2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[grinch]

Someone buy those UT MVPs. You won’t regret it.

UT? Is there some for a good price in Utah? Or maybe that’s an auto correct? I liked the pj so much that I’ve always considered getting its fatter sibling , the mvp. Two fave skis that I wished had an in between size. 182 protest and 179 piste jib. Looking at a fat 179 wootest(in effect 180cm 123waisted protest) . Could go a bit longer than 179 pj for my mvp usage(183 would be nice and I think I like the new numbers at 109 waist 4mm camber)

[2FUNKY]

Which graphics? Sounds sexy.

None. Just wood with praxis and ProTest on them. I love the plain wood look.

[Shu Shu]

UT = Undertow. I think

[grinch]

UT = Undertow. I think

Thanks Shu. Whew , without looking, UT’s would be too long for me

[undertow2]

Whew , without looking, UT’s would be too long for me

Only if my wife would say that to me...

I want to see if any of the other Praxis fan boys are interested in my MVPs before I put up on gear swap... I bought more skis than I wanted to (major gear whore) this year, but have been successful in unloading several not being used... Plus these were a backup pair and I have been unable to destroy the one I have been using for years (screaming bear for the win)...


Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[grinch]

Haa well played. Both great looking graphics. Screaming bear is on my short list with a veneer

[SchralphMacchio]

boot center points are pretty far off between these two skis designs, and my 180 BC skis so much shorter than my 182 GPO. That said, maybe the BC tail starts feeling a lot bigger when you go to Flex 3+/4 ...

I'm not sure what you mean about boot centers. They differ by 1cm, with the 182 GPO being at -7 (mine are mounted 1.5 back of that) and the 180 BC's at -8.

On paper it looks like 1 cm, but let me show you on pics. And maybe "boot center" isn't the correct word.


This pic shows the '17-18 182 GPO on top and '11-12 180 BC on the bottom.
Both skis are lined up with recommended mounting point (dimple) side x side. EDIT: dimple location is at right edge of ruler in all images.
Note: GPO is mounted at -1.1 CM and BC is mounted on dimple; I mounted GPO like that to shorten tail and reduce tip in deep snow.


Looking at it like this, the GPO appears to have a longer tail and only a slightly more forward mounting point, maybe not what you'd call an extreme difference.

But then it looks a lot different when you look at the rocker radius of curvature on the tail - you can see how much shorter the tail of the BC is from dimple to contact point. Compare that to the subtle rocker curve of GPO tail and how that extends the apparent contact point in soft snow.



And here is a look at the tip ... forward contact point of both skis is very similar except in deeper snow where the BC tip starts to get longer.
Additionally, you can see the longer shovel of the BC and more rocker height, so it's clear why some people think it skis deep pow better than GPO (especially when GPO is mounted on the dimple)



Conclusion: GPO skis much more center-mounted than just 1 cm difference on paper would imply. Disclaimer: not sure if BC mount point has moved since or if shape has been refined since 11-12.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to talk smack about either ski. I am at a point now where I really enjoy them both. They are both damn fun, and they do different things for me. I'm just not sure that, stylistically, a BC is the skinny equivalent of a GPO. The BC might be the closest standard (non-custom) shape that Keith has in his portfolio that skis like a skinny GPO, but I still think that even at similar flex stiffnesses they will still have different personalities.

[Shu Shu]

Very cool post. Thanks for that

[grinch]

Ya interesting post. Mounted both my gpo’s and bc’s the same as those -1/dimple. That explains why I tend to pivot more on the gpo . I’ll ski my gpo’s til they die then get another. I’d like to have a bc again but stiffer and maybe less camber(maybe)

[galibier_numero_un]

On paper it looks like 1 cm, but let me show you on pics. And maybe "boot center" isn't the correct word.


This pic shows the '17-18 182 GPO on top and '11-12 180 BC on the bottom.
Both skis are lined up with recommended mounting point (dimple) side x side. EDIT: dimple location is at right edge of ruler in all images.
Note: GPO is mounted at -1.1 CM and BC is mounted on dimple; I mounted GPO like that to shorten tail and reduce tip in deep snow.


Looking at it like this, the GPO appears to have a longer tail and only a slightly more forward mounting point, maybe not what you'd call an extreme difference.

But then it looks a lot different when you look at the rocker radius of curvature on the tail - you can see how much shorter the tail of the BC is from dimple to contact point. Compare that to the subtle rocker curve of GPO tail and how that extends the apparent contact point in soft snow.



And here is a look at the tip ... forward contact point of both skis is very similar except in deeper snow where the BC tip starts to get longer.
Additionally, you can see the longer shovel of the BC and more rocker height, so it's clear why some people think it skis deep pow better than GPO (especially when GPO is mounted on the dimple)



Conclusion: GPO skis much more center-mounted than just 1 cm difference on paper would imply. Disclaimer: not sure if BC mount point has moved since or if shape has been refined since 11-12.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to talk smack about either ski. I am at a point now where I really enjoy them both. They are both damn fun, and they do different things for me. I'm just not sure that, stylistically, a BC is the skinny equivalent of a GPO. The BC might be the closest standard (non-custom) shape that Keith has in his portfolio that skis like a skinny GPO, but I still think that even at similar flex stiffnesses they will still have different personalities.

What a great analysis. Thanks for going to the effort.

I can certainly understand why Keith would call the BC the closest production equivalent to a skinny GPO with the two skis having somewhat different characters.

I see more now, how the "on paper" analysis doesn't tell the whole story. Keith's earlier comments that my thoughts of the GPO having similar DNA to the PJ & MVP, didn't for example take into account the much slower rocker rise of the GPO is vs. that of the other two. The rise is nowhere in the charts.

Of course, it's worth repeating that a skinny anything will require adjustments to retain a similarity with it's fatter sibling (Wootest 1.0 vs. 2.0, anyone?)

... Thom

[slowroastin]

I’d still sticker them to improve the dampness effect.

Long strips of duct tape is my method.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[waxoff]

Disclaimer: not sure if BC mount point has moved since or if shape has been refined since 11-12.

Curious to know where the dimple is in relation to skis true center on your BC's? Sure looks about -10 or so on the top view pic.

[SchralphMacchio]

Edit: huge disclaimer on this post, just found out that the BC mount point was probably moved forward since my 11-12 ski was produced ...

Yeah I think it's the slow rise and gentle transition from camber to rocker zones on the GPO makes the contact area feel more substantial than the BC. I feel like on the BC my tips and tails are almost always out of the snow (unless I'm in ultra deep snow), while on the GPO it seems like so much more of the ski is continuously engaging the snow. That increased engagement is probably intentional, working with GPO's more centered mount point to allow the skier to continuously feel things out when planing, being able to impart continuous feedback into the wide shovel about when you are going to initiate a turn and how drifty it is going to be.

The BC feels more like a short ski when you are on bases and a longer ski when you are on edge in soft snow. The turn feels like it starts further away from your feet than the GPO and then it's almost like just put the nose on edge, push shins forward a little bit, and the nose will lead you into the turn. The tail comes around and is there when you are on edge, but it's so short that it disappears when you are switching from edge to edge and covers for a lot of mistakes in form (or when playing around). It definitely likes to rail up on edges more than the GPO, especially on groomers, and with the carbon layup it just begs you to get as far up on edge as you can, and then use the rebound energy to literally jump out of one turn into the next.

I also think another part of what's making me feel like the two skis have different character is that my BCs are soft and carbon. What's interesting is that my '11-12 BC has the light core that precedes the UL core, and it also has the carbon layup. But now Keith is building these with UL core + maple veneer (no more carbon?), which makes the new ones lighter than my skis, but stiffer and damper, and perhaps with less rebound pop than mine. These changes probably make it a much better daily driver for you guys wanting to take a break from 116 underfoot and move to something skinnier that would also be more fun in the "soft snow between 1/2" to 4" deep" range, and something that would also allow you to ski more slowly than the GPO's constant begging for speed.

Just remember, that 180 BC skis SHORT and seriously feels like a 168 mm ski that somehow floats in powder.

[SchralphMacchio]

Curious to know where the dimple is in relation to skis true center on your BC's? Sure looks about -10 or so on the top view pic.

I just measured and I think it's about 11 cm behind true ski center, based on a straight pull ... so now I'm wondering what life is like on Schizos getting my BC mounted more forward, and how much more that might feel like a skinny GPO?

[waxoff]

I just measured and I think it's about 11 cm behind true ski center, based on a straight pull ... so now I'm wondering what life is like on Schizos getting my BC mounted more forward, and how much more that might feel like a skinny GPO?

There ya go!

Edited to add; if you're still on the radicals maybe try a toe shim for reduced ramp/delta, that will probably also alter the tip/tail characteristics (for the better in my book)

[hoarhey]

I installed B&D shims on my 175 GPO's mounted 1 cm back with dynafit vertical ft12's.

night and day difference.

I can drive my shins in deeper snow and I don't fear for going over the handlebars.

Skied the mount point without a shim and it was too forward feeling (this was one day skiing inbounds).

the ski test "post-shimming" was teton pass 2 days before a 5 day hut trip, so needless to say I was stoked that the shims worked for me.

[meter-man]

I installed B&D shims on my 175 GPO's mounted 1 cm back with dynafit vertical ft12's.

night and day difference.

TRUTH! Totally required for any high ramp angle tech binding. http://www.bndskigear.com/toeshims.html

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I've owned 180 and 190 BC's and currently own 182 UL and 187 GPO's. There are similarities on 3D snow for sure. BC tips might be harder to sink, and they are certainly floatier for the width than GPO's. But GPO's are better hard snow skis. BC tails are washier, which makes them great junk snow skis and very maneuverable at slow speeds, but not as confidence inspiring on hard pack. The GPO tail is just about perfect (for me anyway) in its ability to hook up or release upon command.

[dschane]

I also think another part of what's making me feel like the two skis have different character is that my BCs are soft and carbon. What's interesting is that my '11-12 BC has the light core that precedes the UL core, and it also has the carbon layup. But now Keith is building these with UL core + maple veneer (no more carbon?), which makes the new ones lighter than my skis, but stiffer and damper, and perhaps with less rebound pop than mine. These changes probably make it a much better daily driver for you guys wanting to take a break from 116 underfoot and move to something skinnier that would also be more fun in the "soft snow between 1/2" to 4" deep" range, and something that would also allow you to ski more slowly than the GPO's constant begging for speed.

Good information in those posts.

I don't know what the light core was, but the current UL core is mostly paulownia and has carbon. Not sure about others' experiences, but there's not a single light paulownia I liked to ski, as opposed skied for the weight savings. So, unless it's a very long day where you hike hours to ski minutes, I'd rather have the enduro or heavy core and accept the weight under the feel for the more enjoyable ride.

[galibier_numero_un]

I've owned 180 and 190 BC's and currently own 182 UL and 187 GPO's. There are similarities on 3D snow for sure. BC tips might be harder to sink, and they are certainly floatier for the width than GPO's. But GPO's are better hard snow skis. BC tails are washier, which makes them great junk snow skis and very maneuverable at slow speeds, but not as confidence inspiring on hard pack. The GPO tail is just about perfect (for me anyway) in its ability to hook up or release upon command.

This is helpful. One of the biggest surprises for me with the GPO was it's hard snow performance. It's remarkably well balanced and versatile (same observations about the tail). It's not a groomer zoomer (as if I care) but it's surprisingly competent for a 116 waisted big mountain ski.

I'm looking for it's skinny brother to be just a bit more hard snow biased, otherwise, why bother, given what the GPOs do so well. They've set a very high bar for me.

I keep wondering if I'm barking up the wrong tree - that the BC is intended to be a one ski touring quiver that gives up a bit of hard snow performance in favor of soft snow.

I don't want to go to the other extreme however, and I suspect Z-G 108s are a bit too charge-y and have too flat of a tail for what I've come to like (never skied 'em - hand flexed auvgeek's yesterday).

I keep wondering if my Goldilocks ski for this application might be a one of three Downs (LD 102, CD 104 or 104L), or a Helio 105.

Two days can ago, I thought I had this all worked out.

... Thom

[SchralphMacchio]

I'll consider the shim ... what's funny is I'm so far back on that BC I wonder if the ramp angle is actually helping me out, hah!

Thom, it sounds like you test and cycle gear enough that it still might be worth a shot with the BC. The key is that the BC doesn't need or want to be skied fast, which saves your legs on those tweener days. But it can still be skied pretty aggressively, just not totally stable tails when gunning.

I found the original product datasheet from the 2012 BC (I had saved it on my hard drive years ago) and confirmed the recommended mount was indeed listed as 11 cm boot center negative. It looks like very minor refinements have happened on the BC since 2012, as I also can't imagine moving the mount point 3cm forward without making other adjustments in camber and sidecut profiles.

Also the 11-12 core is listed as "blended Basswood & Ash vertical laminate wood core" with "carbon fiber re-enforcements."

Check out the on-paper comparison:


Given the changes from 2012 to 2018 ... mount point moved forward, more gentle tail rise and less camber, adding veneer as standard, new core, increasing stiffness, I've got to believe the current BC handles firmer (not bulletproof, but let's say unripe) snow better than mine and also feels more versatile with different types of turns than mine, and probably feels more "GPO-like."

I'm also curious what years of BC that I've seen Black Diamonds had!

[dschane]

I'm looking for it's skinny brother to be just a bit more hard snow biased,

What does that mean?

I cleared most of my quiver and doubled up this year, adding the Exp to the order, though I went with heavy core, carbon, wood veneer, 183 cm, #4. For me, that will be a touring ski with a "hard snow bias," - for early season, late spring corn (and crust when my timing sucks), and dust on crust through the winter.

For those conditions, one doesn't need a rockstar. But it almost always helps to have something that's stable, relatively light (7 to 8 lb), holds a solid edge, and is quick. It will replace my Down 102 (pre-light version) that I absolutely loved and hope they redo sometime soon -- the light version isn't my cup of tea.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm also curious what years of BC that I've seen Black Diamonds had!

180's were old- pre carbon, stiffer. Great skis. Often regretted selling them.

190's were newer- carbon, but pre UL. Tips and tail were too soft for me.

[SchralphMacchio]

Thanks, your 190's sound same generation as my 180's. I'm so light that I don't mind the soft tips and tail.

But now it makes me curious with the new mount point and updated tail rocker, etc ... how much more stable do the new BC tails feel? Everything sounds like an overall improvement.

I will not hesitate to replace my BC's with the same ski if they ever die ... so far they keep skiing on lava rocks, roots and forest duff, creek beds, road surfaces, chicken heads and other obstacles with little to no signs of wear. Other than being slightly less torsionally stiff and duller edges than day 1, they are still going strong ...

[galibier_numero_un]

What does that mean?

I cleared most of my quiver and doubled up this year, adding the Exp to the order, though I went with heavy core, carbon, wood veneer, 183 cm, #4. For me, that will be a touring ski with a "hard snow bias," - for early season, late spring corn (and crust when my timing sucks), and dust on crust through the winter.

For those conditions, one doesn't need a rockstar. But it almost always helps to have something that's stable, relatively light (7 to 8 lb), holds a solid edge, and is quick. It will replace my Down 102 (pre-light version) that I absolutely loved and hope they redo sometime soon -- the light version isn't my cup of tea.

I should have said that I don't want to take a step backwards in hard snow performance from the GPOs. I don't "need" more hard snow performance than that of the GPO.

The more I think about it, the less I think that the Helio is that ski.

Maybe my original thoughts about an Enduro/Veneer BC are closer to what I'm after than I'm giving them credit for.

If the (ca. 2013) CD 102s I picked up from auvgeek had a less squirrelly tip, they'd be that ski. He had the same thoughts about its rocker profile. It's one reason I'm curious about the progress they've made in the past 4 years.

... Thom