I like mine on the line but I haven’t tried them anywhere else. At 5’7’’ I can ski from a neutral stance or drive ze tips
Printable View
I like mine on the line but I haven’t tried them anywhere else. At 5’7’’ I can ski from a neutral stance or drive ze tips
What SJ said... 6’4” and 205 lbs rocking the 193 for 6 years now and went line... Can pressure the front of my boots or ski neutral and zero issues... I am sure you can move them from the line but I have zero complaints on the line...
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sounds good to me. Does anyone know how far back the line is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I went 1cm behind the line on 193 MVPs with a 3+ flex, slightly softer than stock. 6' 2" 180lb, like a more forward stance, all inbounds skiing. Skis great there, haven't tried a different mount location though.Quote:
Originally Posted by brundo
I asked Drew Tabke, The Champ, and he suggested on the line, no more than 1cm back.
I ran my 187 stock MVP at the line and -1cm, I felt like -1cm gave a slightly better amount of float in pow as well as slightly more to lean forward on when it was super firm or icy. I saw no downside to -1cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by skuff
2013 vintage concepts with some fresh pivots. Back in regular rotation after a season on the sidelines. Just in time for the great east coast wash out of 2020.
Attachment 309796
Just put my custom Protests up for sale. Sad day, but it’s time for someone else to love them. 196cm, veneer Tusnami top sheet, 4 flex, enduro w/ carbon core. Great skis, just going in a different direction. Took them to Japan last year, had a blast, just don’t see myself skiing them much and they need to be loved.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Damn. Don’t need a third pair but that would round out my protest quiver nicely. 188, custom 192, these. Lol.
I think you do need a third pair. Different Protests for different days. It’s pretty simple math actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Moar ProTests = Moar Betterer
I sure hope Keith offers a custom order window in the spring like he has the last few years again.
My skinny Quixotes are one of my all-time favorite skis.
Skinny Qs are on my WTB list
Funny ... their weakest attribute (to me) is hard snow squirrely-ness. As much as a skinny-Q wouldn't work for me, I can easily see a fat-Q, perhaps even over a C&D. I hadn't thought of this until now.
... Thom
They're stellar. I know ordering a semi-custom ski is always a bit of a crapshoot, but mine turned out to be a perfect fit for me. I have mine mounted with G3 Ions and it's my quiver of one backcountry ski. I've skied them in all conditions and they're eminently predictable, which is a quality I value highly in a touring ski. FTR I'm 5'7" and weigh about 155 pounds, my skinny Q's are 181cm, flex 3, heavy core, carbon laminate, veneer topsheet customs. I tour in La Sportiva Spectre 2.0 boots, to give you an idea of what I'm driving the setup with. I mounted them at -1 cm from recommended.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
I love the rocker profile of them and can't say I've given the asym design a second thought: it's much more pronounced in the tails than the tips, so it isn't like the skis look wonky as you're standing atop a line. For me, they're one of the more intuitive skis I've ridden. Here's a pic from about 1/2 way down my first run ever on them, skiing the SW Chutes on Mt. Adams. (photo credit Norseman)
Attachment 309823
I also find them to be equally at home skiing thigh deep Kootenay powder. I would buy another pair of the exact same ski.
I have a pair of -1 Qs, 188s I passed along to a buddy that he now wants me to help him sell. Great condition but two mounts. 4 flex, heavy hitter core, no carbon. Once owned by the legendary Aeverbetel. Now that I’ve lost a few lbs (I’m about 185 now, 5’7’’), I’m kind of keen to try them about again. They were cool- surprising great and predictable on firmer stuff, floaty and loose in pow. I had them mounted on the line, and from there demanded a neutral stance exclusively, imo. Both Betel and I found them to be a little too eager to turn and have the tails wash out, with the note that I felt that way when I weighed closer to 200. I could spin around if I tried to get on the tips. I prefer skis that I can situationally ski from center or drive the shovels, so that’s why I moved on. I wanted them as an EC touring ski of one with occasional use in shallower pow at the resort.
Heh, some flex 5 GPOs to match your protestsQuote:
Originally Posted by Shu Shu
Attachment 310034
A Fat Q actually sounds dope. My one complain on the skis is a bit of lack of float (but I sized down to the 182 mind you). 188 Fat Q would be sweet me thinks
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I hadn't considered a skinny-Q, 'coz I view it as a soft snow biased ski. Reading the above comments however, it could have its moments for the guy who wants to mount it as a do it all touring ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggydude
Having said that, I had been mulling over a C&D, but the idea of how quickly you can shut down and/or turn a Q in tight places, is fostering dreams of a fat-Q ... if Keith ever reinstates a Spring custom run.
... Thom
Customs are back!
ouch, not inexpensive, but yea, they're back.
Unrelated, I now have two days on my The Ski customs. Heavy core + carbon. These skis are amazing. Perfect amount of camber, tons of pop, DAMP and stable inbounds. I haven't had them out if anything very deep, but enough soft snow to know they float just fine. Full on pow days would see the GPO or Protest anyway.
I mounted on the line, did zero detuning, and wouldn't change a damn thing.
Been doing some ski testing this week. I really want to thin the herd.
On this trip, my 182 Down CD 114s, 187 GPOs (Enduro/Veneer/#4) and 2014, 186 Billy Goats. It's been the perfect week in the Wasatch for these 3 skis.
At this point, the odd man out is looking like the GPOs. If that's the case, I'll offer 'em here before gear swap, to minimize the riff-raff.
I'm seeing the GPOs as the 'tweener skis of the 3. I was however, quite surprised how much more predictable in deep stuff the 187s are than my 182 Enduro/Carbon/Nylon/#4 GPOs.
This feels more like the added length and longer turn radius of the 187s, although they are also damper (veneer and no carbon - not a big deal in soft snow).
On 0-6" days, I'd grab the Downs, due to their shorter length, and on deep days, it's the Goats by a hair, although a surprisingly difficult choice between the two.
And there ya have it.
... Thom
Makes total sense. Gpo is slice and dice precision and the bg cares little about being precise. I think a heavy core veneer 182 gpo would make a difficult decision almost impossible. Nothing is going to make a bg carve like a gpo but a heavy core veneer gpo will be every bit as damp crud smashing pow surfing tool as the bg i think by just imagining my endoro nylons with a heavy core veneer. Just requiring a touch more focus on pressure but precision is the pay off. Really like both skis attributes. Good mix. Can pin it on the bg and know it wont toss me like driving a paris/dakar desert racer or pin it on the gpo and feel like its on rails like a porsche. Im guessing most of the difference is the splay differences and to a lesser degree the radius. Heavy snow i think ill reach for the bg over my enduro core nylon top sheet gpo. Heavy core veneer would be a flip of the coin. Be fun to try those CD's. Sound like a capable skiQuote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
That's one of the best descriptions I've read, @grinch.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
... Thom
Just got the bg's and had some amazing days on them after amazing days on my tried and true gpo. Incredibly fun days to compare. We seem to like similar skis so thought id throw my recent thoughts in there. I guess we were having fun "testing" on the same days. Ez to be thorough testing when the snow is delivering. Cant stop "testing"Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Also i ended up +.5 on the bg. Zero issues. Still looks about 1-1.5 cm behind my -1 mount on my gpo
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
Yes, fun days "testing" (tasting?). I could easily see liking the BGs at +.5 or so, since 186 is a long ski for me.
The 187 GPOs are at only -.5 (I think) for my 296 BSLs. I could go back a bit (I've had my 182s at -1.7 and loved them), but at 187, I think I'd hate this mount point in tighter terrain.
My buddy commented after the late morning switch to the 182 CD 114s, how much more relaxed and confident I was on them.
Sometimes (most of the time?) ya gotta shut out the noise and peer pressure and go with the length that works for you ;-)
... Thom
Thom, please never leave the cult of GPO. Sincerely, the hordes.
There will always be at least one GPO in the quiver.
I like @grinch's thoughts about a 182, heavy hitter, veneer GPO (maybe carbon) for inbounds use.
My 182 mounted for touring calls into question whether I need anything between it and my EXPs.
The GPO covers so much ground, that I scratch my head as to when I'd ever choose a 104-108 ski over it on any given day.
Maybe if I ever manage to go on a 6 day, European tour, a light, 100mm ski would make sense, but here in Colorado, I don't see it.
... Thom
Have you skied the MVP? How does it compare?Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Mind vomit -Quote:
Originally Posted by brundo
I’ve skied both. Different tools. Both fun. MVP is a bit more progressive mount. I was happiest on both skis at -1. I have yet to find a more predictable ride than the GPO. GPO is great in pow and tight spaces. MVP is competent in those same conditions. Really shines on firm snow. Requires a bit more input. High angle aggressive carving on the MVP is really fun.
^^this , id like a supply of gpo's 4 evaar. My 4yr old og's may last forever thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by steveski
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
This is a great way to put it at least for anything soft. I have a pair of 100 waisted skis that are more predictable but way less versatile. GPOs have been my daily driver for the last 6 or 7 seasons (I think!) They never were exactly what I wanted but they just worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Since this discussion has veered back to the GPO I thought it might be a good time to ask the collective something about them. I picked up a pair in 175cm, vanilla build, this Fall after Keith made his announcement with the intention of mounting them with some Lynx tele bindings. I will be using them mostly for sidecountry and shorter bc excursions.
I've been pretty happy with the BCs (180) and Yetis (182) I own mounted at 2cm behind the dot, but you guys seem to be going -1 to -1.5 on this ski, albeit on longer versions. Have any of you tried going further back or has that range become the de facto?
Thanks!
john
I was on the dot on my yetis and bc's . All the touring skis felt right on the dimple. -1 on the gpo. Does that make your mount -3? Out of my wheelhouse. Must be some tele gpo mags out there
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
I went -1 cm on the 175 GPO's and with dynafit verticals and dynafit mercury boots, felt like I was too forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrredho
That was remedied when I had a B&D shim installed under the toe.
One the 182's with duke style marker bindings, I have felt less forward at the dimple, to which I moved from my original mount of -2 cm, which felt a hair back for resort skiing, but would have been ok for soft snow touring for me.
Great info, guys, thanks again!
I'll probably go -2cm to start, and see how it goes.
cheers,
john
Can't speak about GPO, but I'm 2.5cm back on skinny Rx's and loving them - inserts for Outlaw and Lynx. I've gone -2 to -3 on every Praxis ski and have just determined that the Praxis crew testers prefer their mounts more forward than I do. Some voodoo is probably involved in all that.
Binding ramp angle plays a big factor in this discussion and is often overlooked. Glad you shimmed the toe and had improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by steveski
On my 182, Enduro/Carbon/Nylon/#4s, I've had Wardens at -1.5, Vipecs at -1.75, and BD Helio 200s at about -1.2. The much flatter ramp angle makes the Helios feel like the Vipecs' placement.
I realize this is anecdotal, but it's coming from someone who had always considered himself very sensitive to stack height, but not very much so to ramp angle, and reasonably sensitive to placement.
BTW, I'm gonna put those 187 GPOs up on gear swap in the next few days. More and more, I'm liking @grinch's dream size and layup. We're suckers for the same stuff ;-)
... Thom
Haa ya i have to figure out how to get a pair. Fingers crossed theres a custom sale this summer.
I like that ramp angle info. Ive got a pair of xenics coming but id like to have some vipecs too. I guess i could use my tectons though. Insert a fat ski for both the xenic toe and tecton toe and use the heel plates to swap between heels
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
I'm 1cm back on 182s mounted Tele and feel too far back. I normally mount on the line and wish I'd done so with the gpo.
It really does!Quote:
Originally Posted by steveski
Thanks for highlighting that factor.
My story...
I had a yurt based touring trip scheduled and these UL 175 GPO's were my purchase for that purpose.
So, yeah, I was worried when I took the setup to Snowmass to ski inbounds as a test and felt too far forward.
Probably because of this forum, I went with the shims under the toe, and it was only the weekend before the monday start of the trip that I was able to ski the newly shimmed set-up on a lap on Teton Pass, Glory down to Coal Creek.
It was night and day, I could drive the ski in soft snow without fear of going forward.
I am thinking of doing the same thing to my 177 protests with the same dynafit verticals.
Tip of ski seems too sensitive to forward pressure, so that's why I'm thinking of installing shims on the protests as well (I know it might seem ridiculous).
So, you are right, my experience with the marker style frame binding (marker tour) and being "ok" on my 182's at the dimple and feeling slightly back at -2 cm (even in alpine boots) likely stems from the ramp angle of the marker binding being much flatter than most bindings.
Marker Tour to Dynafit vertical (dramatic difference (increase in ramp angle).