Check Out Our Shop
Page 49 of 64 FirstFirst ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 1600

Thread: 2017 Praxis Skis Info and Resource Thread

  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Thanks Macchio, I hit you back.

    I think the PB are just to much width IMO at 170 and some sidecut is a must I feel. Agreed that the 172 Protest would be sick if based on the 163 and I wouldn't be bothering all if it was. The 177 2/2+ may really work though....or at least that's what I'm telling myself. The length more than anything may throw her off visually but if it still pivots on a dime then I would think length would be offset a bit

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    ....Japow ski for next years trip and then a closet ski broken out for cat/heli.
    Ehhhh, if it works out I bet they'll see more use than you'd think, obviously just pow days but I'd guess all of them if they end up being as fun for her as the normal ones are for me.
    Fear, Doubt, Disbelief, you have to let it all go. Free your mind!

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,858
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Protest 177 2/2+ may really work though....or at least that's what I'm telling myself. The length more than anything may throw her off visually but if it still pivots on a dime then I would think length would be offset a bit
    My guts tell me that a 177 medium-soft Protest- @ 118 underfoot mounted on the line will feel looser and shorter in pow than 175 GPO @ 111 underfoot mounted @ -1cm.

    If you need a Japow ski I think you go Protest- and remount + detune the Vagabonds as I suggested offline.

    If the Protest- ends up not to her liking, I bet you can re-sell to a mag looking for a lady's pow ski.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Funny I started looking at the specs of the 169 RX...but I question if a skinny 177 protest pivots quicker. Seems like the RX skis longer which is nice for me but I'm not sure its the move for her.....even those clearly the RX is for all!

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Agreed Macchio.....may have to build skinny protest #1.

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    16,626
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    I’ve read to much so I have to ask...why hasn’t anyone pulled the trigger on a skinny protest....I’m assuming no one wants to be the first? Maybe I missed something in my reading
    I want a fat wootest. New 179 wootest would be 180 in fat sized

  7. #1207
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    16,402
    Quote Originally Posted by flowing alpy View Post
    Praxis Rx
    Well, I'm considering a skinny Praxis RX. No place in my quiver for the regular one. As the all-time promoter of this ski, what are your thoughts on a skinny version?

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,899
    did you notice there is ONE pair of 169 RX on the discount page right now???

    if truly her deep/pow skis, go Protest vs GPO. there is nothing like the Protest in it's environment.

  9. #1209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    I saw the RX but if it’s stock flex it’s a pass...blasphemy I know. Graphicallly it’s the right ski...

    This is a soft snow, 3d snow, awesome snow ski for her....my only hold back is Keith not being overly confident (also not negative either) and this build maybe skinny Protest #1....so it’s an unknown. I don’t see why it won’t work but it’s a gamble regardless what I think I “know”.

    I’m thinking 177 (at minus 10), flex 2/2.5, enduro and nylon tip sheet. I’m leaning towards a 2.5 on flex but will address with Keith on this too.

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Thanks Steve....Japow ski for next years trip and then a closet ski broken out for cat/heli.

    Keith noted his issue is the tip measurement of a skinny protest 129/118/122 and questioned if the design would lose some integrity by sizing down but he also noted that it may work for smaller skiers. Further Keith noted that its kinda what was discussed a lot with the wootest, but the wootest was sized down even more from the protest.

    I want the design to work b/c I think the Protest in stock form is sweet and the Skinny version for my wife makes sense in theory but is it a gamble that can fail....part of me thinks not.
    Good info and insight from Keith (of course!)

    Would a stock protest be too much ski for anything but Japan for her? The concern for too much ski might be less important than the concerns from Keith of altering/sizing down the beloved protest shape. I have friends who have skied Japan for years and have taken Pontoons, powder boards, etc for maximum float.

    It's very hard choice (and why I have both GPO and protest). GPO gets used way more and was also very good in Japan. For a smaller skier it could be the ticket.
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  11. #1211
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,858
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Keith noted his issue is the tip measurement of a skinny protest 129/118/122 and questioned if the design would lose some integrity by sizing down but he also noted that it may work for smaller skiers. Further Keith noted that its kinda what was discussed a lot with the wootest
    For shitzengiggles, I looked into the original Woo thread ... and the 1.0 was basically a -15 Protest that most people loved in the snow it was intended for (deep backcountry snow), but there were grabby concerns in crusty snow and stability questions at high speeds. So this is what was changed in the 2.0 to make the ski more versatile in variable conditions:
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    The rough idea is:

    1) more tapered tip, IE: less squared off

    2) tip contact point/wide point slightly more forward

    3) more tail splay/rocker

    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    We had a really shitty snow 'pack' last year and there were enough instances of that tip grab in some funky crusty manky stuff that we thought it was worth addressing. I've only skied the 2.0s hiking so far and about the only gripe I've had is some tip drag in some absolute blower. Not 'tahoe blower' some genuinely really dry super low water content stuff that fell here a few weeks ago.....a few feet of it.

    The tail rocker is the same or even more than the protest. But it's also got much less surface area and doesn't stay on top of the snow as well as the protest.....hence locks in harder because it's not planing out as easily. That's why I and some other folks are on the more rockered tail idea for the 2.0. As far as pushing the taper forward.....sometimes hard snow happens. On chute entrances, on wind/sun crusted aspects. The 1.0s are fine and get through those conditions but they felt a little weird with all the side cut at and behind your foot......with little to none in front. Long story short, I and a few others were convinced that literally just making a narrower protest would be the shit. The truth is we had to admit that cutting down on all that surface area did affect the ski enough that some tweaks were needed, or some features exaggerated if you will to get the narrower version to do the same things as the protest.

    And right now my 2.0s are a cm back from where I ended up on my version 1.0s. So far I think it's good.
    It doesn't seem like the -10 Protest is as much of a "gamble" if you know what the original complaints of the 1.0 were. Seems like a slightly rearward mounting point [EDIT, maybe not, might have to consult Keith a bit more on the mount point for Protest 177 compared to Wootest 179 and see if he has an opinion about less sidecut in front of the foot on the Protest] and detuned reverse sidecut areas will make that ski pretty manageable.

    This ought to tell you everything you need to know.

    Wootest 1.0 Thread
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-praxis-thread

    Wootest 2.0 Adjustments Thread
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Kidwoo-Woo-2-0
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,097
    Anyone have weights for standard Quixote? 188 and 194?

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    Anyone have weights for standard Quixote? 188 and 194?
    188 2117g & 2132g

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Thank you Macchio, I will start reading

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    1,164
    Why not just get a standard protest for your missus if it's only for when things are really good? Is the extra 5mm on each side of her foot really that concerning?

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,027
    ^^^ My thoughts exactly.

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,443
    Not sure what size you are looking at but the smallest Protest is not 128 under foot.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,858
    He’s not that interested in the 163 as it seems shorter than he thinks his wife would prefer, but the next size up is 177.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    Bingo, I think the 163 is to short at this moment. I’m neck deep in these wootest threads, the education/history is fantastic.

    I understand that 128 may work fine but 5’4” 120lbs is a much smaller person on 128mm waist. I’m still in the thought of why have the extra width on her legs/knees? It’s more than a measured width IMO...smaller human frame, smaller bsl and lighter weigh driver all factor in as I am thinking about this.

    Back to more wootest reading

  20. #1220
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    3,180
    Rumors of the chicken test (-10 protest) are true, but I did not pull the trigger due to the Quixote availability. I was thinking of a 186 for pow touring.

    Having done all these thought experiments for myself. I think the safest move for mrs. Jmars is to go with the most predictable ski, and IMO, that’s the 175 GPO. At -1, she won’t be able to sink the tip and that will eliminate the learning curve, oddness, risk of a -10 design and increase your resale chances. It would suck to go to Japan, be in waist deep snow and struggle with skis you don’t know or can’t predict.

    This is why I rode Japan on Billy goats.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    3,180
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Rumors of the chicken test (-10 protest) are true, but I did not pull the trigger due to the Quixote availability. I was thinking of a 186 for pow touring.

    Having done all these thought experiments for myself. I think the safest move for mrs. Jmars is to go with the most predictable ski, and IMO, that’s the 175 GPO. At -1, she won’t be able to sink the tip and that will eliminate the learning curve, oddness, risk of a -10 design and increase your resale chances. It would suck to go to Japan, be in waist deep snow and struggle with skis you don’t know or can’t predict.

    This is why I rode Japan on Billy goats.
    Edit to add: I couldn’t stand the woo 1.0. Likely also contributed to my decision not to get a 118 protest.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    Bingo, I think the 163 is to short at this moment. I’m neck deep in these wootest threads, the education/history is fantastic.

    I understand that 128 may work fine but 5’4” 120lbs is a much smaller person on 128mm waist. I’m still in the thought of why have the extra width on her legs/knees? It’s more than a measured width IMO...smaller human frame, smaller bsl and lighter weigh driver all factor in as I am thinking about this.

    Back to more wootest reading
    Hi jmars, my 2c. I'm only 5'8" and weighted about 155lbs when I got my Protests (188, first batch pre dimple). Not exactly a burly charger. I really like shorter, stiff skis and my DD ski at the time (2009 or 10, can't remember) was a Blizzard Titan Eight at 169. I took a leap of faith and bought them but the Protests seemed absolutely massive when first on snow and I hated them, like 'wtf did I buy?'

    But after a couple days, and once I got that center stance dialed, the Protests became the most nimble, easy, and competent ski I've ever had.

    After that learning curve at no point did I ever feel that size. They just skipped down the hill with such careless and efficient ease I skied faster and with more control than I thought possible.

    I sold them when I had to move to LA and that was a big mistake. I'm also heading to Japan next year and am currently debating a CCR GPO or new Protest. My only hesitation is how versatile the GPO is and hoping to get some of the Protest fun factor with the GPO. If this will be a money day ski for your wife I'd go PT for sure.

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Having done all these thought experiments for myself. I think the safest move for mrs. Jmars is to go with the most predictable ski, and IMO, that’s the 175 GPO. At -1, she won’t be able to sink the tip and that will eliminate the learning curve, oddness, risk of a -10 design and increase your resale chances. It would suck to go to Japan, be in waist deep snow and struggle with skis you don’t know or can’t predict.
    Totally agree
    (unless the Rx's were in contention).

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    810
    All fair boys....all fair....and appreciated

  25. #1225
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    2,899
    since experimental skis are being kicked around ... a 173 MVP +10mm would = 174cm, 141-119-135. Hmmmm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •