Mount Location
I’m a fan of these skis, but there are a few quirks that bear discussion (or rather nitpicking, because that’s why Al Gore invented the Internet).
Most importantly, I feel like the mount is a bit too far forward for my liking, which translates to occasional tip dive in deep snow. I found that, especially in lighter snow, the tips of the Concepts didn’t want to plane up as much as I would expect from a ski of this length and width; I had a tough time really driving the tips in deep snow because they were inclined to sink. While this could theoretically be taken care of by slightly softening the shovels or adding a bit more tip rocker, in most other situations I liked the shape and flex as it is. This is also less likely to be a problem for people that ski with a more centered stance.
Usually in this situation, I would just mount the skis a little behind the recommended line, but I was concerned that moving the binding back relative to the reverse camber / reverse sidecut area underfoot would lead to some strange handling characteristics. For that reason, I only bumped the mount back 0.5cm, which most likely made no perceptible difference. I’d be interested to try some Concepts with the same basic shape, but with the underfoot reverse/reverse area and mount location moved back 2-3 centimeters.
Stance / Weighting
Here in Whitefish, our snow tends to be of a denser variety that is locally referred to as “Big-Mountain Cream.” If “Champagne Powder” is that fluffy goodness that you dream about, Big-Mountain Cream is its gangly cousin. In this sort of high-water-content snow, tip dive wasn’t a problem on the Concept.
The ability to shift your weight and change how the ski reacts is the best feature of the Concept, in my opinion, but it also demands that you pay a bit more attention in some situations. Here’s an example of me looking like a gaper: I go off a small drop into what looks like soft snow but turns out to be thoroughly not soft. I get slapped back and, with my weight on the tails of the ski, I lean into a turn to scrub some of the speed that I’m gaining at an uncomfortable rate. In this sort of rear weighted turn, the rear part of the Tri-Cut camber tends to lock into a carve. As I shift my weight forward, I effectively shift onto the reverse/reverse portion of the ski which, in turn, allows the tails to wash out and thus push me back onto the rear of the ski, and back into the locked in carve. Rinse. Repeat.
This little destructive cycle becomes less of a problem once you get to know the skis and can adjust your weighting (backseat as it may be) accordingly, but it’s a good example of the Concepts behaving differently that a more traditional ski that’s less finicky about weight shifts.
This doesn’t necessarily make the Concepts difficult to ski—they’re not as demanding as some of the stiffer options out there, like Renegades or Billy Goats that really need some speed to start working. However, it means that to get the most out of the Concepts, you have to be slightly more aware of what you’re doing. It’s not necessary to power the ski through every turn, it’s the finesse skier that will get the most out of these. Thus, while an intermediate skier isn’t going to be overwhelmed by the Concepts, it’s an advanced skier that will appreciate them the most.
Construction (And Strippers)
Praxis scores high marks for their quality construction and the Concepts are no exception. Praxis skis are made in California by Keith O’Meara and company, and each ski is hand constructed. They use a wood core comprised of Ash, Maple, and Aspen. While I’m no ski builder, I’ve drilled holes in a bunch of skis from a bunch of different companies. Some wood cores look like they’re essentially made of compressed sawdust, but the Praxis cores appear to be quite robust.
The bases are 4001 sintered UHMW and they’ve held up well in the time I’ve had them, although I’ve yet to really bludgeon them on any rocks. The rocks that I have tagged haven’t left anything more than minor scratches, so no complaints there.
The Concepts (and every other Praxis ski) incorporate full 360 degree edges, which I’m a big fan of. It definitely helps protect the tips and tails from wear and tear from rocks, banging around in the bed of my truck, and snowmobile tomfoolery. They come shipped with ridiculously sharp edges and an OK wax job. I found their wax to be a bit slow out of the box, but not so bad as to require an immediate re-wax. The Concepts also have a squared off tail that helps tail clips on skins stay put.
The top sheets seem fairly thin on the Concepts, which presumably saves weight but has led to a bit of chipping. They’re not dramatically out of line with other skis I’ve owned and the chipping certainly isn’t to the point where it’s problematic, but this is the one area of durability where the Concepts could make up some ground.
Also, the Concept comes standard with strippers, but only on the topsheets. But should you prefer something a bit more…subtle, you can select any topsheet design from the entire Praxis library. (And this goes for any ski you order from Praxis.)
Bottom Line
All in all, the Praxic Concepts are some of the most versatile skis I’ve tried. They excel in tight spaces, but they’re still pretty comfortable going fast. They’re not as “chargey” as some other options out there, in that they don’t beg to be pointed down the fall line at all times, but if you want to point it straight, the Concepts are OK with it.
There are quite a few solid options for burly skis these days, but lots of those skis give up a lot of ground when things get tight. The Concepts don’t, which is what makes them unique.
While I’m too much of a gear addict to believe in a one-ski quiver, the Praxis Concept comes about as close to that goal as any ski of this width that I’ve been on.
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).