Paging Kidwoo - Woo 2.0

[harpo-the-skier]

I skied my woo 2.0, dynas, and Mercuries yesterday at Kwood. They did better than my 186 Billy Goats with alpine boots in fresh breakable crust, a great test for them. In the crust, they slarved consistently. They also did well in the soft after the pow was broken up, and on runs that were bumped out. In the bumps, I did notice that I had to be careful not to be tossed backwards onto the tails, but that might have been the Mercuries. I could carve or skid as desired.

They held and edge well on a firm roll over at the top of a run and on some traverses, but they were funky trying to make turns on groomers. They were grabby and didn't skid or carve consistently. In the same conditions, the BGs skied just like my traditional skis (note that these were very soft groomers on a pow day, not packed pow groomers a few days old.)

Keith says he shipped them with a 1/1 bevel. I usually run a 1/2 on most of my skis. Also, I detuned them considerably with a file from an behind/in front of the contact points. Will more detuning or putting a 1/2 on them improve their groomer performance? Also, the detuned section of the edges are pretty rough, I just took a file to them at 45 deg. Should I take a diamond stone to smooth them out?

[kidwoo]

Nice! Thanks for the update.

The closest thing to packed snow I've been on is still a chewed up track from a snowcat. They didn't feel weird to me at all.....but I wasn't really trying to arc big open turns or anything either. Been in quite a few varieties of sluge and shit snow and I'm pretty psyched with them.

I've been working long days for the last two weeks with no weekends off. Immabout to get a whole lot of time on these things. I need a multiple day sanity break. Just talked a buddy into buying a sled too so we'll be all over the place.

[MTslackcountry]

Where is the mount point on these is it the tiny divet on the sidewall?

[kidwoo]

Yep. That's it.

[neck beard]

I skied my woo 2.0, dynas, and Mercuries yesterday at Kwood. They did better than my 186 Billy Goats with alpine boots in fresh breakable crust, a great test for them. In the crust, they slarved consistently.

Keep talking...

[kidwoo]

Is that He-Man?

[Ted Striker]

hehe ...so wrong.

[neck beard]

Yes, very wrong.

[MTslackcountry]

Are you guys detuning the hell out of the ski from the rocker out or from the taper out?

[harpo-the-skier]

I detuned from the rocker on out, but I might do some more from a few cm's closer to the middle. At this point I detuned from a point about 1cm inboard from the contact points and they felt a bit catchy on groomers. I am open to suggestions.

Are you guys detuning the hell out of the ski from the rocker out or from the taper out?

[MTslackcountry]

I detuned from the rocker on out, but I might do some more from a few cm's closer to the middle. At this point I detuned from a point about 1cm inboard from the contact points and they felt a bit catchy on groomers. I am open to suggestions.

I have not skied them yet but detuned from the rocker out. Are they catchy in the tips or tails or both? I plan to ski them this Sat and will have a gummie stone with me to dull down the rest of the ski slightly if I feel that its too catchy. The edges are really sharp. someone had mentioned that the base bevel was 1 deg so it shouldnt be that but they also could be at 90 which could make them catchy in and out of turns too.

[Skeeze]

There's a few mentions in this thread and the 1.0 one about how the woo holds up just fine on firm entrances, etc. does anyone have more time on the 2.0 yet to comment on how it compares in those firm conditions vs. a more traditional ski like the Praxis Backcountry?

I'm currently on 186 Lhasas for touring but they've sustained some pretty serious damage and the dynafits on them are also slightly broken, so I could probably use a new setup. I love my Powderboards and tend to prefer a more pivoty ski than one I have to drive hard (I don't really have the confidence or skill to do so on the Lhasas in difficult BC terrain), hence my interest in the woo 2.0.

The woo sounds great, but since my touring happens around mammoth, corn, windboard, and steep entrances are more the norm than powder. Should the woo still handle everything safely despite the lack of camber and sidecut and significant rocker?

[Winkler]

There's a few mentions in this thread and the 1.0 one about how the woo holds up just fine on firm entrances, etc. does anyone have more time on the 2.0 yet to comment on how it compares in those firm conditions vs. a more traditional ski like the Praxis Backcountry?

I'm currently on 186 Lhasas for touring but they've sustained some pretty serious damage and the dynafits on them are also slightly broken, so I could probably use a new setup. I love my Powderboards and tend to prefer a more pivoty ski than one I have to drive hard (I don't really have the confidence or skill to do so on the Lhasas in difficult BC terrain), hence my interest in the woo 2.0.

The woo sounds great, but since my touring happens around mammoth, corn, windboard, and steep entrances are more the norm than powder. Should the woo still handle everything safely despite the lack of camber and sidecut and significant rocker?

I'll give ya my take on the Woo 1.0 in firmer conditions, they are like popcorn without butter. Not bad and it certainly ain't gonna kill ya but rather bland and uninteresting.

[kidwoo]

^Haha!

Pretty accurate I'd say.

I'm just now to the point of getting the 2.0s off their gillette sharpness edges. But I've got no problems getting on my shins on hard snow moreso than the 1.0 versions. They're still an absolutely huge radius ski so 90% of your turns need to be slid rather than carved. But even when they aren't, that hookiness just isn't there now. It was at first but that was all the edges. It's taken me a while to get convinced of that but I am.

I've skied a pair of lhasas on hard snow for a few runs and they're definitely more a traditional response in that you can just stay hard on your shins the whole time. Kind of a matter of preference IMO. I'll have my 2.0s up on the plateau at somepoint this year with no reservations if that tells you anything.

We've finally got some normal elevation snow coming to tahoe in the next few days so I'll be getting a much better feel for the snow they were designed for. I have no question that they're better all around than the 1.0s (with maybe a little sacrifice in tip drag in super deep stuff).

[kidwoo]

Okay. This these things rule.

Very happy.

[Jim S]

Got the 187 Woo 2.0, mounted Dynafits minimally behind the dot (0.5 or 1.0 cm), and toured and skied them today. Per Keith, Kevin OMeara put a +1 bevel on the edges. Boot is Dynafit Mercury. Moi 6'2" and 186 lbs.

Just fantastic in pow, crud, slush, crust, and tight trees.

[hoarhey]

Thought this is a good place to put this comment.
I've been thinking about shorter skis, and a shorter protest like ski, but narrower than 128 mm underfoot.

After talking to Keith yesterday, sounds like he'd be willing to make a shorter wootest at 177'ish cm for next year. Might be time to start chiming in, and emailing him at praxis dot com... if you'd want this ski.

[kidwoo]

How tall are you? I'm no giant at 5'8" and am perfectly comfortable on the 187s in tight places (kind of the point of the ski). I imagine a 177 would feel really really short......maybe even prohibitively so.

[hoarhey]

How tall are you? I'm no giant at 5'8" and am perfectly comfortable on the 187s in tight places (kind of the point of the ski). I imagine a 177 would feel really really short......maybe even prohibitively so.

Ummm. 5'8", but I'd like something shorter than a 187...maybe a 182?
Kind of telling when 6'+ 200lb guys are skiing the 187 without a problem..

Makes me think, why do I have to be on the same ski they are...

[snapt]

I'm a little guy who might be interested in a 180-2

[kidwoo]

Kind of telling when 6'+ 200lb guys are skiing the 187 without a problem..

There's nothing really that telling about Jim S's decisions. He takes pictures of himself taking a dump with skis on in his bathroom and puts them on the internet.

[schuss]

Yeah, based on the splay numbers, it probably skis more like a 170-180 on the harder stuff.

[kidwoo]

It kinda skis like a 175 on the softer stuff too. It just floats like a motherfucker


Just for reference......
I started skiing in about 2005 at the age of 30. I was a snowboarder for 15 years. I didn't start really skiing full time until about 2007......most of that in the BC and only at resorts on pow days. I started skiing when skis themselves started not-sucking and split boards were in their early days of very much so sucking. I'm anything but a born and bred skier with great technique with a lifetime of mad skillz. I have zero issues skiing the 187s......anywhere. I'm way better than that hohes guy in japan but that's just because I have some minor modicum of general athletic ability.

If your down with the idea of slarving around turns in any kind of 3D snow, and on quick radius turns on hard snow, you'll be fine. The only thing they suck at is arcing tight rails on hardpack........but no one including me wanted that ski because thousands of them already exist.

[TeleThor]

So I'm likely in the market for a new pair of skis ASAP. Seriously considering the Woo 2.0. I've got my pow ski BD Megawatts - could be stiffer, but whatever, they're fun. My other go-to ski was my pair of very well-used but original (aka the first ever pressed) Lhasas protos. Good in pow, but not as much rocker as the later versions, great on corn, didn't love them in funkier heavy stuff for some reason. Also liked the skis I built in my garage which were low to zero camber, pretty large sidecut, but they're quite rough around the edges and not light. As luck would have it, I got a bunch of Binding Freedom inserts, so I offloaded a pair of Dynafits and the Lhasas protos. Based on the testimonials of durability and light weight, combined with the price point, Praxis are looking pretty good. I'm debating between the Woo 2.0s and the BCs. Hope it's not a thread drift... but thought I'd ask here since this thread seems to have the most Woo experts.

Me: 6'2"ish, 190-205 lbs depending on current work out regiments. Been on skis since I was 3. Alpine until 20. Never raced. Tele from 20 to 27. Split time between tele and Dynafits for the last 3 years. Been told and consider myself a smooth/finesse skier, and like to go faster rather than slower. I like the loose feel of my Megawatts and of the DPS Lotus 138s I broke about 5 years ago, which seems go with the smooth-ish way I think I ski. I think I like a centered stance mostly, but that said, in firmer conditions, I have no problem driving the front of the ski a bit more.

Now that I left away from the mountains, I want 1 ski to travel with that I will put inserts in that can go light w/ dynafits or more beefy for the resort. I mostly visit friends who tour exclusively, so I estimate 75+% backcountry, hence the need for light weight.

If you guys will humor my thread drift (sorry), how would the Woo 2s stack up versus a more traditional (yeah I know there's plenty of rocker - that's traditional these days) ski like the BC. Both seem like good options. Which one would be a better choice for resort days?

Thanks ahead of time.

[auvgeek]

Well, Woo 2.0s could be a great choice, but I would consider the 196 and stiff construction based on your size and ability. The biggest question in my mind would be how well you need them to handle on hardpack.

Other major option to consider would be the newest version of the 196 Lhasa Pow (splat's now doing a stiff construction and lot more rocker). Is it worth the extra $$$? I don't know. And I'd also be sure to consider the 191 Billy Goat Tour...

Just spit ballin' here, since I haven't skied the 2.0 and haven't even gotten around to skiing my 1.0s yet. But I'm bored, so I figured I'd offer my totally uneducated opinion.