Heavy core is still lighter than on3p. Especially with veneer and carbon
Heavy core is still lighter than on3p. Especially with veneer and carbon
Weights for 188 Q's heavy core + carbon + ambrosia maple veneer #4: 2313g 2318g
Weights for 188 Q's enduro core + japanese maple veneer #4 (standard edition): 2117g & 2132g
The heavy core + carbon is still 300g lighter than a 189 on3p BG (2622g & 2639g).
I felt like the heavy core with carbon was much damper and better as a resort ski than the enduro version, but I am wondering if it might be even better without the carbon. The carbon makes the ski feel extremely powerful and rebound strongly, I do not know if I have the mass to ride it at only 165lbs. It doesn't feel too far off from a on3p layup though.
Also +1.5cm from recommended is garbage on the Q, It makes the ski extremely easy to ski, but you cannot put your weight forward at all.
The Quixote is a cool ski, the "slarveability" makes you ski faster and faster without really noticing, atleast in smooth conditions.
I still haven’t weighed my Rx, but they feel about as heavy as my 191 Wrens and 189 Billy Goats (evo weighed 189 BGs at 2500g/ski). It’s probably pretty close. I dont have carbon, nor veneer though.
I think the reason I find mine so maneuverable is the 187ish length.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
For mags in Canada, what's the border crossing cost you when your skis ship?
Anyone feel like 3 flex UL GPO isn’t capable enough for variable backcountry conditions? Currently have tech bindings mounted on my stock MAP 4 flex GPOs and I’m debating ordering a UL to lighten things up for next year. Also curious what the weight diff would be. My stock 187s are about 4200 g/pair
Last edited by jski171; 02-28-2018 at 06:10 PM.
How much do you weigh?
My guess is that you would be fine, I've Seen Black Diamonds! probably has good feedback, as he has Flex 3 UL I think, see here
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...60#post5243360
My reference point is 3 flex Enduro Veneer GPO, and it so far seems like a boss variable resort snow but I haven't had it in real old and crusty/mixed conditions yet. What's funny is I think the weight saving of veneer is almost as much as going to UL core, seems more worth it to get the veneer which completely settles the ski in variable conditions because it's so damp, at the price of a little bit of lively feel or rebound energy. I don't have a scale big enough to weigh my 182's for you unfortunately.
I also normally ski a carbon BC (11'-12' stock, so Flex 2+?) in variable backcountry conditions all the time out west, and it's been without complaints from me, but I'm not looking to rip my lines out there anyways and if things get kind of funky like sastrugi or coral reef it tends to skip over the top rather than hold a hard edge. It works for me. I'm really light weight though and I know that ski is too soft for my friends.
_______________________________________________
"Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.
I'll be there." ... Andy Campbell
Personally I think it depends on the user's expectations (just one more reason Praxis is so f n bad ass with all their core, width, and flex options). FWIW I think the Praxis UL core is very good, maybe even great, for an UL core. I have a 182 UL GPO and for 100% of the up and 85% of the down it's phenomenal, hell I've rode the shit out of em on super icy beat to shit Silvy days and came away nothing but very impressed. That being said I would never pick the UL core again. I have absolutely found a speed limit and uncomfortable zone in the BC that really just isn't acceptable for me (to be perfectly honest I know a large part of that is due to the length but I'd honestly give it 50/50 blame) going forward I wouldn't go short or UL ever again, not because they are anything short of very good for the right user, but because when I find "those" lines in the bc it just isn't worth the weight savings for the compromise. The MAP/C is a phenomenal build, and the weight is a minimal compromise. I really dig the the weight, look, and feel of the veneers but I do think you lose a bit of durability on the top sheet, but time will tell. Bottom line for me is if your looking for super well built durable UL BC sticks and are more interested in the up than the meadow skipping down (i.e. Dps/dentist type shit) buy the UL and never go back, want truly amazing skis that won't let you down anywhere, go MAP/C, don't downsize, and decide if the veneer is worth it for you.
Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!
Depends how you ski and what skis you've used in the past. Flex 3 UL aren't going to plow through things the way your standard layup pair will. And a bunch of folks here have said they regret ordering an UL layup on a variety of praxis skis. The top end on my 182 UL's is nowhere near my standard/veneer 187's.
That said, I find mine extremely competent with SSL 2.0's and F1's. I enjoyed them skiing bumps and chop at A Basin when I was getting to know them. It's so easy to vary turn shape on GPO's that's its pretty easy to ski smoothly and comfortably carry speed even on steep, variable snow. But I ski pretty smoothly these days and I've been using lighter boots and skis for a while.
Edit to add: I'm 5'10" 170. 182 UL's are mounted at -1. 187 standard/veneer at -1.5
I wish I had a pair of -10 GPOs too. Anybody selling? Seriously.
Great feedback thanks. I weigh 180 and like to ski fast when conditions are good. I’m usually on a 185 zero g 108 and find that to be plenty stable in the backcountry. If the praxis UL layup has the same downhill performance to weight ratio as blizzards zero g’s (definitely not just a meadow skipper) it would be a no brainer. The GPO is such a fun shape it would be awesome to have it in an every day winter touring ski weight.
I've had more "fails" in trying for a mid-100's ski, that the idea of a -10 GPO has come to the forefont as well for me. Every ski has its flaws, but so far, the most versatile ski I've owned are may 182, Enduro/Carbon, flex 4 GPOs (nylon top - before veneer was offered). 5'9" 165 Lbs ... not so much of a charger and hucker these days.
The only question in my mind is whether I want to bias if for the resort (maybe a heavy core?) or not. Definitely not UL however, and I love the dampness of the veneer on my Quixotes ... a ski I'm still not certain is different enough from my other skis to keep. More on that in the Quixote thread in a few days.
Regarding weight questions (not quite apples to apples, but close):
My 182, Enduro/Carbon/Nylon Top GPOs: 4065 gms (8.9 Lbs.) for the pair.
My 182 Enduro/Carbon/Veneer Quixotes: 3897 gms (8.6 Lbs.) for the pair
Both skis are flex #4
... Thom
Galibier Designcrafting technology in service of music
Just based on my regular width GPO, I would think the pretty serious tip taper wouldn't be an ideal fit for a -10 layup, thinking float would really suffer and also stability at speed, but these are just wild ass guesses
Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app
Yup, that's probably part of the answer. Tail shape and mount point are other parts.
They float and turn very nicely when the snow isn't bottomless and reasonably light, and/or you can keep them in the fall line. Stability in cut up is good, as long as you really tip them over.
In heavy or crusty snow, especially deep snow, they are difficult to ski. If you add tight trees or technical terrain they are pretty bad. My 102 Wrens skis better in those conditions.
Ramp angle is probably part of the problem. They are mounted with Kingpins at -1, and the difference between Cochise and Solly Labs is significant. Cochises being far better. Will try shimming them sometime soon.
Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk
Yeah, as much as I didn't agree with lots of the Blister review of the standard layup GPO, they weren't wrong about the ski being much more stable when higher on edge.
Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app
I need to pull out my neglected/ignored Automatic 109's for a compar-o. The have a similar shark nose to the GPO, and I've always looked at them as de-tuned GPOs in terms of general characteristics. They definitely deflect more in chop than the standard width GPOs and they don't hold an edge as well.
I'd look at a 106 GPO (-10) as a quiver ski and wouldn't expect it to do as well in deeper snow as the full-width version. The spot it would fill would "require" quick, pivoty attributes in anything from pretty hard snow to chalky to boot top.
Sure, a Wren or Kartel keeps floating to the top of list as well. There's something about how the idea of -10 GPOs (to my way of skiing) makes me think that they'll bridge the attributes of the Kartel and Wren.
... Thom
Galibier Designcrafting technology in service of music
Bookmarks