Groomers / Hardpack
Considering the Concept is 117 mm underfoot, they have an impressive amount of edge hold. For a ski of this width, my expectations for groomer performance are typically pretty low, and I just want to know that I can turn, stop, and make it back to the lift without running over a group of small children. If the answers are yes, then I’m OK with it.
That said, it’s certainly nice if I can lay down some high-speed trenches, and the Concepts certainly can.
While the Concepts can do short, skidded turns down a groomer without a problem, I find that they’re more inclined to lock into a large-radius carve—the only exception being on hardpacked snow, they’re a bit reluctant to release from the carve and skid a turn to check speed or stop.
This is probably due in part to the sharp edges that Praxis often ships its skis with, but mostly I think it’s due to the Tri-Cut camber that really exaggerates the edge hold at the tips and tails. Luckily, the difficulty transitioning from carve to slarve instantly disappears once any amount of soft snow is present.
Crud and Chop
The same large-radius carving turns that work on groomers also work pretty well in crud—with a bit of speed the Concepts are stiff enough that they’ll cut through chopped snow without complaint. I found that it took me a few days to really come to trust the skis in this regard. Many skis that pivot as easily as the Concepts will get a bit sketchy blasting through chop. For example, the shovels on some Folsom Johnny C’s tend to fold up a bit once the speeds pick up. At slow speeds, the Concepts are a bit unsettled; due to their relatively light weight, they get kicked around a bit. But once you open up the throttle, that sketchiness (counterintuitively) goes away, and I never had a problem with the flex being overwhelmed.
The Concepts don’t ever reach the rock-solid stability that you’ll find on a ski like the 4FRNT Renegades or the ON3P Billygoats. Both of those skis are noticeably stiffer than the Concepts and will destroy crud more effectively. However, that crud busting ability comes at the cost of maneuverability; the Concepts are far happier in tight spaces, and don’t give up that much ground on stability.
I found the stiffness to be about right for my weight (150 lbs, soaking wet, with a preference for stiffer skis). Heavier skiers might occasionally overpower the medium/stiff flex that comes stock on the Concepts, but Praxis can also make them to order with a stiffer flex (which costs a bit more and will likely make them a bit heavier).
The Concept is also pretty comfortable landing airs and drops. The tails are stiff enough and the tail rocker is subtle enough that they aren’t overly inclined to wheelie out of landings.
Pow
In deeper snow, I occasionally experienced some tip dive (more on that below), but all in all, the Concepts are well mannered in deep conditions (as a 117mm-waisted ski should be). They’ll make all sorts of turn shapes with ease, and it’s easy to throw in a hard slash here and there to check speed. They’re not quite a replacement for dedicated pow sticks when it comes to truly deep conditions, but that’s kind of like saying they’re not an adequate replacement for skinny skis with lots of sidecut if you’re banging gates. We already knew that.
In cut-up powder, the Concept is a boatload of fun. The tip shape and flex profile allows them to cut through chop fairly cleanly, but the skis just beg to be popped from pile to pile, bouncing down the mountain. It’s incredibly easy to shut down speed when you need to, so soft conditions can be skied with reckless abandon.
The Concepts also handle crust reasonably well. They don’t obliterate crust quite as well as some fully reverse cambered skis, but they’ll punch through thin crust with only a bit of hookiness.
Weight: Pros and Cons
As noted above, I opted for the carbon layup, which saves a little under half a pound for the pair of skis. Mine weigh a smidge over 9 pounds for the pair, which is roughly comparable to other lightweight skis in this category (for example, they’re slightly lighter than DPS Lotus 120’s with a hybrid layup).
The weight savings from the carbon is fantastic for touring—while they’re not rando race skis, they’re light enough that I don’t mind hauling them uphill for extended periods. This light weight is a double-edged sword though. As mentioned previously, the light weight means the ski gets knocked around a bit at slower speeds. The carbon also feels like it transfers a bit more “chatter” than other skis do. It’s not that the ski itself is chattering, but it doesn’t have that velvety smoothness that a super damp ski with a lot of metal in it will give you.
Take these comments with the caveat that I haven’t skied the fiberglass layup of the Concepts. I’m attributing these characteristics to the carbon layup, but the fiberglass version may be the same way.
I have two pair of Concepts, one setup with Dynafits and the other with alpine bindings. -1 for me is dead on, I have yet to get any tip dive. I agree that its one of the most versatile skis out there… I also have the Rocker 2 108’s which are also versatile.
How would you compare the 187 Concept to the 187 MVP that you had previously reviewed?
Unfortunately I haven’t personally had a chance to get any time on the MVP’s. Jonathan Ellsworth and Jason Hutchins gave their thoughts on the MVP, but I don’t believe either of them have been on the Concepts. If any of us get some time on both the Concepts and MVP’s, we’ll give and update. In the meantime, Praxis is excellent about answering questions and giving guidance regarding the skis they offer. If you have any specific questions, it might be worth dropping them a line.
Nice post! Been waiting for this review ever since I heard about the company a few months back. How would you compare the Concept to the Bibby Pro’s?
I don’t have enough experience with the Bibby’s to give any kind of reasonable comparison. It’s rare that I hear a bad thing about the Bibby’s, so I don’t think you’re going to go wrong either way. If I were to speculate, I would guess that the Bibby’s will have a bit less of the hookiness on hardpack that I occasionally found on the Concepts, but they’ll also be a bit less willing to pivot in tight spots.
I agree with Noah’s observations about the Concepts. I have the standard fiberglass version, and they are my go-to ski when the snow gets wacked-out with variable density, windpack, crust, fluff and anything else here in the tight Vermont woods. As with so many other people who have ridden the Praxis Concepts have mentioned, they “feel” different than most skis, and definitely have a Swiss army knife package of capabilties they don’t just do, but do really well. It takes a couple runs to figure out how to talk to the ski and get your input matched to its output, but once you get it dialed in, it is really versatile, and built to last a bunch of seasons. I am impressed not only by their agility in tight spots, but their stability when powering through inconsistent snow. If you get off-balance (like in Noah’s description), the Concepts reveal they have a distinctive forebody and rearbody behavior, each totally capable of saving your butt, you just have to commit to one or the other to get yourself back on-track. I describe it as a “teeter-totter” effect…since the waist is reverse-sidecut. It’s like some cars are front wheel drive, and some are rear-wheel drive…with the Concept, you can pick which one you want, and in most conditions…it works in all-wheel drive…if that makes any sense….Keith’s Concept ski is a demonstration of how you can have multiple personalities in one ski…and that’s really fun…just pay attention to what you are doing and you can go pretty much anywhere with it.
Hey Noah, have you had any time on the Influence 115 or Automatic to say how they would compare to the concept?
I’ve skied some similar skis to those two, but I haven’t skied those exact skis. Just from fondling the Influences and Automatics, they both have a more pronounced tip rocker profile than the Concepts, and I think they’re both a bit softer (keep in mind that this is based on hand flexing, which can sometimes be misleading). I suspect the extra bit of rocker in the Influence and Automatic would keep the tips riding a bit higher and alleviate some of the tip dive issues I had on the Concepts, but would also detract from the skis ability to punch through crud at speed (which the Concepts do reasonably well).