Printable View
sort of off topic (actually completely) but I saw a pair of next years squads on the hill, (184's not 94's but regardless) and the graphic is absolutly amazing, as in shit your pants sick. I am almost sort of wishing mine would delam or something so I can get a pair of next years, however they are proving to be annoyingly bombproof. :(
I am always thinking about what changes I would make to the ehps.
I think I want a stiffer tip, or maybe more of just an even flexing tip. The first five inches of the ski are stiff as fuck, then theres this wierd little hinge point, which I'm sure is what makes em so stompy, what Z was talking about, but it also hugely detracts from thier ability to bust through things and be stable at speed.
Basically my favorite things about this ski seem to have huge sacrifices in other areas.
Ok, I think I want:
the existing 193, with a stiffer tail with almost no rocker, and no turned up tail at the very end, and a bit more of an even flexing, slightly stiffer tip. Make the tail taper a bit closer to the end.
A 205 with a no rockered stiff squaretail, another mm of sidecut, actually zero camber, a lower profile tip, but longer, more gradual rocker in the tip.
At least thats what I think I want. It'll probably change next week.
None of you people (who haven't allready) should ever try wierd shaped skis. They will never rail like you want them too, yet after you try em, traditional skis will never perform like you want them to either.
check those silver binding 'plates', or whatever you wanna call em. if they're cracked you can warranty your skis, they seem to crack easily. i warrantied two pairs of skis because of that, upgraded each time :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill
Am I missing something or is the gist of this thread
i) extremely stiff skis don't work especially great in powder
ii). rockered, soft powder skis aren't great on hardpack and chop and need to be slid to control speed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo
IMVHO:
i) yes, unless you're a superb athlete
ii) true for some I've tried (pontoons) but not for lotus 138
Just reading the first post and some of the comments, I'm finding that my '07 Big Daddy with bent tips seems like it is doing most of the things the prof wants.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1171946009
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=77355
They certainly don't carve like a race ski on hardpack, but you can make an easy DH sized carve on them at 35-50 mph, and cruise very comfortably. The tips may flop around a bit, but the tail is long and stiff, with lots of camber, so they are pretty stable at speed. They float over crud, but don't get kicked around badly. And like a good modern powder ski, they float great all the time, and the turn shape can be varied from a smear to a bent ski powder carve. They are also light enough, and the tip length is short enough to make them very easy to ski in trees. Only major drawback is that the front of the ski is too soft to land anything in the front seat, so I try to stay back when landing stuff or entering choppy/questionable snow.
I specifically didn't get a reverse camber powder ski because I needed something that could be skied more all around....for days deep in the trees, but packed everywhere else.
i thought prof was arguing he didnt like drastically tapered designs?
Isnt the 07BD tail just 4mm wider than the waist?
Most = not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
Well, I figure I'll chime in here as the new owner of Prof's EHPs.
I've put two days on them, one touring in the St Regis Basin on the ID/MT border, and a half day yesterday at Alpental.
One note: I've got them mounted 7 mm behind the recommended line (which is what I've done with all of my 4FRNT skis) and it seems just about right.
My thoughts on the skis (in a psuedo-thought-out bullet point list):
-They're not a good every day ski at Alpental. Its constant mini-golf feel is not for these skis.
-When they're in a wide open bowl full of pow, they're awesome. They have the same "surfy" feel that my Spatulas do, but they're more fun, I've yet to figure out exactly why. They definitely ski shorter than their length here.
-In heavy fresh snow (think: cascade cement), they're great. Again, my comparison point is spatulas, but the tapered tip and lack of camber let you sit on top of the snow, rather than push through it.
-I'm not a very big dude (6' 165 #s), so they're a lot of ski for me to manage in some of the tight chopped up bumps and mank at Alpental. I think in chopped up stuff with more space, I'll be fine on them. There was definitely a learning curve to the ski for me, and I was skiing them much better by the end of the second day on them.
I think at Alpental yesterday I would have liked to have my 182 VCTs over the EHPs, but a day like yesterday isn't what I bought these skis for (they were just the only ones I had).
Touring in some wide open bowls and some gladed lodge pole pines, these skis are awesome, provided you like big long turns at high speeds.
They also seemed stable and begging to go faster on groomers, although definitely pay attention to keep your edges engaged.
or as to (i),Quote:
Originally Posted by verbier61
yes, if your goal is to surf the powder. no, if you merely want to ski in it.
plenty of old geezers like me remember skiing powder on 204cm stiff slalom skis (Dynamic VR27 SL Carbon), but that kind of powder skiing is a different world from the surfy powder skiing possible on wider, softer skis.
BUMPQuote:
Originally Posted by Z
Thanks for the solid reviews UAN and Z. My first day, which was 12 inches at Squaw, I had some similar feelings to what I read in this thread. Stompage, YES. Straighline, YES. Variable and a bit "different" YES.
Maybe I just need more days, but I also questioned mount points? Thoughts? Thread below.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107215
got asked via PM to respond here with updated info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckwheat
i can tell you that out of the last 50 days, i've called on the EHPs about 50% of the time -- for inbounds and hiking with them on my back.
i noticed in your thread that you're taller and heavier than me. i can see how that would affect things. i'm 175 and a decent skier vs your 215 (and presumably a very strong rider). the 193s are just fine for me.
due to the inability to pressure the tips (rockered design), i think what happens is that the skier tends to stand a little more centered. when terrain causes one to get knocked around, it's more likely, then, to go from centered to backseat vs, say, from a bit forward to centered as might happen if one was using a non-rockered ski and working the tips. just a theory.
i ski AT boots & bindings 100% of the time, inbounds and out, so i may just be more accustomed to staying centered and the associated reactions to terrain.
you may simply need more time on them to mentally adjust. to me, it sounds like you liked enough elements about them to work a bit to understand how they react and turn.
on the other hand, i would not be surprised if they just don't work for you -- not because the design is bad but, rather, because i think if i tacked on 40# to my frame and skied with my same ability, i might not find them enough.
on groomed terrain, i tend to just lay them on edge and ride, rather than work the ski like you would a more traditional ski. that said, i think they're tons of fun in pow, in the air, and even fun arcing on firm snow due to their heft.
i definitely don't think they're as good as a reverse/reverse ski (say, spats) in tough breakable crusts or slabs, but they're still fun and better than traditional skis in those conditions.
the tip flop is something i can live with -- not too bad IMHO.
complaints? only that the topsheet has now delammed in 3 spots. it's an easy fix with some epoxy, but it's happened more with this ski than typical. mine is an early pair, so this may be fixed in newer ones. in fact, i think the newer ones have a smooth topsheet (mine is textured).
hope this helps.
Thanks for the response, I am trying to think it through (both adjusting my style and possible mount questions). I think is promising that you ski this such a large percentage (that was my plan as well)....but after first day, debated if it was a pure quiver ski (as z suggested).
I agree with your second point, I do need more time. Yes, I do like some elements. In fact, I know I like these deminisions so much, that I have to believe I can be confortable on this ski (went from Gotomas (130-105-122) to Sanouks (130-110-120) to Axioms (130-110-120).
Your first point below is interesting. I know I like to ski centered, and I always mount forward (+4 Sanouks and Axioms, +3 Explosives), so I dont think I that forward on my skis.
--Does more tail help prevent backseat, or cause it?
---If I went 2.5 forward on EHPs, that should mean I dont have to drive the front so much, right?
PS---I think you are being modest about your skiing......if you already have 25 days on the EHPs, with Randonee boots! I am just a weekend warrior, and now a dad to boot, so I need to be able to drive a ski without it taking me for a ride! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
So after two seasons of looking for a ski to perform like my first two pairs of 192 777s, I bought a NOS pair of 777s. Now that i've skied them a few days this season, every time I ski something else, I wish I had my Elans.
Skis I bought in search of perfection:
192 999s-Totally different. Nice fun twin, decent in pow. Not the charger I was expecting
190 VCT-Good, but not great. Seem to be lighter than the skinnier Elans
Ninthward 187-Not bad for all-mountain stuff at teh powder line, but should be mounted farther back to be better in pow. I don't know if I should remount these and try them again, or just get rid of them with only one set of holes. Again lighter than the Elans.
190 T@nker-These are pretty beat, so I think they will stay as rock skis.
Should I look into a pair of 193 Blowers? I've heard they have been compared to 777s.
I'd also like to get something a little smaller for dinking around on, and skiing with Mrs. CA. Maybe a 186 Mojo 90?
Fack. Whats a guy to do? Sorry for the highjack.
More hijack.
Prof, if you can, check out the Zag H112 Adride. 198 cm, with supposedly a more proto-squad feel to it. Similar dimensions throughout.
I want a pair.
Ill post up here too as huckwheat asked...
I loved my EHPs but I wanted them to do everything. I really don't like changing skis throughout the day and love being dialed on one pair of skis for everything. I may eventually change from this view, but right now im on some XXLs and they absofuckinglutely kill everything. Yeah, there are better pow skis out there, but get em up to speed and they'll float just fine. Also, right now I live in the front range and we just don't get consistent superdeep.
I mounted em on the line and never touched em. This coming from a person who mounts most all skis back a bit. My XXLs are 1.5cm back...perfect. EHPs felt just fine on the line..
My big gripe with EHPs was that the tip on mine got loose. Great for pow, not for anything else. Granted I skied em everyday, but I just didn't like how they skied the crud and chopped up pow. The body is so stiff that you can drown out the flop, but at certain speeds it gets crazy. I came out of my line in the telluride quali's at lightspeed and I swear the tip almost hit me in the face. I was able to tough it out and get back in control but that's when I realized these skis are really only for pow. I ended up on some 777s for future comp-type skiing....Sidenote, 777s FUCKING RULE. Sent me 888s when I broke em - no comparison.
But huck, for tahoe I bet yer psyched. They just didn't suit how/where I was skiing so I sold em. But they were some of the most bomber skis ever. I smoked some rocks from 25feet up and they took it no problem. If there is anything I miss it was how EHPs stomped in pow. Goddamn you could land with your weight 3 feet infront of your tips and they'd still bring you to the top. so sick.
thats what I got, hope it helps...
keep in mind that what i mentioned (using them about 50% of the past 50 days) involved a period of nearly 200" of snow. so, things were generally on the softer side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckwheat
on many skis, i mount AT bindings at +1. however, i went on the line with my EHPs and don't regret it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckwheat
i thought about what you wrote while out riding today. this is conjecture: since the tips have rocker, i believe this makes the ski "feel" shorter -- like there's less tip. by mounting ahead of the line, i believe you would exacerbate this feeling.
i think the net effect would be that you'd tend to ski even more back-seat. in theory, if one doesn't have enough tip, they'd try to lean back to get it to float in deeper stuff.
+2.5 seems a little drastic to me, but if you ski +4 and +3 on other skis, then you know best. i don't know your style and preferences.
i'd for sure ski them several more days before adjusting the mounting point that much.
not sure that my choice of ski says anything about my ability -- anyone can pay for a ski and take it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckwheat
for whatever it's worth, out of 72 days this year i've been on 190 gotamas the most, followed by the EHP 193s, with the remaining 20 days on 19x G40s and some rock skis for early-season touring with a low snowpack.
good luck with your decision! let us know what you find. the above is just my opinion and is clearly different from Z's experience, particularly in firmer conditions.
i) IMO, stiff skis work great in pow if they're shaped accordingly. 1st-gen Lotus138 Flex3 is pretty darn stiff, yet it has the shape to work great in powder for me. I seem to recall Stephan strongly preferred the Flex2 above the Flex3, claiming that the Flex3 doesn't "come alive" until you reach high speeds. Sure, when turning/pushing off of deep pow, I don't really load the stiff ski as much in the turn, or rebound as much out of the turn, but it's a pretty cool feeling to just punish and dictate to the snow, and get instantaneous push-off response whenever you want. It's a different feel than the fun, springy delayed response of loading/rebounding, but it's so damn fun in its own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo
ii) Agreed. However, stiffness would help rockered skis a little in these snow types.
I'm puzzled about the soft designs of all the new funshape skis (Pontoons, Hellbents, the Line skis, etc). Deep pow is already soft---it will ski soft, smooth, and cushy even on stiff skis, so might as well build the funshapes with some stiffness when you need it.
.
Thanks for the responses.....all great food for thought.
Mostly I was just surprised that this ski could feel so different from similar deminsion boards (Sanouks and Axioms)......not bad, just different. Need to get myself dialed on them.
and sanouks vs EHP as so different too.
To close out on this. HOLY SHIT, I love my EHPs!!!
The last two days showed me what these skis are capable of, and damn! Basically, bottomless Squaw days (as opposed to the 16 inches on top of bumps and such on my first day). A couple highlights a new personal record for biggest "stomped" cliff. Most of the time I have dropped 20+, it involved some level of backslap if not full hottub. Today, I hit a 20something and just stuck it (felt like Hugo). Also, got up on the Palisades and got to do a big straightrun into a chopped up bowl. I didnt scrub at all, and once up to speed just loved arcing these (like riding a freight train).
So agree with some of the words of wisdom above. Definately a quiver ski (possibly 20+, or a wet 10). I had thought maybe I would ski everyday (or most), but not a chance. I even think I will keep my Axioms around for some pow days (as these two skis with virtually the same deminisions are TOTALLY different).
Fun skis.....I felt like a rockstar today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Sanders
seconded.
with the exception of the front of the ski being soft. I've yet to find the terrain these skis can't simply power through.
it's obviously skier specific, but the way these ski I would think the 07 BD's would be the Prof's answer.