am I the only one who saw the SN pale ale special edition ski on bookface?
I don't see it on the website yet..
am I the only one who saw the SN pale ale special edition ski on bookface?
I don't see it on the website yet..
Damn. This year is easier than I expected. Who woulda thunk?
I started off pondering a skinny GPO and you all set me straight about not being a ski designer - more failures than successes as mentioned above, or so it would seem.
So, both a BC and the much ignored by me MVP (thanks, alpy) comes to my attention - both having similar attributes. This answers the skinny GPO question with two designs which have had plenty of time for refinement.
Mount 'em for inbounds? Touring? Skiing them will answer that for me. That's what inserts are for.
Right now, I'm leaning towards the MVP since it seems a bit more playful of the two.
Whichever it ends up being, it will be Enduro/Carbon/Veneer. Like Dschane, I've not found this layup to be chattery.
... Thom
Galibier Designcrafting technology in service of music
Have been planning on ordering protests for a while. With shifts coming I'm torn on what to do now. Not sure that the protest is a ski I want them on. The rx sounds like a great shift candidate, but there is no way I'm getting approval for 2 new pairs.
Also can't decide which veneer to go with... I have ambrosia maple on my quixotes and like it. It looks nothing like the sample picture though. Curious about some of the others and which is most durable.
Anyone have any comments about how 'short' the GPO skis? The Rocker lines and early taper seem pretty pronounced. Getting a powder day resort setup for my wife. Her current touring setup is Wailer 112's in 168cm with Ions and she has zero issues with those at slow speeds even in tight terrain. Looking for something stable for skiing chopped resort snow fast. Going back and forth between a normal 165 GPO enduro and a 175 Enduro Carbon Veneer to save some weight. I'm worried the 165cm's are going to be to short... but 175 is a big ski for a 120lbs skier.
I had a back and forth with Keith about veneers. He said that the major difference was between bamboo and all the others. Bamboo is heavier and less durable. He said that there really isn't any noticeable difference between the hardwoods other than appearance.
I went with karelian birch and birds eye maple. Having said that I'm not sure I'd describe them as "less busy" than ambrosia maple. In fact, I shied away from ambrosia because I thought it was a bit plain other than a couple obvious marks on them.
I almost asked if there was any pecan lying around from the exp. I think that veneer looks amazing.
The top 3 in terms of durability should be maple, then ash, then birch. You can look up the wood hardness/density levels online and that will give you your answer.
Keep in mind that potentially the denser the wood, the less weight you'll save. Assuming all the same thickness.
Last year Keith told me maple and ash had been most durable in his experience.
Assuming they're all the same thickness...
What does she like to ski on resort pow days? Tight trees or open spaces? I don’t think 175 is necessarily too long.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^^^ I was going to add my wife had the 168 Wailers and they ski extremely short. She went to the 163 Le Petits, and they ski longer by a lot. So not sure how the GPO fits in there but just an FYI, the 165s will prolly ski way longer than the 112s.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Well maybe I'm the faggot America
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda
My sister is on 178 Rossi S7W for open spaces.
She’s like 5’7”, 130lbs.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
OK team, time to toss my hat into the question ring....I'm not sold I need another ski....especially after having the Concept in 59" of fresh at the Ghee a few weeks ago and touring Teton pass (in a fresh 4') on them BUT I'm a whore and want something else. 2 part question here....
Part 1 - Me
I'm thinking a Protest since I don't have anything else like it. I'm 5'10 170/5 and I'm thinking the 192 but for those with the 187 and in my size do you wish for the 192? I doubt they will see much VT/NE time but for anyone with the 192, do you feel the length in the trees?
Part 2 - Wife - I'm kicking around a Protest (or MVP) for her as well but going minus 10 (only on the Protest). She is 5'4" 120 and can rip. She loves her 170 3+ BCs (carbon, no veneer). I was thinking about a 177 minus 10 for her. Anyone's wife or GF on a protest and can comment? With her weight and build I always question how much width is necessary and this is why I'm thinking minus 10 for her. I'm not sold the Protest is needed for her but it would be fun to have in the stable I think......on to the MVP thought.....
The other wifey ski (same wife..LOL) thought was a 173 MVP (stock width) in a flex 3/3.5. Since its already a 173 and seems like it could be a bridge into a pure pow ski.....the protest frankly may just be to much which is why my brain is going this direction. My boss' kid (kid, he's 22) LOVES his MVP, he's a ripper too but I'm an idiot and never got on it. The Protest may be much for my wife possibly, length wise 177 is more than she as ever been on which is why the MVP is so attractive to me in that 173 size.
Thank guys.....as some of you know I like focusing on my wife's ski build since I pretty much know what I want /like.....even though you jerks (said with love) have me wanting a skinny RX now as well.
177 protest is already -10 If I'm not mistaken?
From what I'm seeing on the site its the 163 with the narrow waist
Posting here as well as a unique thread. Looking for a couple more people interested in a ripping powder ski for kids, 131cm, 102 underfoot from praxis. Pm me if interested.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I rip the groomed on tele gear
Thx for the input.
I would imagine the 194 Q would be a bit much in the tight steeps of the PNW. I'm in California, so we have much more open and less constricted shots. I'm curious why you prefer the 192 Protest over the 194 Q. Better in pow? Just as versatile? No upside to the Q? I have Protests, but was thinking that the Q might be more of a big mountain slayer. Nah?
sproing!
jmars - for your size, I'd go 187. I'm 6' 190#, and have the 187 MAP-C Protest from 2014 (?). I had it mounted alpine, and you could ski everything soft really -- from straightlines at Squaw to airs to pow of course. Absolutely unsinkable, and sooooo stupid easy to turn quickly. This year, I mounted them up with Kingpins and used them all winter for touring, and the 187 was perfect!
With that fat forebody that makes it always float, I don't think you need the extra length. The main reason to have the 192 would be to smooth out tracked-out crud. I'm guessing you'll pull them out anytime it snows more than 4-6 inches up to Japan nipple-deep. Blister's review for the 187 Protest was very satisfied with the 187 (reviewer is same size as you).
If I could start from scratch, I'd go 187 for touring, 192 for resort, or 196 for AK heli (aka in my dreams haha), but I'm just a tad bigger than you.
I don't have much footie of the Protests, but this was Sunday:
sproing!
Thanks Meter, the crud busting of the 192 weighs in b/c I'm sure there will be some of that. Either the 187 or 192 for me will be inserted for alpine and tech.
Japan is probably happening for us next season which is why I'm looking to figure out builds for the old lady and I.
Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!
GPO - I was considering it for her but i come back to width and whether necessary at her size. If I go minus 10 on the GPO I’m back in the same class underfoot as the BC she has. Two different skis I know but seeing she loves the BC in a lot of different conditions then why not mix it up this time.
I’m probably wrongly fixated on width but 115/6/7 are wide for smaller women IMO and I’m not sure the benifit is there especially once things get tracked out.
I agree with this. In my experience, there's a mental obstacle to go an additional 10 cm and even though it may ski shorter, you still visually have extra length. So when I gave the mrs. 175 cm skis after she'd been skiing 166 for many years, she hated them. She's now on 161 cm Jessies and loving them, even though they definitely ski shorter than her previous skis. Size matters.
Bookmarks