My thoughts on what we ended up with.
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...praxis-wootest
If you're one of the folks that got a pair, chime in.
Printable View
My thoughts on what we ended up with.
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...praxis-wootest
If you're one of the folks that got a pair, chime in.
Great review, and now I have to keep telling my self I don't need these. Thanks glad this happened, love the original protest and remember thinking a narrower version would be cool
Excellent review, I appreciate your candor.
As a Protest owner (and lover) these skis have intrigued me from their inception.
-good on you for making them happen
I look forward to what comes out of Praxis in the future, knowing that my current bc skis have at least another year of trashing left.
I really wish we had a better winter to get more days on them. I agree with every thing in the review. The plates add versatility for in and out of bounds. Detune the shit out of them and seek out the untracked. I detuned in 3 stages and wish I would have just hit them hard the first time. Multiple passes with the panzer at 45* from contact points is the way to go. The edges come way to sharp to start.
I think part of the weirdness in the afternoon has to do with just how easy they are to ski. They are just so easy to pivot and turn that when the tip gets engaged on chunder it can toss you around faster than you can react to it. Big straight fast turns were the best at avoiding the weirdness. Slower, shorter turns were where I found myself lacking some confidence.
I found committing to them 100% and staying forward decreased the weirdness as did keeping the speed up. The couple roundhouse days we skied showed me this. Once I got them up to speed they were much less reactive to the chunder. They can't hook if you don't turn!
Thanks for the proper review, k-woo. Sorry to hear they didn't kill zipper crust. How about phonebook wind funk?
Talking tail rocker/splay. Are you talking they need more of a flipped up tail, or more splay starting further back near the heel piece?
Just to be clear, that wasn't 'zipper crust' really. More like bank vault deadbolt crust. They ski your average breakable zipper crust like a champ. This shit was something no ski works in....including a full reverse/reverse ski. You had just had to jump up to move your skis in the air to redirect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
As far as the tail goes, not so much higher just starting closer to the foot. They'll probably end up being a little higher but not much. Just one part of a pretty noticeable 'all tail' feeling on firmer snow.
Got it, thanks man. Sound good. More splay is ok with me, more twin-tip flipped tail at the end of the splay is not.
Nah, definitely just a deeper splay. The intent is still a bc 'skiing forward' tool. I'm looking for a little versatility as far some resort capacity but switch pow landings isn't really part of that.
Any more details on the limits of 'performance' on surfaces like unbreakable re-frozen rained on snow, and hard frozen crust that has been scoured clear in the alpine?
Obviously I do not need it to perform on that, just get by, say up to 30 degrees.
Oh yeah, and this one got a laugh:
BAM.Quote:
Tweaking the flatter tail would help beginners like Jonathan really see the potential of the design
They're fine on that crap. Like first day out, you'll ski it well without even thinking about it fine. The fact that they do have such a rockered tip gives them kind of that 'really mounted forward' feel so they're super easy to throw sideways. Hockey panic stops are cake too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
It's okay, Kid had a tough winter. He barely skied any pow AND he kinda bungled up the tail of his dream ski....I think it's great to see him trying to move on and cracking jokes. I mean, I probably would have lost the will to live if I were him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
:)
That's why jesus invented mountain bikes.
Thank you, Jebus!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
As for the article, this comment blew my mind:
"the typical Tahoe snow that falls in meters and skis like feet"
Must be from frequent travels to the PNW.
Cool review - good to hear the project worked out!
Maybe I missed it, but did you ever play with the mounting point? (a while back, you mentioned that you might do some swiss cheese experimenting)
Had mine mounted at 101.5 and 99.5 from the tip.
Definitely preferred the 99.5.
Sorry I forgot to mention that.
From the picture posted in the blog, your mount looks way too far forward on the sidecut. If you have a a lot of tail on the snow and big rocker tip, they're going to ski like shit, right?
Did you miss the part where kidwoo said he remounted 2 cm forward and prefers it to the original mount?
1) those aren't my skis, they're the pair that belongs to the site owner (but are mounted similarly regardless)Quote:
Originally Posted by spaztwelve
2) They aren't mounted too far forward on the sidecut
3) they don't ski like shit at all, they just don't ski hardpack like a ski designed to ski hardpack
Fair enough. I just became skeptical of the whole review when you, after trying them, called for everyone to detune. I don't think there is an early rise ski out there that shouldn't be detuned. That led me to print out that pic and measure it. It appeared that he bindings are centered on the ski, but the ski is not symetrical, so I was confounded. It just looks like they're way forward on the sidecut, which would certainly make them ski like crap on hardpack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Nah the ski is 187. Mount point is about 99-101 FROM THE TIP. Do the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by spaztwelve
Everyone I know who has a pair of these has skied plenty of rockered skis brand new out of the plastic. I can't stress enough just HOW sharp these things were tuned. It's my own dumb fault because I've gotten some skis like this from Praxis in the past but still........these ain't your normal production tune. Really. All of us can ski those just fine, no matter how rockered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
It usually has less to do with rocker, and more to do with sidecut meeting rise. Snowboarders have been detuning for decades now. Since skis are starting to resemble snowboards more and more, it only makes sense to detune.
FWIW, the ski is great. Only problem is the flat tail. Yes, the ski is sharp but I'm used to detuning the shit out of my skis anyway. Nothing new for me.
I'll likely add some rocker to the tail and call it a day. Problem is the skis mount may be close to the center of the sidecut (way close enough anyway) but is not centered in the rocker. more rocker in front than behind makes for some funny catchy feelings at unexpected times. I expect this will be changed for next year.
Kidwoo,
Do you still own and ski your 186 Legend Pro's ?
Yes I understand detuning. Because I've been doing it when needed to skis and snowboards for over 20 years. I've also taken both skis and snowboards out of the plastic and ridden them 10 minutes later and been fine. Plenty of rockered ones that are way more rockered than these too. These skis come retarded sharp. More than other skis. Just accept that. We all understand the concept trust me. THAT'S WHY I DID IT, BECAUSE THEY NEEDED IT. Not all skis do, not this badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by spaztwelve
I'll be buried with those skis. I'll never get rid of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
I was wondering if anyone can compare how these perform to Wailer 112s? I understand the design differences, I was wondering about the performance differences. I ski my W112s with Dynas and TLT5s exclusively in the backcountry. I love them in untracked pow and they survive hardpack fine, but I have a little trouble with them in breakable wind/rain/sun crust. I have never skied a big full RR ski before, but they have the reputation of slaying those conditions. I was wondering if the Woo was any better than the W112 in heavy breakable crust. The answer to that question wasn't obvious in the review. "In anything smooth, from untracked groomers to pow, the WooTest is solid. But once it gets lumpy, something’s grabbing." That sort of sounds like my W112s.
VVVVV This guy VVVVV
owns and skis on some 112 wailers a lot. Maybe he'll chime back in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtrmjoe
I would say the woo's are better in breakable crusts. I think being a little stiffer especially in the tip and being a little heavier help as much as the shape difference does.
I got some 196 Wootests from Bennetc14 and I'm stoked to try them. I just got around to mounting, and there's a problem with mount overlap. I'll have to mount at either 1cm behind the punch or 2cm forward. Anyone have a suggestion for the 196? I usually don't mind mounting behind the suggested line, but I didn't like my Protests mounted back. I may just have to pass these on if the mount doesn't work out.
Bindingfreedom plates should let u mount where you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoBeak
I don't have the 196s but I have tried several positions on the 187s. I think the sweet spot is just behind the dimple, like -5mm. If memory serves me correctly 100.5 from the tip.
I realize that's not super relevant info for your situation, but I would go -1 vs +2. Given the choice on the wootest I would rather have the mount too far back vs too far forward.
I skied the Wailer112 about 100 days last season, then onto spring sticks.
IMHO...
smaller turn radius + shorter running length + big twin tip tail = not so good in windboard or breakable crust.
But, I also factor in my lack of pure fundamental technique in those conditions. What I call my "personal koolaid gaper factor". It is probably a multiplier of magnitude 1.2 times. ;) aka: blame the craftsman, not just the tool.
So:
(smaller turn radius + shorter running length + big twin tip tail) x gaper factor = not so good in windboard or breakable crust.
Since the WooPest has none of these characteristics (beside the koolaid gaper factor) I'd expect it to perform much better in 'good mountain snow'.
I didn't feel like giving a simple answer.
Oh and for comparisons sake I ski my 187 protests +5mm, and like it there.
PSA, I was in Pro Ski in Seattle yesterday and they have a pair of 187s for $395. They look really nice, BTW.
After much adjustment I settled at +1 on my 196 stiffs and would not change it. I think kidwoo also preferred his once he went forward of the dimple, if I remember right from his blister gear review.Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoBeak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler
I have the 196 regular/medium flex and mounted just behind the line, I would not go much more forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisg
I would also go -1 over +2. Sollyfits will solve this for you if you want to be on the line.
I am a big fan of them and made a believer out of kidwoo.
Trigger pulled on Woo 2.0 187s for the BC. Will pick them up, mount 'em and ski them this week.
Update on the Woo 2.0?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaky_steve
Friggin love 'em.
I posted some detailed comments in the other Woo or Praxis thread around here.
Yesterday....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps7d1dd1d8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps63eabb97.jpg