2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[Shu Shu]

I have a few days on my Qs 182 Heavy/Carb/Ven on extreme hardpack and nice soft cut up groomers, and bumps on a storm day.

Having skied the 187 GPOs for 3 years I would say that GPOs want to come across the fall line more.

I am still figuring the Q out, I find its most comfortable pointed straight down the fall line making quick directional changes, or making huuuuuge power slarves...both of which are really fun. I find it feels a little weird pressured forward in a carve coming across the fall line, it can do it, but its kind of like just waiting for you to point it forward again. In this build it just crushes too. (very sold on the heavy core) It's so stable and really nicely balanced in the air at recommended mount. I find I want to always go faster on the Q compared to my GPOs which seem happier with more traditional carves at a wider range of speeds on hard snow. Both SupreChicken and Undertow have really good insight here in Q thread.

Anyways initial observations in a limited range of conditions.

[Muggydude]

Shu where did you have your 187 GPOs mounted? Trying to figure out where to mount my 182 Qs. I had my 187 GPOs at -1.25 and liked them there

[SupreChicken]

Shu where did you have your 187 GPOs mounted? Trying to figure out where to mount my 182 Qs. I had my 187 GPOs at -1.25 and liked them there

Keith told me to mount the q in the same spot as the GPO. Maybe shorten up to -1 since it’s a shorter ski.

[Shu Shu]

Muggy, I mounted on the line, same as my gpo

[auvgeek]

Because when compared to the Q it can be flicked around tighter and quicker if need be & with less effort. At least just based on turn R° and when compared @ the same length.

Turn radius absolutely does not indicate how quickly it can be "flicked around." That's a function of rocker profile and sidecut profile (which includes mount point).

I'm thinking if I do stay with custom Q's I'll now go #5flex with enduro carbon.

Unless you're quite sure that you like stiff and light skis, I suggest you consider either a #4 flex with enduro carbon or a #5 flex with the heavy core.

[grinch]

#5 flex(formerly known as stiff flex) is indeed stiff. When I was 170+ I found #4 flex nowhere close to a noodle. At 160 I find #4 stiff. No use for carbon unless I’ll be touring on them. Haven’t tried the Q(liked to) but still think the gpo is the best do it all ski I’ve tried(-1 ftw)

[galibier_numero_un]

Damn it! First I thought some minor surgery in October would delay my start of the season. Now, it's the weather's fault.

I'm giving in and taking my Q's (182, #4, Enduro/Carbon, Maple Veneer) out on the WROD tomorrow. I can wait no longer.

Oh yeah ... mounted at -1.5. My GPO's were initially mounted at -1.25 and faced with a choice of fore/or aft, they shifted to -1.75 when I re-purposed them with Vipecs. If anything, I preferred them at -1.75. Keith gave me the same advice - mount the Q's where you like the GPOs, so I split the difference.

... Thom

[grinch]

^^i predict fun. Keep yo elbows up and head on teh swivel

[Banh Mi]

Turn radius absolutely does not indicate how quickly it can be "flicked around." That's a function of rocker profile and sidecut profile (which includes mount point).

Unless you're quite sure that you like stiff and light skis, I suggest you consider either a #4 flex with enduro carbon or a #5 flex with the heavy core.

I think the Praxis flex scale is spot on. #5 is 100% stiff, or I mean as stiff as you’d want to go, without it being too planky for ideal (powder) conditions.. #4 feels noticeably softer, but not overly dramatic of a change. It is probably close to 80% of the #5, if someone could quantify that, which matches up with the 1-5 scale. The #3 Protests I have hand flexed, matched up with that scale as well, probably half or maybe 60% as stiff as the #5. In my opinion.

Idk how you could quantify that though..

I also believe the flex model carries through between the Enduro and Heavy cores. At least when comparing hand-flex’s of my heavy core #4 Quixotes to stock, enduro core Rx’s.

#5 flex, Maple/Ash is nice and stiff. Similar stiffness to my Aeverflex Supergoats, and stiffer than 191 Wrens. Wrens for some reason still more “locked in” though, I cant figure out why..

I quite like how maneuverable the Rx’s are though. I could daily drive them with no issues, but then the layup, and sidecut feeling, are super stable and confidence inspiring. It feel’s really modern, if you will, and can handle slow speeds or mach speeds. Another pair will be my future touring ski, just have to figure out which layup to go with..

Damn it! First I thought some minor surgery in October would delay my start of the season. Now, it's the weather's fault.

I'm giving in and taking my Q's (182, #4, Enduro/Carbon, Maple Veneer) out on the WROD tomorrow. I can wait no longer.

Oh yeah ... mounted at -1.5. My GPO's were initially mounted at -1.25 and faced with a choice of fore/or aft, they shifted to -1.75 when I re-purposed them with Vipecs. If anything, I preferred them at -1.75. Keith gave me the same advice - mount the Q's where you like the GPOs, so I split the difference.

... Thom

Don’t judge them by their low tide performance. I made that mistake. I would classify this shape in the same category as the Billy Goat or Steeple 112’s. Works fine on hard snow, but doesn’t excel in those sort of conditions. To me, this design seems like it really shines in softer snow. Even 2” or so..

I have had my skinny Q’s out for 2 days, about 8 hours of actually on-snow time. Most of it on pretty firm stuff. I did, however, use them for three laps of very short hiking, North Bowl at Squaw after the last storm. The snow was fairly soft and windblown. They came to life! Very maneuverable yet confidence inspiring in softer snow. No hang-ups. Similar to the feel I get from On3p RES, where you can break it free whenever you want, without too much input, but then also capable and confidence inspiring when you need.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[galibier_numero_un]

Don’t judge them by their low tide performance. I made that mistake. I would classify this shape in the same category as the Billy Goat or Steeple 112’s. Works fine on hard snow, but doesn’t excel in those sort of conditions. To me, this design seems like it really shines in softer snow. Even 2” or so..

I have had my skinny Q’s out for 2 days, about 8 hours of actually on-snow time. Most of it on pretty firm stuff. I did, however, use them for three laps of very short hiking, North Bowl at Squaw after the last storm. The snow was fairly soft and windblown. They came to life! Very maneuverable yet confidence inspiring in softer snow. No hang-ups. Similar to the feel I get from On3p RES, where you can break it free whenever you want, without too much input, but then also capable and confidence inspiring when you need.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

That's an interesting comment about hard snow performance, especially in light of the Skinny-Q's out there. It seems as if your experience would point toward the standard width being the ideal size for this ski's geometry.

My file is going with me tomorrow. I've made the mistake of not bringing one to detune new Praxis boards before ;-)

... Thom

[Banh Mi]

The Q’s still feel more traditional than RES though too. It really is a different feel than what I am not used to..


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

I think the Praxis flex scale is spot on. #5 is 100% stiff, or I mean as stiff as you’d want to go, without it being too planky for ideal (powder) conditions.. #4 feels noticeably softer, but not overly dramatic of a change. It is probably close to 80% of the #5, if someone could quantify that, which matches up with the 1-5 scale. The #3 Protests I have hand flexed, matched up with that scale as well, probably half or maybe 60% as stiff as the #5. In my opinion.

Idk how you could quantify that though..

I also believe the flex model carries through between the Enduro and Heavy cores. At least when comparing hand-flex’s of my heavy core #4 Quixotes to stock, enduro core Rx’s.

#5 flex, Maple/Ash is nice and stiff. Similar stiffness to my Aeverflex Supergoats, and stiffer than 191 Wrens. Wrens for some reason still more “locked in” though, I cant figure out why..

I quite like how maneuverable the Rx’s are though. I could daily drive them with no issues, but then the layup, and sidecut feeling, are super stable and confidence inspiring. It feel’s really modern, if you will, and can handle slow speeds or mach speeds. Another pair will be my future touring ski, just have to figure out which layup to go with..

That's great info. My main point was that, IME, skis can be too stiff for the weight. Certain skis from DPS come to mind. For me personally, the enduro + carbon is probably too light of a layup for the #5 flex. I have the #4 flex on an enduro sans carbon Piste Jibs, and they're pretty snappy. I wouldn't want to go any stiffer/lighter.

Been thinking about what happens when my Jeffreys need to be retired. Right now, I think a skinny RX, preferably with flat camber, in a heavy layup with 4+ flex might replace it, maybe mount them a little forward. The current Kartel 108 with the elliptical sidecut and 22 m turn radius isn't quite what I want. Might also get a pair in enduro+carbon for touring. I know it's nit-picky, but I wish the RX came in a 110 waist -- 116 seems a bit wide and 106 a bit skinny.

[Self Jupiter]

2 days on them, but I’m giddy stoked on my stock, not carbon MVP 193s. We had a couple days that dropped 16-20’’ light powder at Wildcat (significantly more than forecasted) and they were the fattest pair I brought so they got all the use. Did well in pow (started to sink at lower angles in 2 ft piles), windbuff, chop and some developing crud. They feel about as frictionless in the soft and nearly as quick as my 184 Devastators did, with more spring and a higher top end while being lighter. Not 2 sheets of metal damp, but I thought they skied damp for their weight. Usable/ not terrifying on hard groomers, fun on soft ones. Sure, a little long in the tail for really rutted sections, but it’s a 193. Point and shoot, video game style skis. Ollie from feature to feature. Steer from your ankles to get them to turn very quick - looking forward to experimenting with other turn shapes and skiing styles. Got along with them immediately- fit in with my experience on 184 Devs, 196 Rens, 186 EHP, Park skis etc. 5’7’’ 195-200. I had all of those skis mounted -6 from center, not really on purpose, just noticed it came to be that way.


I think they’re the most durable ski I own- I’ve never been so horrible to a ski in 2 days use and they have minor scratches that will probably disappear with a little razor work and a grind. There was no base at all, just 18-24+ inches of powder on dirt and granite.

[STLHD]

2 days on them, but I’m giddy stoked on my stock, not carbon MVP 193s. We had a couple days that dropped 16-20’’ light powder at Wildcat (significantly more than forecasted) and they were the fattest pair I brought so they got all the use. Did well in pow (started to sink at lower angles in 2 ft piles), windbuff, chop and some developing crud. They feel about as frictionless in the soft and nearly as quick as my 184 Devastators did, with more spring and a higher top end while being lighter. Not 2 sheets of metal damp, but I thought they skied damp for their weight. Usable/ not terrifying on hard groomers, fun on soft ones. Sure, a little long in the tail for really rutted sections, but it’s a 193. Point and shoot, video game style skis. Ollie from feature to feature. Steer from your ankles to get them to turn very quick - looking forward to experimenting with other turn shapes and skiing styles. Got along with them immediately- fit in with my experience on 184 Devs, 196 Rens, 186 EHP, Park skis etc. 5’7’’ 195-200. I had all of those skis mounted -6 from center, not really on purpose, just noticed it came to be that way.


I think they’re the most durable ski I own- I’ve never been so horrible to a ski in 2 days use and they have minor scratches that will probably disappear with a little razor work and a grind. There was no base at all, just 18-24+ inches of powder on dirt and granite.

Glad they found a good home!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Self Jupiter]

Glad they found a good home!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Thanks again!

[Banh Mi]

That's great info. My main point was that, IME, skis can be too stiff for the weight. Certain skis from DPS come to mind. For me personally, the enduro + carbon is probably too light of a layup for the #5 flex. I have the #4 flex on an enduro sans carbon Piste Jibs, and they're pretty snappy. I wouldn't want to go any stiffer/lighter.

Been thinking about what happens when my Jeffreys need to be retired. Right now, I think a skinny RX, preferably with flat camber, in a heavy layup with 4+ flex might replace it, maybe mount them a little forward. The current Kartel 108 with the elliptical sidecut and 22 m turn radius isn't quite what I want. Might also get a pair in enduro+carbon for touring. I know it's nit-picky, but I wish the RX came in a 110 waist -- 116 seems a bit wide and 106 a bit skinny.

I agree, stiff AND light skis do not suit my riding style. I like all flexes, soft/medium/stiff, but gravitate towards heavier skis. That’s why I like K2 skis. Yes they are noodles, but most of their “pro” skis are heavy and damp.

The #5 praxis flex is not a plank, it still has some give to it. Same with aevergreene SG’s. Definitely stiff, but not outrageously so.. I have hand flexed some DPS skis that were on another level in terms of stiffness. Straight up 2x4s. They were even stiffer than my HEAD Monsters. The Praxis #5 is not like that.

I dont think the #4 flex of my skinny Q’s is the reason why they aren’t as stable for me as I’d like. The flex is exceptional feeling. It’s the weight. Being a heavier person myself, 200g/ski can make all the difference for me inbounds. I wish my Quixotes were just a tad heavier. If I was 175ish lbs, or less, I know I’d be able to charge harder with them. Some may think I am splitting hairs here, but I get extremely picky for daily drivers.

To be clear, the Q’s are not unstable, I just prefer to use my heavier skis as resort daily drivers. My 184cm K2 shreditor 92’s are the same weight as Skinny Q’s in 187cm.. 92mm jibby park ski vs 108mm Quixote, same weight.

My #5 Rx feel close to 2500g/ski, whereas the #4 skinny Q is close to 2100g/ski. The flex matches up with the scale perfectly, and I like the flex a lot..however I did not expect to lose 300-400 grams per ski, just by going 8mm thinner and one flex number off.

My next praxis will either be a Skinny Rx, Heavy core #5, or a standard enduro core Rx for touring. Honestly, I want both. I really like this shape, Keith friggen nailed it. It skis thinner than it’s true waist width would suggest, it’s the best 116mm ski I have ever skied on firm snow. Beating out the 114mm Blizzard Gunsmoke, for low tide skiing, and close to my HEAD Monster 108s when it comes to grip on ice. I like how sharp the edges are on the praxis, I could shave with them lol.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

You make me want to try RX’s so bad. Your pair really that heavy? Do you have a scale?

[ichibaneye]

Turn radius absolutely does not indicate how quickly it can be "flicked around." That's a function of rocker profile and sidecut profile (which includes mount point).

Unless you're quite sure that you like stiff and light skis, I suggest you consider either a #4 flex with enduro carbon or a #5 flex with the heavy core.

I wasn't meaning it that way exactly...as in linking tight turns directly to a skis flickability. My Sir Francis Bacons have zero rocker, tons of camber, charge like a sr71 blackbird at mach speeds, mounted w/marker griffon shizos, swing ez/stable in the air, good at taking quick adjustments and are pretty damn stiff too..... very predictable and i like that.

[ichibaneye]

I would rather have a ski that has to be pushed around a bit even if one is a bit light on his weight at the time but still high on his skill level. It leaves more ski to be taken advantage of still vs a ski that lets say is a noodle and after at noodle factor can do no more for the skier.

Having to work a predictable plank is a plus any day to me not rather than not having enough. Especially if it gets fast, steep n deep quickly.

So why not a carbon/enduro #5 then? Is it not rigid enough not to be bobbing around at speed on some of the firmer stuff? I like a chager, big line carver, free ski, predictable turner, stable jumper/dropper, powder ski. Good on many snows ski. It doesn't need any rocker or reverse camber or huge amounts of early rise or taper either.

[auvgeek]

I would rather have a ski that has to be pushed around a bit even if one is a bit light on his weight at the time but still high on his skill level. It leaves more ski to be taken advantage of still vs a ski that lets say is a noodle and after at noodle factor can do no more for the skier.

Having to work a predictable plank is a plus any day to me not rather than not having enough. Especially if it gets fast, steep n deep quickly.

So why not a carbon/enduro #5 then? Is it not rigid enough not to be bobbing around at speed on some of the firmer stuff? I like a chager, big line carver, free ski, predictable turner, stable jumper/dropper, powder ski. Good on many snows ski. It doesn't need any rocker or reverse camber or huge amounts of early rise or taper either.

I'm just saying I would personally prefer a heavier layup with the #5 flex. A stiff, light ski is fine in pow but it doesn't absorb choppy terrain at speed as well as a heavier layup or a softer flex (N.B., softer, not soft) at the same weight. A heavier layup will be more predictable than the enduro+carbon because it will deflect less.

I would maybe go heavy + carbon and keep the #5 flex.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. Others are certainly entitled to their opinion.

[Muggydude]

Which SFB is this? [emoji848]

[ichibaneye]

Which SFB is this? [emoji848]

The 2010 182

[ichibaneye]

I'm just saying I would personally prefer a heavier layup with the #5 flex. A stiff, light ski is fine in pow but it doesn't absorb choppy terrain at speed as well as a heavier layup or a softer flex (N.B., softer, not soft) at the same weight. A heavier layup will be more predictable than the enduro+carbon because it will deflect less.

I would maybe go heavy + carbon and keep the #5 flex.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. Others are certainly entitled to their opinion.

Roger that! Thanks for helping me with working towards building my first praxis and a better ski.

[Muggydude]

Stiff and charger are not generally words to describe the SFB

[ichibaneye]

Stiff and charger are not generally words to describe the SFB

Not the last 4 or so sfb models you're correct speaking to those. But however the 2010 sfb's these were totally different beasts all together when compared to pollards last designs on that particular ski. These fit right in that area. You can go hard, fast and big on these. A great one quiver ski in fact.

Attachment 218909Attachment 218910Attachment 218911Attachment 218912