Printable View
No explanation from him except that he'd just take the camber out of the press and make it flat underfoot. He seemed to agree it'd be a good combination with the flex and increased width of the MVP. Picking them up tomorrow and I can post some photos and I'll ask if he did anything else to the rocker profile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskido
[emoji1591][emoji1591][emoji1591][emoji1591]
You never said your height and weight ... and I think you are in Tahoe?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmars
Most likely 190 BC is my vote, based on the size and flex of your other Praxii. It does ski exceptionally short due to the flex profile, and Tahoe backcountry tree skiing is like driving on the autobahn compared to other places (nothing so tight that you’ll be hindered by the extra length). You will notice the extra stability and great float of the 190, and it’s still reasonably light at 190 ... but you might want lighter boots to offset the heft of the Shifts.
Grinch, how big are you?
I’m spitballing but I’d guess that the upper fun limit of the 180 BC is around 6’ tall and 180 lbs (and this is since stock flex went up to a 3, on my softer pair the upper fun limit is more like 5’ 11’ and 160, and that’s based on watching bigger friends try out my skis). I’m 5’ 8” 130 lbs, competent skier when I’m in shape and mediocre when I’m out of shape, and Flex 2 180’s are like the most effortless skis I’ve ever seen ever tried.
They are also amazing in pow (thanks to the flex profile of the tip and tail), up to about 2.5’ deep new snow depending on density, which is plenty. I’ve only skied two days ever in pow that was a little too deep for those skis, one was a 3+ foot dump and the other was a 6 foot dump - I still had shit tons of fun on those days but did go over the bars at least once on each day.
And on the reverse side, I’ve only complained about them being too wide in the backcountry just once, on sheer textureless windboard where the soft tip and beat edges were having trouble holding precise turns. I’ve lugged these skis up Lassen Shasta and McLoughlin many times over the years, and never once even considered going skinnier for volcano skiing (but I have many many times considered dumping my 9.5 lbs freeride touring boots for something much lighter).
I was just remembering jmars has 175 gpo's for touring(i think/might be mistaken) so figured the 180 would make sense.
Im 5"7' 170lbs. Im ok with 180. 3flex is much better. Maybe a 3+? My old 2 flex was fun but id push through them sometimes. Nice rocker profile. I dont think i need them too soft to float. I liked them on the dimple. Was thinking w a ccr i might be able to go +1
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
Very close IMO, but I'd bump that up a tad based on my sample size of one: I'm 6'2" 185lb. (okay, more like 190 these days), and my stock layup 180 BC is still my go-to. This is a 2015 version, when stock was "medium." It's honestly probably my favorite ski ever, evidenced by the fact that I now have more days on it than any other ski. Yes if feels noticeably short sometimes, and yes I can overpower it if I want to, but whenever it feels short it's a feeling of appreciation rather than frustration... but I seek out techy terrain, so I'll happily trade being able to confidently toss my way out of a jam for being able to go full mach speed with abandon. Just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio
And as for pow, surprisingly I have yet to be disappointed. I've owned Hellbents, Billy Goats, ProTests, Hojis... but I don't bother anymore. Granted, I ski maritime, but even on interior BC hut trips where it nuked, I never lamented having 180 BCs. And for the past several years I've also never felt an urgent need to add a <100mm ski for spring. This one just does it all.
Consider that a plug for the versatility of the 180 Backcountry.
Also I'm on tele though so chuck everything I just said out the window.
^ all that is why I’m hypothetically torn about replacing mine with another pair of 180 BCs or a combo of 182 Yeti / 177 Woo.
But really, I just don’t ski enough bc pow anymore to justify that combo.
Edit to add:
And holy shit, the durability ... wow. I literally skin and ski on lava rocks, gravel roads and asphalt parking lots, the skis just laugh at them.
Thanks everyone...I’m 5’10” 170 - no GPO 175, was an option for the wife but I had Keith build a narrow protest 177 for her which her and I need to have a honest discussion about keeping.
I’m not a hardcore touring dude, I get out walking a bunch but not like some of you which is why weight it secondary. As for boots I’m in modified Mtn labs on a ski like this.
A 180 BC would be a small ski to me but that may not be a bad thing either. It’s when I mash the gas that I feel I might be let down. All a compromise...and maybe the BC in the isn’t what I should be looking at but we all like our due diligence here.
This is a purchase bc I like the shape a ton...sure not a “need”.
Ahhh, I see. I had assumed you were bigger based on the other skis. Kick turns on 190 definitely will suck at 5’ 10”, especially on a beat and steep skinner.
I’d say go with the 180 then. They will feel nimble and light AF, and honestly I think you are right about practical speed limits touring vs inbounds skiing - different snow and should be different skiing mentality as well. It’s really just in variable sastrugi and backcountry boilerplate, if you are used to burly big skis you’ll just have to adjust expectations and ski more like Andrew McLean than Daron Rahlves. I don’t think at that size you will really be sinking those tips either, except during the uber deep days. I also don’t think it’s a good idea to get cute and stiffen the ski to like a Flex 4 ... you end up losing so much fun factor. Worst case - you know you’ll have a buyer here if you find you need to size up!
A slightly larger option is 183 MVP with UL core, which is what a good buddy of mine uses for soft snow touring - and he is 6’ 3”! But he’s skinny and skis with finesse.
From you're recent comments you have me rethinking things and I'd maybe say the 180. Just because you're not a "hardcore touring dude" doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the perks of a lightweight setup. Personally, I think throwing a shift on there is a mistake unless you'll be using this inbounds or if you are fixated on the safety piece of the equation. Putting a tech binding on there, even a tecton, might also make you reel things in a bit and ski the ski how it wants to be skied and not mash on the down (you already have other skis for that) plus it'll be much more enjoyable on the uphill.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmars
Has anyone tried a -10 Concept? I’m a fanboy and would love a similar experience for hardpack days....but will the magic still be there?
-10 concept I feel will be close to a PJ...maybe not but spoke to Keith about this and bought a PJ.
BC - shifts bc I know I’ll want to use it on resort or at least have the option for the day when I travel. Agreed on maybe not shifting it and something I have been thinking too.
I was thinking of this in a lightweight build as an alternative to the 'backcountry' as I have been stuck on sizing with the backcountry (I want 175 BC and thought a 177 -10 Concept could be a good touring ski, albeit a different flavour to the BC).
175 gpo is 111 waisted? Thatd be a nice touring ski. Friend just got a pair. Hope she likes them with the 3 flex
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
This ^^^ ski in the UL layup requires finesse.Quote:
Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio
IMO, I would generally stay away from the UL core. The Enduro/carbon/veneer combo is pretty damn light, but will ski significantly better in marginal conditions. There are so many good, reliable lightweight bindings and boots out there nowadays that I would rather shave weight there than in my ski build.
has anyone skied the same ski in enduro/nylon and heavy/carbon/veneer?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Here they are...MVP +10, longer, more gentle rocker in the tip than standard MVP, flat underfoot, flex 3, UL core. Coming in right at 2000g per ski. Should be fun.
Attachment 313503
Attachment 313504
Attachment 313506
Attachment 313508
Those look awesome. Really like that profile.
Daaayum! Me too!! Those look bad ass!!
Ya, Keith and the crew did a great job. He did mention that he thinks this is the direction he thinks he’s going to go with the MVP in general, maybe not the flat camber but easing up on the rise in the tips, flex, etc.
Now if we could just get some snow in Tahoe...
Just a PSA that there's a few of the Wide MVPs left on the website - https://www.praxisskis.com/skis/expe...s/188-mvp-119/
I like the direction that these are going. Would love to hear that the regular MVP is going to go down this route as well. Interesting that Drew and Keith keep tweaking their designs and ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Those look darn near reverse camber
I can measure a little later but there’s about 30-40cm that’s flat underfoot on the pair Keith did for me. Tabke’s version still has the camber but less than the standard version.
Keith confirmed that the standard mvp will see adjustments next year along these lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_teleswede
That's cool. I for one found the stock MVP to be plank-y, with a tendency to knife into deep consolidated snow, so the revision sounds like a good tweak to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveski
I think softening the flex a bit along with lowering the tip/ flattening the rocker would be $ as far as the design. (similar to a Corvus)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wawawa
Posting from my armchair quarterback location
A friends new 175 gpo set up. Looks great with the technica's and tectons. Sigh of relief she really likes them.
Did we lose our points? Last time i looked i couldnt find mineAttachment 314881
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
Sweet! I'm just finishing the last 4 holes on a Vipec mount for those 182 Veneer GPOs I scored thanks to your heads-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
I recall one of those restructuring e-mails from Keith (back in Oct/Nov?) that there was a use 'em or lose 'em date on points.
... Thom
Awesome! Thatll be one nice set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Oh too bad, i had a bunch of pts. Mustve missed that somehow. Sucks. Oh well. So many great deals from Keith
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
holy crap - 550usd for those brand spanking new, custom made 2021 wider MVPs is spectacular value for money.
Fuck yes it is! I was pissed I couldn’t come up with the coin. That’s a damn steal!Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Any of you using the GPO as a resort daily driver? Looking for something that can be playful, doesn't mind cruising groomers with little ones, but will perform in the pow and chopped up snow. Trying to decide if 116 underfoot is a little unwieldy for this sort of use but found a good deal on one so any thoughts are appreciated.
GPO as daily driver
So far it’s been working well for me (5+ seasons!)
182 at 5’8” 190
Ok for western resorts
Jackson
Snowmass/highlands
Taos/Santa fe
I have a bunch of skis but it’s pretty great as a DD. 6’1” 175 lbs on the 192
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I can wiggle my 182 GPOs pretty quickly in tight going (5'9", 165#). Yeah, they're not as quick as a narrower ski, but surprisingly quicker than you'd expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
A couple of Springs ago, I was doing an inbounds comparison between the GPOs and a pair of 177 Volkl Nanuqs (95mm). The only thing the Nanuqs had on the GPOs was a weight advantage (for touring). The GPOs did everything better. They were more nimble, handled crap snow much better, were about the same on hard snow, etc.
I'll get some photos up of some litter mates I just mounted - companions to my 182, MAP/Carbon/Nylon top/flex 4's (mounted for touring) ... a pair of 182s (Enduro/Veneer/flex #4) with Vipecs. The only reason I didn't put something like Wardens or Aaatack ATs on them is that I already have some MNC binders mounted to some Down CD 114s, so I can beat the crap out of them during low(er) tide.
I'm pretty comfortable with Vipecs inbounds and this gives me a sidecountry/travel option. If I need a bit more burliness, I can always swap Tectons into the same holes, but I doubt I'll be compelled to do so.
... Thom
GPOs are amazing for how well they ski groomers. Just the right amount of effective edge in my opinion.
I still think gpo's are the best one ski quiver. They do everything really well. Noodling around with the kids will be more pivoting than bending the ski with a gpo but they can go sideways in an instant. I find that trait beneficial on super tight exit trails from the sidecountry or bc as well. Me 5"7' 170 @-1 on a 182
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
Cool, thanks all. The seller "doesn't feel comfortable" shipping the skis from Redding so might not snag 'em after all but will keep my eyes peeled. Tempted on the 187 MVPs in GS but think they might require a little too much driver input on those lazy days with the kids with the #4 flex. I had a pair about 5 years ago but honestly I can't really remember how they felt...could've been all the spliffs and not necessarily the ski though...
Are you looking for 187 gpo's. Not sure if theyre still for sale but Thom has/had some veneers at a very nice priceQuote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app