12" blower day today. Surf machines!! So slarvy and easy to ski. Still in love with them.
Printable View
12" blower day today. Surf machines!! So slarvy and easy to ski. Still in love with them.
where tf are you? 'cause I am very jealous and want to be there too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird Blaster
1st day on 192 carbons. Mounted -1. I agree with Bird Blaster, so slarvy and easy to ski yet not wimpy at all. I have been skiing 190 bibbys for the last few years and so far these seem just as versatile but much more loose and fun in fresh snow. No hooking on packed runs. I owned 11/12 191 billygoats and these seem to do everything those did but just rage a bit less. They still want to eat up vertical in a hurry.
You are mounted at -2, right? I'm still in mount-point neurosis for my 187s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird Blaster
^^^ I went -1 on my 187 after -2 on my 192 if that helps. Seems great there
I did the same. Wasted energy now I think. I mounted a 182 on the dimple. It is GOLD. I have a 192 I am still waiting for more snow to ski at -2.5 (which i sweated bullets over convinced the dimple was waaay too far forward) . I suspect the 192 will be fine but wished now I'd just gone the dimple from my experience on th 182. I might yet change my mind once I ski the 192 but the 182 ski seems to be pretty amazing and feels like it has a huge sweet spot for even a skier as picky as I am about mount points. I don't mind eating my own words on this one. Or skiing on different mount points if the 2nd pair of skis feel and ski as good as expected. One thing I won't be doing again, is second guessing Keith's newest suggested mount points. Lesson learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dromond
I have six day's on my 187s now. !0" of soft pow to race course hard groomers. I'm convinced the dimple is the spot. For me at least. Started at just past -1 and the more I moved them forward the better they got. Have schizos on them.
Yes. -2. Considering -2.5 for other pairQuote:
Originally Posted by Dromond
You've got to remember that most skis will respond favorably to forward mounts on groomers and packed snow, but when you are mounting a big ski to ski deep snow, a compromise of mounting a little back is worth it. My Praxis Concepts have a fairly centered mount which works terrifically for all mountain use, but I find in deep snow they want to nose dive a bit until I get up to speed. I mounted my Praxis Ullrs, which are basically a bigger GPO at -2, which is where I ended up on while demoing Squad 7's and several other similar skis. Keith said the dimple on the Ullr is -1 relative to the GPO already as the Ullr is intended more as a powder ski and he suggested -2 from that for me with my intended use being mostly big powder days at the resort and cat trips. Having mounted them with Schizo's I fully expect to love them in the deep at -2 then be skiing them on the dimple at the end of the day skiing groomers to get off the mountain. I looked seriously at the GPO before going with the Ullr's and I think for me the -2 sounds right, but I am a more of an old school, classic, weight forward, drive the tips kind of skier. It depends on your style. A more forward mount works with a more weight centered new school style. It depends a lot on how you ski and what you ski in terms of terrain and snow conditions.
Hey Wetdog do you have any time on your Ullr's yet? Love to hear a new report on that ski. Not much posted info on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetdog
I was you once. Not so convinced of that now. I have GPOs mounted at the dimple and a 2nd pair mounted -2.5 cm. The GPO has a huge sweet spot. Both mount locations ski exceptionally well with little or no change in balance, technique or body position. Little or none for me anyway. I wouldn't go any further back. And a an old trad guy I wouldn't go forward of -0-. The 182 is a med/stiff flex. My 192 are med+ flex and mounted -2.5. I skied the 192 on some hard stuff and some soft today. Wasn't all bad though, way more fun in some ankle deep with death cookies or a soft breakable crust under it than the bullet proof. GPO in both versions I have are exceptionally versitale skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetdog
GPO is one of the 2 or 3 BEST skis I have ever been on. Mount location on both is fine. And from the fun today the med + flex -2.5 will be real money in some soft snow. Only thing I wished for in the hard conditions we have right now a GPO in glass instead of carbon and a full on stiff flex. But I don't normally ski groomers the majority of the day, so likely that idea will pass quickly when we get soem snow. No question a Praxis ski built specifically for NW groomers is in my future however.
I could easily second guess my 192 mount @ -2.5 but I think the ski is going to be perfect as is in deeper soft snow wih the added ramp angle of a tech binding on there now. It slavers, butters and side slips down a spline at speed totally balanced where it is mounted now. Most ski's aren't capable that on my feet if the mount point is off by 2cm.
For the 192 I wanted a specific soft snow ski that was something just short of a dbl rocker/reverse design's palyfulness. I wanted big and floaty with little effort required to charge into any snow condition with confidence. The wind pack crap I skied today was a perfect preview of things to come I suspect. I am pretty excited about this particular 192 GPO! I decided yesterday the 182 will be going to Chamonix with me this year. A huge surprise as I hadn't even considered that when I bought the ski last Spring. It is a vote for just how solid thr GPO is under me.
Attachment 147189
182 GPO, Speed Superlight and TLT6, all Cham bound, Spring 2014
GPO in carbon with standard build/flex mounted @ the dimple is a full on, super fun, charger with a surfy /slarvy personality when it isn't riding a rail at mach 1. No speed limit that I could find on perfect groomers. A soft snow ski that can easily make do on hard snow with 116mm under foot. Way better all around ski than I ever thought possible for the width.
192 GPO in carbon with a med+ flex mounted @ -2.5 is a true soft snow scapel. Big turns, little turns, surf, slarve, butter or JAM it. Nice ski. The med+ flex prefers soft snow no question. Better pow/mank ski (as in some really manky snow) than I expected and it will still carve a turn.
Both GPOs are full on Super Hero skis for mee. Been dry here for snow and I am already doing things on these skis I had not thought possible (for me) prior. They inspire confidence.
Not yet. There's not been much snow up at Whistler yet and I'm on the road with other skis for the Holidays hoping to Ski Revelstoke, Kicking Horse, Fernie and Whitewater on the Holiday Loop. If Whistler or Baker get any snow in the New Year I'll get them out and report back.Quote:
Originally Posted by racesla
Dane, my post was actually in response to your first review relating how well the 182 GPO's skied groomers mounted on the dimple. I was not surprised, but have found that Praxis skis tend to have a rather centered mount, Keith admits his bias as well, and for me, I always find that I feel too far forward in deep snow on them and have moved the mount back on several models. I had the same experience with Squad 7's last year. I ended up skiing them at -2 as a number of others have done as well. It is a preference thing I guess. I have totally bought into the centered stance thing for some of my skies, but I find when I charge, I tend to naturally drive the tips in a more classic style without realizing it. Old habits never die. I would be interested to hear more of how you like that mount point on the 182's once you have skied them extensively in deep powder. The 192's you have sound like a great soft snow set up. I'm eager to hear more about your experiences with them too as I have carbon Ullr's, basically a wider GPO, with a medium flex mounted at -2. I've had no opportunity to bring them out yet. Maybe in January. Here's hoping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane1
It's like a snow globe in a blender around here the last few days. The last 24h saw over 120cm of sweet white sugar come down from the heavens. Even protests are too little ski for these conditions. But…
I moved the mount forward from -2 to the dimple. This was about five days ago, and the night fall was about 30cm of cold blower pow. I hit my morning spots on the protests and around 11 got on the GPO… and slayed everything in sight. Orgasmic would be a reasonable adjective, but it is way to emotionally charged to describe the the clean, relentless, ruthless, and outright coldblooded precision of thought and action that I experienced that morning.
So the first impression was great, and as I did a little comparison skiing (trying to recall the sensations I expressed previously), the verdict confirmed my decision. As suspected, the dot mount loosened up the pressure on the tails, allowing way more slarve and also carve. And more importantly (for me) the forward weighting has eliminated the tip chatter that was breaking my balls on steep and hard snow.
To give a quick summary, I went from -2 to 0 and the ski went from just 'ehh', to 'wheeeeeeee'. Less restricted, less jaw jarring, less 'charger'; more capable, more smooth, more 'slayer'.
I wish you all a happy new year. The situation here is going to keep me away from the computer for a while. And I'm starting a rumor, you heard it here first: 210 powderboards for 2014-15, prototypes for the coming ice age.
Imagine how much easier it would be if people trusted the ski designer on the mount point of a modern design instead of living in the past with the "farther back is better for pow" mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by AyasFreeski
Trusting the designer is great as long as you ski like them. I can't begin to list the number of skis I've demoed where the mount point specified by the designer didn't work for me. If you read on line reviews like those at Blister, you will see that they try various mounting points until they find what is optimal for the tester. Rarely does it land on the designer's mount point, because that is only a recommendation for a starting point. I always urge people to demo skis that they are interested in and try different mount points which is easy to do with demo bindings. When skis are purchased they often are mounted forward or aft of the line. Manufacturers often place multiple lines on skis for that very purpose. Keith from Praxis has always admitted that he likes more centered mounts and tends to mark his skis as such. After speaking with him, he as designer, recommended I mount at -2. So just plopping your bindings centered on the 0 mid sole mark is giving in to blind faith which can result in disappointment and unnecessarily remounting skis. That is why we share information in these forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
If that's the way you see it then fine. But the reality is more along the line of: "I don't want to ride the ski as it is designed, I want to ride my own way. where can I mount it so that it not un-skiable, but still make me feel good about the choice." I think this leads to a lot of people buying and having a negative opinion about a design, when in reality they should have just bought a different ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetdog
I think mounting off the mark is the real gamble. You are right about different marks. They usually come along the lines of "team line", and "traditional". The team line in those cases is probably where it ski's best. The traditional line being a spot the can offer up as an alternative so as not to lose the sale to people who can't adapt their stance for the ski they are on.
You guys spent months "sharing information" about a mount on a ski that you guys didn't get on, that's the funny part. After all the months of pontificating I'm sure the majority who didn't mount on the line will just end up with an extra set of holes in their skis.
^^ Well put, Phiber.
To be fair, I've also gotten some good 'unconventional' mounting advice for certain skis from this forum. Yet from now on, I'm playing it skeptical.
That is not the way I see it, it is the way anyone who has a passion for skis and setting up skis to get the best performance out of them sees it. To reference your quote "I want to ride my own way." Isn't that what skiing is all about? It is really about mounting a ski where the skier feels most comfortable, period. The real gamble is not as you say, mounting off the mark, but mounting a ski and not thinking about it, whether that is on the line or somewhere else. Some skis that I love at +1, friends of mine are digging at -1. Read the reviews. People are experimenting mounting skis all over the place and loving where they finally end up and it is frequently not on the line. When you say, "The team line is probably where it skis best," it is where the skier likes it best that is where it skis the best, not where someone else tells them they will like it best. Like I said before, it boils down to personal preference and experience. You said in reference to mounting off the mark, "I think this leads to a lot of people buying and having a negative opinion about a design." This is just as true about mounting on the mark. Many skis have come out with the mount point in a bad place and then had it moved by the manufacturer the next season based on feed back from skiers. Some people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but you may be missing out on a lot by mounting on the line and getting mediocre performance out of a ski that could otherwise be stellar mounted a bit forward or back for your specific needs. The manufacturers find the mark by having people test their skis and choosing the spot where they feel the ski performs best. A different group of testers might have come up with a different spot. When it comes to people, choice is relative. That little mark on a ski is where a select group of testers made a subjective evaluation of where it should be based on the way they ski and in the conditions they tested the ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
Nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
Skis get mis marked all the time. Might be the designers fault. Might not be intentional. Might well be exactly where they wanted. Praxis alone has changed their recommended mount point on at least one ski (may be two) in just the last season. Praxis is not alone for skis that get the binding moved off the mark.
They have...FORWARD. That only supports my statement of you fools turning your ski's in to fucking clownshoes by mounting back is assinine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane1
LOL, I agree^
Forward mounts have evolved in response to skiers who ski backwards and spin with their skis in the air or on the snow or like to pivot which promotes the new school upright stance which is great and has helped the art of skiing evolve, but for people who want to just ski their skis on the snow in one direction, that being forward, mounting forward doesn't make a lot of sense unless you ski hard pack or you love having your tips dive in deep snow, thus mounting further back. Conversely, powder skis that have rearward mount point points are too far back for some skiers who like to mount them further FORWARD of the line. I find generally mounts points have crept forward to cater to the new school, which is fine but I mount skis where I like them not where they ski best for the latest 19 year old jibber. Last year I demoed the Squad 7's on cat trip in waist deep blower powder. They were marketed as Rossignol's powder charger, but it clearly catered to the the new schoolers with the mount point. The tips kept diving severely in deep snow. It's not like I was having problems on any other skis I skied that trip or that the snow had changed. The mount point was too far forward for me. I kept mounting back until I was at -2 and then they skied great, for me. At least 6 others on the trip found the same thing and if you look at online reviews, you will find that many reviewers were mounting them back at at least 1 cm and in many cases -2, although some where going +1, c'est la vie. According to your philosophy I should have just suffered with diving tips because Rosignol in their infinite corporate wisdom decided upon a line at some point on the ski to cater to a target buyer group in order to sell more skis. In the case of Praxis, the GPO was developed as a comp ski to ski variable conditions where you would want a more forward mount. Drew Tabke, freeride world champ, who skis for Praxis, skies the GPO's forward of the recommended mount. For those buying this ski for other purposes than world freeride championships who like to ski soft snow and deep powder, the forward mount would not be advantageous, thus people are mounting them further back to optimize for deep snow performance. This is why some park skiers mount their skis with Marker Schizos, so they can be forward on hard snow in the park to do tricks and ski variable snow then slide further back to ski powder. Praxis sells their skis in custom flexes, soft, medium, medium stiff, and stiff, with or without carbon lay up and in various lengths to suit skiers choice. They also recommend different mount points for various skier styles. Are you going to dictate a flex and lay up and length to us in addition to a mount point? Or is it OK for skier to choose the type of ski they want and where to mount it? You can do what suits you best or you can just conform and do what you are told and suffer. You're free to conform and call others who don't asinine. It's a free world where people are free to pursue their preferences. Thankfully, there are ski companies like Praxis who recognize this and embrace their customers needs. This particular forum caters to people who like to explore and ski the way they like and be not preached to by ne'er-do-wells. There are plenty of online forums for that asinine kind of thinking. People come here to get info from like minded people who are open to expanding possibilities not shutting the door on them by conforming to convention. Seriously, is it that hard to understand or are you that narrow minded that your next post is going to be preaching about bringing prayers back to the classroom?Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
you're tryin' too hard, man.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Some people you are never going to convince. Why do I bother wasting my time?Quote:
Originally Posted by shroom
Back to the thread about the gpo...
I'm 6'0" 165 and I already eat a ton of food.
I'm on the dimple on my 192 med/stiff carbons. And I love the ride in almost all conditions...except blower...I only like it there. Don't love it. Incredible in variable snow and if i have no clue what the conditions are going to be, i would grab these without hesitation. My 195 Folsom gambits (yes overlap, whatever, I'm in the market for billy goats, too) with their 148mm shovel and actually slightly more forward mount and shorter tip rocker have better float in blower. Is it the shovel? Slightly more pin tail? I dunno. But it makes me think that it might be worth moving the Sth on the gpo back to -1 and taking them into some deep snow. Not complaining about having these out on a deep day, but they aren't immune to tip dive. I am somewhere between old and new school. Taught to drive tips, love the loose feel of a more centered stance in trees and pow. But I actually feel somewhat backseat on them at the dimple.
So old schoolers who automatically mount rearward...how's that float in the bottomless? Any of you in the backseat or are all of you still tip driving in those conditions?
The obvious tgr solution is to just buy another pair of 192, but make em stiff with fiberglass and mount THAT pair at -1 and turn my current pair into touring sticks. But since I'm not ready to pull the trigger on that just yet, is it worth putting another set of holes in the current pair a back?
I'm getting my 192s mounted in the next week. Leaning toward -1 but not sure just yet. What's your bsl for a swap?Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Finally got out in 16-18" of new snow on top of a soft base - yeah, not truly "bottomless" but definitely skied some areas where nobody had been yet this season with no compaction in the snowpack. At -2, I don't feel backseat at all, I feel like I can drive the tips reasonably well with no dive. That said, even at this mount point I still feel myself skiing these much more centered than a traditional ski (my Praxis RX, for example). I ski them with very much the same stance as my BillyGoats - fairly neutral, with mild to moderate tip pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
This is exactly why I have been mounting my area skis with schizos the past couple years. The more I skied modern skis the more I've realized one mount location most definitely doesn't fit all. I was amazed how much very small adjustments to a binding location on these skis can really affect how they preform.
Here's a tale of two skis. First, I'm 5'11 175, racing back ground. I don't have centered stance. I drive those tips. The past two weeks I've been skiing my 187 GPOs, and my 191 Caylors. Both new to me this season. As I said in a past post I started my mount on the GPOs at a bit behind -1. Could I have lived with the mount there? Sure the skis were fun but they just felt lose , and I didn't feel like I had a real solid, planted edge on the hard groomers. The closer I moved the bindings to the dimple the better planted the felt. At the same time I didn't experience any tip dive, (haven't skied any blower yet) or that sticking feeling you get when there's to much pressure on the tips when your running on a flat ski. At the same time I could drive them, smear them, basically what ever I wanted, they did. Now the Caylors were a complete 180 from that. I started on the line. Very fun and jibby there but lacked stability, especially at speed when charging cut up pow, and varied snow. The reviewer on Blister went back -2, I tried -1 first. That one simple adjustment turn the Caylor into a snow crushing machine without losing any of the playfulness. I could carve mach one GS turns, slave off speed and then flick off tight swing turns. Next I went back to -2. Took away that playfulness, also didn't ad any more stability. Made them bit lumbering in fact. I've settled at just a about a mm past -1, or -11mm.
Saying you should just adapt to a ski when you have options , is like saying I should stuff my foot into you ski boot and suck it up even when those boots are killing me, and I can't feel my toes. That's why God created the intuition liners, and the ability to move bindings.
I'm pretty much done arguing with you when you say all forward mounts are a response to people wanting to ski switch, the squad 7 being a jib ski, and that your mount is more advantageous to Drew Tabke when it comes to deep snow. And you know fuck all when you say that park kids are the ones using schizo's. Because they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetdog
You obviously lack the ability to differentiate between a more traditional ski shape where moving the mount back may make a bit of difference, and a modern 5 point pin-tail(GPO, BG, Bibby, etc) where you are clearly working against the design of the ski. But hey, whatever you need to do so you can feel better about your shitty mount, and extra holes.
As I said in my previous post. I think there is a big difference as those are 2 vastly different ski's. With the Caylor being a more traditional design. I ski it on the mark BTW, but can see the case for going back. But then again it's a big ski with a big sweet spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by racesla
But I think the fact that your skiing style doesn't adversely effect the the GPO(Only makes it better) on the mark proves my point even more when it comes to shapes like the GPO. I'm sure as the season wears on more people will be reporting the same thing. Because that is where the designers intended it to be skied.
I never said forward mounts we only for people wanting to ski switch or that the Squad 7 was a jibb ski or that a rearward mount is more advantageous to Drew Tabke or that only park skiers used Schizos. Learn to read. Actually I have a number of 5 point and reverse reverse skis some mounted with Schizos so I can move the mount around so I speak from experience having been skiing for 40 years on both traditional and modern ski shapes. There's no need to remount when you think about where you are mounting and have a forum like this to share info with others who are mounting skis in various places other than the line like you do. People have a right to share that info without being called asinine by idiots like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
Paragraphs. Check them out! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetdog
I suggest you read Brain Floss by Shane McConkey. He was by no means "jibby" and was all about new shaping technology bringing the mount point forward on the ski. That's the beauty of rocker and new shaping technologies. You can have a more forward mount and not lose float.
Tabke likes a more forward mount. He doesn't ski backseat. He skis these in deep snow. He's got more of a slarvy/centered stance than old school racer. In my opinion, if you like a more traditional mount, go DPS, they were designed around it. If you like a more forward mount, go Praxis. Going forward on DPS or going back on Praxis yields less than desirable products in my opinion...
"Mental Floss", RIP Shane.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyJim
I stand corrected!Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Thanks for the info. I read that about a decade ago when I bought my first pair of Volant Spatulas designed by Shane who wrote Brain Floss to let people know how to get the most out of the Spatulas. I am quite aware of what kind of skier he was being a big fan. I included in the forward mount reference also people who like to pivot, such as Shane did with the Spats and K2 Pontoons he designed. I wasn't suggesting that he or anyone did all of the above, but that forward mounts favored skiers who liked one or more the those skiing styles and that skis had developed in response to this. In the case of Shane it was slarving and pivoting for others it was jibbing and skiing switch in or out of the park.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyJim
I bought some of the first pair of Praxis Powders from Keith when he was making them in his garage and didn't even put a mount mark on them, instead he gave skiers a range and let them decide based on how they liked skiing them, so I was an early adopter of the slarvy centered stance myself. I also own several DPS skis and other Praxis skis as well as a number of older more traditional skis and adapt my style to what I am skiing. Most of my skis are mounted on the manufacturer's line and perform best there for me there, but several are mounted off the line as well or with Schizo's so I can move the mount around. My point in all of this, is simply that people don't always mount skis on the recommended line for various reasons dependent on personal style.
Initially, there was a whole movement of people mounting powder skis forward of the line like dps skis which had more rearward mounts. Now there are a number of skis with more forward mounts that people are mounting back. This whole thread is about that in reference to the GPO and as I stated above, and you have repeated, the Praxis skis tend to have more centered mounts due to the designer Keith preferring that style rather than the skis being specifically designed to be skied that way. Keith himself has admitted that and he has recommended to many, including myself, to mount back of the line on some models which many reputable skiers who have contributed to this thread have found work better for them. I was responding to PhiberAwptik who was suggesting that anyone who didn't mount on the line was foolish and was doing so because they couldn't handle a particular ski or was compensating for not being able to ski properly. I respect the fact that others have opinions, even those I don't agree with, but when their opinion is that everyone else who doesn't agree with them is wrong, I take issue with that. Hence my response. I hope that helps clarify my position a bit.
Abraham, I'm 310mm. You?
Hilarious! I likely have clown socks to fit my clown shoes, that are older than the ones screaming, "I know WTF I am talking about...been skiing all my life"!
What are ya, 12?
Guys, skis turn left and they turn right. WTF happens between turns is up to you. If you can't manage a ski mounted anywhere 3cm either side of the suggested mount point you need to go back to school or get some clown shoes.
I have, I do and I ski where ever the fook I think the mount is appropriate. Measure twice and drill once is my motto. YMMV not that I give a chit where ever that might be :biggrin:
Let me explain more :rolleyes2
Not everyone skis like Tabke or Kevin. Could be some of us don't want to...foolish as that is, I know. Funny enough I do have friends that ski with Tabke on occasion. He aint using a GPO WHERE THEY ski. Just like I aint skiing my GPO where Tabke skis his. And I guarantee he aint skiing a -3 mount there either no matter wtf ski he is on. No one ski is perfect every where, but you can take advantage of different skis, different terrain and different snow by using different skis or even the same ski mounted slightly differently to get the full effect you want want from the design.
If you have half a clue you have already figured that out. If not you are likely on TGR telling everyone else "your mount point is assinine and you wear clown shoes". Turns out you're just as likely the window licker on the slow bus clicking away on your oh, so smart phone. Yes, sucks to be you. Better to have choices.. And better yet to know how the choices you do have, are best used.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...12051542_n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater
Flatten dat tail out a bit, otherwise... really interested.
It'd be nice to see some full profile rocker shots or an "engineering" PDF. I suspect we are seeing some serious distortion in the pic. From what I understand, there are a couple other modest tweaks as well. Definitely curious about how it tests out.