Review: 186 Praxis Skinny GPO

As the presale is closing in and I see a few mags thinking about a -10 GPO, I should share a few experiences and thoughts.

The ski:
Praxis GPO 187 -10mm, in other words a 106 waisted, 186 long GPO. Mounted with Kingpins at ~-1cm.
Enduro core with veneer. 3+ flex.
As usual for Praxis, the skis look and feel great. The tune was fine, detuned slightly to the taper points. Should probably have detuned a bit more.

Me:
Decent skier, 190cm, 80-85kg, used to tele.....came to my senses a few years ago. Tend to like damp, but not too stiff skis. Prefer a bit of tail rocker for navigating tight norwegian trees. Ski with a forward stance.....except from when I'm in the backseat that is :wink:
Love Billygoats, loved original C&Ds, EHPs etc. Have had a bit of trouble finding a 100-110 ski I really like, liked Rossi Ravyns when I still teled. Like Bonafides and Enforcer93s, and Superbros for skiing groomers stupid fast.

Background:
Have had standard GPOs but never really loved them. Felt that they had a bit less float and were a bit too locked in for a pow ski. For some reason I thought that the shape would work better for a narrower ski, still geared towards soft snow. Bought the Skinny GPO for a winter touring / travel ski.
Have had 10-12 days on them this season, 50/50 inbounds/BC.

Disclaimer:
I'm pretty sensitive to ramp angle. I can feel the difference between skiing them with touring boots and alpine boots, and they ski better with alpine soles. The worst experiences with the Skinny GPO were while skiing them with the Solly Labs, and I'm in the middle of a DIY shimming project. In other words, I might have liked the ski better mounted with Pivots.

So how do they ski?:
The first day I skied them was the first pow day of the season. Bluebird and 15-20cm of fluffy goodness on top of firm, but edgeable older snow. I thought they were the best ski ever, that they floated very well, and very nimble as fuck. I noticed that they felt a bit weird on some hard groomers back to the lift, but all in all a good day.

The second day I skied them were a week after the first. More snow had fallen, while the temps had shifted back and forth around freezing. It had been windy and I excpected funky snow.
I've never skied snow as bad as I did that day, any ski would have struggled in a layered cake of crusts and soft snow of different densities, but the GPOs were horrific. If I tried to ski them forward they would dive. If I skied them centered they sort of floated as long as I didn't turn, but once I turned the taper caught in the crusts and pulled the skis under. If I leaned back.......let's just say that leaning back in crusty snow, between thight trees.....it's not fun.

Overall I'll say that they ski very well in good conditions, most skis do, but I thought the Skinny GPOs were spectacular that first day. If you ski well-spaced trees or open terrain, with good boot-deep snow, it will be a good ski for you.
I've also skied them in soft cut-up on a inbounds pow day and that shark nose is fantastic when you lean the skis properly over and charge. They're not that great if you like to ski with bases flat and crush through.

However, they are not confidence inspiring in difficult conditions. They need a bit of speed too float, so in thight trees and/or flatter terrain I tend to end up skiing them from the heels, but the tails of the GPOs don't like that. Me neither.
In heavier pow and/or flatter terrain they just don't float very well for a heavily rockered, 106 waisted ski. Overall I think they ski better in steeper terrain. Not sure why, but it feels that way.
My 102 Wrenegades, that have less tip/tail rocker, float and navigate technical terrain better, while still being better on harder snow. (last bit might be binding related as well, Wrens have pivots.)

Thoughts:
I think the problems I'm having with the skis are related to the substantial amount of tip tapering, at least for a mid-width ski. It feels like there's not enough surface area towards the tip for it to float properly, and if you allow it to sink the taper will make it feel catchy. Not sure how to describe it.

TL;DR:
Somebody said it in the Praxis thread: ski design is not as easy as adding or removing a centimeter. Especially for designs with a lot of taper or other significant characteristics in the geometry, things might not work out as planned. I think the first Wootest had some of the same problems? Maybe a more traditional design like the RX is better suited. The skinny GPO might be a great ski for some, but consider carefully.

Interesting results. I feel like the standard GPO design really likes and is meant to be driven at high speed a la Tabke, so it seems that removing surface area maybe amplifies those characteristics. Compare that to a 106 Backcountry that skis very well slow up to kind of fast (but not the most confident when balls out fast).

Thanks, sf. This is a great piece of information. It's fascinating - how subtle the differences between a BC and a skinny GPO are, and yet it all counts. Where there is no way I would have (for example) pondered a skinny-Q, a skinny GPO seemed reasonable to me.

For slower skiing in trees, it sounds as if a custom BC would work better for me (as stated in one of the other Praxis threads).

This does sound like the Wootest all over again, but in this case, it appears as if a skinny GPO 2.0 already exists - a BC with Enduro core, flex #4 (add carbon, veneer or heavy core to taste).

... Thom

This is super helpful. I would have expected the trouble in variable snow mounted on the dimple, but your -1 mount is exactly where I would have mounted.

I also love Billy Goats and quite like standard GPOs. Very happy with the standard GPO shape for a fatter touring ski. I actually had kingpins on mine at -1 and I thought the ski was phenomenal in powder and usable on groomers. I have always blamed the UL core for the poor performance in variable snow. I had 192 enduro/carbon GPOs and that ski was amazing in variable snow.

I know it's not ideal to put a second set of holes into a pair of custom skis, but I'd be really curious to know how they ride with pivots or STH. I bet it improves things a bit, but maybe not. I don't think there's really a way to quantify how much ramp angle changes the nature or ride of a ski...

Wardens have a really nice mounting pattern for a prior tech mount.

Looking like a BC, Fat Yeti or Skinny Rx for me in this waist range...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

it appears as if a skinny GPO 2.0 already exists - a BC with Enduro core, flex #4 (add carbon, veneer or heavy core to taste).

... Thom

---

It doesn't exist yet. I am optimistic however that I'll be able to either talk Keith into building it or pick a winner with slightly different DNA in the 104-106mm waist range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Looking like a BC, Fat Yeti or Skinny Rx for me in this waist range...

---

Zero G 108?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

It doesn't exist yet. I am optimistic however that I'll be able to either talk Keith into building it or pick a winner with slightly different DNA in the 104-106mm waist range.

---

It sounds as if several of us are looking for the same unicorn. I'm wondering if individually, we'll drive Keith nuts and perhaps a group e-mail to Keith might help him more efficiently answer our nerdy questions?

I'd be happy to prime the pump (PM me) putting together a hopefully concise summary of what's been reported as well as what we want (a skinny GPO that works ... doh!).

It sounds however, as if you've already started the process? I don't want to duplicate efforts, or worse, add to Keith's e-mail load unnecessarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Zero G 108?

---

Zero-G 108s are a bit more "charge-y" than a GPO ... no? I've never been on a pair. Everyone I know has a longer BSL than my 297 Maestrales.

From another Praxis thread, @I've seen black diamonds! seems to be looking for a skinny GPO type of ski to replace his Zero-G 108's (post #698 - https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...84#post5277384).

He skis similarly, but a bit more aggressively than I do, which is what further reinforced my thinking on this, especially since we both have a love affair with our standard width GPOs.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

A bit more "charge-y" than a GPO ... no? I've never been on a pair. From another Praxis thread, @I've seen black diamonds seems to be looking for a skinny GPO type of ski to replace his Zero-G 108's.

---

Sure, but chicken's also considering a skinny RX, which seems similar to the Zero G 108 with less taper, more camber, and longer turn radius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Sure, but chicken's also considering a skinny RX, which seems similar to the Zero G 108 with less taper, more camber, and longer turn radius.

---

Very true. We may be looking at two or three different skis.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

Zero-G 108s are a bit more "charge-y" than a GPO ... no? I've never been on a pair. Everyone I know has a longer BSL than my 297 Maestrales.

---

My 0G 108s are mounted for a 294 bsl, if you'd like to try them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Sure, but chicken's also considering a skinny RX, which seems similar to the Zero G 108 with less taper, more camber, and longer turn radius.

---

True enough. I haven't specified this, but if I go with a Skinny Rx, I'll get it with 2-3mm of camber instead of the standard 5mm. Not sure how much difference that will make. The aversion I have to the zero G line is the lack of tail rocker. I know there's a bit there, but it sure looks (and the reviews read) as if it skis like a flat tailed ski. I really want some actual tail rocker to break the ski loose in tight spaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

True enough. I haven't specified this, but if I go with a Skinny Rx, I'll get it with 2-3mm of camber instead of the standard 5mm. Not sure how much difference that will make. The aversion I have to the zero G line is the lack of tail rocker. I know there's a bit there, but it sure looks (and the reviews read) as if it skis like a flat tailed ski. I really want some actual tail rocker to break the ski loose in tight spaces.

---

If I had to put money on it, the +3 cm mount point of a skinny RX with 2 mm of camber will make more difference in how the ski feels than the differences in tail rocker.

But yeah, I want a skinny RX with 2 mm camber.

A skinny GPO seems a lot like a Steeple 108: soft-snow bias in a do-it-all width. I suspect the RES of the Steeple 108 would make it less hooky in breakable crust, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

... A skinny GPO seems a lot like a Steeple 108: soft-snow bias in a do-it-all width. I suspect the RES of the Steeple 108 would make it less hooky in breakable crust, though.

---

Damn! I keep forgetting that the Steeple 108 has RES (fortunately for me, no asym.). There's definitely a je ne cais qoui about RES.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

The aversion I have to the zero G line is the lack of tail rocker. I know there's a bit there, but it sure looks (and the reviews read) as if it skis like a flat tailed ski. I really want some actual tail rocker to break the ski loose in tight spaces.

---

It's just barely rockered, but you somehow also don't get the energy you'd expect out of a cambered tail. In other words it's a lot like the old Cochise. It makes for a ski that is stable at speed, will break loose on command on 2D snow, but without the same mass as the Cochise get's bogged down a bit in steep junky snow at slow speeds compared to skis with a more rockered tail. I actually don't mind this as much as I mind the lack of energy in the tail. It just doesn't fit with the way I ski (grew up skiing bumps and tight East Coast trees on skinny skis).

If you ski fast all the time they start to come alive. But my most important use for these skis is skiing steeps in the spring when snow is not 2D, especially in funky snow when I'm skiing very carefully. I think the 108's are excellent skis. Might be the best all-arounder out there. The have a truly high speed limit given their weight. They just happen to be good-not-great in the conditions I want them to be great in. I want to be able to load up and pop off the tails from sem-jump-turn to semi-jump-turn. In other words, I'm being picky as fuck.

The GPO's tails somehow manage to have it every way. Stable, energetic AND loose. I'm not sure if it works on a narrower ski.

Anyway I just picked up some cheap, used Scott Superguide 105's which have flat tails. We'll see how they work out. I'll decide what to do with the Zero G's after I ski the Scotts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

Thanks, sf. This is a great piece of information. It's fascinating - how subtle the differences between a BC and a skinny GPO are, and yet it all counts. Where there is no way I would have (for example) pondered a skinny-Q, a skinny GPO seemed reasonable to me.

I'd probably enjoy a Skinny GPO from your reports, but for slower skiing in trees, it sounds as if a custom BC would indeed work better for me (as stated in one of the other Praxis threads).

This does sound like the Wootest all over again, but in this case, it appears as if a skinny GPO 2.0 already exists - a BC with Enduro core, flex #4 (add carbon, veneer or heavy core to taste).

... Thom

---

I didn't specify, but I've had 190 BCs a few years ago. Great ski, my favourite Praxis ski. Probably put in 30-40 days of touring on them before I sold them. 190 was to0 long for kick turns etc. If the 184 BC Keith considers building had been around last year I would have bought them.

They were med/stiff, probably somewhere around 3+/4- by todays standard. Wouldn't go any stiffer for the terrain I tend to ski. Probably towards 3/3+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

This is super helpful. I would have expected the trouble in variable snow mounted on the dimple, but your -1 mount is exactly where I would have mounted.

I also love Billy Goats and quite like standard GPOs. Very happy with the standard GPO shape for a fatter touring ski. I actually had kingpins on mine at -1 and I thought the ski was phenomenal in powder and usable on groomers. I have always blamed the UL core for the poor performance in variable snow. I had 192 enduro/carbon GPOs and that ski was amazing in variable snow.

I know it's not ideal to put a second set of holes into a pair of custom skis, but I'd be really curious to know how they ride with pivots or STH. I bet it improves things a bit, but maybe not. I don't think there's really a way to quantify how much ramp angle changes the nature or ride of a ski...

Wardens have a really nice mounting pattern for a prior tech mount.

Looking like a BC, Fat Yeti or Skinny Rx for me in this waist range...

---

Not going to mount these alpine, they're too light for a dedicated inbounds ski. Will test with shims. 4,5mm and alpine soles should get me close to a "standard" ramp. If that works out nicely I might consider removing the Kingpins and mounting them with ATK 14s for a dedicated winter touring set-up.

Thank you, sf. You just saved me $600 and some sub-par touring days

Well now that these are off the table, anybody ever ski a skinny concept?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app

Quick update.

Made some 4mm shims and put them under the toes.
Took the skis out for a quick tour today and they felt better. Might be placebo, but it felt better even when skinning.

The snow was very variable; semi-breakable windcrust on top, heavy pow in the middle and sticky slushy pow on a unconsolidated base in the trees.
All in all they skied pretty well. Not perfect, but far better than I feared. I think mounting the bindings a centimeter further back might be it.

Still a bit sceptical, but it looks like I'll end up skiing a lot of funky snow this easter, so I guess I'll find out.

Still curious about a skinny Rx, anyone actually skied one?

Why did I forget about sf's great write-up when I went through all of this psychodrama in the main Praxis thread (where I was considering a skinny GPO)?

Well (since that conversation), in the better lucky than smart department, I scored a pair of 181cm Countdown 104's last week.

These are close enough to the "skinny GPO" / BC that I've been looking for, to quit my search. I won't repeat myself here, since I wrote about it in this thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...th-Down-(skis)

... Thom

Neck Beard has two pairs...

two pairs of which, Downs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

Why did I forget about sf's great write-up when I went through all of this psychodrama in the main Praxis thread (where I was considering a skinny GPO)?

Well (since that conversation), in the better lucky than smart department, I scored a pair of 181cm Countdown 104's last week.

These are close enough to the "skinny GPO" / BC that I've been looking for, to quit my search. I won't repeat myself here, since I wrote about it in this thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...th-Down-(skis)

... Thom

---

Thom - looking forward to your detailed review. Particularly interested in how similar it skis to your praxis quiver and your impression of down construction and dampness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoarhey

two pairs of which, Downs?

---

Shit. NB has 2x skinny RX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Thom - looking forward to your detailed review. Particularly interested in how similar it skis to your praxis quiver and your impression of down construction and dampness.

---

I won't pollute this thread with that stuff, but I'll update this thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...82#post5330682

... Thom

Paging Neck Beard, post up a skinny Rx review!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nevada29er

Paging Neck Beard, post up a skinny Rx review!

---

To my recollection, he specified his skinny Rx's much shorter than his normal skis and because of this, he didn't feel comfortable in generalizing about the width change.

... Thom

Interesting, according to Flowing Alpy, the MVP is like a skinny Rx. Might be worth a look.

I wish Praxis had a demo fleet like Moment. I only live about a half hour from their shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Quick update.

Made some 4mm shims and put them under the toes.
Took the skis out for a quick tour today and they felt better. Might be placebo, but it felt better even when skinning.

The snow was very variable; semi-breakable windcrust on top, heavy pow in the middle and sticky slushy pow on a unconsolidated base in the trees.
All in all they skied pretty well. Not perfect, but far better than I feared. I think mounting the bindings a centimeter further back might be it.

Still a bit sceptical, but it looks like I'll end up skiing a lot of funky snow this easter, so I guess I'll find out.

---

Ended up skiing them for 4 days during easter. Pretty decent conditions, lots of low angle due to avy danger. In pow, especially pow supported by heavier snow they still are great. In crusts I still can feel the tip taper causing the tips to sort of bend up, almost like they are to soft compared to the rest of the ski. Far better after I installed the shims, but still less than confidence inspiring.

As it stand they are ok skis, but overall I know there are better skis out there for the same purpose. The design might be better served by a stiffer flex relative to skier weight, I don't know.
Heavily tapered skis are probably not my cup of tea.

Skied my BMT94s for the rest of the easter, and I feel that they are simply better skis, even in pow. And even mounted with Ions / more ramp.
Will try to find a pair of used 109s for winter touring, and buy some wren108s/CAST for inbounds/sidecountry/travel etc.

Just curious why you’d buy a skinny gpo as a touring ski after not liking the standard gpo float? I thought a skinny gpo would be a good lower tide rip around the hill and some side country laps, maybe with a shift. For me the standard gpo edges a turn like a race fatter race ski and floaty/ pivoty seems to work for me. Wish yours were the next length down, id probably scoop them from you. I like the build you put together(enduro veneer 3+)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinch

Just curious why you’d buy a skinny gpo as a touring ski after not liking the standard gpo float? I thought a skinny gpo would be a good lower tide rip around the hill and some side country laps, maybe with a shift. For me the standard gpo edges a turn like a race fatter race ski and floaty/ pivoty seems to work for me. Wish yours were the next length down, id probably scoop them from you. I like the build you put together(enduro veneer 3+)

---

Reasoned that the shape would work better for an allround ski than a pow ski. In addition I had the GPO mounted with Dukes, and I've never loved a pair mounted with frame bindings.
As mentioned above, the ski might work out very well for some, but for me and my way of skiing it's not working very well. The build is nice, but for some reason the tip feels a bit to soft compared to the rest of the ski

I quickly looked at the dims on the GPO, and wanted 106 underfoot, (skinny GPO), and bought the BC. I figured Keith knew what he was doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Reasoned that the shape would work better for an allround ski than a pow ski. In addition I had the GPO mounted with Dukes, and I've never loved a pair mounted with frame bindings.
As mentioned above, the ski might work out very well for some, but for me and my way of skiing it's not working very well. The build is nice, but for some reason the tip feels a bit to soft compared to the rest of the ski

---

The tails on the reg gpo do have a little extra ummph. I’m still undecided on a 10? ski