Review: Praxis RX 189 with tip rocker

[funkendrenchman]

Me:
5'8"
145 lbs
Ski 100+ days a year

Skis I normally ski:
K2 Made'n AK 179
Praxis Powder 185
Volkl Bridge 185

Conditions:
2 feet of powder at Solitude, 10" of variable powder, sun crust, a foot of dense powder on a wide open pitch

I mounted these at 103.5 cm straight tape from the tip. These skis float just as well if not better than my Made'ns. Despite being much stiffer (actually similar to a Bridge), the rocker allows these to float effortlessly. They are very quick, even in tight trees and deep snow. Obviously, they don't pivot like Praxis Powders, but they are damn quick. On open pictches through powder, these skis fukin rail! (probably comparable to the stability of a 195 Praxis Powder). On sun crust, the tip stays above the crust nicely, although because of their size they are a bit to handle and they like going through the crust fast, which can be scary.

They can turn fine on groomers, but they need a little bit of speed to set the edge. Once they are moving, they are very stable. The're size will make them a bit of chore in tight bumps, but in regular old crud they haul ass and are actually poppy, so airing over piles of snow can be done without much effort.
Finally, all signs point to bomber bases and for their size, they feel quite light.

[nutcase]

how did you settle on 103.5 from the tip? You have no second thoughts about that mount point?

[funkendrenchman]

how did you settle on 103.5 from the tip? You have no second thoughts about that mount point?

It is just past 3" (~7.7cm) back from center which is a common mount point. At this point, they've had no trouble floating so I wouldn't go any further back. I haven't felt the need for anymore tail either. I have skied them in quite a variety of conditions already and no regrets so far.

[Buzzworthy]

Could not have asked for a better day to try them out! Glad you enjoyed. You had a permagrin when I did see you BTW.

Nice seeing ya again M!

[wendigo]

Tell me more...

I haven't mounted mine yet, still on the fence as they are just a touch heavier than what I am looking for, but if they absolutely kill it I'll mount em up.

[adrenalated]

Tell me more...

I haven't mounted mine yet, still on the fence as they are just a touch heavier than what I am looking for, but if they absolutely kill it I'll mount em up.

I'm still working on a review as I want to get them in reaaaaaally deep snow, but basically I think they are the best ski I've owned and would absolutely tour on them.
I weighed mine at 10.5lbs, which is not really that bad for 189cm of durable, stiff, 115mm waist goodness.

[funkendrenchman]

Skied mine in 10" of very heavy powder into some tighter spaces today. Their stiffness definitely made them a lot of work, as it would be with most skis. I switched out to the Powders 185s and remembered exactly what those are for. I am just saying heavy manky pow in tight spaces isn't their strong suit.

And for 189s, they are not heavy.

[wendigo]

Binders are on. Will report back from testing in Haines in a month...

[nutcase]

Finally got a couple of days on these in the right conditions. I will say that 103 from the tip seems to be a very good spot. I would not go any forward at all. Even back a little would probably be okay. Im 6'2 190 and its not super hard to sink the tips at 103 from the tip if I really lean forward and I'm not going super fast, but in a centered stance they float great at all speeds. I really like the fact that there's not a lot of tip rocker- just enough to get the job done and help the tips stay up and deflect, but not too much where it takes away from stability and tracking. I thought these things were quite stable at speed but they are also very quick to pivot. A hell of a lot of fun in the trees as well as the bowls. Quite fun and easily managable on the groomers as well. I wanted these for a resort powder ski that would kill in the pow and still handle everything else you are going to run into later in the day and they do the job just like I was hoping they would. I'm going to hang on to these for a long long long time.

[Jim S]

...103 from the tip seems to be a very good spot. I would not go any forward at all. Even back a little would probably be okay. Im 6'2 190 and its not super hard to sink the tips at 103 from the tip if I really lean forward and I'm not going super fast, but in a centered stance they float great at all speeds.

and: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=144779

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=111659


I'm same height and weight. I measured back 103 from the tip and it still seems relatively forward (when I line the skis up and compare to my Seth Vicious 189). I'm thinking of 104 or even maybe 105.

[adrenalated]

Here's my overly long and verbose review...

The Ski: 189cm Praxis Pow RX, 140-115-128, 32m radius. Mounted tele with Bomber Bishops with bootcenter 104cm from the tip w/ a straight tape. Candycane T-Race boots.

The Skier: 5'9” 145lbs, average maggot abilities. Ski fast, prefer long turns to short, occasionally straightline, frequently take small air. However, I'd call my style more “smooth” than “powerful.”

Quiver Includes: 186cm Fischer Atua, first gen 179 Bro,
Also Have Skied: 179cm Karhu Jak, 177cm Fischer Kehua, 186cm Rossi S6, 185cm Nordica Blower, 186 Moment Bibby Pro

Summary: This is the perfect big mountain ski for me.

Initial Impressions: Very slow delivery.* Not too heavy (~10.5 lbs according to the crappy bathroom scale). The tip rocker is fairly mild and there is a bit of camber in the rest of the ski. Running length measures 139cm with the ski decambered. They make everything else in the quiver look tiny. The “twin-tip” tail is much more low profile than most of my skis – it's really more of a ¾ twin than a full twin, and has a nice taper to it. The graphics really pop and look way better in person than they do online.

Per Keith @ Praxis, the skis come with a nice coat of all-temp wax and the bases are nice and flat (my true bar confirms this). They have no pattern, however, so they need a stone grind. They also have no edge bevels. I went ahead and tuned at 1deg base, 2edge right away and figured I'd worry about the grind later.

Construction: Overall, these things are bomber. The bases are the highest quality of anything I've owned – scratching them has proven to be really difficult, and they are very fast even with no pattern. Edges are thick and burly. I would need to really work at it to destroy these. The only issue I can find is the topsheet is chipping a little bit on the inside edges, but the chips are very small and appear to be totally cosmetic.

Actually skiing them:
These skis are stiff, at least for me. They require input and/or speed to make them work. They require me to stay forward or they try to run away from me. Within just 10 days or so of skiing them, they have made me a better skier. I am able to ski them in moderately tight trees, but I need to stay on top of my game. They feel very at home making medium to looooong radius turns, however, and make my home mountain (Loveland) feel very small.

Pow – unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to ski the Praxis in truly bottomless. But I've skied a lot of shallow-ish pow (3-18”) and they rule. Rocker is a game changer... it allows you to stay forward and drive the ski in a way that's just not possible on the traditional midfats I've been skiing. I have to try very, very hard to sink the tips. The skis have incredible energy from turn to turn at speed in pow. The notion that you can't get faceshots on fat skis is absurd – I get more faceshots on these because you can get up to speed a lot faster, make a turn and get a big honking faceshot, rinse and repeat. The sentiment that rocker skis short is also not quite accurate IMO... the Praxis ski short in the sense that they are way more easily maneuverable than a 189cm ski should be, but they ski true to length in open terrain in terms of stability. In other words, you have the stability of a 189 combined with the quickness of a 180-185.

My favorite surprise attribute of the ski was the ability to smear the tail predictably at high speeds in the untracked stuff. With the traditional sidecut, cambered tail, and only mild pintail, I wouldn't have expected to be able to do this, but it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities in the way you ski powder. They're not super pivoty or anything though, and if I drive the tips in crud or on hard snow they rail just like a traditional ski would.

Funky untracked (suncrust, windslab, etc.) - this is where the rocker really shines. 4” of dense windslab felt like buttah, no hookyness at all. Mild suncrust almost entirely disappears. You can kinda feel it's there, but the ski is not hooky or grabby like my other skis would be. Major breakable suncrust still sucks, but it sucks significantly less (especially with speed).

Crud – the stability in soft crud is ridiculous. The skis are smooth, damp, and powerful. As long as I drive the skis, I basically don't even feel soft chop. If I get lazy, the combination of stiffness and relatively light weight bounces me around a little. They are significantly more stable than my Atuas. Similar to the Blowers, but a touch better due to a stiffer tip (the stiffness underfoot is similar). In hard, refrozen crud, I was starting to get bounced a little more, but I'm pretty sure I would on just about any ski since I'm not a super powerful skier.

Straightlining & hucking – I love straightlining on these, so smooth and stable, never feel like you're going to hook a tip. Hucking is also awesome (disclaimer: I'm a wuss and don't go very big) because the big landing platform is extremely forgiving. Land a little backseat? No problem, skis stay under you. Land forward? No going over the bars, the rockered tip pops right back up on top.

Hard snow – anyone who thinks fat skis are cheating has not tried to put them on edge on ice. It requires strong angulation, and I'm definitely more comfortable making parallel turns than tele turns on hard snow. That said, they hold an edge just fine and I felt totally comfortable making jump turns on steep boilerplate in places where a fall would have been ugly. If a line involves say, a few jump turns on hard snow, then a straightline, then big turns in pow on the apron, I'd absolutely want these skis. If I'm skiing chalky, hard bumps, or styrofoam all the way down, I'd rather be on my Atuas.

Overall – the Praxis are now my go-to ski for all soft snow conditions. There are better pure pow skis out there, and better hardpack skis, but these fill exactly the spot in my quiver I wanted them to: great in pow, but able to handle everything else well, and help me push my skiing up a notch.

A note on the mount point: 104cm from the tip in a tele mount feels perfect to me. I generally like to be 1-2cm back from wherever I would mount alpine. The mount is definitely more centered than any of my other skis, but I'm not diving the tips and they don't feel too turny, so I don't feel like I need to go back at all. Remember that I'm scrawny... a bigger guy might want to be further back.

*I need to note this separately, because this was a major issue. I paid for these skis in April 08, with delivery expected October 08. I finally received the skis in mid-February 09. During this time, I received very little communication, and was promised at least 5 or 6 delivery dates that were repeatedly missed. Keith has stated he will never do a preorder again, and all future orders will ship within 24 hours. He did extend his apologies and gave me a coupon code for future orders but still... it was a very frustrating experience, so I feel compelled to warn potential buyers about it. Hopefully, Praxis can get it together and it won't be a problem in the future, because the skis are the best I've ever owned.

[wendigo]

Jim

I mounted mine at 103.5 which looks forward to me. Have only been on one run in wind fuct, half-sastrugi, mank, and with different boots and bindings than I am normally on, so lots of variables to consider. That said, I found the skis at that mount to need a consistent forward pressure or they would wander (no edge or base tuning other than scraping). However, they floated just fine above the mank with the tips pressured, whereas I would normally be hesitant to drive a ski that hard in the conditions at hand. To get to the point I think you should look at 104 as your forward most mount mount point to consider (based upon how you have your current skis set up and your size) and give-er a go.

For reference: 5'10" 160# - have 179 bros mounted -1.0 cm and 183 bros at +0.3 mm (I think I would like these mounted further back).

[Jim S]

To get to the point I think you should look at 104 as your forward most mount mount point to consider (based upon how you have your current skis set up and your size) and give-er a go.

Thanks. I'm thinking 104.5 or 105 back from tip.

.
.

[Jim S]

I emailed Keith last night and he responded with a suggestion of at least 105 cm back for moi`.
.
.
.

[locknload]

Nice review, Adrenalated.

I've got the 189 RX with re-curve. Am loving them for all the same reasons that you suggested. I have them mounted at 102 and am wondering if I should push them further back. The common theme with Praxis seems to be the the mounting points are slightly forward from what most of us are used to. I can't decided whether i just need to get used to it or whether i really should just bump them back.

[Jim S]

I'm going back on all of mine.

[funkendrenchman]

Nice review, Adrenalated.

I've got the 189 RX with re-curve. Am loving them for all the same reasons that you suggested. I have them mounted at 102 and am wondering if I should push them further back. The common theme with Praxis seems to be the the mounting points are slightly forward from what most of us are used to. I can't decided whether i just need to get used to it or whether i really should just bump them back.

What makes you think further back?

[nutcase]

I emailed Keith last night and he responded with a suggestion of at least 105 cm back for moi`.
.
.
.

I would think 105 would be great. I'm liking mine at 103 but I'm toying with a remount closer to 105. At 103 is still kicks ass - but I think it could probably kick even more ass.

That said for the tip rocker version - I would wonder about going too far back with the recurve.

[sandflea]

I've got the recurves and 103 is money for me... mine have a lot more tip and tail rocker since I received them, if I bought the tip rockered Rx's I would probably mount them further back.

[locknload]

Ok...so pinged Keith on this. He does prefer a more forward mount (100) but uses the ski for his all purpose--all mtn ski. He did suggest that it could go back to 104 or 105 if it was going to the POW ski in the quiver. Sandflea raises a good point that with the re-curve it may be ill advised to go too far back b/c of the tail rocker. Do you guys think I'll notice a big difference between 102 and 103 or 104? Do I just leave well enough alone? Funkendrenchman, I felt like there was a bit more tail than I was used to. Obviously I don't really feel any tip dive on these...just a feeling that I should be a smidge further. Gotamas have been my daily drivers and have a fairly rearward mount point...perhaps its just the difference between the two skis. Adrenalated also pointed out that his did not have edge bevels...I'm such an idiot that I didn't even think about that. Do all Keith's skis come without edge bevels? If so, what's the recommended tune configuration for the edges?

Thx, Guys.

[Jim S]

I think it depends on your height, weight, and style.
I'll report back on the 105 mount this weekend. I was suppoed to ski yesterday afternoon but got clobbered at work.

[moose pit]

I mounted mine at 105 boot center last night, it looks forward compared to every other ski I have owned (or mounted). Looks like Saturday will be the virgin run.

The waterfall graphic is deadly, a little purple in indoor light but still deadly.

[funkendrenchman]

Funkendrenchman, I felt like there was a bit more tail than I was used to. Obviously I don't really feel any tip dive on these...just a feeling that I should be a smidge further. Gotamas have been my daily drivers and have a fairly rearward mount point...perhaps its just the difference between the two skis. Adrenalated also pointed out that his did not have edge bevels...I'm such an idiot that I didn't even think about that. Do all Keith's skis come without edge bevels? If so, what's the recommended tune configuration for the edges?

Thx, Guys.

The only thing I don't like about my skis, is that they wander in heavy, wind affected pow. I think this has more to do with the stiffness and my weight (145lbs) than the mount point. On the other hand, their stiffness does contribute to their tanklike ability to plow through crud. As, far as the edges.... I haven't done a thing to them. I had no problem skiing them on the groomed, so I'm not sure what beveling would actually do.

[moose pit]

189 Rx's first day...

I have them mounted boot center @ 105cm, BDO1's and Syner-G's

Me: Pseudo aggressive flailer, will air things out and on occasion stick landings.

Resort or backcountry: Test runs - Troll ski hill

Geographical region: North West Caribou foot hills

Do you know how the skis were tuned (bevel): 1 degree base 2 degree edge

How long have you been skiing: 6 years tele

How many days a year: 50 +

How big are you: 175lb

Mostly tele or parallel: tele

Comments:

Ten to 20 cms of fresh had fallen in the past 24 hrs and was sitting on top of the 2 weeks of drought crust.

I was a little tentative when I first held these skis, they are big, relatively stiff and longer than anything I have skied in 5 years. Two turns in and I started to let them ride, fast and responsive easy to initiate a turn at speed and fun to loft off of rolls and bumps. Carving was a little difficult but doable. Dust on crust bumps; meh. Dust on crust tight trees (brush skiing) was work mostly because the skis want to go faster than I wanted to go. In the open it was just silly, fast and on top with no worries about tip dive the crusty bumps lurking 20cm's down. In the pillowy trees (think partial cut with lots of topography, stumps, logs etc.) probably 30 - 40 degrees mostly 30 it was all about the fun. Drops were comfortable airs were frequent and easy ('though not big) and landings were regularly stuck. On south faces once the sun hit the snow and things started to get heavy I thought I would be in for a rough ride - nope I was able to blast though tracks and rip. By the end of the day all I wanted was a bigger better fitting pair of boots (and a beer).

These skis rip.

[comish]

Bizzump, anyone have any rocker picts of both the recurve and tip rocker versions of the RX?

How long is the rip rocker on these?