2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[Drazzamatazz]

Well, seems like I know where my money is going. Not sure what I'm settling on yet, but hoping to combine a set of Praxis boards with a Shift MNC next season to create my catch-all quiver-of-one ski for an East Coaster.
Currently have my daily (icy) resort ski, Fatypus D-Sender for new snow, and a pair of K2 Coombacks for touring. What would people suggest to fill my quiver in. Had been thinking somewhere in the 95-110 range. Looking for something stable and dependable, but also fun and not entirely demanding of hard charging. Pretty much a ski I can just grab without thinking. Basically what I wish I already owned for my trip out to Denver next week...
There's just so many Praxis skis out there and you all have far more experience with them. Thinking skinny versions of all the favorites (RX, GPO, Concept) could be the ticket, but help sway me! Help!

[sf]

Wrote a review of my Skinny GPOs.
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...51#post5282051

[trex_9]

There was some discussion about differences among the veneers prior to last year's custom order. My recollection is that the gist was bamboo chipped a bit more and was a tad heavier. Keith has said the hardwoods are similar in weight and durability. I have experience with Maple Ambrosia and, so far (dozen days), am way impressed.

Cool, thank you. I'll do some searching and see what I can find.

[Drazzamatazz]

Wrote a review of my Skinny GPOs.
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...51#post5282051

Great! Thanks for your review. Sounds like I might run info the same issues as you, so it seems like I should take skinny GPOs off the table. Its too bad, I like most of what I've read about the GPO, but I suspect the standard width is probably a little more ski than what I'm looking for.
To expand on a point you touched on, I too have some reservations about just shrinking a ski down to meet my imagined desires. I suppose that's why I'm most curious about what success people have had with skinnied versions. Could possibly be better suited at look at a ski that was actually designed to be in the 95-105 range.

[SchralphMacchio]

Ordered. That maple topsheet is purdy and they will free up some weight for her.

Doh, I was gonna tell you 180 but have been busy skiing in Whistler this week on vacay.

I’m 5’ 8” 130 lbs naked, 150+ with boots and gear, far from a good skier, and I rock the 180’s. They ski really short due to short camber running length, light swing weight and soft tail, very easy ski. Most of my guy friends are on 190 BC’s.

Might be able to still change your order if your wife isn’t intimidated by the thought of “180.” If you wanna stick with 170 you might ask to add a “+” to the stock flex.

(Edit, never mind last part, I just re-read your original post and realized that you are buying stock inventory)

[3PinGrin]

Doh, I was gonna tell you 180 but have been busy skiing in Whistler this week on vacay.

I’m 5’ 8” 130 lbs naked, 150+ with boots and gear, far from a good skier, and I rock the 180’s. They ski really short due to short camber running length, light swing weight and soft tail, very easy ski. Most of my guy friends are on 190 BC’s.

Might be able to still change your order if your wife isn’t intimidated by the thought of “180.” If you wanna stick with 170 you might ask to add a “+” to the stock flex.

(Edit, never mind last part, I just re-read your original post and realized that you are buying stock inventory)

Thanks for the input, belated as it may be. They only had 170 left, and she has other skis of similar dimensions, one with 95 waist and tip rocker, so I think these will work out for a strictly backcountry ski where basically the full length will come into play in soft snow. She has only been skiing 5 years so still progressing. Hell, her favorite skis now are 125cm Altai Hoks (kind of a hybrid ski / snowshoe).

[SchralphMacchio]

I am still curious about whether a Flex 4- BC will take away from the fun factor you get from the soft tip and tail of that ski. The washy tail is exactly what makes that ski super playful in pow or overripe corn, and easy to steer in Mank City. Seems like a Skinny RX might be more the droids you are looking for.

[3PinGrin]

I am still curious about whether a Flex 4- BC will take away from the fun factor you get from the soft tip and tail of that ski. The washy tail is exactly what makes that ski super playful in pow or overripe corn, and easy to steer in Mank City. Seems like a Skinny RX might be more the droids you are looking for.

Standard layup is a 3 flex.

[PlayItLeo]

Standard layup is a 3 flex.

BC is a 2 flex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3PinGrin]

BC is a 2 flex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the website: "The Standard Edition Backcountry is offered in a #3 flex with an ultra light core and birds eye maple topsheet."

Maybe changed a bit due to carbon in the newer versions?

[PlayItLeo]

^^^^ Interesting. The copy you posted is from the “standard edition skis” section of the website but the copy from “custom skis” reads “The Standard Edition Backcountry is offered in a #2 flex,” with this being the copy for custom suggestions “Custom build your Backcountry for resort skiing in a MAP-fiberglass with a #3 or #4 flex.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3PinGrin]

^^^^ Interesting. The copy you posted is from the “standard edition skis” section of the website but the copy from “custom skis” reads “The Standard Edition Backcountry is offered in a #2 flex,” with this being the copy for custom suggestions “Custom build your Backcountry for resort skiing in a MAP-fiberglass with a #3 or #4 flex.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Weird, I'm going to guess that the custom build language is older since you choose a flex, but strange that they would be different. Maybe most preferred #3 on this ski so they changed the standard layup and a minority prefer #2 and so thats an option only if you go custom. The standard addition photo shows #3 on the topsheet. Looks like a pretty sweet layup for stock, really like that topsheet.

[undertow2]

I am still curious about whether a Flex 4- BC will take away from the fun factor you get from the soft tip and tail of that ski. The washy tail is exactly what makes that ski super playful in pow or overripe corn, and easy to steer in Mank City. Seems like a Skinny RX might be more the droids you are looking for.

I have the BC 190 in flex 4 with no carbon that are minty as hell that are going up for sale... One day I jive with them and the next day I hate them... GPOs are by far my absolute favorite ski and I picked up the Wren 108 in a 189 and the BC sit...



Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[dschane]

Didn't see this before, but Keith added a 179cm Wootest to the mix.

[SupreChicken]

I have the BC 190 in flex 4 with no carbon that are minty as hell that are going up for sale... One day I jive with them and the next day I hate them... GPOs are by far my absolute favorite ski and I picked up the Wren 108 in a 189 and the BC sit...



Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

Tell me more. We like all the same skis. You're basically me on skis but taller. What do you dislike about the BC relative to the GPO and what from the praxis catalog would you want to get on for a 105-106mm waisted touring ski?

Nice topsheet for sure.

[jdadour]

I have the BC 190 in flex 4 with no carbon that are minty as hell that are going up for sale... One day I jive with them and the next day I hate them... GPOs are by far my absolute favorite ski and I picked up the Wren 108 in a 189 and the BC sit...



Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

Also interested in your thoughts on the BC. Its on my radar.

[eskido]

Personally very interested in a skinny RX for inbounds duty, most likely heavy but possibly map. I know there are a lot of wren fanbois here and was definitely interested in hearing thoughts on not only a skinny RX inbounds but a skinny RX / Wren comparison?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[sruffian]

After all of the talk about the skinny gpo for touring duties, and a shitty day on the touring version of the moment belafonte yesterday, I am curious -

What is a touring ski that is around 105, light enough for big eastern sierra days, holds an excellent edge in steeps, and is slarvable? I take it from reading reviews that the BC doesn't quite do it all? Is anyone on the meridian tour?

That's what I wanted in a skinny gpo, personally

[jasonb]

Personally very interested in a skinny RX for inbounds duty, most likely heavy but possibly map. I know there are a lot of wren fanbois here and was definitely interested in hearing thoughts on not only a skinny RX inbounds but a skinny RX / Wren comparison?

i traded an email with keith over this while looking for an ~105 daily driver. he thought a skinny RX would do well, and also recommended the freeride in this spot. granted it seems the RX would do fine being downsized, the skinny GPO/Q threads made me view it as more of a science experiment.
in the end i decided i would rather play it safe and go with a ski that was completely dialed in. if i had more days on the snow each year i would be more likely to consider what could be a project ski that takes some time to figure out.

[abraham]

I'm surprised about that. It feels to me that an RX at 105 underfoot should be a pretty straight forward ski. It doesn't look like there's anything crazy going on with rocker profile or taper

[gimpy]

Does the yeti have the same soft tail as the bc?

[meter-man]

After all of the talk about the skinny gpo for touring duties, and a shitty day on the touring version of the moment belafonte yesterday, I am curious -

What is a touring ski that is around 105, light enough for big eastern sierra days, holds an excellent edge in steeps, and is slarvable? I take it from reading reviews that the BC doesn't quite do it all? Is anyone on the meridian tour?

That's what I wanted in a skinny gpo, personally

That's a BC. It does do it all. Perfect for everything - floaty as all get out for 106 underfoot, easy as piss to turn at low speeds, can still plow chunder and avy debris, can handle steep firm coolies, it's really good. I was on the old 190 carbon-MAP version stock flex. I've never been on the UL core, but I would imagine that the lighter core reduces some of its versatility while of course making it lighter.

[I went to a two-ski touring quiver (Protest and something skinnier), but do sorta regret getting rid of my BCs because they did all touring so well.]

[jdadour]

That's a BC. It does do it all. Perfect for everything - floaty as all get out for 106 underfoot, easy as piss to turn at low speeds, can still plow chunder and avy debris, can handle steep firm coolies, it's really good. I was on the old 190 carbon-MAP version stock flex. I've never been on the UL core, but I would imagine that lighter core reduced some of its versatility while of course making it lighter.

[I went to a two-ski touring quiver (Protest and something skinnier), but do sorta regret getting rid of my BCs because they did all touring so well.]

Thanks for the feedback on the BC. Im looking at getting a pair in the UL build for touring. Sounds like a great all around ski! Anyone else with experience on the BC?

[meter-man]

Thanks for the feedback on the BC. Im looking at getting a pair in the UL build for touring. Sounds like a great all around ski! Anyone else with experience on the BC?

Since I bought your Exit Worlds, which replaced my MAP-C BCs...I'll share this:

Compared to the 13/14 Exit World, the BCs floated 80-90% as well, which is surprising given the 10 mm difference in waist widths. The BCs pivoted and turned easier in steeps. It also held an edge slightly better. I would call it a soft-snow shape in a more user-friendly width. The 13/14 Exit World (which weighed ~2050 grams/ski) were more of a "lighter" resort pow ski that worked well in the backcountry. The BCs didn't crush it as much on bigger terrain as the EWs or handle variable quite as well, but they weren't bad and the increased ease in steeps was noticeable and worth the trade-off. I'm not good at retaining footage, but here's two clips showing the BC in action: https://youtu.be/j7JyZlbo_g4?t=3m2s (one short seg at 3:02) and https://vimeo.com/129586806 at 0:49. Don't blink or you'll miss it haha...

(Exit Worlds have since passed on to my buddy. I replaced them with the Protests and LowDown 102s. I'm gonna dump the 186 Lowdown 102s, and go to a three-ski touring quiver: Protests, [new do-it-all ski], and ZeroG 95s (just acquired))

[jdadour]

Since I bought your Exit Worlds, which replaced my MAP-C BCs...I'll share this:

Compared to the 13/14 Exit World, the BCs floated 80-90% as well, which is surprising given the 10 mm difference in waist widths. The BCs pivoted and turned easier in steeps. It also held an edge slightly better. I would call it a soft-snow shape in a more user-friendly width. The 13/14 Exit World (which weighed ~2050 grams/ski) were more of a "lighter" resort pow ski that worked well in the backcountry. The BCs didn't crush it as much on bigger terrain as the EWs or handle variable quite as well, but they weren't bad and the increased ease in steeps was noticeable and worth the trade-off. I'm not good at retaining footage, but here's two clips showing the BC in action: https://youtu.be/j7JyZlbo_g4?t=3m2s (one short seg at 3:02) and https://vimeo.com/129586806 at 0:49. Don't blink or you'll miss it haha...

(Exit Worlds have since passed on to my buddy. I replaced them with the Protests and LowDown 102s. I'm gonna dump the 186 Lowdown 102s, and go to a three-ski touring quiver: Protests, [new do-it-all ski], and ZeroG 95s (just acquired))

Excellent feedback Dave! Sounds like a good fit for what im looking for.