2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

[dschane]

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

I'd go with that and not look back. And maybe go up to #4 in stiffness (it's not that stiff) if you're going to be using the GPO's for most soft days?

[SupreChicken]

I'd go with that and not look back. And maybe go up to #4 in stiffness (it's not that stiff) if you're going to be using the GPO's for most soft days?

Thom, I want you to do this experiment so we can compare notes between this BC and the MVP I just ordered.

I also have yet to ski anything from BD that I actually like.

[galibier_numero_un]

Thom, I want you to do this experiment so we can compare notes between this BC and the MVP I just ordered.

I also have yet to ski anything from BD that I actually like.

I'd go with that and not look back. And maybe go up to #4 in stiffness (it's not that stiff) if you're going to be using the GPO's for most soft days?

I'm getting real close to taking one for the team (BC / 180 / Enduro / Veneer / flex #4 / Tsunami ?). Yup, GPO for deeper days & BC for less deep.

The only thing that gave the BD some credibility to me was the shift to the Blizzard factory, but that's not a lot to go on ;-)

... Thom

[nickel]

If the gpo has such good low tide ability and having something that's at least as good at low tide is a priority, why not go narrower? Yeti or 9d8?

[galibier_numero_un]

Yeti seems like a possibility and might create better spacing with the GPOs. I get the sense that Enduro/Veneer, flex 4 will give me all the hardish snow performsnce that I'm after.

Dunno about the 9D8's tail. I love the way the GPO's tail releases and I get the sense that this is not the 9D8.

I guess the operative word is harder snow and not hard snow.

... Thom

[nickel]

I went yeti for this. I think we've conditioned ourselves to look exclusively at skis over 100mm. 15 years ago my powder skis were 104-108 under foot. Mid 90s handles soft but not deep just fine and will be more nimble.

Just my .02

[galibier_numero_un]

I get it. 40 years ago, my powder skis were 60'ish and 207 long.

It's hard to draw the line.

... Thom

[Shu Shu]

I thought the PJs were in the running?

[nickel]

It is indeed hard to draw the line. I'm lucky to have the opportunity to redo a touring quiver due to having gone a long time without adding or replacing. I'm hoping for good results by trying to cover the far ends of the spectrum. 94mm & 128mm. Perhaps ill be wishing for a 111mm option at times but I think it'll work out. If not then I'll add one next year (ullr help me)

[galibier_numero_un]

I thought the PJs were in the running?

Sometimes you need a scorecard to keep up ;-)

I ran my theory by Keith about the PJ, MVP & BC having the same DNA. Keith agreed about the first two, but felt the abruptness of their rocker distinguishes them from the BC.

He and said that if it's a skinny GPO that I'm after, that the BC is the closest ski in the lineup (pick your layup & flex).

If I were to pick an ideal width for this ski, it would be closer to 100, to space out a bit further from the GPO.

It is indeed hard to draw the line. I'm lucky to have the opportunity to redo a touring quiver due to having gone a long time without adding or replacing. I'm hoping for good results by trying to cover the far ends of the spectrum. 94mm & 128mm. Perhaps ill be wishing for a 111mm option at times but I think it'll work out. If not then I'll add one next year (ullr help me)

You nailed it with respect to the challenge - fitting it in with what I have, vs. wiping the slate clean & starting over.

Given the 116 starting point, 85-100-116 would be a "logical" spacing. I do still keep thinking about a 94-116 combo, however.

Funny thing (as I think about this) is that I'm looking to replace a Nanuq (95mm) that I'm not getting on with .

There I go again ...

... Thom

[SchralphMacchio]

Yeti GPO is a pretty ideal 2 ski combo!

[galibier_numero_un]

I think you’d like the MVP

But that would disappoint SupreChicken ;-)

Seriously, I was going to comment that one thing I don't want to give up in this ski is crappy snow performance, and I know this is one thing you love about it.

... Thom

[nickel]

Yeti is skinny bc so general feeling should still carry over and would minimize overlap.

Something I've found is the more overlap 2 skis in my quiver posses, the more likely I am to just select one over the other the bulk of the time. Ask yourself what is the minimum amount of fresh in which you're happy to take out the gpo. If 6" or less, I'd go narrower than 100 but again YMMV.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Thom, are you looking for a resort ski, a touring ski, or something to do double duty?

[galibier_numero_un]

Yeti is skinny bc so general feeling should still carry over and would minimize overlap.

Something I've found is the more overlap 2 skis in my quiver posses, the more likely I am to just select one over the other the bulk of the time. Ask yourself what is the minimum amount of fresh in which you're happy to take out the gpo. If 6" or less, I'd go narrower than 100 but again YMMV.

That's an excellent point, and I get the logic of this.

I've been thinking about why I've (to a large extent) been dismissive of the Yetis, and I think it has a lot to do with how much I don't get on with the Nanuqs. I've written elsewhere that I can move through tighter places more quickly on my GPOs, and the GPOs are tons better on variable and wind affected snow. I can't think of one condition where the Nanuqs work better for me apart from carrying (they weigh less). I always grab my GPOs without thinking twice.

This is obviously unfair (lumping the Yetis with the Nanuqs because of width) - again, because as you note, the Yeti is a skinny BC.

... Thom

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Some Yeti vs BC thoughts:

I'm a big fan of the 105 width for touring, but I'm not sure I find it all that useful for resort skiing (at A Basin, anyway). For the most part, I'd prefer 95 or 115 for resort skiing. 95 is fun in bumps and hard pack. 115 is significantly more maneuverable (than 105) in 3D snow of all varieties. And the extra width doesn't bother my knees as it does for some.

But for touring 115 is a little unwieldy unless you're doing powder laps. And it's pretty common in the spring to encounter snow in which skis alternately sink in just a bit and stay on the surface on account of micro variation in sun and wind exposure. For this snow 105 (and long radius) is just the ticket for me. Resort snow tends to be more affected by skiers and is more homogenous.

This isn't to say that skinny touring skis don't also have their place. I like those too. It's more a commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the 105ish ski.

[galibier_numero_un]

Some Yeti vs BC thoughts:

I'm a big fan of the 105 width for touring, but I'm not sure I find it all that useful for resort skiing (at A Basin, anyway). For the most part, I'd prefer 95 or 115 for resort skiing. 95 is fun in bumps and hard pack. 115 is significantly more maneuverable (than 105) in 3D snow of all varieties. And the extra width doesn't bother my knees as it does for some.

But for touring 115 is a little unwieldy unless you're doing powder laps. And it's pretty common in the spring to encounter snow in which skis alternately sink in just a bit and stay on the surface on account of micro variation in sun and wind exposure. For this snow 105 (and long radius) is just the ticket for me. Resort snow tends to be more affected by skiers and is more homogenous.

This isn't to say that skinny touring skis don't also have their place. I like those too. It's more a commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the 105ish ski.

So much wisdom in the past 20 or 30 posts, and your comments ring most true to me and the snow we both most frequent.

I was also thinking that a mid-90's and mid-teens pairing seems to be ideal for inbounds, Colorado (A-basin), for exactly the reasons you state.

This is where the PJs entered the conversation - as a high probability, inbounds compliment to a mid-teens ski, while mounting with inserts to provide a "bailout (touring) clause" if I didn't bond with them inbounds.

As @nickel said, too close of a spacing (i.e. BC & GPO) would likely end up with me grabbing one ski, 95% of the time. In this case, I can visualize the BC becoming the 95% ski for our snowpack.

If a 105 is the "go to" mid-Winter width around these parts (which I strongly suspect it is), then it seems to be a flawed strategy to avoid it, just to select a width that adds more space between it and the GPO.

Better to build around the BC and possibly think in terms of upsizing from the GPO to something like a UL Protest for meadow skipping days.

A fat ski around these parts means powder laps, sled skiing, or alternatively mid-Winter meadow skipping - the latter, so we can ski powder in our treacherous mid-Winter, snowpack.

@SupreChicken - I'm wavering back toward the BC.

... Thom

[grinch]

Yeti is probably my favourite spring touring ski that I also would take out in the winter because it still worked great and with the right build I would have no qualms ripping around the hill but for on hill I’d prefer that same build in a BC on the hill. I don’t do a ton of groomers on the hill and bc works fine there anyway and I don’t need 55degree steepness capability the yeti provides or shed the weight between difference between a 94 and a 106 ski. But just to confuse things more , maybe a fat yeti? Lol

[nickel]

A fat yeti is just a BC so I can't imagine the purpose of such a build. The main reason I'd advocate narrowing up is for quickness edge to edge. I'm not sure how many yeti owners have had customs either. I'm really looking forward to getting my flex 4 endure Yetis. I Think they're going to be a most excellent low tide weapon. Intended use is 80% bc. Likely with inserts. Maritime snowpack so you Colorado boys can take that into consideration although I'm told it never snows there

[grinch]

Ya splitting hairs. It’d be 2mm narrower and fats grow a cm , so 3cm longer or 7cm shorter
I’ve considered both in enduro veneer -4/3+ flex for dual duty. No surprises with either just a great versatile ski

[SchralphMacchio]

Nickel, when you were building your 2 ski quiver I mentioned my friend Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, whose 2 ski Sierra Nevada quiver is Yeti (Dynafit), Wootest (Dynafit) for 90% of skiing. I think in maritime climates you can pretty accurately predict if the snow is gonna be supportable enough to go 94 vs 113 (or more) underfoot ... but I see how in colder climates the do-it-all size of 105 in any given day mid winter makes sense too.

[nickel]

I think 105 is a great size for a 1 ski quiver. I could also see it playing middleman in a 3 ski quiver.

Lately I've been of the mind that 10mm or less of variation in width is really really minimal. We're talking 5mm per side as well as 5mm from middle of foot to edge. Such a small difference, from a quiver perspective and again IMO, needs to be accompanied by a significant departure in ski design to avoid overlap. Too much overlap and one ski will sit dormant in the quiver.

For example a freeride and an mvp kind of avoid this overlap problem despite being very similar in width. In opposition, even without having skied my future yeti, I can't imagine getting a BC to complement it. I'd go freeride or mvp or skinny RX.

If on the other hand, I found the yeti too narrow for a soft snow shape, I'd consider a BC as a replacement, with something like an exp, a 9D or 9D8 as a replacement for the low tide stick. It's a real pity the exp maxes out at 183.

Hope I'm making sense.

[galibier_numero_un]

I think 105 is a great size for a 1 ski quiver. I could also see it playing middleman in a 3 ski quiver.

Lately I've been of the mind that 10mm or less of variation in width is really really minimal.

This has been my observation as well. Last week, I took out my much ignored Automatic 109's. From a width perspective, they feel very much like my GPOs (116) and Qs (118).

Of course, as you mention, ski design factors in, and in this case, it's an apples to apples comparison, as the Automatic 109 skis like a "lazy day" version of the GPO for me and the width difference isn't noticable. The Qs ski differently, but feel similar to the Automatics from a width perspective (close enough, anyway).

90-105-120 is making more and more sense. I'll deal with the 105-ish part first - as the probable middleman here in Colorado.

This has been an incredibly helpful conversation

... Thom

[eskido]

This has honestly gotten so outta hand I've completely become lost on what the original intention of said ski was supposed to be. Maybe, just maybe, we should go back to that? Then, possibly user preferences toward said intentions, i.e. conditions, terrain, and standing quiver. Seriously this is all over the fuckin place


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[eskido]

This has been an incredibly helpful conversation

... Thom

Not saying that the info here hasn't been great just completely lost on what the actual need was