2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[N1CK.]

Anyone skiing a -10 RX as a variable snow daily drive? Like it? Hate it? Would you do it again?

neckbeard bought a -10 RX or two last season

[SupreChicken]

Exactly. I want a touring ski for a mix of junky snow on spring steeps. I want a ski that will pivot easily but also hold a solid carve if I want it to. And I want a little pop in the tail. About 4 lbs/ski.

The original pre-carbon Praxis BC's which were stiffer in the tip and tail were good, but the tails washed out a bit too easily. Maybe I just need to ski my Zero G 108's more.

I think you want a -10 RX.

If camber height is a thing we can customize, I could be convinced to try an RX at last or even give Q’s another shot...

But really, I think my pow touring ride is a 187 4- enduro maple GPO...+/- Carbon. Mount at -1. Hope for 8.8 lbs for the pair or so. I’d also look at a -10 Ullr (but resale on that might suck) or a -10 protest (because I never bought a chickentest)

If I were getting a narrower touring ski (as usual, I’m thinking about both), I’d want a 184 -10 RX or (even better) a 184 BC. Same layup as above.

Aever - sounds like you would recommend the RX universally - do you think the shape is better suited to inbounds riding or out of bounds?

[auvgeek]

The original pre-carbon Praxis BC's which were stiffer in the tip and tail were good, but the tails washed out a bit too easily. Maybe I just need to ski my Zero G 108's more.

What don't you like about the 0G 108?

I like subtle rocker/camber profiles. A skinny RX with 1-2 mm of camber seems like it be excellent -- slightly better float and a more progressive mount than the 0G 108 sounds perfect. The 184 is probably the right size, but I do wish it came in a 187x110 (nitpicky).

[Banh Mi]

Aever - sounds like you would recommend the RX universally - do you think the shape is better suited to inbounds riding or out of bounds?

I find the shape confidence inspiring in literally every condition. I haven’t skied them out of bounds, but have had them in boot deep powder, windbuff, ice, crud and chop, on smooth terrain as well as inbounds moguls. They define “versatility” in skis for me. They prefer longer turns, and aren’t going to be super surfy, but they are no harder to ski than 189 billy goats. Even in the heavy, #5 layup(which is stiffer than standard BGs), and even in manky, thick Sierra/PNW type snow. Some of the easiest, and least “hooky” skis I have ever tried in heavy and/or cut up 3D snow.

If I could describe the shape of the Rx in a few words, I’d say it feels kind of like a cambered katana shape. Despite the 116mm width, they have the versatility of something under or around 110mm underfoot, and feel more like all mountain skis than fat skis. They can grip on nasty ice no problem, they are by far, hands down, the most predictable 116mm ski I have ever skied on ice or windpack.

The enduro core should float better than mine, yet the shape and effective edge will still handle any crappy conditions. I am thinking that layup would be like a more durable, cambered, v-werks katana.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

What don't you like about the 0G 108?

GPO tails are easier to break loose, have more pop for snapping off quick turns and give back more energy coming out of higher angle turns than the Zero G's. More fun. I like the Zero G's. Just don't love them. They're a bit more like the Cochise than what I want in a touring ski.

[adrenalated]

What don't you like about the 0G 108?

I like subtle rocker/camber profiles. A skinny RX with 1-2 mm of camber seems like it be excellent -- slightly better float and a more progressive mount than the 0G 108 sounds perfect. The 184 is probably the right size, but I do wish it came in a 187x110 (nitpicky).

FWIW my old "189" RXs measure 187cm. I don't know if the newer ones are the same. Betelgeuse probably could check.

[Banh Mi]

If I recall correctly, mine are just over 187cm.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[galibier_numero_un]

GPO tails are easier to break loose, have more pop for snapping off quick turns and give back more energy coming out of higher angle turns than the Zero G's. More fun. I like the Zero G's. Just don't love them. They're a bit more like the Cochise than what I want in a touring ski.

Yeah, about the only thing that creates a minor pull away from a -10 GPO would be a -10 Rx.

This becomes one of those "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" sort of things however, and my love affair with the standard width GPO draws me towards a skinny one.

My sense is that I'll prefer the quickness of the GPO over the longer effective edge and stability of the Rx. Splitting hairs, but that's what we do ...

... Thom

[Island Bay]

Yeah, about the only thing that creates a minor pull away from a -10 GPO would be a -10 Rx.

This becomes one of those "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" sort of things however, and my love affair with the standard width GPO draws me towards a skinny one.

My sense is that I'll prefer the quickness of the GPO over the longer effective edge and stability of the Rx. Splitting hairs, but that's what we do ...

... Thom

BCs instead of skinny GPOs. Very good skis, that do a lot of things really well - and float like much much wider skis.

[galibier_numero_un]

BCs instead of skinny GPOs. Very good skis, that do a lot of things really well - and float like much much wider skis.

Would you say the difference lies in the skinny GPOs handling crunchy snow better and the BC's doing better in softer snow?

Realizing these strategies are a bit of a crapshoot, my approach has been to do a dual mount (Alpine and touring, with inserts) to figure out the best use for this ski.

With this particular ski, I'm trying to correct a series of "mistakes" which began with a pair of Freerides that beat the crap out of me inbounds in refrozen bumps. The GPOs are the quickest wide skis I've played with in bumps (which I tend to avoid these days, but still find myself in during high pressure weather cycles).

I demoed some ON3P's, and thought that a blend of a Kartel and a Wren might be just the ticket. It then dawned on me that the ski im looking for might just be a skinny GPO. I could deal with a slight sacrifice in soft snow for a bit more "authority" in manky conditions.

... Thom

[I've seen black diamonds!]

BCs instead of skinny GPOs. Very good skis, that do a lot of things really well - and float like much much wider skis.

Good skis. They do indeed float very well. But they don't hold an edge or carve a turn as well as GPO's despite being narrower. Tip and tail are too soft on stock version. I've considered a stiffer custom BC as well.

[Island Bay]

Good skis. They do indeed float very well. But they don't hold an edge or carve a turn as well as GPO's despite being narrower. Tip and tail are too soft on stock version. I've considered a stiffer custom BC as well.

My pair must have had a burlier layup; never thought they felt floppy (compared to Protests and MVPs). Only have very limited experience with GPOs, and only in soft snow.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Another data point for the Praxis nerd. Keith calls the Q a cross between a RX and a GPO. I wouldn't get hung up on the asym. I don't think it takes any modification of technique.

[steveski]

Yeah, about the only thing that creates a minor pull away from a -10 GPO would be a -10 Rx.

This becomes one of those "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" sort of things however, and my love affair with the standard width GPO draws me towards a skinny one.

My sense is that I'll prefer the quickness of the GPO over the longer effective edge and stability of the Rx. Splitting hairs, but that's what we do ...

... Thom

I think skinny GPOs would be fun, but probably not as jaw dropping awesome as standard. Some skis/shapes seem to work best at a certain width. The Q for example (likely due to the asymm?) sounded very different at -10. Just my takeaway from reading limited feedback from people with Q experience. I haven't got to ski any myself yet.

[PlayItLeo]

^^^^ seems like most feedback has indicated that going +10/-10 has not worked out quite as well as hoped. We’re just internet ski nerds, not rocket surgeons who design skis. Personally, I’d leave the ski design to Keith and trust in what he’s built and tested and sold for years, but that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foggy_Goggles]

^^^^ seems like most feedback has indicated that going +10/-10 has not worked out quite as well as hoped. We’re just internet ski nerds, not rocket surgeons who design skis. Personally, I’d leave the ski design to Keith and trust in what he’s built and tested and sold for years, but that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, that is me too. I just don't think you can just scale up or down by width.

I'd going with "just ski Qs all day everyday and be done with it". So far to good.

[Shu Shu]

"just ski Qs all day everyday and be done with it". So far to good.

Pretty much where I'm at. Waiting for some nice corn and slushy bumps before I post some thoughts on the season, but they've pretty much been the daily driver.

Thankfully I got a couple great days hacking around the woods, before the shit show rain freeze nonsense of the last few weeks.



One things for sure, I am going to take them on a trip somewhere next year.

[Duffman]

Nope, that is me too. I just don't think you can just scale up or down by width.

I'd going with "just ski Qs all day everyday and be done with it". So far to good.

Agree. The pretty close to stock layup (4 flex. Enduro/glass , veneer ) Q is stupid easy to ski and rails pretty well for 118 underfoot. Maybe I have no sense or feel ,but I don't feel the need to do anything different b/c of the assym. Only longer term concern I have is what to do when the inside edge gets banged up.

Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app

[SupreChicken]

I think the quest for the right 106mm praxis ski is a tough one with the current custom options.

Keith has told me that he could ski a BC every day out of bounds and be happy. They just don't quite have the right length on that model. I'd really like a 183-186.

Looking at the rocker/camber/effective edge numbers, I bet the skinny Rx would be a better ski than the skinny GPO. 90mm of rocker on a 106mm waist just looks like overkill to me. But the skinny RX would be more of a fall line ski and I doubt it would plane as well as the skinny GPO. The BC falls right between them...I'm sure that's not an accident.

GPO: 55mm tip rocker, 35mm tail.
BC: 45mm tip rocker, 25mm tail
RX: 40 mm tip rocker, 18mm tail.

The complaints about the current BC is that it's too soft. I also do not want a UL core ski. Even for an exclusively out of bounds setup.

So for a custom 106mm waist for a touring setup, I actually would be much more tempted by a 184 BC than I would by a 184 skinny Rx or a 182/7 skinny GPO. I think that is the ski that team GPO (I'm definitely on team GPO) is looking for in a 106 waist. I don't think a 106 GPO is the right ski. Rx is there - if I had to pick between a 184 Rx or a 180/190 BC, I'd get the Rx. But that is more of a fall line or GS turns on a cornfield sort of ski. The BC looks more playful, maneuverable and easier to ski conservatively.

Flex 3+/4-, enduro, pale maple veneer, +/- carbon, Max or Tattoo topsheet. Guessing a 184 would be right around 1700-1800g per ski.

New flat ramp angle G3 binding with brakes or solly mtn. Or go heavier with the peace of mind that comes from a vipec toe.

Use that for everything from volcanos to short missions. Anything but pow touring or slackcountry.

I've emailed Keith about a different length during the custom sale. I'll see what he says.

Any of you other team GPO players looking for this ski? He might be more likely to do it if we can give him more than one custom order in a goldilocks length. Methinks 184 since the Rx mold would be fairly close.

[TripleT]

I swear I had found posts/info on this before but F me I can't find it now....so sorry for the potential jong redundancy

Anyone have experience going behind the dimple on 184 piste jibs? I'm considering going -0.5 or -1 for some additional driving ability. I know most of ya'll prefer the centered stance tho...

[N1CK.]

supreChicken: I owned a 180 BC and thought the shape was money, but the stock flex was FAR too soft for my fat ass
That shape in a 185cm, #4 flex would be a short list for me.

tripleT: I had my PJ at -1 and loved them. The new owner mounted on the line and says he loves them there too. I can't say which is 'better' but neither of us had bad results with our choice.

[jdadour]

I think the quest for the right 106mm praxis ski is a tough one with the current custom options.

Keith has told me that he could ski a BC every day out of bounds and be happy. They just don't quite have the right length on that model. I'd really like a 183-186.

Looking at the rocker/camber/effective edge numbers, I bet the skinny Rx would be a better ski than the skinny GPO. 90mm of rocker on a 106mm waist just looks like overkill to me. But it would be more of a fall line ski and I doubt it would plane as well as the skinny GPO. The BC falls right between them...I'm sure that's not an accident.

GPO: 55mm tip rocker, 35mm tail.
BC: 45mm tip rocker, 25mm tail
RX: 40 mm tip rocker, 18mm tail.

The complaints about the current BC is that it's too soft. I also do not want a UL core ski. Even for an exclusively out of bounds setup.

So for a custom 106mm waist for a touring setup, I actually would be much more tempted by a 184 BC than I would by a 184 skinny Rx or a 182/7 skinny GPO. I think that is the ski that team GPO (I'm definitely on team GPO) is looking for in a 106 waist. I don't think a 106 GPO is the right ski. Rx is there - if I had to pick between a 184 Rx or a 180/190 BC, I'd get the Rx. But that is more of a fall line or GS turns on a cornfield sort of ski. The BC looks more playful, maneuverable and easier to ski conservatively.

Flex 3+/4-, enduro, pale maple veneer, +/- carbon, Max or Tattoo topsheet. Guessing a 184 would be right around 1700-1800g per ski.

New flat ramp angle G3 binding with brakes or solly mtn. Or go heavier with the peace of mind that comes from a vipec toe.

Use that for everything from volcanos to short missions. Anything but pow touring or slackcountry.

I've emailed Keith about a different length during the custom sale. I'll see what he says.

Any of you other team GPO players looking for this ski? He might be more likely to do it if we can give him more than one custom order in a goldilocks length. Methinks 184 since the Rx mold would be fairly close.

Keep us posted on keiths response regarding the custom length. Im looking for a new everyday touring ski right now, and also very interested in the idea of a BC in enduro/maple/4 flex at around 184 length. That sounds money. And i think even though its not a UL, the weight would still be decently light in the 1700 range that you are thinking.

[steveski]

If we do this right team GPO might be able to give team RX a run for their money. 😁

[SupreChicken]

He says if we get 5 pairs, he'll definitely do a 184 or 185 BC.

If we don't he thinks a skinny Rx 184 or a fat yeti in a 182 would also be great.

Comparison.

Skinny RX: 131-106-118. 184. 40 mm tip rocker, 18mm tail rocker, 30m radius.
Fat Yeti: 130-104-120. 182. 40mm tip rocker, 20 mm tail rocker. 23m radius.
BC: 131-106-121. 184/5. 45 mm tip rocker, 25 mm tail rocker, 24.5m radius.

I'd still prefer the BC, but of the other 2, I'd probably go for the Rx before the fat yeti.

I bet custom orders this year range from $600-850. That's a big commitment - I know a lot of us build a few pairs and don't end up pulling the trigger.

But if N1CK and jdadour commit, we might be able to sway him w/ 3. If you guys weren't planning on dropping that amount on skis this offseason, no worries. I'll PM you. To anyone else, PM me if you're interested and I'll get a list going.

[PNW_Skier206]

Whoever scored this steal today congrats. Wanted to post but thought a mag might be sniping.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F232681179135


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums