2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[HukuTa_KydecHuk]

Sleeping on a 183 mvp enduro Carbon veneer 3+. Touring setup. Torn between lion and praxis tattoo. Guessing 8 lbs flat for the pair.

I thought about that, but those huge long tip and tail rockers... Not a powder touring ski, not a mixed conditions versatile touring ski either.

[SupreChicken]

I thought about that, but those huge long tip and tail rockers... Not a powder touring ski, not a mixed conditions versatile touring ski either.

Having skied the 193 —it will lay tracks on firm snow. Rocker lines are really subtle.

But yeah. What does 88cm of rocker feel like on something icy?

[galibier_numero_un]

Sleeping on a 183 mvp enduro Carbon veneer 3+. Touring setup. Torn between lion and praxis tattoo. Guessing 8 lbs flat for the pair.

I'm seriously thinking exactly this layup (with Tsunami top sheet) - dual mount with inserts, 'coz I never know how/where I'm going to end up liking it (inbounds vs. touring).

I need an easy ski for inbounds on the day after I've beaten the crap out of my body. I should really take my Automatic 109s out as a reality check as to what general category of ski makes sense for this inbounds situation.

... Thom

[undertow2]

I just had my 193 MVPs out in some awesome spring cream cheese goodness and the ski was an absolute blast... Once the snow started to get skied out several folks on the hill were struggling with a fair amount of carnage... The MVPs just kept kicking it...

I can't comment on the MVP when it comes to a touring ski, but Thom you got to remember it is a 110 underfoot... If the body is whooped and the legs are toast I would think a skinnier ski would be better for an easy going inbounds day...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[CascadeLuke]

I had my 182 Heavy carbon Veneer Qs at ~2250g a piece. My scale could have been off by a couple oz, maybe 2200g

The RX might have a thinner profile overall but I 'd imagine they'd be heavier

Interesting, thanks. My stock 194 Q weighed exactly that.
Whats your take on how the layup performs at Resort? Would you go that route again?

[auvgeek]

But yeah. What does 88cm of rocker feel like on something icy?

Yeah, but what does something with overall pintail/taper feel like on ice? It seems like MVP vs RX is pick your poison: lots of taper/rocker or less tail area.

-10RX............131:106:118 (189)
MVP..............131:109:125 (187)
0G 108........135:107.5:121 (185, blister measured, for reference)
BC Corvus 138:108:121 (183.3, blister measured for reference)

So looking at the dims (and accounting for differences in taper), the skinny RX has a similar turn radius in tip to the MVP but is much straighter in the tail. If the RX tail was wider, it'd be a different story. Now, I don't know how wide you could make the tail of the RX before it gets hard to release without tail rocker. I'm sure Keith knows way more than I do...but it seems like there's a reason the RX was designed with a 116 waist. Like the L120 and Lhasa, an overall pintail shape works really well in 3D snow. Before you guys accuse me of overthinking and nitpicking, I remember splat saying when he designed the Lhasa Fat with the 125.5 tail, how much he was surprised a 0.5mm change in the shape made the ski feel.

I haven't loved how an overall pintailed ski handled in steep, firm terrain (read: jump turns) because the tip catches more than the tail and I get the feeling of being spun around backwards. I end up fighting to pressure the tips enough to keep the front half of the ski slipping at the same speed as the tail. I've felt this a lot on the BG, L120, and Lhasa, and to some extent on the 0G 108. Never on the Jeffrey, which has a much wider tail. Maybe the RX is different; I haven't skied it.

Edit: Maybe other people don't seem to care as much, since both the 0G 108 and Black Crows Corvus have similar waist to tail ratios.

[Banh Mi]

Put a RX 189 heavy carbon veneer in the cart. Gonna sleep on it to make sure this is the one..
Wanted traditional ripper that works most everyday at resort in PNW.

Any mags have some experience on this particular layup or heavy RX?
Should I drop carbon?
What weight you guess- 2250g per?

I still haven’t weighed my Rx. But without carbon, and with a regular topsheet, they feel pretty heavy. Heavier in hand than 189 Wren 108s.

They are the best one ski quiver I have ever skied. They are amazing. I’m pretty heavy though. Lighter folks might enjoy the heavy core plus carbon for resort charging.

Yeah, but what does something with overall pintail/taper feel like on ice? It seems like MVP vs RX is pick your poison: lots of taper/rocker or less tail area.

-10RX............131:106:118 (187)
MVP..............131:109:125 (189)
0G 108........135:107.5:121 (185, blister measured, for reference)
BC Corvus 138:108:121 (183.3, blister measured for reference)

So looking at the dims (and accounting for differences in taper), the skinny RX has a similar turn radius in tip to the MVP but is much straighter in the tail. If the RX tail was wider, it'd be a different story. Now, I don't know how wide you could make the tail of the RX before it gets hard to release without tail rocker. I'm sure Keith knows way more than I do...but it seems like there's a reason the RX was designed with a 116 waist. Like the L120 and Lhasa, an overall pintail shape works really well in 3D snow. Before you guys accuse me of overthinking and nitpicking, I remember splat saying when he designed the Lhasa Fat with the 125.5 tail, how much he was surprised a 0.5mm change in the shape made the ski feel.

I haven't loved how an overall pintailed ski handled in steep, firm terrain (read: jump turns) because the tip catches more than the tail and I get the feeling of being spun around backwards. I end up fighting to pressure the tips enough to keep the front half of the ski slipping at the same speed as the tail. I've felt this a lot on the BG, L120, and Lhasa, and to some extent on the 0G 108. Maybe the RX is different; I haven't skied it.

Edit: Maybe other people don't seem to care as much, since both the 0G 108 and Black Crows Corvus have similar waist to tail ratios.

I feel no negative side effects of the pintail on firm snow and ice. I also like pintails though, so YMMV. My Rx link up on ice at speed like my Monster 108s.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

My Rx link up on ice at speed like my Monster 108s.

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about steep, firm terrain. Situations where "at speed" means you can link turns...unless you're Jérémie Heitz.

[SupreChicken]

Yeah, but what does something with overall pintail/taper feel like on ice? It seems like MVP vs RX is pick your poison: lots of taper/rocker or less tail area.

-10RX............131:106:118 (187)
MVP..............131:109:125 (189)
0G 108........135:107.5:121 (185, blister measured, for reference)
BC Corvus 138:108:121 (183.3, blister measured for reference)

So looking at the dims (and accounting for differences in taper), the skinny RX has a similar turn radius in tip to the MVP but is much straighter in the tail. If the RX tail was wider, it'd be a different story. Now, I don't know how wide you could make the tail of the RX before it gets hard to release without tail rocker. I'm sure Keith knows way more than I do...but there's a reason the RX has a 116 waist. Like the L120 and Lhasa, an overall pintail shape works really well in 3D snow.

I haven't loved how an overall pintailed ski handled in steep, firm terrain (read: jump turns) because the tip catches more than the tail and I get the feeling of being spun around backwards. I end up fighting to pressure the tips enough to keep the front half of the ski slipping at the same speed as the tail. I've felt this a lot on the BG, L120, and Lhasa, and to some extent on the 0G 108. Maybe the RX is different; I haven't skied it.

Edit: Maybe other people don't seem to care as much, since both the 0G 108 and Black Crows Corvus have similar waist to tail ratios.

Zak - this is great. Keith expressed concerns about the skinny RX being able to break free of a carve. He thinks the fatter waist makes it easier to maneuver in all conditions.

The corvus and zero g really are the happy medium here between the 2 praxis designs in terms of waist/tail ratio.

So...does praxis have their own version of that happy medium?

Not really.

Tip and Tail deltas:

Fat yeti: 130-104-120 (26mm tip, 16mm tail)
BC: 131-106-121 (25mm, 15mm)
RX: 131-106-118 (25mm, 12mm)
MVP: 131-109-125 (22mm, 16mm)
Corvus/0G: (28-30mm, 13mm)

This isn’t really helping with the decision for me which is fat yeti vs MVP. Both look like great skis. Fat yeti is probably the better choice on paper for a touring rig. Tapered tip, less tail rocker, and less rocker overall - so better grip on firm. More directional bias and I doubt it gives up much float to the MVP.

I already trust the MVP design to ski well...

Worth $800 to try a +10 ski that’s never been built?

[Banh Mi]

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about steep, firm terrain. Situations where "at speed" means you can link turns...unless you're Jérémie Heitz.

Can or Cant link turns? I may be confused on what you mean.

116mm Rx can link turns on icey inbounds steeps at 50 plus mph. Not far off Head Monsters in that respect. I dont feel the pintail washing out, nor do I feel a lack of tail width and hold, and having to make up for it. I feel the difference in tip and tail width on BG’s, but not so much on Rx.

[auvgeek]

Can or Cant link turns? I may be confused on what you mean.

116mm Rx can link turns on icey inbounds steeps at 50 plus mph. Not far off Head Monsters in that respect. I dont feel the pintail washing out, nor do I feel a lack of tail width and hold, and having to make up for it. I feel the difference in tip and tail width on BG’s, but not so much on Rx.

Not trying to belabor the point, but situations where you can at most link turns, i.e., jump turn terrain. Situations where picking up speed would end very badly...at least for me. I'm pretty inexperienced in steep terrain, but I'm working to improve. Perhaps the pintail doesn't matter for a better skier or one with different technique. In downside up, Killian Jornet took a pair of Sally skimo race skis he'd never skied before to do a first descent in a zone where most of the lines got skied in the 70s...so clearly the gear only matters so much.

[Banh Mi]

Not trying to belabor the point, but situations where you can at most link turns... i.e., jump turn terrain. Situations where picking up speed would end very badly...at least for me. I'm pretty inexperienced on steep terrain, but I'm working to improve. Perhaps the pintail doesn't matter for a better skier or one with different technique. In downside up, Killian Jornet took a pair of Sally skimo race skis he'd never skied before to do a first descent in a very well-known zone so clearly the gear only matters so much.

Ya I havent taken them in no fall zones with just jump turns. Just inbounds steeps at Squaw and Big Sky, where its still just flat enough that turns are easily linked at speed. Headwall at Squaw, or Lenin/Marx/Dictators at Big Sky. Still, I suspect the tails to have a more balanced feel than BG’s in such situations. The tails don’t feel as pintailed as BG’s.

Maybe the MVP is better for you though. It seems like you like a wider tail with more purchase on the snow.

Have you ever tried a Blizzard Gunsmoke?

On a sidenote, I got those 28.5 Lange ZBs to fit! Sorry for bootfitting questions from across the country lol..


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

No, I haven't. Jeffrey is too similar for inbounds and Gunsmoke is too heavy for touring.

Anyway, I've gone and made this thread all about me again. I was just mentioning that the overall pintail thing plays a factor for jump turns on harder snow, since I don't think I articulated that well before. Carry on.

[Banh Mi]

No, I haven't. Jeffrey is too similar for inbounds and Gunsmoke is too heavy for touring.

Anyway, I've gone and made this thread all about me again. I was just mentioning that the overall pintail thing plays a factor on harder snow, since I don't think I articulated that well before. Carry on.

Ya gunsmoke too heavy for uphill. I have barely any experience touring. Great friggen ski for inbounds though.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Can or Cant link turns? I may be confused on what you mean.

116mm Rx can link turns on icey inbounds steeps at 50 plus mph. Not far off Head Monsters in that respect. I dont feel the pintail washing out, nor do I feel a lack of tail width and hold, and having to make up for it. I feel the difference in tip and tail width on BG’s, but not so much on Rx.

I think he's talking about situations where normal humans don't ski at anything close to 50 mph, where falling would be very, very bad.

I've had a mixed relationship with my Zero G 108's. Some days I think they are all I could want in a ski. On others they feel a little clunky, lacking in pop but also not quite loose enough. Skied them a week ago at A Basin to try to figure it all out once and for all. Did a couple East Wall powder laps and skied a whole bunch of funky Zuma Cornice snow. I think my problem has been more of a boot-ski length problem. My F1's (with SSL 2.0's) aren't quite enough to power the skis cleanly through certain kinds of snow. Just barely. But overall the combo was great. Felt better and better as they day went on. The shape is near perfect for me on steeps. I'm worried that making the skis looser would also make them less secure. The shape is less fun on moderate terrain (not bad, just kind of dull), but I have other skis for that, just like all you other whores.

Just bought some some 178's Zero G 108's in gear swap which I think will be a better match- just a little less length to force around when they need forcing. 185's will be for sale. If I used bigger touring boots, and possible bigger bindings, the 185's would be spot on. Kick turns on the 185's are actually easy because of the rearward mount. But I'm addicted the ease of movement and surprisingly good downhill performance I get with my F1's.

I bring this up, because I've been poking around this thread pondering a Zero G replacement (skinny GPO's?), but I've settled on shorter Zero G's.

Also have some drilled to hell but otherwise solid Praxis Freerides I'll be selling cheap (like $75 local).

[ego7man]

This is what i went for

[galibier_numero_un]

I just had my 193 MVPs out in some awesome spring cream cheese goodness and the ski was an absolute blast... Once the snow started to get skied out several folks on the hill were struggling with a fair amount of carnage... The MVPs just kept kicking it...

I can't comment on the MVP when it comes to a touring ski, but Thom you got to remember it is a 110 underfoot... If the body is whooped and the legs are toast I would think a skinnier ski would be better for an easy going inbounds day...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

That's an excellent point, and if I go with the MVP I have a sense that it will end up being dedicated to inbounds which might very well be redundant with my Automatic 109s.

Damn! I thought I had this figured out.

The more I go down this rabbit hole, the more I wonder if I shouldn't go with a Piste Jib at 99 to put some space between my Qs and GPOs. Any way I look at it, there's a "hole" in both my touring and inbounds quiver at this width.

... Thom

[JayPowHound]

9d8?

[Banh Mi]

Rx are so fast! Spring slush today.



Attachment 230439


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[N1CK.]

That's an excellent point, and if I go with the MVP I have a sense that it will end up being dedicated to inbounds which might very well be redundant with my Automatic 109s.

Damn! I thought I had this figured out.

The more I go down this rabbit hole, the more I wonder if I shouldn't go with a Piste Jib at 99 to put some space between my Qs and GPOs. Any way I look at it, there's a "hole" in both my touring and inbounds quiver at this width.

... Thom

if you DO go PJ in a 184cm, I have new BD skins trimmed perfectly for that ski waiting for ya.

[skuff]

But yeah. What does 88cm of rocker feel like on something icy?

Slide-y. No bueno.

Other than frozen coral reef, they do well pretty much everywhere. Just soften the edge sharpness on the rockered sections so the ski can slide in and out of soft to crust without hooking up and pulling you down.

[Self Jupiter]

^thats pretty much my experience. Hit real ice and they’ll slide out and be unpredictable. But they were fun on Pretty firm EC granular when I just felt like taking them out in those conditions to see what would happen the other day. I also have them very detuned in the rockered sections.

I have the 184 PJ, too, and that is what I’ll take out on firm conditions and EC slush. I’m not sure I’d have a ton of use for the PJ in a big mtn environment, but I’m a hyeffer at 195-200 and ymmv

[waxoff]

Anybody got a referral code to spare?

[dschane]

This is what i went for

Nice. I think this is the second skinny Rx's on here, though the others may be UL. Memory recall failure. In any event, I'm curious how those turn out for you.

9d8?

Totally was thinking the same thing, but since I ordered a pair, may just be confirmation bias.

Anybody got a referral code to spare?

PM sent.

[waxoff]

PM sent.

Thanks!