I was told they were going for exactly as much camber as mine have now. Who knows. I wouldn't mind a bit if they had a bit more even....Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
Printable View
I was told they were going for exactly as much camber as mine have now. Who knows. I wouldn't mind a bit if they had a bit more even....Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
cool, z....glad yours arrived. how much camber do they have? same as mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
personally, i was digging the fact that there was none from toe to tip, but i can live with this, particularly at these $$$$es.
the construction does feel pretty burly.
i guess, depending on how you measure it you could say that from to to tip is pretty flat. and heel to tail (well, just before the tail) has a bit more camber (6mm).
Those look $$$
Can't wait to hear how they ride.
Yea, I still want some, just thought it was funny. Its reassuring that thats what they said they wanted though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
It will be interesting to see if the "touch" of camber helps avoid some of the issues they had on groomed stuff. A touch of camber should help them track when running flat on the base since the ski itself is "pushing back" against the snow. Cant wait to hear some more feedback on these. Also for what it is worth the production ones look to have a MUCH better finish than the ones that Particle and I skied last year.
Just measured, mine have the exact same amount of camber as yours. I was told they would have a measurable amount of camber, and actually like it. I probably would have dug the 1st ones with too much camber as well. With the long tip and softness at the very tip I highly doubt these things will sink. like ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
I love the stiffness underfoot and in the tail. perfect.
interesting, fess. we shall see. they have a VERY high build quality from visual inspection. i'm really impressed with it -- among the best i've seen and i've seen many. how they hold up is another matter altogether, but i'm optimistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
the bases look thirstay!
wont the camber go away anyways on the groomed with skier weight?
Yes and no. A ski with camber wants to hug imperfections in the snow since the tip and tail still want to go back to their cambered shape. A ski with NO camber doesnt want to hug those same imperfections since its original shape has no camber. That is why anything built for hard snow always has camber. It also helps to get more rebound out of a ski in a turn. Now dont get me wrong, I dont know that this much camber will solve the problem or if the problems come from the other features of the ski. But it will be interesting to see how they ski. Now I just have to figure out if a pair are in my future or not :cussing:Quote:
Originally Posted by mntlion
yes..., but the moment there is less resistance (ie surface changes shape or you jump off the snow) it comes back, at least until the ski is "dead". this is true of skis will an extreme amount of camber as much as it is for skis with very little camber, although the more camber generally the faster the ski will bounce back and, as professor says, the more it will dig into the snow.EHP 193sQuote:
Originally Posted by mntlion
naked skis weigh ~10.4# for the pair on my scale.
think of camber as preload adjustment on a rear shock. It comes and it goes with the amount of compression or rebound, but when it returns to its resting state with the rider or skier on top of it, its definitely a prevalent force.
^^^ yes. and the more camber, the more force one must apply to the ski to de-camber it...and the more it wants to snap back. (it's also a function of the material, of course, as well as the displacement from equilibrium.)
Those things look sweet. MUCH less camber than the botched pair I saw. Less than the 190s too.
I wish you snow soon.
i just want a pair to hang on my wall and look at.
(ok i'll admit i want to ride them too - sickness)
Me want a pair...I'm a great camber tester. :rolleyes:
Those look money.
I'll have to knock him off a pair if I see him in line and demo them.
And your bootsole is what again?;) I'm home for a month over christmas (utah), so if jackson gets hammered, i'll be up for at least a day since I need to loose my jackson virginity sometime. you shouldn't be too hard to find in the liftline..:the_fingeQuote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
just for reference, my 190s have ~22mm of camber when measured the same way. also the 190s are about 2-3cm shorter than 189 k2 seths for those interested in lengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
one more comment on this -- when i lay the ski flat on a surface, the camber measures in at right about 3--maybe even a touch less than 3mm. i'd expect this since the ski will have a tendency to flatten out when on the ground vs. standing vertically as in my photo.
there is so little camber that it is about as close to zero as i've ever seen without being reverse camber. i still purchased it thinking it would be zero camber from toe to tip, but perhaps as the prof says this amount of camber could make the ski more versatile. time will tell.
i gotta go throw 3-4 coats of wax on 'em...
I heard the bases looked like they got beat up a bit in transit. Nothing major from what I hear, but would be nice to have a nicely finished base right out of the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
Westcott rulers... rule.
mountain magic in banff just got them in.
tail is not as stiff as I as thinking is would be. might be wanting them now....
just got mine this mouring straight from 4frnt, the camber on mine is about
7 mm as well, when i picked them up from 4frnt, matt said they have the same amount of camber as was planned in the original design,
also when mine sit flat, they have maybe 2mm of camber each, and when they have binders on them i am sure it will probally make the skis lay completely flat
he also pointed out that due to the ginormous shovel, and the slightly rockered tail that the running length of the 193 is a couple of cm shorter than the 190
Makes sense, since Hjorleifson (or however the hell you spell it), despite being a sick and insanely strong skier, isn't a huge dude. Judging from the initial fondlings, it seems like this ski may me more versatile/accessible to smaller or lighter skiers than the first reports made it sound like. It will be interesting to see who emerges victourious from the Lotus 120, Big Big Daddy, EHP 193 battle that will surely ensue. I can't wait. Oh, and the graphics on these bad boys are fucking sick. :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigeast
I cannot find anything imperfect on my bases. Seem like a money factory tune. This friday I will mount em with some 916s then wax em up real nice. I might wait for another storm to ski em inbounds as I am attracted to rocks.:cussing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
after playing with Z's, he and i concured that they are basically a 3cm longer, 8mm narrower 120. very similar shape and flex. stoked on them. they for sure look sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
hmmm interesting prognosisQuote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
VERY similiar. But cooler graphics.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigeast
Apparently the idea was uhhhhh.....passed along. Sidewalls remind me of Igneous sidewalls (ptex graphic stylie). Im impressed so far. Very thick underfoot.
way better graphics, and the textured topsheet looks really bomber its supposed to be really chip/scratch resistant so they will be lookin top notch all season longQuote:
Originally Posted by Z
wher is everyone gunna mounting their 193's, i am prob just gunna mount right on the line, but i am currious as to what y'all are thinking
bases look ok. almost looks like they have some wax on 'em that needs to be scraped (you can scratch it with your figernail). otherwise, they're pretty damn flat (just measured with a true bar).Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
that said, i've never had a ski from the factory -- any factory -- that didn't benefit from a hand tune. they're all machine tunes -- even the good ones -- and they generally work-harden the edges which can make it difficult to properly tune the edges until they've been ridden a few days.
all bases need at least 3 full wax/scrape cycles to be set up (usually more; hotboxing helps...and helps pass the time while waiting ;)) for life (a good foundation).
other than lookin' dry, they look pretty solid-- at least as good as iggy bases. only time will tell how durable they are. looks like solid construction to my eye.
Dude......I explain this to every girl I start dating with any sort of seriousness....but damn.....what's up with the protesting of the hotbox part? It's like they think body functions just stop when love is declared.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
That's kind of what I was getting at. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by N170
Hmmm, mine measure about 11mm between them with that method and (with bindings) sit pretty close to flat when layed down - like ~4mm. About an 8" flat spot on either end from contact point in that almost comes up when they're layed flat, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spin4spin
Definitely short 190s, though, side by side they're barely longer than 184 M777's.
Sorry, enough about the smaller ones.
I didnt say the bases were "bad", I had just heard that they werent great. If they are similiar to Iggies bases, to me that means "not great". I agree that every ski needs some initial loving/tuning. But some skis are better than others, as are some manufacturers. And as for the graphics..... yeah they look nice. But dont drop one in the snow, they become hard to find. Damn white skis :(
Stoke rising for these skis...
I want weekly updates, all winter, so I can decide what crazy curvy, reverse rewind camber phat phuckers to get next season.
kthx.
you know iggies, then! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
it's no volkl factory tune, but the base looks like it will last albeit not particularly pleasing to the eye. again, i'm not worried as no ski should be skied without a tune regardless of the supposed "factory tune".
after i get them on my bench and do the intial prep i'll report back with a better assessment of how the base handles.
also, the only true test will be taking them out and banging them up against some rocks over the season.
ii hope the snow's not black wherever i'm skiing as the pair i've got are more black than white (75-25). were you on protos with white topsheets? (though for what it's worth, i like plain white topsheets)
From the looks of the construction they should hold up pretty well. At least they didnt screw the thing up by using a "cap" :nonono2: As for the graphics, the black and white just blend with everything on the mountain. The pair I tried appeared to be the same graphics as the production ones. But when I blew out of one it took me about 5 minutes to find it. It wasnt even buried. It was actually sticking straight up out of the snow. I didnt see it until I got below it and could see the black base. That black and white top sheet is straight up "snow camo" on the mountain. :eek:
From the pair I've seen, I think an Igneous-style base is about right. And UAN is correct in that there is extra wax on there, looks like.
As for the colors, I'm with Prof - even with the black trees, those are just going to blend into the shadows of the snow and make them hard to find. If the black bases are showing, you'll be fine. This is probably more of a problem here in the Wasatch than most other places, where you're regularly dealing with pow days in the 18"-36" range. And losing skis on those days is a real possibility, I've seen it happen even with non-white skis.