2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichibaneye

So no custom built GPO owners in here then?

---

I sold my UL 187. Great ski, great shape, awful layup. If they had been enduro, I’d still be touring on them. That’s probably what I’ll get this year in the April sale. Hoping skier666 will sell me his EW, so I can compare those to GPO and Q.

I agree with most of the recent Q posts. Odd feel, Love raging in the fall line, great in variable snow.

I also thought mine were abnormally good on firm snow. Locked in smooth carves from a trad stance at -1. Just gotta drive them.

I feel the opposite about the Q’s, on firm at least. Probably because I sized down, but still I can’t drive these like I could 186 Viciks. They are really turny for me. I cant seem to get out of that outside edge’s turn radius.

However, that turn radius is really fun in anything soft. Slashy, surfy and creative.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Switch feet

These are encouraging comments about 3D snow.

I might have been full of crap about needing a wider stance on hard snow. Still, I suspect that low tide will be the trickiest condition to figure out with these. Stranger things have happened ... new day ... aha! experience from out of the blue ... followed by what made me so stupid the first day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuse

... I cant seem to get out of that outside edge’s turn radius.

---

Do you mean the edge under your little toe? That's where stance width was confusing me as well (on hard snow).

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

Do you mean the edge under your little toe? That's where stance width was confusing me as well (on hard snow).

... Thom

---

Possibly. When I roll it onto edge, the outside of the tips engage into a tight turn across the fall line, and in a somewhat unpredictable manner.

I need more time on these skis. I am having mixed feelings. The more time I spend on them, the more I figure them out. But then every time I ski my other skis, and then go back to the Q, I have to relearn. It’s not a ski I can just jump on and charge.

The first day I skied them, I put a full day on them, and seemed to figure them out quite well.. Then the last 2 days I put on them, I only logged about 2 hours each of those days. I couldnt quite figure them out in the short day.

My main issue now, is that on soft days I will bring out wider skis. This seems like a soft snow shape, and I just wont use a 108mm ski for soft days. I could turn it into a touring ski, but I think I want something more predictable for that, something like an Rx.

I think I would enjoy the 194 standard width Quixote more.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

I sold my UL 187. Great ski, great shape, awful layup. If they had been enduro, I’d still be touring on them. That’s probably what I’ll get this year in the April sale. Hoping skier666 will sell me his EW, so I can compare those to GPO and Q.

I agree with most of the recent Q posts. Odd feel, Love raging in the fall line, great in variable snow.

I also thought mine were abnormally good on firm snow. Locked in smooth carves from a trad stance at -1. Just gotta drive them.

---

I want to thank you for the additional thoughts here. Yeah I'm starting to think going heavy core enduro, or reg core setup in #5 for the Q's now if I go with them over the GPO. Same for the GPO's too.

From most of the feedback here, they are a bit choppy in mixed and when charging in anything but heavy layups.

Which by the way I've not heard many talk about here on any of the Praxis line up really. I'd love to hear more from those who currently own or have skied the wood core lay-ups without the other options. The heavy and lighter wood core options are in my head now that I've wrapped my mind around things a bit better.

I'm not to concerned about weight as I cat in, snowmobile in, or I'm out of bounds when on my bc adventures. Occasionally I'll bust out the snowshoes if something really grabs me.

jmars and shu, where did you guys mount your PJ's?

I have RX's mounted on the dimple that I like. but this is a complete different ski geometry that has me questioning moving the mount forward a bit... build is heavy, med flex, carbon and veneer if that matters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

jmars and shu, where did you guys mount your PJ's?

I have RX's mounted on the dimple that I like. but this is a complete different ski geometry that has me questioning moving the mount forward a bit... build is heavy, med flex, carbon and veneer if that matters

---

I have that exact ski and I love it right at the dimple

Powderboards folk - anyone have experience mounting back -1.5 to -2 from the dimple? Trying to figure out the binding situation for the 180s I just picked up.

Measure 181.75cm tip to tip (does that mean these are 185s? Did anything change between those and the last gen before the 3D?)

- recommended is -8. Thinking about going to 100.75 cm from tip (-10 or so)

When I had 190s I had them in the line and felt they were too far forward. These are for my Dad (61, 5'8, 170 lbs). Great skier but getting old and out of shape.

Might be a good candidate for attack demos, but not sure if Ts worth the extra weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

jmars and shu, where did you guys mount your PJ's?

I have RX's mounted on the dimple that I like. but this is a complete different ski geometry that has me questioning moving the mount forward a bit... build is heavy, med flex, carbon and veneer if that matters

---

I'm on the dimple same build 3 days on east coast conditions. Ice chalk soft thin natural
Like them there I would definitely not move forward
A shout out to Keith for bomber bases. I hit a rock so hard flew through the air landing hard on my shoulder the sound under my skis was horrible but just a small scratch and small burr on the edge.
I detuned the tips and tails but still found the skis to hook a little the first day but day 2 it was gone just needed to mellow out a very sharp factory tune

Sorry for the late reply....yes on the dimple.

Kieth noted mounting them back but I wanted a more centered feeling ski, mostly for the spring.....but what I got was a fantastic tree and bump ski.

I won’t be shocked if the PJ is my daily until I want to play on my Concepts or until my Solly Q-Labs call my name...which are arguably my favorite resort charging ski ever.

Shu, I’m following your notes on the Q (Praxis) and look forward to hearing more on it since we seem to like the same skis.

Quick question for the collective, and sorry if this has been already addressed somewhere on here but if I have a stock layup, no carbon MVP from a 2-few years ago, hobbit forest mountain fire sky graphic, what core is that? Heavy? MAP core?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Self Jupiter

Quick question for the collective, and sorry if this has been already addressed somewhere on here but if I have a stock layup, no carbon MVP from a 2-few years ago, hobbit forest mountain fire sky graphic, what core is that? Heavy? MAP core?

---

Pretty sure it is enduro core...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undertow

Pretty sure it is enduro core...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

---

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undertow

Pretty sure it is enduro core...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

---

X2

I got out on the Rx again today. It’s surprising how well they do on firm and ice patches. Yesterday was much softer (I was on 191 Wrens), and I really thought today would be the same. I wanted to compare the Rx to Wrens after back to back days of skiing similar conditions. But no, the wind came back.

The Rx’s work great in these low tide conditions. Idk how a ski this wide can work so well on refrozen, coral reef type crap.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuse

I got out on the Rx again today. It’s surprising how well they do on firm and ice patches. Yesterday was much softer (I was on 191 Wrens), and I really thought today would be the same. I wanted to compare the Rx to Wrens after back to back days of skiing similar conditions. But no, the wind came back.

The Rx’s work great in these low tide conditions. Idk how a ski this wide can work so well on refrozen, coral reef type crap.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I'm watching this.

I keep thinking the next hole in my quiver to fill is either a Wren or a skinny Rx.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

jmars and shu, where did you guys mount your PJ's?

---

I mounted at +1. Huge mistake. Really have to ride them in the backseat unless you’re straightlining. Dimple or -1 for me if I get another pair when my 4frnt turbos die.

Thanks for the thoughts guys. Think I'm going to mount them on the dimple, I'm liking the idea of a more playful spring/bump ski.

Some fun rocker pics comparing my 192 protests with some circa 2011? 185 Powderboards. Sidecut profile is almost identical, but those things are rocking chairs! Pictures are a little deceiving, no flat spot underfoot. Going to be very strictly deep snow skis for my Dad [emoji108] I might take them for a few laps in the trees

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ddf8b6f196.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6cafc3e868.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...791b668fbe.jpg

Muggy, where did you mount the 192 ProTest? Have you skied them yet and if so, thoughts on mount point? Height and weight please.
I'm doing a custom 192 here soon 4 flex and just trying to get an idea on mount point. I have Gen2 188 ProTest mounted 102.5 from tip and love them there.

These are my second pair of 192 Protests. First pair was enduro/carbon/nylon/~3.75 flex. Had them on the line. They were really good there, but sometimes in a little more tracked out heavy powder I felt a little forward/thrown forward. The more I skied them and trusted the tips they better they got, but I still didn't quite like the feeling on a ski this big.

New pair is enduro/veneer/3 flex

From my measurements: Length 191.1 straight pull. Dimple at 103.175cm (-7.6). I mounted mine back to 104.55 (-1.4), = -9 from center. I definitely don't think I'd go any further back, I was originally shooting for more like -1 but my template was a tad off.

5'9 180lbs athletic, I pressure my tips but probably ski a little more upright than some of the chargers on here. These are really only for deep days for me (over a 10-12 inches), so I didn't need these to be as versatile since I'll pull out my Quixotes or 114 Jeffrey's in anything else soft. If I was using these as a more do it all pow ski I'd probably have gone 187s mounted -1.75 to -2 or so


Assuming your 188s are really 187cm straight pull, you're at -9 from center, so I'd mount yours same place I have mine (104.5)

Excellence info man! Yes they do measure 187. Where I have them they can be driven and just charge the shit out of things or I can stand more upright and slarve/pivot about.
These will be my fat pow day ski, anything over 12" and my spring wet snow ski. I have 191Lhasa Fats for up to a foot as well as cut up pow, which rule in that stuff.
You're mount point is exactly where I was thinking for the 192.
Thanks man!

I second that. I used to have protests mounted on the line and mounted my new pair back -1.5 (around -9) and feel like I can drive them harder while maintaining the same slarviness

Man the Rx are good. As good as 191 Wrens, maybe better, depends on the person and their specific style.

Rx feel more maneuverable, and other than their overall length, I cant figure out why. The Rx are stiffer, they have a longer sidecut radius, and less rocker. They also feel like the same weight when skiing and sidestepping or hiking. Seems like the Rx blends the sidecut better with rocker, allowing it to feel less locked in, and more pivotable when needed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums