The Official Great Pacific Octopus Thread

[grinch]

I can't remember ever purchasing a ski and not detuning it. I thought all skis come sharp tip to tail out of wrapper. Maybe times have changed but all my recent skis I've detuned as well. And if that's blisters policy to test out of wrapper they should state that in every review. The same people that don't research/know about detuning will not ressearch blisters stupid policy. Detuning. Is ski purchase 101

[meter-man]

I can't remember ever purchasing a ski and not detuning it. I thought all skis come sharp tip to tail out of wrapper. Maybe times have changed but all my recent skis I've detuned as well. And if that's blisters policy to test out of wrapper they should state that in every review. The same people that don't research/know about detuning will not ressearch blisters stupid policy. Detuning. Is ski purchase 101

My MVPs (bought on gear swap) were rail high, and of course, I had to detune the tips (especially) and the tails. After a base grind, and work on the edge bevel, they finally skied as I thought they should. That's a lot of work for your non-obsessive/TGR-posting skier. Conversely, I bought 190 Bibbys (12/13) and skied them directly out of the package, and they were perfect. Eventually I did some detuning of the tips and tails, but it was certainly not required like the Praxis.

I guess the Blister guys are non-obsessive skiers that prefer to avoid any work on a new product? Is that consistent with the majority of the buying public? I think the answer to both is yes. In addition to Blister's GPO review, the MVP review, BOTH WooTest reviews, and a headnod to sharp edges in the Concept review, all comment on the tune.

Is it also possible that the Praxis boys don't give a fuck, that the super sharp and super hard edges are designed to allow folks to further customize their ski??

[adrenalated]

Most larger brand skis are completely fucked out of the wrapper. Depends on the brand though. Volkls, for example, are one of the best, but still ski better with some minor detuning. Icelantics are often unskiable without extensive base grinds. 3-4 years ago BD skis were the same way (unsure about now). ON3P skis require nothing 99% of the time. Just for a few examples.

The quality of the stock tune is definitely something that should be mentioned in a detailed review like Blister's. And I'll be the first one to say that Praxis skis require more work on the tune from the factory than many brands. But to extensively review a skis performance when the tune is clearly not to your preferences? That's a little silly. Say a quick summary of why the stock tune sucks, recommend fixing it (and certainly note that as a downside) and then move on. IMO.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Keith prefers super sharp edges on his skis and that's why he sends them out that way. Could be wrong.

[grinch]

Yes. You can't add edge but you can take some off/detune. Some like skis sharp tip to tail, others detune. Makes sense to ship full sharp.It's EZ to detune or unrila ski and I've done it for countless customers as well as my own. Every company can ship a railed ski. The skis get produced in a huge run . The last to ship can sit in factory for a year or more. Base drys and shrinks. Bam. Railed. Again not that uncommon. They're testing the ski not the tune

[spindrift]

I know some Praxis boards got out with bad tunes a couple years ago. It was noticeable. I have skied several more recent production skis, including more than one pair of GPOs, with the factory tune out of the wrapper and they skied well enough I never bothered even breaking out the gummi (I mount on Keith's lines). I recently had my 187s tuned after bashing lots of rocks this season. 1/1 (with minor detune at the tip - just because the guy who tuned 'em does that- which is fine with me). Skied about the same as when it was new... Anyway, seems odd to me that Blister would not accurately measure and report on state of the tune of every ski they get before it touches snow. And in the case of readily available ones - maybe do some sampling of in-store ones.

As for the GPO... I have skied it a bunch. Several dozen days. I tend to be around 215 pounds - give or take some. 6'1". Very far from super skier - definitely not as strong as some of Blister's folks. But I get out a bunch and demo random stuff now and again. My sense of the GPO is quite opposite Blister's. I find it incredibly forgiving. While not a "powder" ski for me, I find the float adequate if I end up in powder. It'll carve or smear just fine. I have never once had the tail feel hooky. In fact the lack of hooky-ness and its predictability and big sweet spot is why I skied the GPO almost exclusively last season for my first few months back on skis post ACL rebuild. On hard snow (as in hard smooth groomers), I have to work a bit to nudge it to stay on the carve side of things. But in awful snow (I mean really terrible sastrugi) the blend of smear and edge was a seriously happy thing. All in all, a fantastic "wide spectrum" ski in my book.

I'm not gonna say the GPO is the best at any single thing. Or that it has to sing to everyone. But that review was about as puzzling as a review can be to me - just because the specific observations about the ski's specifics were so opposite my experience with it. And hard to reconcile (at least wrt hooky-ness) with two skiers taking it to FWT podiums.

[auvgeek]

What I found odd and out of sorts is how diff they portrayed the characteristics of the GPO... No way in hell do I find it demanding, not floaty in light POW, hard to break loose or hooky... My take on their criticism of the ski is the exact opposite...

+1 entirely.

I personally thought the GPO was kinda meh (I much prefer the Billy Goat), but, like you said, for a completely different reason. Honestly, I kind of expected this kind of review from Blister. Almost all of their focus is on "playful" skis: whenever they ski something more demanding than the old Bibby Pro, it's surely "too demanding." The GPO reviewer is 6' and 160. It's sad that he blames the ski and his "light frame" rather than his technique (or lack thereof) just because he has trouble in "demanding" snow conditions. I'm approximately the same size: a touch shorter and maybe a few pounds heavier (depending). I thought the 192 GPO med/stiff was definitely NOT too much ski for me. Edit: It reminds me of the people who think the Renegade must suck just because they can't ski it well.

[spindrift]

I don't think the GPO is especially demanding. I'd rate the 4FRNT Renegade as "demanding". It kicked my ass the couple times I skied it on firm or refrozen snow. Relatively speaking, the GPO is a mellow ride in challenging snow. Hence some of my puzzlement.

[Lindahl]

You guys need to take into consideration WHO is reviewing the ski. Is it Jason, Johnathan, Will or someone else? Each person brings their own preferences into the review, which is why a review that says 'i like this, i don't like that' is useless without a frame of reference - whether it be past reviews from the same skier, or direct comparisons to other skis. Considering it's Jason, who prefers softer playful skis, it's not all that surprising that he found the GPO not forgiving enough for his style. I usually skip right over almost all of the review and mostly only read the ski comparison sections. Jason hasn't reviewed skis in quite a while, which makes things even more difficult to gather a proper frame of reference for this review. We don't even have an clue about what ski he's enjoyed recently! I also think Will or Johnathan would have been a better choice for this sort of ski. I've emailed Blister about this in the past, but they really need to focus on direct comparisons between skis. Sometimes they do a good job at it, sometimes they don't.

[grinch]

I know some Praxis boards got out with bad tunes a couple years ago. It was noticeable. I have skied several more recent production skis, including more than one pair of GPOs, with the factory tune out of the wrapper and they skied well enough I never bothered even breaking out the gummi (I mount on Keith's lines). I recently had my 187s tuned after bashing lots of rocks this season. 1/1 (with minor detune at the tip - just because the guy who tuned 'em does that- which is fine with me). Skied about the same as when it was new... Anyway, seems odd to me that Blister would not accurately measure and report on state of the tune of every ski they get before it touches snow. And in the case of readily available ones - maybe do some sampling of in-store ones.

As for the GPO... I have skied it a bunch. Several dozen days. I tend to be around 215 pounds - give or take some. 6'1". Very far from super skier - definitely not as strong as some of Blister's folks. But I get out a bunch and demo random stuff now and again. My sense of the GPO is quite opposite Blister's. I find it incredibly forgiving. While not a "powder" ski for me, I find the float adequate if I end up in powder. It'll carve or smear just fine. I have never once had the tail feel hooky. In fact the lack of hooky-ness and its predictability and big sweet spot is why I skied the GPO almost exclusively last season for my first few months back on skis post ACL rebuild. On hard snow (as in hard smooth groomers), I have to work a bit to nudge it to stay on the carve side of things. But in awful snow (I mean really terrible sastrugi) the blend of smear and edge was a seriously happy thing. All in all, a fantastic "wide spectrum" ski in my book.

I'm not gonna say the GPO is the best at any single thing. Or that it has to sing to everyone. But that review was about as puzzling as a review can be to me - just because the specific observations about the ski's specifics were so opposite my experience with it. And hard to reconcile (at least wrt hooky-ness) with two skiers taking it to FWT podiums.

Echoes my thoughts and you have 60-70 lbs on me which is maybe why I find it a good carver for its width. It's just really versatile

[Jimty]

The thing is, it seems the other blister guys have ridden it, but elected not to review it for the site (see below). I'm not convinced the review would have been any more favourable if they had though...

"Jonathan commented in his review of the Moment Governor that both he and Will had a difficult time with the GPO, which is why we passed this ski around a bunch before posting a full review. (Jonathan was impressed by the GPO’s poppy tails, but found the GPO to be hooky, unpredictable when carving, and its edgehold to be erratic.)"

[adrenalated]

The thing is, it seems the other blister guys have ridden it, but elected not to review it for the site (see below). I'm not convinced the review would have been any more favourable if they had though...

"Jonathan commented in his review of the Moment Governor that both he and Will had a difficult time with the GPO, which is why we passed this ski around a bunch before posting a full review. (Jonathan was impressed by the GPO’s poppy tails, but found the GPO to be hooky, unpredictable when carving, and its edgehold to be erratic.)"

That was before they fixed the tune, though, since Jason states that he was the last one to try it and he had the tuning work done.

[Jimty]

I was thinking more along the lines of what the review would have been like if Jonathan or Will had posted a review of the ski as they skied it - i.e. straight out of the wrapper. They did the right thing to pass it around and work on the tune before posting a review, but I'd be interested in a second opinion from them now the tune is sorted.

[Lindahl]

Agreed. I'd be interested as well. It was also mounted on the very forward centerline (-6 is damn forward). Johnathan definitely prefers a more rearward mount point. For me, moving the mount point on a very sharp DPS 105 T2 to one further back made what was once a hooky ski into a much more stable ski. Again, the style of the skier comes into play, here.

[XavierD]

You guys need to take into consideration WHO is reviewing the ski. Is it Jason, Johnathan, Will .

I really don't think it makes a difference since I don't think any of them could find the front of their boots if it was highlighted on a map. Never really read a review from them that inspired confidence in their ability to ski.

I didn't like the GPO much either, but being 'demanding' had nothing to do with it.

[cmeriptahoe]

I'm going to be picking up a pair of GPOs with carbon layup for a touring setup.

I'm 6'3" / 170 lbs and am currently skiing the 193 MVPs as my resort ski.

Trying to decide between the 187 and 192 GPOs. Initially attracted to the versatility of the 187s (and the minor weight savings) but am mildly worried they are going to ski a little short.

Any insight would be much appreciated.

[Muggydude]

I'd say in real tight trees the 187 would be preferable but beyond that you'd probably prefer 192

[neck beard]

Bumps, moguls, carving, heavy chop...

Where the hell do you people ski?



Edit to mention "variations on 360s"

[grinch]

Bumps, moguls, carving, heavy chop...

Where the hell do you people ski?



Edit to mention "variations on 360s"

we can't all be goggle deep

[adrenalated]

Bumps, moguls, carving, heavy chop...

Where the hell do you people ski?



Edit to mention "variations on 360s"

Not Japan.

[roQer]

Don't worry about short skis and resort bashing biased Blister shit. Just go skiing. If you don't like the GPO just sell'em and buy another ski. Waste of time to discuss if some internet pimp considers a ski to demanding or hooky.

[Muggydude]

Finally have a some laps on the GPOs at -1 mount. I can confidently say I prefer it to the line. Just felt like I could drive the tips how I wanted to, still super quick and could dump speed whenever. Doesn't feel like it wants to make as "slashy" turns now, if that makes sense. However I have yet to get them out in deeper pow at the new mount.

Despite near 40 degree temps the ski was really fun on mash potatoes and some of the partly frozen crap. Could billy goat around on the steep stuff or just straight line over all of it no problem. Awesome ski, super glad I got it.

Originally I was stuck between the 187s and 192s. Went with 187 and am glad I did. I think I could handle the 192s fine, but so far I have not found a speed limit for these or felt like I wanted a longer ski. Shorter length is nice in trees and moguls. I had them with pivot 18s before, now on STH2 16s. I think the on snow feel of the pivots is probably a little better, though I can't say the Solly's feel any less solid in any way. Driver toes on both are great

[SupreChicken]

I'm going to be picking up a pair of GPOs with carbon layup for a touring setup.

I'm 6'3" / 170 lbs and am currently skiing the 193 MVPs as my resort ski.

Trying to decide between the 187 and 192 GPOs. Initially attracted to the versatility of the 187s (and the minor weight savings) but am mildly worried they are going to ski a little short.

Any insight would be much appreciated.

At 6'0" 165, I like touring on the 192 on the line, but technical ascents and switchbacks are definitely a PITA. I also have 193 MVPs for in bounds...the 192 GPO skis shorter than the 193 MVPs, imo and to me they also feel a bit quicker edge to edge. GPO is carbon, mvp is glass.

[North]

From day 1 I've thought my 187 GPOs have been dead easy to ski - never thought of the sweet spot as small, and the flex is as described: medium stiff. I think the shape forces me across the fall line more than I'd like in firmish chop, they deflect more than I want in crud(Carbon layup?), they're not as floaty as I expected, and I'd like them to slarve a little easier (hmmmm.....maybe I should detune a bit more).

Anybody who's skied both a ON3P Billygoat and the GPO (adrenalated, Suprechicken, auvgeak, XavierD) care to weigh in on whether or not the BG will address my dislikes of the GPO mentioned above? I think I prefer a more center-mounted ski like the GPO (EHP, Renegade, Line SFB) but have a racing background and can definitely appreciate something that needs to be driven from the tip (Mantra, Cochise). Is the BG the solution? It gets so much hype around these parts I'm having trouble holding off any longer...

[SupreChicken]

Anybody who's skied both a ON3P Billygoat and the GPO (adrenalated, Suprechicken, auvgeak, XavierD) care to weigh in on whether or not the BG will address my dislikes of the GPO mentioned above? I think I prefer a more center-mounted ski like the GPO (EHP, Renegade, Line, SFB) but have a racing background and can definitely appreciate something that needs to be driven from the tip (Mantra, Cochise). Is the BG the solution? It gets so much hype around these parts I'm having trouble holding off any longer...

I can address this.

For starters, just go ahead and buy a pair of billy goats. I immediately thought I should have pulled the trigger sooner once I started skiing my pair.

BG is a must drive the tips sort of ski. It accelerates with a rage comparable to the renegade and if you're back seating, you'll get worked and you'll have no control. In deeper pow a centered stance really loosens up the RES tip (in a good way) and makes them super slarvy.

The longer radius and thicker layup makes them much slower to be thrown across the fall line than the GPO. They truck. They are more damp than snappy. Tip deflection is a thing that just doesn't happen.

I haven't really had much issue with tip deflection on my carbon 192 GPO. They handle variable snow really well. They stay predictable. The billy goat is definitely the more stable option in chop, but I've always thought the GPO was also really good in that scenario.

Will it address the issues you've had with the GPO? Definitely.

I like the billy goat in any new snow. I have not been in snow in a long time where I thought I needed more ski than the goat. I like my protests, but if I had to sell them, I'd be just fine on the BG on a silly deep day. I like the GPOs for a day or two after the storm where I'm hitting the tightest trees and longer bump lines. They are noticeably quicker edge to edge than the billy goat and in tight spaces, I prefer them. The curse of being thrown across the fall line quickly serves really well in tight trees and bumps. The billy goats are great in soft trees, but in tracked trees and bumps, the 191 becomes a handful quickly.

If you think you like a more center mounted ski, but also want to be able to tip drive and charge through variable snow, I would give the 13/14 caylor or new 122 Jeffrey a serious look. They are not quite as slarvy as the BG due to the lack of RES in the tip, but they float really well and are a little easier to manage in tight spaces due to the longer tail rocker. There is a bit of a stability sacrifice vs the BG, but I haven't noticed it at my size (6'0" 165 lbs). I can ski the caylor at 40-50 mph on soft groomers and not feel at all squirrly or unstable underfoot. They bust through chop and crud just as well as the 191 BG IMO.

Discovering that I liked the caylor so much played a huge role in my decision to remount the billy goats with beasts.

Hope that helps.

[undertow2]

I can address this.

For starters, just go ahead and buy a pair of billy goats. I immediately thought I should have pulled the trigger sooner once I started skiing my pair.

BG is a must drive the tips sort of ski. It accelerates with a rage comparable to the renegade and if you're back seating, you'll get worked and you'll have no control. In deeper pow a centered stance really loosens up the RES tip (in a good way) and makes them super slarvy.

The longer radius and thicker layup makes them much slower to be thrown across the fall line than the GPO. They truck. They are more damp than snappy. Tip deflection is a thing that just doesn't happen.

I haven't really had much issue with tip deflection on my carbon 192 GPO. They handle variable snow really well. They stay predictable. The billy goat is definitely the more stable option in chop, but I've always thought the GPO was also really good in that scenario.

Will it address the issues you've had with the GPO? Definitely.

I like the billy goat in any new snow. I have not been in snow in a long time where I thought I needed more ski than the goat. I like my protests, but if I had to sell them, I'd be just fine on the BG on a silly deep day. I like the GPOs for a day or two after the storm where I'm hitting the tightest trees and longer bump lines. They are noticeably quicker edge to edge than the billy goat and in tight spaces, I prefer them. The curse of being thrown across the fall line quickly serves really well in tight trees and bumps. The billy goats are great in soft trees, but in tracked trees and bumps, the 191 becomes a handful quickly.

If you think you like a more center mounted ski, but also want to be able to tip drive and charge through variable snow, I would give the 13/14 caylor or new 122 Jeffrey a serious look. They are not quite as slarvy as the BG due to the lack of RES in the tip, but they float really well and are a little easier to manage in tight spaces due to the longer tail rocker. There is a bit of a stability sacrifice vs the BG, but I haven't noticed it at my size (6'0" 165 lbs). I can ski the caylor at 40-50 mph on soft groomers and not feel at all squirrly or unstable underfoot. They bust through chop and crud just as well as the 191 BG IMO.

Discovering that I liked the caylor so much played a huge role in my decision to remount the billy goats with beasts.

Hope that helps.

SC hit the nail on the head... I have 191 Billy and 192 GPO (std layup) and completely agree with what SC said... It must be due to the carbon, but my GPOs in junked up snow do very well... I love both skis, but the Billy's are looser in fresh and float like a champ... If I am traveling and conditions will be variable the GPO is the one I pack...