The Official Great Pacific Octopus Thread

[grinch]

^^^ this. thanks for saving me a long post. back -1 so I can drive the tips a bit. lazy super tired day once and I was back on the tails too much and they kicked my ass. centred to a lil tip pressure and slarve or rail. not the best ski for everything but really good. what ratio of carve vs float do you want? for you to decide the gpo has no glaring weakness. different strokes. I've always liked stiff tails

[NakedShorts]

Huh. I am at the dimple on 192 carbons, med/stiff and I think i can ski them in any stance i want. Have not had the above experience at all.

Good to hear you can normally relax a bit while taking in a pow day, the snow was FUNKY (Thick and Hooky) and I am sure the snow had the biggest impact on how I was riding. First real soft snow day on them so nothing else to compare against. Saturday would have been better but I was afraid of ROCKS.

The stiff tail is money, especially when railing groomers. Blasting by peeps without a second thought in the skier packed powder mogul field was a blast. My first run, in powder looking snow, was Dust on Crust Wind Effected Bumps and I thought to myself this must be what those guys at Blister were yaking about. I really want to ski them in HERO snow.

I just really noticed they wanted to be skied on the aggressive end of the spectrum (yesterday). And they do PERFORM.

[Slow 'n Steady]

Huh. I am at the dimple on 192 carbons, med/stiff and I think i can ski them in any stance i want. Have not had the above experience at all.

I'm +0.5 and feel the same. I'm a little hesitant to post b/c I've had less than a dozen days on them so far. But, FWIW, I typically ski very forward (daily driver is '05 race room LPs). So far my GPOs do not demand that at all, but respond as needed when I get up on them. Probably their happiest place is skiing from the ball of the foot, but I feel like they have plenty of sweet spot to play with (not JJ or Automatic big, but I can push these a lot harder too).

Maybe Phyber was right about being mounted more forward on a ski like this?

[hoarhey]

Details, details...............

Shit I can't even get to them on the custom page anymore.

Oh well. That was fun.

Who wants some 187s? Now I need to order some apparently.

Found custom wootests here:
http://www.praxisskis.com/products/wootest-custom.html

[roQer]

The problem might be that there is no just the GPO out there but different mutants of the GPO. For my part I don't think that my version (192 cm, UL core, stiff flex) performs excepcionally well compared to similar skis in the same class. It is for sure not a bad ski either but it does not really shine in any condition, not even in powder, and is somewhat tricky to ski in funky snow and terrain. It might be also the whole touring oriented setup with Cochise Pro and the Beast which makes the difference as compared to Patron Pro and Pivots on my other skis. The GPO is also by far the most center mounted of all my skis, even though I went -2 cm from the dimple. And hey, it's not that I didn't have fun on the GPO. Probably just stupid luxury problems having two other skis in exactly the same category.

[galibier_numero_un]

Just about to pull the trigger on a pair of GPO's. Knowing that there are no bad choices, I did the normal maggot thing and wrote Keith so he could talk me down off the ledge (or maybe to jump). I thought documenting this dialog might be helpful to others, although a bit of it repeats info on this thread. We all think we're unique ... don't we

Probably the most relevant part of this dialog is if you're looking for comparisons with the Atomic Automatic 109 & the Carbon Megawatt - especially in terms of rocker profile.

It's pretty clear to me that Keith is the real deal, and I'll be smilin' with a pair of 182 GPO's next Winter.

First, my e-mail:

Hi Keith,

After much geeking out, I'm narrowing down a ski order for you. If a quick phone call is easier for you, let me know how to reach you. I'll try to organize my thoughts as best as I can:

About me:

• 5'9" / 170 Lbs.
• Old fart - been skiing for 50 years, in good shape
• Solid expert skier, will ski 45++ degrees, but I don't huck cliffs
• Style: I think of Doug Coombs and aspire to his coolness and precision. I'm a "technique" skier and try to finesse my way down a hill. I mostly stay on the ground and point my skis forward ;-)
• Balance: traditional. I feel the front of my boots, although I'm starting to adapt to pressuring the center of my arch by contracting my instep & anterior leg muscles to flex my ankle (instead of by driving knees to flex). I first started playing with this with my Megawatts this Winter.
• I ski mostly in Northern Colorado and tend to hunt powder in tight trees. Groomers bore me.

Current Skis that Work for me - this is my first year on any rockered skis (the two below):

• 2013-14 Carbon Megawatts (178) - mounted on the factory line: feels about right in heavy stuff but does get kicked around a bit in the chunks (could be me plus the light carbon). I can hold a good edge on hardpack with them and adapted to quick turns (even with 120mm waist).
• 2014-15 Atomic Automatic 109's (182) - mounted on the factory line: feels about right in the tight trees & 8-12" of freshies. Easy-peasy skiing on dust over crust. Carve well, and just a bit unstable in straight-line, but I'm ok with the skis on balance, but a bit more straight-line stability would be fine, if this didn't come at a price.

Current Skis that "Partially" Work for me:

• 2009 K2 Coomba (no rocker) - 181cm: fine for railing big turns, but they beat me up in the tight trees and hang up in nasty bumps. People tell me I would have liked the 174's.
• 2008 G3 Reverend (no rocker) 177: kind of a "mini-Coomba" ok on the hardpack, but the tail hangs up in nasty, short bumps. I mostly tour with it these days.

Likely ski choice (a daily driver for Colo.):

• GPO in 187 (possibly 182?) - first choice
• Rx in 179?
• Concept - 177?
• Standard (medium/stiff) flex
• Standard camber profile (no CCR)
• MAP Triaxial, but possibly MAP Triaxial/Carbon (I doubt UL Core makes sense for inbounds)
• For inbounds use in Northern Colorado mounted with alpine bindings
• Prioritize soft snow, over hard snow; tight trees over wide open charging

Completely off the wall: Protests. I'd keep my Atomic Automatic 109's as my daily driver for this year. Talk me down off the ledge ;-)

Notes:

What leads me to the 187 GPO is the camber contact length of 97. It sounds as if I can navigate it in tight stuff and float in the deep stuff. I measured my two "modern" skis (base to base, sliding paper "feeler gauge" to contact points):

• 182cm Atomic Automatic-109's - camber contact length =115cm
• 178 Carbon Megawatts - camber contact length =121cm

Given that the Automatic 109's are about right for me in the tight stuff. Am I correct in favoring the GPO over the Rx and Concept? The Rx (179) and Concept (177) seem as if they could work, and I know there's no "wrong" decision.

I realize this "camber contact" is a simplistic analysis, but I wanted to keep this e-mail length under control (sort of).

Keith's reply …

Thom,

Thanks for the email and interest in getting a pair of our skis. From what you have outlined here I think you are on the right track with the GPO. For length I would stay at the 182 length. The camber contact does read shorter but our rocker rises really slow compared to the Atomic and the megawatt. So you still have contact past our stated length and notice that the sidecut length is longer than the camber length, the slow rise is the reason for this. So its probably good to consider the sidecut length when trying to determine how long the ski will feel on the snow. Looking at your other skis lengths and your height I think the 182 is the way to go.

If you had said that you wanted the ski to arc on groomers and have a more tradition carve with a bigger turn radius, I would consider the RX but since you are looking for an off piste ski I think the GPO is the better option. As well the GPO is more nimble in trees.

The medium/stiff flex seems like a good fit to your weight and compares well to the skis you've been on. As well it's a good match for the GPO so that sounds like the way to go.

Since you are using the ski for resort use I'd go with the MAP core and not the UL. You would probably like the addition of the carbon fiber, we only add stringers of carbon to the fiberglass so it's not going to be chattery or cause the ski to deflect. The MAP-carbon option will knock a few ounces off the weight and give the ski a faster rebound (or more pop) and that is what I like about the carbon option.

Well it looks like the GPO would replace the atomic. And that seems like a good way to go. A daily driver when there is any soft snow or fresh and good for the deep days as well.

If you went for the Protest you'd be getting a ski in the next category and more powder specific. More of a replacement for the megawatt. Something for the deeper days or off piste fresh snow after storm cycles clear.

So I guess as a ski salesman I would have to recommend that you get both the GPO and the Protest! but in reality the GPO is probably the first ski to consider of the two. Well I guess it might depend what you feel would be the best ski to replace in your quiver or where you want to expand the quiver. As you said you could keep the atomic and go for the fatty Protest because next winter is going to be a big one!

Hope that helps with the decision. Please let me know what comes up for questions.

Cheers
Keith

Keith then followed up regarding the Concept:

I did kinda skip over the Concept pretty much for the reason that you said, the GPO is a safer bet. I like the Concept ski and I've received great feedback on it but not everyone loves it. Its a good one to demo before you buy.

[spindrift]

Been spending a bunch of time on both standard and CCR GPOs. Finally got the CCRs out in some legit powder this week. Tough to do given the lack of powder this year combined with taking Protests out when I am sure of what I am getting. No surprise (and consistent with what I think others have said) the CCR is a bit twitchier on hard snow & does not hold an edge quite as well. But as soon as the snow is soft or deep - I think the CCR comes into its own in a big way. It pivots, and rolls side to side easily. It is noticeably looser - especially in slush, etc. For my .02, if you are getting a GPO as a full on all-around, go standard camber/rocker. If you are buying it as more of a dedicated powder and soft snow ski - for my .02 the CCR rocks.

[Crook11]

The GPO looks unreal. Does anyone have a Praxis coupon they would be willing to part with?

[Muggydude]

Sent you a pm

[Nkane]

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on a pair. Anyone have a code?

[Muggydude]

Pm sent

[Nkane]

Ordered! Here's to snow!

[galibier_numero_un]

Great thread!

SuperChicken, Dane1, adrenalated and a host of others' comments have me thinking -1. The exchange between AyasFreeski and adrenalated on page 21 really had me going back and forth.

My only relevant data points (minimal experience with modern skis) are 182 Atomic Automatic 109's and a 178 pair of Carbon Megawatts. Mounted on the line, the Automatic feels good on hard snow but in snow >12" (moderate density), I find myself pressuring the rear third of my arch - almost as if I'm sitting back.

TLDR part:

I'm thinking that soft snow performance is more about running surface, rocker and pintail shapes - not so much about sidecut length, camber contact and such. From this perspective, -1 is making more and more sense - for the Automatic and the GPO, with my only concern being quickness in tight spots (Colorado trees).

The "TL" part:

I ventured into this with more years than I'd care to mention of old school / pressure the tongue/shin habits (can you say: "207cm Dynamic VR-17?"). I'm adapting to a more centered stance however, and liking it. Note that I said more centered. I'm still not very upright, and I don't like pressuring the rear of my arch (mid to front arch is fine). I realized how much I've adapted, when I took out both my 2nd year 181cm Coombas (no tip rocker, G3 Onyx binders) and 177cm G3 Reverends (Dynafit Vertical ST) out for rides. I had to re-adapt to driving forward and missed the Automatics.

Geekery Follows:

I just followed Marshall's advice and measured the wide points on three skis (GPO's, Automatics, Megawatts) - to establish the sidecut length. I can't seem to get this formatted into a table - even with fixed font (Courier).

The three numbers below (for each ski) are:

1. Measured sidecut length
2. Mount point location measured from rear wide point (start of sidecut)
3. Offset of recommended mount point from midpoint of measured sidecut (negative number is closer to tail)

To measure the sidecut length, I laid the skis on their side on a hardwood floor and used a sheet of paper as a feeler gauge. I'm comfortable consistency of my measurements, although I can't explain the 3cm difference between my measurements and the Praxis spec.

• GPO (182): 125 cm, 62, -0.5 (note: Praxis site says 128cm sidecut length)
• Automatic-109 (182): 134 cm, 61, -6.0
• Megawatt (178): 127 cm, 63, -0.5

After thinking more about deep snow attributes, I measured the straight pull length and the recommended mount point distance from the tail. For the latter measurement, I used a tape measure running flat on the top skin (material length).

• GPO: 180.3, 83.0
• Automatic: 180.3, 81.5
• Megawatt: 179.1, 78.0

Cheers,
Thom

[grinch]

love mine more and more every time out. they just do everything. I have 182's at -1 . I'd like to have a pair of 187's on the dimple. think I've fully adjusted to the more center mount. sooo fun. lay them on edge on a groomer and they carve amazing for a 116 waisted ski. same in pow or chopped, just lay them over and surf or pivot thru tight stuff or moguls when needed. now my favorite ski most every day

[Breomonkey]

Leaving for the first trip with mine tomorrow night. I'm a little uneasy leaving my faves at home, but I've got big hopes. Will let y'all know how it goes.

[eskido]

Leaving for the first trip with mine tomorrow night. I'm a little uneasy leaving my faves at home, but I've got big hopes. Will let y'all know how it goes.

Pls do, enjoy!

[grinch]

^^x2 . I'm sure you'll dig them straight away. Over time they've just become intuitive. At 160lbs I find the med/stiff likes the foot on the gas. No back seat to make them float. Turn them up on edge and slash and they'll b all surf

[steveski]

love mine more and more every time out. they just do everything. I have 182's at -1 . I'd like to have a pair of 187's on the dimple. think I've fully adjusted to the more center mount. sooo fun. lay them on edge on a groomer and they carve amazing for a 116 waisted ski. same in pow or chopped, just lay them over and surf or pivot thru tight stuff or moguls when needed. now my favorite ski most every day

I have a pair of carbon 187s mounted on the dimple with dynafits and have not loved another ski more.

I'm currently working on getting a 182 fiberglass pair for inbounds and patrolling (lots of tight trees) and don't see any reason why not to mount it in the line as well. Looking forward to now having my favorite ski with all boot/binding combos.

[Muggydude]

The one time I had my 187s on the dimple in deep (close to a foot) I felt they tip dived. Moved them back to -1 and have been happy ever since. I will say I don't really take them out for deep stuff like that anymore (have a fat ski problem), would most likely be fine on the dimple in variable conditions. I thibk overall they have a pretty big sweet spot

[Shu Shu]

I love my carbon 187's on the dimple. Like Muggy I had one 14+ super low density day where I had a little tip dive (totally ruined my day so I immediately bought some Protests for those conditions. All kidding aside I'm not entirely convinced -1 would have helped that much on that day in those conditions. Steveski I would also love to had add a 182 glass to my quiver. Looking forward to Breomonkey's impressions.

[galibier_numero_un]

All kidding aside I'm not entirely convinced -1 would have helped that much on that day in those conditions.

I'm thinking that the difference between 0 & -1 is how you'll stand on the skis to get the same characteristic. IOW, you'll get the same float (for example) mounted at 0 if you pressure the center of your arch, as you would if you mounted at -1 and pressured slightly more forward.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something? Would I even be able to tell the difference in a blind test I'm a bit of a princess and the pea, but I still have to wonder. I also wonder how much quickness I'd give up in tight trees at -1. I can easily talk myself into either mount.

I'd have to agree that they work well if you drive them from the ball of the foot- don't have to be super aggressive with the tips. If you get really backseat they can run on you for sure, but I actually really enjoyed billygoating with them on some of the really steep terrain.

This makes me want to mount at 0, but I can find similar valid arguments for -1.

I'm mounting tonight and still waffling. A bit of paralysis by analysis, knowing that I can't really go wrong with either point.

The fact that the holes would be so close if I remounted doesn't bother me (inserts are strong), but the fact that I might also mount some Kingpins on these might throw a monkey wrench into the whole affair. The good news is, that after doing a hole overlap analysis of the Ion, Vipec and Kingpin, it's only the Kingpin that presents a minor overlap problem at the toe.

Cheers,
Thom

[Muggydude]

Honestly if you have a deep day ski (over 8-10 inches) I think dimple would be fine. If you will be taking it out in deeper stuff I'd still mount mine -1

[galibier_numero_un]

So it all boils down to how soon a Protest is in my future

Thanks!
Thom

[Muggydude]

Pretty much. Yoy could always go -.5 too hahaha

[Shu Shu]

So it all boils down to how soon a Protest is in my future

Thanks!
Thom

Slippery slope bro and compared to some around here my problem is minor-Good luck with the mount