 flex for a BC 180? I'm going to pull the trigger on the sale pretty soon here. Definitely going to go with the veneers & the UL core with carbon.
I'm looking to drop some weight in my touring rig (currently old 4Frnt turbos). However, I'm a larger guy at about 6 ft & 210 lbs. so I'm a little worried that 180 in a 3 flex will feel like "too little" ski. Any input from the collective would be welcome.
For reference, my daily driver is a MVP 108 at 188 cm in 4 flex.

[grinch]

Id go atleast 4. 4 if you jell w the mvp 4 makes sense.
I wished my 180 bc was a 4 when i was 185lbs. Love my 4 gpo. Wished my 3 protest was a 4. Happy with my shorter yeti in a 3 flex

Sent from my SM-S711W using TGR Forums mobile app

[teledad]

I'm 40 pounds lighter and have 180 BC UL veneers in flex 3. Love the skis but they're definitely on the softer side and get tossed around a bit in funky snow. I'd go with 4 given your size.

[powder_to_the_people]

I'm 6'4 and 220 without gear, and went with the 190 veneer/UL BC in flex 4 on Keith's recommendation. Awesome ski that I've skied inbounds a lot too. If you're enjoying your MVPs in a 4 flex, I don't think I'd drop to 3, and maybe also consider sizing up to the 190. You could (probably should?) ask Keith though. FWIW, my 190 BCs weigh somewhere in the region of 1810-1820 g, if you're worried about sizing up because of the added weight.

How are you liking your MVP 108s? I'm considering them as an inbounds DD given the current sale...

[dschane]

I'm 5'9" and 185 lb. I have the BCs, enduro core plus carbon, and the 3 flex. This was was my first pair dropping from a 4 flex to a 3. Previously, I had the Rx in 4, skinny Rx in 4, and I still have the 9Ds in 4. I love the BCs and have been touring on them through the winter until corn harvesting season for the last 3 or 4 years.

That said, your size makes it a tougher call. And if you're going with the UL core, I'd probably go with the 4 flex.

[SchralphMacchio]

Does anyone have any input on the 3 vs 4 flex for a BC 180? I'm going to pull the trigger on the sale pretty soon here. Definitely going to go with the veneers & the UL core with carbon.
I'm looking to drop some weight in my touring rig (currently old 4Frnt turbos). However, I'm a larger guy at about 6 ft & 210 lbs. so I'm a little worried that 180 in a 3 flex will feel like "too little" ski. Any input from the collective would be welcome.
For reference, my daily driver is a MVP 108 at 188 cm in 4 flex.

180 Flex 3 will be too little ski.
Is the 190 out of the picture for you?

I’m 5’ 8” 140 lbs on 180 BCs … MAP/C core from ‘11-12 production that I think is Flex 2, which is straight silly fun for soft snow - corn, porn, pow, so fun in anything that’s at least 2 cm edgeable. At *my* size I could go Flex 3 for more versatility and less silly factor (I used to have Flex 3 182 GPOs and I currently ski 182 ON3Ps). ex-powerbroker is nearly my same size (5’ 9” 145?) and he says that his Flex 3 180 BCs are too soft for him.

Given my experience I’m not sure I can imagine even a Flex 4 180 being enough ski for your weight because the camber contact length and effective edge are both pretty short on that ski - it has a decent amount of tip and tail taper. It might feel like being on jib sticks. It is definitely stout underfoot, so I don’t think that Flex 4s would fold up, but the 180s would just not feel like they have a lot of edge.

If you are touring in open terrain I might say go up to the 190s and go softer (3?) to have them be super fun and then shave some weight through flex. And do some yoga for those kick turns.

Good luck. There has been angst and chatter about trying to get a 185 maggot build BC for years but I don’t think anyone ever organized enough demand to make it worth Kieth’s time.

[N1CK.]

there is a stock, #3 flex, 185cm option for the BC.

[SchralphMacchio]

there is a stock, #3 flex, 185cm option for the BC.

Wow, I missed that! When did it happen? Thats huge for the 180 is too short but kick turns with 190 sucks for my short legs crowd!

[N1CK.]

Wow, I missed that! When did it happen? Thats huge for the 180 is too short but kick turns with 190 sucks for my short legs crowd!

a few years ago as I recall !

[Hoss Worthington]

How are you liking your MVP 108s? I'm considering them as an inbounds DD given the current sale...

To answer pttp's question, I'm loving the MVP 108 as my daily driver. The only quibble I've come up with yet is that they are a TINY bit hook-y at speed on groomers. However, I didn't bother to detune the tips of the skis, which many people here claim are necessary for new Praxis sticks.

As for all the other input here, thanks for your experiences. I definitely will not be going up to 190cm. I tend to ski very conservatively when touring so don't have much desire for the extra edge length, and I'm consciously moving away from longer skis over the past couple of seasons. The 185 is definitely intriguing though, I'm going to ping Keith again and see what his input is regarding extra weight. For the record his initial suggestion was the 180 in a 3 or 4 flex.

[Long duc dong]

Thinking about getting some 185 +10 BCs with a 4 flex.....

Two years ago I got some standard 184 RXs, which I love. They are close to exactly what I want.

I had been thinking about some +10 BCs, but decided to try the stock RX.

The stock RX is almost perfect for what I want, I would only change a couple of things:

1) I would want to tip to have the same amount of rocker, but to have a smoother rise. The RX rises very slowly, then gets abruptly steeper at the end. I feel like a smoother rise would help a bit with turn initiation, and maybe slightly with float as well.

2) I would want the same tip taper as the BC. The RX has a tip taper of 20 cm, and I would just like a bit more, I feel like it might also help with turn initiation.

The RX was replacing 4frnt EHPs, which I had been skiing about 80% of days since January of 2008. Those have almost no sidecut, but while it takes some effort to turn them, you can vary turn shape because there is so little sidecut.

The RX is great, but it would be nice with a bit better turn initiation. I like a ski with sidecut between the shovel and waist, as opposed to the tail and waist. I like to initiate a turn, but not be locked into a round turn. I feel like the RX just slightly lacks in the turn initiation, probably because of the lack of tip taper and the way the rocker rises slowly, then abruptly.

I think a +10 BC would probably ski quite similar to an RX, but probably with slightly smoother turn initiation, which is just what I would want. The RX is a great ski, and I really don't NEED to get a +10 BC, but I just feel like it might be just right.

Has anyone here skied a +10 BC?

This would be a resort ski, no skinning, I would probably ski about 80% of my Mammoth days on it, depending on how good the winter is. It would basically be for exactly what I use the RX for now, and what I have been using the EHP for for years.

If anyone actually HAS skied a +10 BC it would be nice to hear some feedback, and possibly a comparison to the RX. I believe the sale ends tonight, so I have to decide quickly, I've been thinking about this for a while.

Like I said, the RX is great, I just think this slight tweak would be exactly what I'm looking for.

I already got my wife some 160 BCs with the Psychadelic Rocker topsheet. She is pumped, as she has gotten to the point where she wants something wider for soft snow, she's skiing a Sheva 10 in a 156 for almost all days right now.