Hey atleast you are not typecast as a Trekkers fan :)
Printable View
Hey atleast you are not typecast as a Trekkers fan :)
I guess there are worse stereotypes... :)
Posted a preliminary comparison of EHPs vs Spats here.
Dude, I don't ALR is ever going to talk to you again when he hears about the Lay Up.....:frown:Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
What part about, "I thought about laying up" vs. "laying up" is so hard to understand. Oh and for the record ALR doesnt answer his phone, so how could he talk to me. He does send text messages, but I dont think that actually counts :cussing:Quote:
Originally Posted by MT
Rosenkrantz doesn't answer the phone at all anymore. His new stance is that "talking on the phone is for pussies" which would be the same as laying up.....however, his typing has improved. Even contemplating the "lay up" is bad in my book though.
I am just too old not to think twice about some things. Then I realize I am being a pussy and scream "Rosenkrantz would do it" and just gun it :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by MT
That there is the rally cry if I have ever heard one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
And to sort of contribute to this thread, I skied my EHP's the other day in 3-4" of dense windbuff on a firm surface. My first impression, similar to everyone else was that they felt very short. However, when you ski them they are great. I had a pair of Sanouks a few years ago, and really liked the shape of those, but the flex was way too soft. The EHP with a touch less shape than the Sanouk is quite a bit of fun, because you can change up the radius at will, kick your heels out, load up the tips, basically do whatever you feel like. Because of the shallow snowpack, I didn't have a chance to really open the skis up, but as soon as the coverage improves I'm excited to ski these with a bit more speed. Based on my limited time on them, I'm very pleased and think I might try and ski them as an everyday ski unless the conditons are indeed quite firm.
What about Guildenstern?Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
they're both pretty close in ability but in the end, rosencrantz takes the win hands down 9/10 times. The kid isn't built right.
I am pretty sure he would have just layed up :nonono2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywalker
anyone got a hookup on a pair?
friends don't let friends pay retail
Final thought.
These thing are un fucking real in deep snow. Huge laid out gs turns under the snowpack. It's just not fair. Stomp everything. Once you get up to speed they absolutely will not dive. ever. Stomp something too forward, they'll bring you back up. Stay super forward in the deep and they will sink to bottom of the snow but still try to pull up. Over the head in total control. Then when it gets chopped up, they still rule. I can't say enough.
Z
mounting..
everyone mounting them on center?
Right on the line. Probably 15-20ish days on mine and atleast 5 were balls out inbounds powdays. I've found NO reason to go anywhere but where they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by mntlion
hey z, since you got about the same days as my friend on his 193s, can you take a look at your skis for any signs of delam. My buddy found 2-3" delam near the tail of one of his skis. Might be something worthwhile just to keep an eye on either way so you can epoxy it shut if needed before anything else should happen.
i just had some issues with my topsheet seperating from the sidewall for about 2" on mine , roughly about 4 inches back from the tail, i took it to 4frnt promptly epoxied it shut for me, after a few days so far so good,Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
and yeah everything z says is absolutly right on, the best deep snow ski ive ever been on, its just unfair
^^^^exact delam i was talking about
i heard there was someone else with the same issue as my friend
definitely wouldnt be worried about it, just thought id inform EHP'ers just incase it happens to theirs so they can preform the same fix before it worsens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
since i live in slc, i just brought it to 4frnt and they had it fixed withen 24 hours, hopefully this is the end of it
So where is everyone mounting these?
I've looked throught this thread and the reviews, and haven't found a single mention of a mounting point, except Z talking about whether the mounting point he used was good, except I couldn't find what that was.
I can't find any reason to move the point forward or back. Coming off 190 FFLs mounted WAY back I had to adjust a bit. I think going back on the EHPs however will compromise some of the tree skiing ablilities. I'd go right on the line...
Thought I would revive the original EHP thread and add a little review. After having them for almost 2 months and finally getting a few good days on them, here are some thoughts. (and remember any ski mentioned in this review has tele binders on them)
1. TOO SHORT :cussing: In consistent snow they are fine. Last Friday at the Bird they were awesome. But on days that the snow has started to set up they just feel like they get bounced around. Skiing them back to back with my 194 Squads there is no comparison when the snow is funky. I was somewhat scared in that stuff on the EHPs and on the Squads I just felt like I could go as fast as I want without being surprised.
2. Very easy to ski :biggrin: Do not fear this ski. With the ramped tail and long shovel, the same thing that makes them too short also makes them very easy to ski. Again, compared to the 194 Squad there is no comparison. The EHP turns on a dime compared to that ski. But that also means the EHP does not want to rail big turns on groomed/hard snow. The EHP almost feels like an old school slalom ski and the tail wants to skid and stay ON the fall line instead of making turns across it (I hope that makes sense). If you are old enough to have skied things like Dynastar Course SLs, you will understand....
3. Floaty: :yourock: Simply awesome in soft smooth snow!
4. Stompy: :) Again if it is soft they are a nice stable platform. If it is a bit set up, you have to land a bit back due to how short they feel. That is why they only get a " :) " for this category.
5. Bottom Line: A ton of fun, but I am not sure it is the ski for me. I would definitely describe them as "playful". However, due to how short they feel, I am a bit uncomfortable really letting them run. When I say run, I am picturing things like Upper Cirque with 2 or 3 turns. It can be done on this ski, but it wasnt comfortable at all. I felt like I was just hanging on with the EHPs, where I can totally trust the Squads when making those kind of turns. Again, with alpine bindings it may be a different story since you dont worry about going over the bars as easily. Also since they want to skid turns on groomers you end up fighting them a bit or just letting them skid. Going sideways whether you call it, skidding, "buttering" or good old sideslipping is not my favorite thing. If I keep them they will likely be reserved for places like Powder Mountain and deep soft days. Since it never snows in Utah, I may just sell them and buy something with a longer effective edge and dare I say it..... more shape :eek:
Thanks for the review. Couple questions here.
How much are the tips and tails rockered? Is the tip actually rockered or just really long? By rockered I'm thinking of Mikey's pict of the Lotus 138 that shows some serious rocker built into the tip or a spat. Did the camber of the production models end up being nothing or a little?
How long would people say these actually feel like? For example if we are talking traditional sidecut 100mm fat ski: 190, 185, 180? Just how short is short feeling? 190 Got or 183 Got, 193LP or 186LP are other examples I was thinking of?
Ever tried the Pow + or Axiom? Could they carve better, worse, or the same as an EHP on the groomers? Trying to get a relative idea of the lack of carving ability and those are other skis I have tried without a whole lot of sidecut and in someways preceed this design idea.
Question #1: No rocker in the tip. Just a long shovel similiar to Sanouks. Tail is "ramped" for about 6 inches.Quote:
Originally Posted by comish
Question #2: Only ski I could compare the length to, would be a 190 Explosiv.
Question #3: Havent skied either of those. But I have skied big skis with not much shape. Have M103s and have had Nordica W105/FFs and both of those carve much better on firm or groomed. The tail on the EHP is just so narrow compared to the rest of the ski, that it prefers to skid. You can get it to carve a round turn, but it is a fight to get it to do it and it is such a big radius that it seems to be of little use. Best and only explanation, they feel like old school slalom skis. And again, I mean OLD SCHOOL :biggrin:
Hey Prof. How much do you weigh/How tall are you?
Fat/4'6" :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill
Oh wait, maybe 180 and 5'10" is the correct answer :confused: