Printable View
Yes. Protests for any untracked snow (including crusts or Shmoo) and soft chop. BGs for heavier chop or dust on crust. Protests help you avoid hitting bottom. But BGs are spooky good when you can't avoid hitting bottom on some turns. Want a pow ski that's fun on hard snow? GPO, Rustler 11 or Wildcat/Bibby are much better on firm than BGs or Protests. I think there is room for all three depending on where you ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by dub2
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by powder_to_the_people
Keith responded with the following:
I see the FRS as a more jibby center stance powder ski being that it has a fatter tail and more center stance. The GPO is a forward directional orientated ski and has a flatter tail with less rocker. I feel the GPO slarves and pivots easy but the FRS would be a more pivoty ski in comparison. Mainly due to the extra rocker, more center stance and twin tip nature of the ski. The 194 is a big ski so it might be better to consider the 188 if you want something more maneuverable.
I also asked him about whether I should just go all in and get a protest instead, and these were his thoughts:
The Protest would be a good fit in the quiver, especially if you started to like the GPO more. Its a great powder ski to have, awesome on the fresh days, but maybe a bit more ski than you need once things get tracked out. I use it on the storm days that are big and when things are filling back in with fresh light snow or at the places/resorts that I can go seek out fresh tracks run after run. Its a pretty unique ski and I think one of the best pure powder ski going. If things are tracked out or if the snow has been skied and set up for a day or more after the last storm I'll drop down to a smaller ski like the FRS or the GPO.
Based on this, I'm thinking of going 188 FRS, for a more pivoty powder ski that I'm guessing is going to be plenty stable still (I don't ski super fast), and a bit more versatile than the protest. Any thoughts from the praxis intelligentsia? (I ski around Seattle.)
I found the 188 FRS to be a very intuitive ski, but it lacked the backbone for my frame, which is 200 pounds and prefers to ski directionally.
In pure powder, they worked great for me. Steeps were also a strong point of its game. However, I felt like they lacked the backbone for resort chop.
I would be very interested to try the 194cm version of the ski.
Thanks for the input; have you also skied the GPO? If so, any comparisons you can make?Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERIOR
Current touring quiver... 182 Yeti. 182 Down CD 104L. 186 Lhasa Pow.
I'm so damn tempted by a backcountry to replace the down and Lhasa. 180? 190? I feel like 185 would be $, but 190 has shorter camber contact than the 182 Yeti. And if I need to do steep kick turns I'd likely be on the yeti anyway?
Figure I can mostly fund the skis through the sale of the other two...
I skied the 187 cm carbon ultralight layup of the GPO for pure backcountry. I loved it, but I felt a similar weakness in variable snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by powder_to_the_people
I would buy the 192 or heavy hitter core 187 for the resort.
GPO was a great ski.
I just scored Robik's 187 GPO's. MAP core, 4 flex, veneer top. Gonna reuse the current mount for shifts at -.5 and use them as 80/20 resort skis unless there are strong opinions to the contrary. I'm super stoked. Beautiful skis.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
I ski the 190 BC (flex 4) and love it, inbounds and out. Great grip on harder snow too. Given the length of skis in your quiver, I'm guessing that I'm a bit heavier than you (6'4, 210 lbs), and I've never felt undergunned skiing them, though I've never skied them in waist deep snow. I'm guessing the 190 will complement your yeti nicely if you're trying to use the BC for deeper days/mid-winter touring, and it's replacing your fatter Lhasa pow.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Edit: I have felt undergunned on the BCs, but only when skiing them inbounds on the warmest slush days, which is understandable given their weight.
Thanks. And your UL GPO was with or without veneer?Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERIOR
Finally got the time to mount up my MVP 108s aka my first pair of praxis ever. Couldn’t afford veneer but still happy with the snek. Plus Keith gave me some tie dye bases
Ended up going +1 of the line since I’ve found -5 to be my sweet spot on a lot of skis so we’ll see how that rides
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c21f758b53.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7c1355bed9.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Forza was the perfect color way for that graphic. Gorgeous rig.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
So could not resist anymore - don’t need anymore skis but wanting to support Keith and loving my all time favorite skis could not pass up…. No way could you get a better custom ski shipped…Attachment 391071
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
WOW! That translates amazingly to veneer!Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
... Thom
Those look awesome. Powdah Snek is a great graphic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth
Looking forward to hearing how they feel on snow. The MVP 108 specs look real good.
When you have a chance, could you throw up some rocker pics?
Anyone know what the dimensions were of the old (2018) MVP for a 193 length? Looks like Blister has the 187 at 133-110-126 but I think the dimensions went up as length increased.
What core/flex do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth
agreed, those MVP look great Wes!
I think the dimensions have been consistent across sizing for the MVP for a given “model year” (i.e. all dims on current model match). Blister has that OG sizing with the 110 underfoot and long turn radius (I don’t remember the tips being that wide?) while the 109 mm underfoot is a little different (rocker profile should be the same, slightly shorter radius).Quote:
Originally Posted by brundo
From the text of the current MVP 108:
“For the latest edition we have tightened up the turn radius by a couple meters (dropping from a 24m to a 22m in the 183 length). Adding 3mm width to the tip, 1mm to the tail and slimming down the underfoot width. With its new dimensions of 133-108-125…”
So I’d venture the 2018 dims to be 130-109-124?
I think that's true for the other lengths but I remember the 193 being 111 underfoot. I guess I could just email keith.Quote:
Originally Posted by YaBoyBlue
They’re stock so enduro and flex 4. Talked with Keith about some other options but the standard specs seemed best for what I’m looking for so we didn’t fuck with em. Based on a hand flex the tips and underfoot are firm and the tails feel solid yet poppy which is what I was hoping for but we’ll see how they skiQuote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
What is the current thinking on MVP mount point? "Recommended is -6".
Copy and paste from here, with some good MVP info- https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...axis-MVP/page7Quote:
Originally Posted by Quandary
I bought new 187 MVPs last year, HH/C/veneer/3+ flex and mounted them on the line, and they feel nice there. Unfortunately, I've had them on snow 1 day, and only ~2500 vertical, so casual observations are all I have. Snow conditions started as frozen groomers that turned to mush in the sunshine. Mounted on the line, the skis feel energetic, with some decent pop magically combined with smooth dampness. Outstanding edge grip on the frozen junk and easily skids turns everywhere.
I had 2 other pairs of MVP @193cm (1 was 3+ flex, the other was 4 flex) both mounted -1 behind recommended and wanted the shorter length for the tight trees I get into occasionally
Wish I would've tried boot center on the line for the 193s
I had my older MVP at -1 but with the new 108 version the tip rocker is significantly reduced so I went on the line. Will hopefully be able to report back next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quandary
I am trying to decide if I'd like the MVPs. I had a pair of last years ON3P Woodsman's which are -6. They were ok for me but nothing more. I suspect the mount point had a lot to do with it. By contrast I love my Billy Goats which are -9. My 9D8s are mounted -1 from suggested, so -9. I plan on mounting my new RXs -1 from suggested, so -9. I definitely prefer a more "traditional" mount point, consequently I am thinking the MVP might not work well for me.
Keith told me he views the recommended area as anything +/- 2cm from the line but that he and the team usually run theirs in front of the line. So theoretically you could go -8 and still be within the recommended zone, but I think if you're going MVP you gotta be up for a more playful and less directional feeling shape that's usually gonna shine more with a further forward mount point. Your instincts seem right but that said I don't think any of us have skied our MVP 108 yet so hard to commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Quandary