Printable View
This is my impression as well. The ski has to be driven from a forward stance. And here is the problem if youQuote:
Originally Posted by NakedShorts
1) are used to ski in more neutral relaxed stance
2) are billy goating in steep tight spots where forward stance is hard to keep
Therefore I'm a little bit disappointed of the GPO prized as an all mountain weapon. There are other skis which can charge as hard as the GPO (and even harder) and have a bigger balance "sweet spot".
Huh. I am at the dimple on 192 carbons, med/stiff and I think i can ski them in any stance i want. Have not had the above experience at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by NakedShorts
I'm with Chicken. If anything I find them less responsive if you drive them from the tips. A light, balanced approach allows you to ride bases flat, or easily lean them over on edge and ride that nice sidecut. From here they will do anything I ask.
edit... Tabke's run from FWT was awesome.. that under rotated 3 to double stager. Be interesting to hear his thoughts on why he's riding the RX this season over the GPO.
I'd have to agree that they work well if you drive them from the ball of the foot- don't have to be super aggressive with the tips. If you get really backseat they can run on you for sure, but I actually really enjoyed billygoating with them on some of the really steep terrain.
OK, just so there's no confusion:
Skis like a Wrenegade 112, Garbones, M1, RC112, XXL, etc. etc. etc. are skis that require you to ski forward and drive the tips. The GPO is not a ski that demands an aggressive, tip driving style. In fact, the tip will hook up too hard and carve around really, really fast if you drive them too hard. They are best skied just slightly forward, from the ball of your boot, or pretty much centered. No, they aren't super tolerant of backseat driving like all the floppy limp-dicked park skis out there these days, but you shouldn't be skiing from the back cuff of your boots anyway.
Also, mounting back does not mean that you're using the tail. I mounted back because it allows me to drive the tips a little harder without them diving/hooking.
^^^ this. thanks for saving me a long post. back -1 so I can drive the tips a bit. lazy super tired day once and I was back on the tails too much and they kicked my ass. centred to a lil tip pressure and slarve or rail. not the best ski for everything but really good. what ratio of carve vs float do you want? for you to decide the gpo has no glaring weakness. different strokes. I've always liked stiff tails
Good to hear you can normally relax a bit while taking in a pow day, the snow was FUNKY (Thick and Hooky) and I am sure the snow had the biggest impact on how I was riding. First real soft snow day on them so nothing else to compare against. Saturday would have been better but I was afraid of ROCKS.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
The stiff tail is money, especially when railing groomers. Blasting by peeps without a second thought in the skier packed powder mogul field was a blast. My first run, in powder looking snow, was Dust on Crust Wind Effected Bumps and I thought to myself this must be what those guys at Blister were yaking about. I really want to ski them in HERO snow.
I just really noticed they wanted to be skied on the aggressive end of the spectrum (yesterday). And they do PERFORM.
I'm +0.5 and feel the same. I'm a little hesitant to post b/c I've had less than a dozen days on them so far. But, FWIW, I typically ski very forward (daily driver is '05 race room LPs). So far my GPOs do not demand that at all, but respond as needed when I get up on them. Probably their happiest place is skiing from the ball of the foot, but I feel like they have plenty of sweet spot to play with (not JJ or Automatic big, but I can push these a lot harder too).Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Maybe Phyber was right about being mounted more forward on a ski like this?
Found custom wootests here:Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
http://www.praxisskis.com/products/wootest-custom.html
The problem might be that there is no just the GPO out there but different mutants of the GPO. For my part I don't think that my version (192 cm, UL core, stiff flex) performs excepcionally well compared to similar skis in the same class. It is for sure not a bad ski either but it does not really shine in any condition, not even in powder, and is somewhat tricky to ski in funky snow and terrain. It might be also the whole touring oriented setup with Cochise Pro and the Beast which makes the difference as compared to Patron Pro and Pivots on my other skis. The GPO is also by far the most center mounted of all my skis, even though I went -2 cm from the dimple. And hey, it's not that I didn't have fun on the GPO. Probably just stupid luxury problems having two other skis in exactly the same category.
Just about to pull the trigger on a pair of GPO's. Knowing that there are no bad choices, I did the normal maggot thing and wrote Keith so he could talk me down off the ledge (or maybe to jump). I thought documenting this dialog might be helpful to others, although a bit of it repeats info on this thread. We all think we're unique ... don't we :biggrin:
Probably the most relevant part of this dialog is if you're looking for comparisons with the Atomic Automatic 109 & the Carbon Megawatt - especially in terms of rocker profile.
It's pretty clear to me that Keith is the real deal, and I'll be smilin' with a pair of 182 GPO's next Winter.
Quote:
First, my e-mail:
Hi Keith,
After much geeking out, I'm narrowing down a ski order for you. If a quick phone call is easier for you, let me know how to reach you. I'll try to organize my thoughts as best as I can:
About me:
- 5'9" / 170 Lbs.
- Old fart - been skiing for 50 years, in good shape
- Solid expert skier, will ski 45++ degrees, but I don't huck cliffs
- Style: I think of Doug Coombs and aspire to his coolness and precision. I'm a "technique" skier and try to finesse my way down a hill. I mostly stay on the ground and point my skis forward ;-)
- Balance: traditional. I feel the front of my boots, although I'm starting to adapt to pressuring the center of my arch by contracting my instep & anterior leg muscles to flex my ankle (instead of by driving knees to flex). I first started playing with this with my Megawatts this Winter.
- I ski mostly in Northern Colorado and tend to hunt powder in tight trees. Groomers bore me.
Current Skis that Work for me - this is my first year on any rockered skis (the two below):
- 2013-14 Carbon Megawatts (178) - mounted on the factory line: feels about right in heavy stuff but does get kicked around a bit in the chunks (could be me plus the light carbon). I can hold a good edge on hardpack with them and adapted to quick turns (even with 120mm waist).
- 2014-15 Atomic Automatic 109's (182) - mounted on the factory line: feels about right in the tight trees & 8-12" of freshies. Easy-peasy skiing on dust over crust. Carve well, and just a bit unstable in straight-line, but I'm ok with the skis on balance, but a bit more straight-line stability would be fine, if this didn't come at a price.
Current Skis that "Partially" Work for me:
- 2009 K2 Coomba (no rocker) - 181cm: fine for railing big turns, but they beat me up in the tight trees and hang up in nasty bumps. People tell me I would have liked the 174's.
- 2008 G3 Reverend (no rocker) 177: kind of a "mini-Coomba" ok on the hardpack, but the tail hangs up in nasty, short bumps. I mostly tour with it these days.
Likely ski choice (a daily driver for Colo.):
- GPO in 187 (possibly 182?) - first choice
- Rx in 179?
- Concept - 177?
- Standard (medium/stiff) flex
- Standard camber profile (no CCR)
- MAP Triaxial, but possibly MAP Triaxial/Carbon (I doubt UL Core makes sense for inbounds)
- For inbounds use in Northern Colorado mounted with alpine bindings
- Prioritize soft snow, over hard snow; tight trees over wide open charging
Completely off the wall: Protests. I'd keep my Atomic Automatic 109's as my daily driver for this year. Talk me down off the ledge ;-)
Notes:What leads me to the 187 GPO is the camber contact length of 97. It sounds as if I can navigate it in tight stuff and float in the deep stuff. I measured my two "modern" skis (base to base, sliding paper "feeler gauge" to contact points):
- 182cm Atomic Automatic-109's - camber contact length =115cm
- 178 Carbon Megawatts - camber contact length =121cm
Given that the Automatic 109's are about right for me in the tight stuff. Am I correct in favoring the GPO over the Rx and Concept? The Rx (179) and Concept (177) seem as if they could work, and I know there's no "wrong" decision.
I realize this "camber contact" is a simplistic analysis, but I wanted to keep this e-mail length under control (sort of).
Quote:
Keith's reply …
Thom,
Thanks for the email and interest in getting a pair of our skis. From what you have outlined here I think you are on the right track with the GPO. For length I would stay at the 182 length. The camber contact does read shorter but our rocker rises really slow compared to the Atomic and the megawatt. So you still have contact past our stated length and notice that the sidecut length is longer than the camber length, the slow rise is the reason for this. So its probably good to consider the sidecut length when trying to determine how long the ski will feel on the snow. Looking at your other skis lengths and your height I think the 182 is the way to go.
If you had said that you wanted the ski to arc on groomers and have a more tradition carve with a bigger turn radius, I would consider the RX but since you are looking for an off piste ski I think the GPO is the better option. As well the GPO is more nimble in trees.
The medium/stiff flex seems like a good fit to your weight and compares well to the skis you've been on. As well it's a good match for the GPO so that sounds like the way to go.
Since you are using the ski for resort use I'd go with the MAP core and not the UL. You would probably like the addition of the carbon fiber, we only add stringers of carbon to the fiberglass so it's not going to be chattery or cause the ski to deflect. The MAP-carbon option will knock a few ounces off the weight and give the ski a faster rebound (or more pop) and that is what I like about the carbon option.
Well it looks like the GPO would replace the atomic. And that seems like a good way to go. A daily driver when there is any soft snow or fresh and good for the deep days as well.
If you went for the Protest you'd be getting a ski in the next category and more powder specific. More of a replacement for the megawatt. Something for the deeper days or off piste fresh snow after storm cycles clear.
So I guess as a ski salesman I would have to recommend that you get both the GPO and the Protest! :) but in reality the GPO is probably the first ski to consider of the two. Well I guess it might depend what you feel would be the best ski to replace in your quiver or where you want to expand the quiver. As you said you could keep the atomic and go for the fatty Protest because next winter is going to be a big one!
Hope that helps with the decision. Please let me know what comes up for questions.
Cheers
Keith
Keith then followed up regarding the Concept:
I did kinda skip over the Concept pretty much for the reason that you said, the GPO is a safer bet. I like the Concept ski and I've received great feedback on it but not everyone loves it. Its a good one to demo before you buy.
Been spending a bunch of time on both standard and CCR GPOs. Finally got the CCRs out in some legit powder this week. Tough to do given the lack of powder this year combined with taking Protests out when I am sure of what I am getting. No surprise (and consistent with what I think others have said) the CCR is a bit twitchier on hard snow & does not hold an edge quite as well. But as soon as the snow is soft or deep - I think the CCR comes into its own in a big way. It pivots, and rolls side to side easily. It is noticeably looser - especially in slush, etc. For my .02, if you are getting a GPO as a full on all-around, go standard camber/rocker. If you are buying it as more of a dedicated powder and soft snow ski - for my .02 the CCR rocks.
The GPO looks unreal. Does anyone have a Praxis coupon they would be willing to part with?
Sent you a pm
I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on a pair. Anyone have a code?
Pm sent
Ordered! Here's to snow!
Great thread!
SuperChicken, Dane1, adrenalated and a host of others' comments have me thinking -1. The exchange between AyasFreeski and adrenalated on page 21 really had me going back and forth.
My only relevant data points (minimal experience with modern skis) are 182 Atomic Automatic 109's and a 178 pair of Carbon Megawatts. Mounted on the line, the Automatic feels good on hard snow but in snow >12" (moderate density), I find myself pressuring the rear third of my arch - almost as if I'm sitting back.
TLDR part:
I'm thinking that soft snow performance is more about running surface, rocker and pintail shapes - not so much about sidecut length, camber contact and such. From this perspective, -1 is making more and more sense - for the Automatic and the GPO, with my only concern being quickness in tight spots (Colorado trees).
The "TL" part:
I ventured into this with more years than I'd care to mention of old school / pressure the tongue/shin habits (can you say: "207cm Dynamic VR-17?"). I'm adapting to a more centered stance however, and liking it. Note that I said more centered. I'm still not very upright, and I don't like pressuring the rear of my arch (mid to front arch is fine). I realized how much I've adapted, when I took out both my 2nd year 181cm Coombas (no tip rocker, G3 Onyx binders) and 177cm G3 Reverends (Dynafit Vertical ST) out for rides. I had to re-adapt to driving forward and missed the Automatics.
Geekery Follows:
I just followed Marshall's advice and measured the wide points on three skis (GPO's, Automatics, Megawatts) - to establish the sidecut length. I can't seem to get this formatted into a table - even with fixed font (Courier).
The three numbers below (for each ski) are:
- Measured sidecut length
- Mount point location measured from rear wide point (start of sidecut)
- Offset of recommended mount point from midpoint of measured sidecut (negative number is closer to tail)
To measure the sidecut length, I laid the skis on their side on a hardwood floor and used a sheet of paper as a feeler gauge. I'm comfortable consistency of my measurements, although I can't explain the 3cm difference between my measurements and the Praxis spec.
- GPO (182): 125 cm, 62, -0.5 (note: Praxis site says 128cm sidecut length)
- Automatic-109 (182): 134 cm, 61, -6.0
- Megawatt (178): 127 cm, 63, -0.5
After thinking more about deep snow attributes, I measured the straight pull length and the recommended mount point distance from the tail. For the latter measurement, I used a tape measure running flat on the top skin (material length).
- GPO: 180.3, 83.0
- Automatic: 180.3, 81.5
- Megawatt: 179.1, 78.0
Cheers,
Thom
love mine more and more every time out. they just do everything. I have 182's at -1 . I'd like to have a pair of 187's on the dimple. think I've fully adjusted to the more center mount. sooo fun. lay them on edge on a groomer and they carve amazing for a 116 waisted ski. same in pow or chopped, just lay them over and surf or pivot thru tight stuff or moguls when needed. now my favorite ski most every day
Leaving for the first trip with mine tomorrow night. I'm a little uneasy leaving my faves at home, but I've got big hopes. Will let y'all know how it goes.
Pls do, enjoy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Breomonkey
^^x2 . I'm sure you'll dig them straight away. Over time they've just become intuitive. At 160lbs I find the med/stiff likes the foot on the gas. No back seat to make them float. Turn them up on edge and slash and they'll b all surf
I have a pair of carbon 187s mounted on the dimple with dynafits and have not loved another ski more.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
I'm currently working on getting a 182 fiberglass pair for inbounds and patrolling (lots of tight trees) and don't see any reason why not to mount it in the line as well. Looking forward to now having my favorite ski with all boot/binding combos.
The one time I had my 187s on the dimple in deep (close to a foot) I felt they tip dived. Moved them back to -1 and have been happy ever since. I will say I don't really take them out for deep stuff like that anymore (have a fat ski problem), would most likely be fine on the dimple in variable conditions. I thibk overall they have a pretty big sweet spot
I love my carbon 187's on the dimple. Like Muggy I had one 14+ super low density day where I had a little tip dive (totally ruined my day :) so I immediately bought some Protests for those conditions. All kidding aside I'm not entirely convinced -1 would have helped that much on that day in those conditions. Steveski I would also love to had add a 182 glass to my quiver. Looking forward to Breomonkey's impressions.
I'm thinking that the difference between 0 & -1 is how you'll stand on the skis to get the same characteristic. IOW, you'll get the same float (for example) mounted at 0 if you pressure the center of your arch, as you would if you mounted at -1 and pressured slightly more forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shu Shu
Does that make sense, or am I missing something? Would I even be able to tell the difference in a blind test :confused: I'm a bit of a princess and the pea, but I still have to wonder. I also wonder how much quickness I'd give up in tight trees at -1. I can easily talk myself into either mount.
This makes me want to mount at 0, but I can find similar valid arguments for -1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggydude
I'm mounting tonight and still waffling. A bit of paralysis by analysis, knowing that I can't really go wrong with either point.
The fact that the holes would be so close if I remounted doesn't bother me (inserts are strong), but the fact that I might also mount some Kingpins on these might throw a monkey wrench into the whole affair. The good news is, that after doing a hole overlap analysis of the Ion, Vipec and Kingpin, it's only the Kingpin that presents a minor overlap problem at the toe.
Cheers,
Thom
Honestly if you have a deep day ski (over 8-10 inches) I think dimple would be fine. If you will be taking it out in deeper stuff I'd still mount mine -1
So it all boils down to how soon a Protest is in my future :cool:
Thanks!
Thom
Pretty much. Yoy could always go -.5 too hahaha
Slippery slope bro and compared to some around here my problem is minor-Good luck with the mountQuote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...2&d=1430878928
Yeah I was gonna say... cute quiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shu Shu
http://www.adrenalated.com/photos/i-...vVKqt5s-X2.jpg
(That's after trimming out a few pairs of Praxis in favor of some ON3Ps.)
I dunno. I had to weight my heels pretty hard on the dimple and I hate skiing that way. Got some 187 UL on the way (also destined for kingpins) and I'm going to go -1.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Dang! I didn't want to hear that, 'coz I'm the same way. Templates printed, ready to drill ... hmm ...Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Cheers,
Thom
Indeed (slippery). Of course, one could of course justify them as works of art and display them prominently in the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shu Shu
[edit] Done @ minus 1. Pics tomorrow (stained glass trees), but I'm hitting the sack to go uphill in the morning. It was a quick mount (no epoxy - just Tite-bond). If I turn them quickly tomorrow, then the inserts go into the holes in the current location. I suspect this will be the case.
I don't know if it's the shape of the front of the ski, but they look really short, even at -1. As a reality check, the toes are almost identical to the location of my Automatic 109's so it must be the ski's graphics or tip shape. I can see moving Kingpins (or Vipecs) on these sooner rather than later and getting a longer pair for riding lifts.
For the helluvit (hey! the drill was already out!) I remounted a pair of early (no rocker) 181 Coombas. Funny ... when the skis are already Swiss cheese, you work much more quickly and just as accurately http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/images/biggrin.gif
Cheers,
Thom
Firstly, thanks to everyone on this thread. You gave me a lot to chew on, and at points, I thought I was getting a bit OCD about this, but at the end of the day, I've come to a mount I think works for me.
My strategy was to start out at -1 and then follow up with an insert installation at either -1, or possibly at both 0 and -1 (toe only), if at all uncertain.
Given that the I-70 ski areas in Colorado shifted to a high pressure flow this week, my hand was forced to evaluate hard snow performance first. My thoughts were, that if -1 is quick enough on hard snow, I'd be fine in deeper stuff. The initial mount was with Salomon Wardens. Between Vipecs, Kingpins and Ions, I would still be able to manage hole overlap for a touring setup as well. I did a hole overlap analysis and posted some .jpgs (post #9) in this thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ding?p=4630095
Rather than go through an extended diatribe, let's just say that an aggressive detune is mandatory for this user. Reading all of the comments to this effect, I only partially believed them.
The first three runs (before the detune) I was miserable, and this was on firm, chalky snow. After the detune (aggressively hitting them at 45 degrees with a file to the sidecut contact points: about 13" from the tip and 8" from the tail) I was able to pivot around bumps with ease, and still rail on groomers - perhaps giving up the slightest bit of "railing" capability.
Maybe I've been skiing on too many wus skis the past 10 years, but these skis harken back to the days when I had access to race stock Dynamic VR-17's (I'm dating myself). I wouldn't believe the following comment if I heard someone else say it, but these skis ski sharper than their tune.
Comments about these skis taking off if you get in the back seat are also true, but in general, I'm finding (on firm snow), that -1 is quick enough, and any slowness is due to pilot error. My stance feels balanced as well - pretty much mid-arch pressure (perhaps slightly forward of this) to drive the ski - basically how I feel balanced on a ski.
My take is, that if they're quick enough on hardpack at -1, I'll accept their deep snow performance (at -1) as their basic characteristic, and I'll install inserts and ready myself for a second mount with tech bindings. I have a bit of ski-width overlap in this category at the moment (Megawatts/Ions), so I'll do this until later in the season, or alternatively, dedicate the next pair of tech binders to a pair of BC's or Freerides. This may make more sense, because the 100-108 spot is the biggest hole in my quiver (touring or resort). Then, there's always the "need" for a pair o Protests for the few days I might get to use them here.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I'd sense much difference on hardpack between 0 and -1. Perhaps it's best stated by saying that -1 feels balanced and quick enough on hardpack, so why not insulate myself (a bit) from potential tip dive by staying at -1.
Of course, everyone stands on their skis a bit differently, but this is what seems to be working for me.
http://galibierdesign.com/images/oth...-Basin_003.jpg
http://galibierdesign.com/images/oth...-Basin_005.jpg
Cheers,
Thom
After a good first outing on my GPO's at -1.5cm I'm quite pleased. The mount was forced by a prior mount so I went with it and was pretty happy. Conditions were all hard pack. I was surprised how well they carved and the stability of them. In the bits of soft snow I found they were great. I'm going to do a bit more investigation and see if I can get closer to the line to help with the pivots feeling.
If you're at all from a traditional background, give them some time at -1.5 and don't overlook the de-tuning as I initially did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breomonkey
Cheers,
Thom
I will chime in with another 2 cents as this discussion has come back to mount points again. I too mulled around on this for a long time before deciding on -1cm on my 192 stiff minus. I would consider myself a pretty traditional skier with some new school influence (drive the front of the boot, but seeing some fun in these newer shape skis the older I get). I am not going to pull the "I love to ski fast and drop 30 footers on resort days" bullshit but I can ski well enough to understand what I like about a ski and why.
I think the GPO is absolutely dialed at -1 after 5 full days on them now. I did de-tune out of the box as they felt like machete's and never had an issue with not liking the way they carved and released. It took a little getting used to where the real money spot for pressure was but find that no matter what the slope or condition, a constant pressure on the ball of the foot as opposed to the shin brings this ski to life. Don't get me wrong, I am still on the front of the boot, but not the same way I am on say my XXL. The -1 mount for me still leaves a lot of supportive tail and doesn't feel like you have a couple meters in front of you for when you are in the tight stuff. I can still throw them sideways when I want and don't feel like the tail is going to wash out on me or hook my upslope. I have yet to get these in anything deeper than boot to knee deep, but at that level they still float incredibly well and slash around. I think it will still ski deeper stuff really well but now that 116mm is an all mountain ski for a lot of us I am not sure what fat-ski really means.
As far as comparables, I know it may sound weird, but I find I can ski them really similarly to my BD Megawatts (that are mounted +2.5). When comparing these from the front of the binding, they were pretty spot on in distance to the tip and rocker profile. No doubt the GPO is snappier in between turns and a lot smaller radius, but the way they behave is pretty similar for my style.
Take it for what it's worth, but I cannot imagine wanting this ski mounted anywhere else than that -1cm mark for a traditional guy making the transition and still wanting some ability to power the ski the way you know how.
Mounting up my 182s on the dimple last night and my friend helping me with the mount was chiming in with his two cents regarding how tiny a 1cm difference is for a mount. I realize that the debate, rather discussion, continues to go on with good input for people who want to try different mount points and really feel they find or know when a certain spot is ideal.
For me, I chose to mount on the dimple again for the 182 (also on the 187) because I really feel I am used to how the ski rides there. Would mounting back a cm help me ski the shorter 182 quicker, give me a touch more tip float, etc? Probably. But I has such a good experience trusting/trying out Keiths recommended that I want to do that again even on the shorter ski.
Having had Tyrolia railflex demo bindings for a while on some other skis, I found I had to do some pretty dramatic movements (at the least +- 2cm) off the mount to say I really felt a big difference. But that may speak more about my hack skiing abilities than anything. It seems from discussions Praxis skis have pretty large sweet spots that start at the recommended mount and goe back up to 2-3cms in some cases. Personally I have also had all my Praxis skis on the line and loved them, but I think its cool that people can move back a little to account for skiing styles and the ski still responds well.
The one thing I feel like I never understood was the de-tune issues. I have never de-tuned a Praxis ski. Never felt the need. Is it possible that I have just gotten a bunch of skis that aren't representative of the infamous Praxis tune? I mean the edges have been sharp but not insane sharp. I am wondering if I should just go ahead and try a detune for the hell of it and see If I like it any better?