Check Out Our Shop
Page 26 of 64 FirstFirst ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... LastLast
Results 626 to 650 of 1600

Thread: 2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

  1. #626
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bay Area / Tahoe
    Posts
    2,797
    Heavy core is still lighter than on3p. Especially with veneer and carbon

  2. #627
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    2,121
    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.

  3. #628
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,097

    2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Muggydude View Post
    Heavy core is still lighter than on3p. Especially with veneer and carbon
    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

  4. #629
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    16,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada29er View Post
    Great, now the 20% code isn't working... Not that I need another 116 underfoot ski with BGs, and Governors.
    Maybe you don’t need that code “presidents”? Prices are listed at 20% off atm

  5. #630
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    1,164
    For mags in Canada, what's the border crossing cost you when your skis ship?

  6. #631
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    16,625
    Quote Originally Posted by nickel View Post
    For mags in Canada, what's the border crossing cost you when your skis ship?
    Mine has varied from 40-60. Lately they’ve been cheaper(around $40)

  7. #632
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    The Quixote is a cool ski, the "slarveability" makes you ski faster and faster without really noticing, atleast in smooth conditions.
    Not quite sure what you mean by "smooth conditions", but my Q's fuck up anything soft, smooth, chopped, dirty, bitchy, steep, or stoopid.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  8. #633
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by eskido View Post
    Not quite sure what you mean by "smooth conditions", but my Q's fuck up anything soft, smooth, chopped, dirty, bitchy, steep, or stoopid.
    No no, I totally agree, I was talking more about the high speed drifty/slarvy rythem you can get into when the snow is more “consistent”.

  9. #634
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    No no, I totally agree, I was talking more about the high speed drifty/slarvy rythem you can get into when the snow is more “consistent”.
    Kinda figured, just wanted to clarify what you were talking about. Not that I would take issue per say, just dig the discussion
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  10. #635
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    3,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada29er View Post
    Cool, I don't need a super stiff flex, just nice and progressive. A little extra length helps with the suspension. I actually thought the 196 protests (#4 flex) were on the stiff side, but the shovel length felt short. I'm a fan of more traditional ski mounts.

    Thinking of picking up some Rx with the 20% off Presidents code.
    I’m somewhere between trad and progressive mounts. 196 protest was WAY more dialed at -1.5 than on the dimple.

    Don’t hate the ski, hate the mount.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  11. #636
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    125
    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.

  12. #637
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,858
    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

  13. #638
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by jski171 View Post
    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
    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!

  14. #639
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,495
    Quote Originally Posted by jski171 View Post
    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
    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.

  15. #640
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    125
    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.

  16. #641
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,647
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    I wish I had a pair of -10 GPOs too. Anybody selling? Seriously.
    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 Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  17. #642
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    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
    I have about 10 days on -10 GPOs. Will post a few comments soon, but I'd just like to say that it's a bit of a Jekyll/Hyde ski.



    Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk

  18. #643
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,495
    Quote Originally Posted by jski171 View Post
    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.
    Flex 3 UL GPO's are not as damp or stable as 185 Zero g 108's (I have a pair. Dependable skis, but maybe a little boring). But in powder or in trees I ski faster on the GPO's.

  19. #644
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    I have about 10 days on -10 GPOs. Will post a few comments soon, but I'd just like to say that it's a bit of a Jekyll/Hyde ski.



    Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk
    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

  20. #645
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
    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

  21. #646
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    1,905
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    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

  22. #647
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,495
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    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
    What layup and length? Interested in trading for 185 Zero G 108's?

  23. #648
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    What layup and length? Interested in trading for 185 Zero G 108's?
    187, Enduro+veneer, 3+. I'm in Norway so......

    Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk

  24. #649
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,647
    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 Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  25. #650
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,495
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    I'm in Norway so......
    Ah.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •