Mounting further back than recommended on Reverse/Rev. skis (praxis/arg/spat etc)

[kidwoo]

I've got about 40 days on some 185 praxis between this year and last year so have a pretty good idea of how they perform in a variety of conditions.

Skied spats for a short stint before buying these as well.


Something I've noticed with both is that on flatter sections (runouts, bottom of the hill etc) and more importantly on the exit of really hard shut'em down kind of turns on really deep light snow days, I'm having to lean back to keep the tips from dragging. I have yet to go over the bars on them but it's still annoying to get sent that way. Especially considering how much surface area there is on these. Steep slopes at speed is never a problem......no complaints there.

I thought some 195s would fix the issue (and do) but I discovered something this weekend on a borrowed pair. I'm too damn short to do the little herringbone/duckwalk thing. I'm walking on the tails. Yes I'm 5'8" and I'm sure it offered some comedy to the guys behind me.

My question is this.....have any of you guys mounted a pair of skis like this behind the suggested line? All of these skis are fairly center mounted so there's certainly a reasonable margin to do this. With something like a praxis or spat where there's a definitely wide point, it seems like going with your toe at this widest point might even make the groomer performance better. The ski tapers towards the tail from this point, so it would also give you a flatter surface to roll the ski over on edge, and would point the ski in the direction you want to turn. Plus there's the added benefit of better float when you're not planing out as easily at lower speeds.

Figured some of you taller guys might have tried this, especially since the 186ish spats were all that existed for years.

Having the continuous curve of the reverse camber, I don't think moving the mount point back would affect the pivot feel of the skis that much. It would just move that pivot point further back with the apex of the camber still under the boot.

Whatcha think?

[The Dad]

I tried to get my 195 Praxii mounted 104cm back, but Elite Feet overrode my request. I'm still peeved about that.

[IrieRon]

Okay, not to thread-jack for my self-serving porpoises, but if kidwoo is 5'8" and riding a Praxis 195, then gosh-damnit Keith should be making some Praxis 205 for the bigger & taller...

(I swear it's not just me! Squatch, altasnowbirdripper & JeffreyJim already agree, along with surely thousands of other lanky and/or big-boned lurkers:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=109859)

And FWIW, I mounted my 195s @ 104 from the tip and I sort of wish I'd gone back another cm. (6'2" 190lbs)

[Skidog]

Pretty sure the dudes that mount at the peruvian lodge at alta (andy) mounts all spats -2cm unless otherwise requested.

Just what ive heard.

M

[pechelman]

do it.
theyre just holes.
and after you're done, you could probably fit a massive range of BSL lengths, so no redrilling for the next guy would be necessary if you decided to sell.

Id say to find the widest point and put the ball of your foot there as opposed to your toe tho. Never handled a praxis so I dont know where the line is in relation to anything.

ive also got a random\untested theory that the further you are away from the center of our current stock of R\R type skis, the less stable it is, the harder it is to manuever, and the worse itll preform in general.

sounds like you might want to try a ski with just a little tip rocker.

[XtrPickels]

Just a question for clarification.
I always throught that my tips had to be on the surface when skiing a traditional shaped ski, then one day they weren't and I decided to ski aggressively anyway and low and behold it was fine.

Is there something about the praxis that makes it bad news when the tips dive?
OR are you disappointed that a ski that you (and I) didn't think would dive, did?

[pechelman]

since theyre rockered and stick up so much, if theyre not ontop of the surface, the entire base drags through the snow, exacerbating the over the handle bars feeling.
if they were ontop, there would be much less drag and mainly just float and surfiness. (to use the parlance of our times)

with a traditional ski, even if its not on the surface, you generally really only have the tips dragging through the snow (and as much ski as you're able to flex up)

i think this is what kidwoo isnt happy about.

and yea, XtrPickles, I agree with you on a traditional ski.
it doesnt much matter, just ski fast anyway and have fun.

[wolfy]

i think keith would agree with pechelmans random/untested theory after a lot of testing w/praxis mounting pts. fwiw i mounted my 195's at 103 per keith's rec. and i could not get the tips to go under in the last 2 weeks of "testing". (6', 185)

[Spats]

Due to Granite Chief mounting my Spatulas cockeyed the first time, they are now mounted at about -1. I actually think it works a bit better.

Of course, due to my gigantic feet, midsole marks usually put my balance point (ball of foot) about +1cm to most people's anyway, so perhaps I'm just ending up back on the line.

[squatch]

I haven't noticed any tip dive, in any situation. Woo, you've met me, and know how big I am. Granted, I'm on the 195s, and granted, I'm sure I could make the tips dive if I wanted to, but as long as I ski them centered they're fine.

That was the biggest mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting thing when I got them in some flattish pow. All my other skis are stiffish and pretty heavily cambered, and my solution was to simply stay away from flat pow and/or straightline it in the backseat.

I have noticed that they don't like to ditch speed. Lean back to hit the brakes and they'll wash out. If you jump off something with a firmish landing, be prepared to commit to the next four turns or so.

I would be wary of mounting back anything significant. From my limited experiences, it seems like there is a very narrow position of where you should ski this ski.

[kidwoo]

I haven't noticed any tip dive, in any situation. .

Since all your snow slides off of anything steep, you wouldn't know about the hard turning in steep and deep thing I'm talking about

But seriously, you've never felt them drag when cranking a really hard turn on something steep with a shitload of snow?

IRIE: I OWN the 185s.......I BORROWED some 195s.


I think I'll just move them back 2 or 3cm and see what happens. If it sucks, I'll just move them back and sit back a little more in stoopit deep snow.

Pickles: It's no different than getting tip dive with a normal ski. You just feel that drag that wants to toss you forward a bit. One of the great things about designs like this is that they recover about 500 times better than a normal camber ski. I've just noticed it a bunch lately with the constant pounding tahoe's been getting the last month or so. I think they could be mounted a little further away from center and possibly be improved.

Skidog: interesting note on the spats......thanks

[squirrelmurphy]

I noticed the same thing, only skied 3 runs but definitely felt the boat anchor/submarine effect on some of the deeper (waist+) turns. Be interesting to see how the rearward mount works for you.

[spindrift]

Me = 6'1" and prolly about 220 pounds these days. Pretty middle of the road skier, but I've played with funshapes a bit in general...

I initially mounted my 195s at 103 -- I guess like everyone else I figured the middle of the range would play well. I noticed some pretty serious tip dive in heavy PNW snow - especially on low pitch stuff. Then I skied 185s at 99. Much more stable. Since then I moved the 195s to 104 and love the change. I still have to pay attention on low angle stuff, but IMO that 1 cm difference in boot center really reduces tip dive worries and does not seem like it cost me much, if anything, on the pivotability end - at least for someone my size. I'm not sure how far I'd push this trend since the skis seem pretty sensitive to mount position & I don't think I'd want to ride the backs too much on that flavor of ski.

Interestingly, my sense is that the balance & tip dive thing is almost more sensitive to mount point than it is to going a size longer or shorter. I found the 185s at 99 felt more "balanced" to me than the 195s at 103. Maybe I was hallucinating - but the 1 cm change on the bigger ones evened that out.

BTW - I heart my Praxis -- and skipping long stories...props to Keith & his buddies, and props to Andy at the Peruvian - definitely on top of mounting these skis. And if you happen to be in the Seattle area, Gerk's Alpine Hut is on top of things as well....

[squatch]

Since all your snow slides off of anything steep, you wouldn't know about the hard turning in steep and deep thing I'm talking about

But seriously, you've never felt them drag when cranking a really hard turn on something steep with a shitload of snow?

i thought you said steep slopes are never a problem?

to me, "drag" and "dive" are two very different phenomena. i've noticed a little bit of drag, which i think is unavoidable, but not dive.

When I think of diving, I think of the ski augering into the snow at a 45 degree angle. The next two steps are usually heel release --> faceplant.

[kidwoo]

i thought you said steep slopes are never a problem?

Should have clarified. Hauling ass and doing the 4 turns over 800 of wide open vert is not a problem. Coming down 45+ degree slopes that are kind of techy with some short, hard turns are where I notice this. I should have said 'fast and steep' is not a problem.

But yeah, the drag is what's annoying me. I'm not sure I could truly 'dive' them even if I wanted.

Stoked to finally see guys outside of tahoe with these things.

[frorider]

woo, that day we skied at sierra-at-tahoe last winter i was on the 185 camo praxis (which I sold recently to davep) and my recollection is that my boot center was 2.5 cm behind the topsheet line.

Although the topsheet line distance from the tip has probably evolved as Keith has made other design tweaks, i think the point here is that there are some of us (including me) who have mounted back 1 or 2 cm with no negative results.

in general i didn't have tip dive issues, even though the 185.5's were too short overall for my height and weight. however i do remember some low angle, heavy pow runs in Oregon where i had to be careful not to weight the front of the ski too much. i'm not saying i was in the back seat...just saying i had to pay a bit more attention.

[30d]

From my limited experiences, it seems like there is a very narrow position of where you should ski this ski.

Agree 100%. The are a bit fickle but when you stand on em they are sublime. I actually think they'll help my skiing on trad skis due to the wider, centered and evenly weighted stance they require.

As far as dumping speed after a str8line or air...be prepared to be moving with some heat or they'll catch ya in the back seat quickly and that's a dangerous place to be on them. For me the toughest thing was to trust them and the stance at mach looney speeds.

[30d]

Coming down 45+ degree slopes that are kind of techy with some short, hard turns are where I notice this. I should have said 'fast and steep' is not a problem.

Sounds like you're driving the tips when you need to be sliding the skis to initiate each turn. If you try to initiate a turn like a trad ski they will buck you over the bars. Slide the skis to start the turn, then carve it out underfoot. I actually think super tight tech lines are where these skis shine. I know I look at these types of lines in a new and much more aggressive way then before simply because I know I can make a turn where ever I want or need to. The ability to extend the end of a turn in a power slide without dumping speed is also a big plus in tight spots. You can keep your momentum and slide right up the spot where you want the next turn to begin.

[kidwoo]

Sounds like you're driving the tips when you need to be sliding the skis to initiate each turn. If you try to initiate a turn like a trad ski they will buck you over the bars. Slide the skis to start the turn, then carve it out underfoot. I actually think super tight tech lines are where these skis shine. I know I look at these types of lines in a new and much more aggressive way then before simply because I know I can make a turn where ever I want or need to. The ability to extend the end of a turn in a power slide without dumping speed is also a big plus in tight spots. You can keep your momentum and slide right up the spot where you want the next turn to begin.

I've skied these things a shitload (more than you probably...neener neener), and yeah you're absolutely right. My confidence in skiing tighter, gnarlier lines has increased tenfold since getting these because in most circumstances, they're like turning little kiddy skis on a groomer.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, it's just that for the most part I already know this stuff. What I'm experiencing though just shouldn't really be happening with a ski with this much surface area.....and you can't deny that keith's ideal mounting window is pretty close to center. I'm just thinking I can get away with moving the pivot point for better float without affecting how they ski in terms of that smearing turn property.

For what it's worth, I pretty much learned how to ski in deep snow and never had any racer hard snow technique to 'unlearn'. I'm definitely not cranking on my shins or anything.

edit (from the future! beyotches):

making quick turns in the deep in techy spots i will notice my out side ski drag a little bit, resulting in the outside leg diverging slightly.

^Exactly what I'm talking about.

[nick > jesus]

making quick turns in the deep in techy spots i will notice my out side ski drag a little bit, resulting in the outside leg diverging slightly. But i have noticed this skiing pow on other skis as well, and it was more extreme on the others. I think it is somewhat related to my funky alignment, and i have always had a bit of out side ski divergence when racing, it is just more pronounced in pow.

[IrieRon]

IRIE: I OWN the 185s.......I BORROWED some 195s.

Foiled again!

I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling free range chihuahua.

[lax]

my right tip dove once, and i proceeded to drag my tip behind me (fully submerged) for ~10ft before dragging it out of the snow and putting it back where it belonged. so awesome that my left ski was so stable that i could actaully do that. 1st run on a pow day after a sketchy landing.

[RootSkier]

Dude, no quoting from the future.

[tromano]

Thinking of mounting my 185cm 100cm from the tip. Did anyone try this? How did it work out?

[Wetdog]

I am 6'3" 185ibs and bought the Praxis 195 last year based in part on my experience demoing the Armada ARG the year before on a 3 day cat skiing trip. When I first skied the ARG, I felt it was way too center mounted, so I moved the demo bindings back 1 then 2 cm and would have tried 3 if the bindings would have allowed it. I found they skied pretty nicely at -2, but they did feel a little short.

So that spring, when ordering the Praxis Powders, I went with the 195. When I got them, I spent quite a while deliberating on where to mount them. Keith at Praxis was suggesting 102 - 104 from the tip to boot center tape pulled straight. He liked 102 because he did a lot of jibbing I think and a lot of guys were going 103 for a sort of middle of the road feel.

I decided to take a somewhat more scientific approach. I went into a shop that carried the ARG and measured the midsole mark from the tip. It was around 95cm and I liked it best at -2. Keith recommended 95-97 on the Praxis 185, so I figured, if I liked the ARG at 97, and it is a very similar ski, then 104 on the recommended range of 102 - 104 for the 195 would be about the same.

After writing Keith about this, he said that I could go 105 or more if I wanted a more traditional feel, but I figured 104 would be best, after all, why buy a reverse/camber sidedcut ski if you are going to try to make it ski like a more traditional ski. I am pretty happy with the mount point after a number of cat, heli and resort days on them. Once I hit an under snow obstacle at speed and got thrown forward with all my weight on one ski and the tip did not go under! It's not something I would have survived on most of my other skis. There was only once or twice opened full throttle on a steep open powder field when I wondered what a 105 mount would feel like. For 98 percent of what I have skied, 104 has been perfect.

Do not try to figure out a mounting point based on what would make it perform best on hard pack! It is a powder ski and where ever you decide to mount it should be based on how you want it to perform in powder, based on the way you ski. Those skiing it switch and hucking cliffs may want a more center mount, while those ripping big powder lines would want it a bit further back, hence Keith's 102 - 104 recommendation. While not great on groomers they will get you back to lift for another go at the powder. If you are worried about their performance on hard pack, you might be on the wrong skis. Take a look at the Hybrids or the Powder RX with recurve if you want a more versatile ski. There are also plenty of rockered and recurved skis out there from lots of other companies, but if you want the full reverse/reverse feel in powder, there is only one way to get it, groomer performance or lack thereof is what it is.